“Quantum lenta solent, inter viberna cupressi.

“The consideration of this, made Mr. HALES, of Eton, say, ’That there was no subject of which any poet ever writ; but he would produce it much better treated of in SHAKESPEARE.’  And however others are, now, generally preferred before him; yet the Age wherein he lived (which had contemporaries with him, FLETCHER and JOHNSON) never equalled them to him, in their esteem.  And in the last King’s [CHARLES I.] Court, when BEN.’s reputation was at [the] highest; Sir JOHN SUCKLING, and with him, the greater part of the Courtiers, set our SHAKESPEARE far above him.

“BEAUMONT and FLETCHER (of whom I am next to speak), had, with the advantage of SHAKESPEARE’s wit, which was their precedent, great natural gifts improved by study.  BEAUMONT, especially, being so accurate a judge of plays, that BEN.  JOHNSON, while he [i.e., BEAUMONT] lived, submitted all his writings to his censure; and,’tis thought, used his judgement in correcting, if not contriving all his plots.  What value he had for [i.e., attached to] him, appears by the verses he writ to him:  and therefore I need speak no farther of it.

“The first Play which brought FLETCHER and him in esteem, was their PHILASTER.  For, before that, they had written two or three very unsuccessfully:  as the like is reported of BEN.  JOHNSON, before he writ Every Man in his Humour [acted in 1598].  Their Plots were generally more regular than SHAKESPEARE’s, especially those which were made before BEAUMONT’s death:  and they understood, and imitated the conversation of gentlemen [in the conventional sense in which it was understood in DRYDEN’s time], much better [i.e., than SHAKESPEARE]; whose wild debaucheries, and quickness of wit in repartees, no Poet can ever paint as they have done.

“This Humour, which BEN.  JOHNSON derived from particular persons; they made it not their business to describe.  They represented all the passions very lively; but, above all, Love.

“I am apt to believe the English language, in them, arrived to its highest perfection.  What words have since been taken in, are rather superfluous than necessary.

“Their Plays are now the most pleasant and frequent entertainments of the Stage; two of theirs being acted through the year, for one of SHAKESPEARE’s or JOHNSON’s.  The reason is because there is a certain Gaiety in their Comedies, and Pathos in their more serious Plays, which suit generally with all men’s humours, SHAKESPEARE’s Language is likewise a little obsolete; and BEN.  JOHNSON’s Wit comes short of theirs.

“As for JOHNSON, to whose character I am now arrived; if we look upon him, while he was himself (for his last Plays were but his dotages) I think him the most learned and judicious Writer which any Theatre ever had.  He was a most severe judge of himself, as well as others.  One cannot say he wanted Wit; but rather, that he was frugal of it [p. 572].  In his works, you find little to retrench or alter.