of one really capable man, than be puzzled by the opinions of half a dozen critics however able. Taken as a whole these Essays may, I believe, be looked upon as a true and faithful analysis of the plays of our greatest dramatist: they are not eulogies, but they endeavour to present to the reader the faults as well as the beauties of these noble plays. A few of the Essays are not quite complete, as, for instance, the one entitled 'Plot and Story,' but I have not liked to omit it. There are also occasionally slight repetitions, but as they appeared necessary to the full understanding of the argument I have not suppressed them. ESSAYS ON SHAKESPEARE ESSAY I INTRODUCTORY In expressing our opinions of a great author we are beset by some difficulties not necessarily inherent in the subject itself. A theory of the man and of his writings having been framed by criticism, and adopted by the public, every new speculation is expected to fall within the limits of that theory and to be throughout in harmony with it. The newness consequently must consist rather in fresh discoveries of excellences, in forms of praise, in outbursts of admiration, in idolatry, more or less mitigated, than in an impartial investigation into the genuine nature of his productions. Though Shakespeare is not and cannot be to us, what Homer was to the Greeks, the source of religion, philosophy, and politics, he embodies so large a portion of the national consciousness that he will probably be our most cherished intellectual companion as long as we continue to form a nation. Yet he must be differently estimated by each succeeding age according to the measure of its culture and intelligence. He is not to us what he was to the contemporaries of Raleigh and Bacon, of Addison and Pope, of B Gibbon and Johnson; all these had their pedantries and their prejudices, in literature, in theology, and in ethics, which modified their admiration and gave a colour to their criticism. We also have our prejudices and our pedantries, which we can no more shake off than we can think in Chinese. Of certain books which were once to be found on the shelves of every library Johnson observes that it is easier to praise than to read them. Many critics find dispraise no less easy, especially when engaged in heaping up adulation on some favourite author, whom they seek to elevate at the expense of every other individual who can by any contrivance be forced into comparison with him. Shakespeare, who has excellences lying in the foreground as well as in the obscure distance, has seldom, as it appears to me, been subjected to useful criticism. Was he lawyer's clerk, was he schoolmaster, was he a woolstapler, was he a butcher, was he poor, did he hold gentlemen's horses at the door of the theatre, was he rich-either through the results of his own industry or by the generosity of certain noblemen? Inquiries without end have been entered into on these comparatively trivial questions. But did he write the plays attributed to him, and, if so, what is the value of those plays to us of the present generation and to posterity? If he wrote all or most of the dramas usually found in the collected editions of his works, together with certain poems and sonnets, it may be worth while to examine once more such of them as appear to be his, and to ascertain if possible the amount of merit to be found in them, or, if there be demerit, to point it out and justify the decision. More good may be effected in this way than |