Strangely different estimates have been formed of the merits of Jonson’s pastoral, alike in itself and in contrast with Fletcher’s play.  Gifford, who, in spite of his vast erudition, seldom soared in his critical judgements above the more obvious and conventional considerations of propriety and style, praised the work as ‘natural and elegant’ in thought, and in language ‘inexpressibly beautiful,’ while at the same time with the petty insolence which habitually marked his utterances concerning any who stood in rivalry with his hero, he referred to the Faithful Shepherdess as being ‘insufferably tedious’ as a poem, and held that as a drama ’its heaviness can only be equalled by its want of art.’  Gifford’s spleen, however, had evidently been aroused by Weber, who had declared the Sad Shepherd to be written ’in emulation of Fletcher’s poem, but far short of it,’ and his remarks must not be taken too seriously.  Two quotations will serve to illustrate the diversity of opinion among modern critics.  They display alike more condescension to particulars and greater weight of judgement.  Thus we find Mr. Swinburne, in his very able study of Ben Jonson, not a little disgusted at the introduction of the broader humour and burlesque of the dialect-speaking characters, Maudlin, Lorel, Scathlock, in conjunction with the greater refinement of Robin, Marian, and the shepherds.  ’A masque including an antimasque, in which the serious part is relieved and set off by the introduction of parody or burlesque, was a form of art or artificial fashion in which incongruity was a merit; the grosser the burlesque, the broader the parody, the greater was the success and the more effective was the result:  but in a dramatic attempt of higher pretention than such as might be looked for in the literary groundwork or raw material for a pageant, this intrusion of incongruous contrast is a pure barbarism—­a positive solecism in composition....  On the other hand, even Gifford’s editorial enthusiasm could not overestimate the ingenious excellence of construction, the masterly harmony of composition, which every reader of the argument must have observed with such admiration as can but intensify his regret that scarcely half of the projected poem has come down to us.  No work of Ben Jonson’s is more amusing and agreeable to read, as none is more graceful in expression or more excellent in simplicity of style.’  This last is high meed of praise, but it is the question raised in the earlier portion of the criticism that now particularly concerns us.  His love of strong contrasts has no doubt influenced Mr. Swinburne to express at any rate not less than he felt, but he has raised a perfectly clear and evident issue, and one which it is impossible for the critic to neglect.  Although had the play undergone final revision, it is possible that Jonson, whose literary judgement was of no mean order, would have softened some of the harsher contrasts in his work, it is evident that they were in the main intentional and deliberately calculated.  This appears alike from the prologue, in which he denounces the heresy