Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher

In Short

Samuel Taylor Coleridge examines the golden age of English drama through detailed notes on William Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Francis Beaumont, and John Fletcher. Moving play by play, he investigates how dramatic poetry functions, defending Shakespeare’s formal judgment as equal to his transcendent genius. He contrasts Shakespeare’s moral organicism and deep psychological insight with Jonson’s pedantic ventriloquism and Beaumont and Fletcher’s artificial morality. Through close textual readings, structural critiques, and metric analyses, the volume demonstrates that enduring literary power relies on an intimate, reverent understanding of human nature rather than theatrical trickery or mechanical rules.

The Story

The book opens with a foundational investigation into the nature of poetry, tracing the historical evolution of drama from its Greek and Roman roots down to the Elizabethan stage. Coleridge establishes his core thesis early: true literary criticism requires reverent empathy, and Shakespeare's supposed structural defects are actually the necessary expressions of a supreme judgment matched perfectly to his genius.

From this theoretical vantage point, the study progresses into a meticulous, play-by-play examination of Shakespeare's dramatic catalog. Coleridge journeys through the comedies, histories, and tragedies, evaluating how Shakespeare builds characters whose moral depth drives the plot, rather than letting plot mechanics dictate human behavior. In plays like The Tempest, As You Like It, and Twelfth Night, he highlights the purity of sentiment, the organic balance of supernatural and human elements, and the delicate handling of romantic affection. Moving into the historical plays and dark tragedies—including Richard II, Lear, Hamlet, Macbeth, and Othello—Coleridge traces how human passions manifest as moral realities. He analyzes Hamlet's intellectual hesitations, Richard II's wordy despair, and Iago's cold, experimental villainy, arguing that Shakespeare never confuses virtue with vice or relies on cheap emotional manipulation.

The critical gaze then shifts to Ben Jonson. While acknowledging Jonson’s massive erudition and cultural weight, Coleridge exposes the rigid, classical constraints that flatten his dramatic creations. In works such as Sejanus, Volpone, and The Alchemist, Jonson is shown inserting his own voice into puppet-like characters, substituting scholarly borrowing and dramatic rant for authentic human feeling.

Finally, the survey turns to the collaborative works of Beaumont and Fletcher. Examining plays like The Elder Brother, The Fair Maid of The Inn, and The Two Noble Kinsmen, Coleridge dissects their rhythmic liberties, erratic character motives, and questionable moral postures. He contrasts their sentimental, sensationalist tendencies—which he likens to modern melodrama—with Shakespeare’s steadfast moral baseline. The volume concludes as a unified defense of organic form, showing how true genius creates its own appropriate laws from within.

How It Unfolds

The foundation of dramatic art The text begins by defining poetry and mapping the historical journey of theatre from antiquity to the Renaissance, establishing that lasting literature survives through its deep moral resonance.

Defending Shakespeare’s judgment Coleridge rejects the idea that Shakespeare is an untamed wild talent, arguing instead that his artistic choices and structural judgment perfectly mirror his poetic genius.

Dissecting the comedies and romances Analyzing works like The Tempest and As You Like It, the critique highlights how Shakespeare keeps human nature central while handling romance and supernatural elements with utmost purity.

Exploring tragic minds and histories Examining Hamlet, Lear, and Richard II, Coleridge tracks the internal collapse of figures who substitute intellectualizing or wordy resolves for genuine moral action.

Exposing Jonson’s artificiality Turned toward Ben Jonson’s plays, the commentary illustrates how excessive erudition and classical borrowing produce rigid characters that act merely as mouthpieces for the author.

Evaluating Beaumont and Fletcher The survey scrutinizes the dramatic output of Beaumont and Fletcher, pointing out loose verse structures, unmotivated character choices, and moral compromises.

Assessing doubtful attributions Analyzing plays like The Two Noble Kinsmen, Coleridge uses metrical metrics and conceptual depth to determine where Shakespeare’s genuine hand ends and other dramatists begin.

The People

William Shakespeare The central standard of dramatic perfection in Coleridge's study. He represents the ideal synthesis of genius and judgment, creating plays where character drives plot and morality remains uncorrupted.

Ben Jonson A literary giant whose immense classical erudition ultimately hinders his dramatic vitality. He wants to construct authoritative, learned drama, but his reliance on Roman models leaves his characters behaving like rigid mouthpieces.

Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher Collaborative dramatists who pursue immediate theatrical effect and loose, conversational rhythm. Their desire to entertain leads to sensational plot twists, unnatural character choices, and compromised moral standards.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge The animating critical voice of the text. Driven by a desire to demonstrate the intrinsic link between taste and morality, he seeks to liberate early English drama from pedantic, mechanical rules.

In Its Own Voice

"In all the successive courses of lectures delivered by me... it has been, and it still remains, my object, to prove that in all points from the most important to the most minute, the judgment of Shakespeare is commensurate with his genius..."

Coleridge states his primary critical purpose when introducing his Shakespearean lectures.

"Shakespeare’s fathers are roused by ingratitude, his husbands stung by unfaithfulness; in him, in short, the affections are wounded in those points in which all may, nay, must, feel."

The critique highlights why Shakespeare's moral universe resonates universally across human experience.

"The more we reflect and examine, examine and reflect, the more astonished shall we be at the immense superiority of Shakespeare over his contemporaries..."

Coleridge reflects on the vast gulf in judgment between Shakespeare and other Elizabethan dramatists during his analysis of Jonson's Sejanus.

What It's Really About

At its core, the book argues that true creative genius is inherently self-regulating and morally grounded. Coleridge contends that technical skill and historical learning mean little without a reverent understanding of the human heart. He contrasts organic art—which grows naturally out of human nature—with mechanical art, which forces characters into artificial plot structures. By placing Shakespeare beside Jonson, Beaumont, and Fletcher, the text asks what allows literary art to transcend its immediate era. It asserts that enduring literature relies on moral truth, psychological consistency, and a profound harmony between artistic judgment and creative power.

Why Read It Today

This volume remains an essential read for anyone who wants to understand how classic literature actually works under the hood. Reading Coleridge feels like sitting beside a brilliantly perceptive friend who points out subtle metrical shifts, psychological nuances, and hidden structural triumphs that average readers pass right by. His enthusiasm for Shakespeare is infectious, but his criticism is never unthinking; he evaluates verse patterns, line edits, and dramatic motives with surgical precision.

Readers should prepare for nineteenth-century prose that is dense, highly analytical, and occasionally demanding. Coleridge assumes a familiarity with Early Modern drama, frequently quoting untranslated classical phrases or jumping straight into minute textual notes regarding specific line readings. Yet despite these period difficulties, the text offers an uncommonly rewarding experience. It equips readers with a completely original framework for assessing drama, teaching us how to distinguish between genuine dramatic depth and superficial theatrical flash.