SOME NOTES ON SHAKESPEARE'S REPUTATION I INTRODUCTORY HIS book provides a chronological sequence of the ΤΗ best pieces in verse and prose which the best writers in successive periods have written in praise of Shakespeare, and thereby aims at presenting, as it were, an index to the standard of estimation in which Shakespeare has been held at any given point of time. Thus, as an anthology, it differs in various respects from other anthologies. An anthology, as a rule, hopes to confine itself to pieces of literature intrinsically valuable. The conscientious compiler of an ordinary anthology includes nothing which, according to his own canons of taste, can be considered of doubtful merit. His choice may not always be approved by others-it frequently is not; but he, at least, is satisfied. Here, however, is a different case. My object has been to collect what may be called materials for a history of opinion of Shakespeare, so that as many years 1894 Sir John Robert Seeley 1896 John Ruskin PART 1 "ROUND Al 1664 Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of N 1765 Oliver Goldsmith 1765 George, Lord Lyttelton 1768 Laurence Sterne 1769 Anonymous 1778 Anonymous 1788 Horace Walpole 1790 Paul Whitehead 1812 William Combe. 1826 Charles Lamb 1845 Nathaniel Hawthorne To My Very Good Friend, Mr. Willia " led by one or two ems, or extracts akespeare have mention him ly, passages od or bad, oor pieces, be said. ay, they ir pro this that y 'I TO PERIODS The first Shakespeare may be divided broadly by the seventeenth, centuries. Definite limits three periods. Epochs of ined ultimately, not by the he lives of the producers, dually brought them into be at the beginning and ry a kind of dovetailing d after. Still, the three nably distinct. of Shakespeare in print, the death of Dryden. affected by Dryden's d to begin with the period, which is due to e of English literature, ning of the nineteenth roducts of these three m the division. The ige and oral tradition, he most part in verse. orical position was in that of critics and begin to realise that espeare's work which as might be of the three centuries and more, which have elapsed since Shakespeare's reputation was born, had to be represented. With these conditions it has not always been possible to exclude bad pieces, for the obvious reason that there has been at times a dearth of good writers. In such cases the best has been given that could be found. The best has at times been deplorably mediocre, but the scheme was inexorable. The labour of selection has been guided by one or two principles. In the first place, complete poems, or extracts in verse and prose, which relate solely to Shakespeare have been taken in preference to those which mention him in company with his contemporaries. Secondly, passages that exhibit unusual characteristics, whether good or bad, have frequently been chosen. For some of the poor pieces, and I hope they are not many, something may be said. Though their writers are practically forgotten to-day, they were considered great during their own lives; so their productions have at least a historical value. If, then, this volume includes, as I think it does, the best things that have been written about Shakespeare, it includes also many things that in a comparative estimate of the whole must be considered as second-rate, though they happened to be the best in the period during which they were produced. The distinctiveness of the book may perhaps be indicated in An ordinary anthology may be said to gather into a garland the choicest flowers from various fields of literature; this anthology claims to be little more than a collection of botanical specimens. this way. |