That mirth by no meanes fits a Pastorall,

as also from what we gather concerning an earlier work, in which he introduced ‘clownes making mirth and foolish sports,’ as recorded by Drummond.  As against Mr. Swinburne’s view may be set that of Dr. Ward.  ’In The Sad Shepherd [Jonson] has with singular freshness caught the spirit of the greenwood.  If this pastoral is more realistic in texture than either Spenser’s or Milton’s efforts in the same direction, the result is due, partly to the character of the writer, partly to the circumstance that Jonson’s “shepherds” are beings of a definite age and country.  It must, however, be observed that the personages in this pastoral are in part not shepherds at all, but Robin Hood and his merry men.  We may admit that the lucky combination thus hit upon could probably not easily be repeated; but this is merely to acknowledge the felicity of the author’s invention.’  Allowing for the difference of temper in the two writers, it will be seen that the view taken of certain essentials of the piece is as favourable in the one case as it is unfavourable in the other.  Both alike are critics of recognized standing, so that whichever position one may feel disposed to adopt, ample authority may be quoted in support.  There are unfortunate occasions on which one’s favourite oracle perversely refuses to accommodate himself to one’s own view.  Mr. Swinburne is a writer from whom on points of aesthetic judgement I for one differ, but with the greatest reluctance.  Nevertheless in the present case I feel bound to record my dissent.

Jonson’s play was, as I have already said, an attempt to create a new and genuinely English form of pastoral drama.  How far did he succeed?  Mr. Homer Smith charitably hints that it was owing to the ‘exquisite poetry’ in which Jonson’s design was clothed ’that many critics do not perceive that he failed in the task he set himself.’  This is, however, but to repeat in cruder form Mr. Swinburne’s contention.[287] That Jonson did not fail in the task he set himself it would be difficult to maintain—­only, however, I believe, because he faiied to carry it to completion.  Had he lived to finish the remaining portion of the play in a manner consonant with that which he has left us, there would probably have been no question as to the propriety of the means he used.  I am fully aware how difficult and often dangerous it is in these matters to argue from a mere fragment, especially in view of the breakdown of so many plays when they come to the unravelling, but it should be borne in mind that in the matter of dramatic construction Jonson stood head and shoulders above all the other writers with whom we have been concerned, Fletcher not excepted.