It is difficult to form a clear judgment of Beaumont. The more I read what scholars attribute to him, the more I feel disposed to agree with Sir A. Ward that Beaumont and Fletcher were men of the same mind and tastes. It is plain that the author of _Philaster_, _The Maid’s Tragedy_, and _A King and No King_ had a range of passion and pathos beyond Massinger. _Philaster_ is incomparable, and as we read the other two plays we hurry on from scene to scene; when we put the book down we are perturbed. They have carried us away in spite of their grave faults. The glorious nonsense of _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_ is equally beyond Massinger. On the other hand, such disagreeable plays as _The Coxcomb_ and _Cupid’s Revenge_ do not invite a second perusal. I do not feel that Beaumont was cleaner in mind than Fletcher, or more balanced in judgment. When we come to the department of metre we seem to be on surer ground; the metre of Beaumont has high qualities, and his decasyllabic verse reminds me of the cold purity of a waterfall. In style his lines constantly have a marked simplicity and directness which anticipate Wordsworth. He can write a line in which the words run in the order which they would have in prose, and hence his great strength. On the other hand, he is often careless about the length of his lines, possibly from a love of variety. He is fond of rhyme, and introduces prose freely into his scenes. His models appear to have been Marlowe for metre and Ben Jonson for treatment. He has a liking for burlesque, as witness _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_, _The Woman-Hater_, and Arbaces in _A King and No King_.(412) All this is very unlike Massinger. It may be asked, how does Massinger compare with Webster? This question naturally rises in the mind at a moment when a gifted writer, snatched from us before his time, has left us an interesting and scholarly study of Webster. Mr. Rupert Brooke makes no secret of his contempt for Fletcher, and “the second-rate magic” of Massinger; he regards Webster as the last of the strong school of Elizabethan dramatists. Are we to compare _Westward Ho!_, _Northward Ho!_, and _The Cure for a Cuckold_ with _A New Way to pay Old Debts_ and _The City Madam_? They are less refined, less skilfully constructed. The stage is more crowded, and the characters are worse drawn. The same considerations apply to the _Malcontent_(413) and _The Devil’s Law-case_. Mr. Brooke practically allows that he means by Webster, _The White Devil_ and _The Duchess of Malfi_, and these plays alone. Let it be said at once that it is an ungrateful task to magnify one poet at the expense of another. We allow that in these two plays Webster comes nearer to Shakspere than any of his compeers. He has a great, a subtle, a well-stored mind; he produces isolated tragic effects of the most poignant kind; he is a master of atmosphere; he plays with the feelings of his auditors; he can dazzle them by “his miraculous touches of poetic beauty.”