depth and mystery. For this reason Matthew Arnold quotes in his criticism some Latin phrases as if of ultimate poetic perfection, and the men of Shakespeare's day used Latin quotations as if the words held peculiar virtue. As a rule, too, evil spirits paid little attention to adjurations unless couched in sonorous Latin. The Latin and Greek authors were regarded as a race apart from and above English writers. The rules for correctness and excellence were to be drawn from their practice, and there has been a tendency down to the last decade of the nineteenth century to deduce even grammatical rules for English speech from their writings, sometimes from the most rhetorical of Latin authors. The rules which Aristotle deduced from an examination of Greek Tragedies were therefore regarded as laws for English tragedy. Shakespeare rarely pays any attention to these rules. Consequently, for a long time, down to the nineteenth century, he was considered 'irregular.' The attraction of his plays was admitted, indeed, it forced itself on men's attention every time a really competent actor personated one of his characters. The force, wit, and eloquence of detached passages could not be denied. This was attributed to inspiration, but his dramatic construction was considered all wrong because he did not regard the 'unities.' We shall see hereafter how, in spite of English good sense, this view recurs in the criticism of the eighteenth century. The most important critical expressions of Shakespeare's contemporaries after his death are to be found in the eulogistic verses prefixed to the folio editions of the seventeenth century. The First Folio of 1623 Mr. Lee considers to have consisted of five hundred copies, judging from the number now existing. Even then doubtless many quarto pamphlets containing single plays were in existence and could be procured by those desirous of reading the plays, and many of what are known as 'players' quartos,' published after the printing of the First Folio, in 1623. These last of course are of no authority in settling disputed points in the text, since they must be copies of earlier publications, and in printing them no particular attention was paid to correctness, certainly no effort was made for improvement. But the fact that only four editions for readers, amounting in all probably to not more than three thousand five hundred copies, were printed till the sixvolume edition of Rowe, in 1709, shows that outside of the public representations few persons could have had an opportunity of knowing the plays. The fact, too, that twenty-four years (1685-1709) elapsed between the printing of the Fourth Folio and the first popular edition shows that Shakespeare as an author was not accessible to the general public. During the entire seventeenth century fewer copies were sold than the present yearly demand. This fact would go to show that, for a considerable period, love for Shakespeare was confined to readers of some special powers of poetic appreciation. At the same time the number of times the plays were represented after the Restoration, from 1660 to 1709, shows that his hold on audiences was interrupted but briefly, and then not by change in taste, but by outside circumstances. Samuel Pepys, whose diary runs from 1660 to 1669, was present at the representation of twelve plays of Shakespeare. He saw Hamlet four times and The Tempest and Macbeth many times. As his diary was in shorthand and in no way addressed to the public, it is absolutely unbiased. Furthermore, as he was a man destitute of poetic insight, his criticisms are valuable as representing the views of the average playgoer, and 1 will be referred to hereafter. For the present we note that the acting qualities of the plays insured their continuous public presentation, even when it was hard to buy the book of the play.' The literary critics were in time forced to recognize them, and after a century or so discovered their great literary qualities and began reluctantly to admit that the 'rules' were not of absolute validity. The eulogistic verses in the folios must of course be interpreted as obituary notices, in which praise is awarded without much discrimination. Prefixed to editions of the plays they do not refer to the back or second, that might hold if this should blast in proof,' the claim to the title of poet based on the poems and sonnets. But Ben Jonson's verses have a hearty ring, and his conviction that Shakespeare was a great poet shines through the exaggerated language of post-mortem encomium. He says, Triumph, my Britain! thou hast one to show Although the verses are so familiar, it is as well to transcribe them, as the first authoritative statement of Shakespeare's greatness. COMMENDATORY VERSES PREFIXED TO THE FOLIO OF 1623 To the memory of my beloved, the Author, Master WILLIAM To draw no envy, Shakespeare, on thy name, As neither man nor Muse can praise too much : For silliest ignorance on these may light, Pacuvius, Accius, him of Cordova, dead, To life again, to hear thy buskin tread And shake a stage; or, when thy socks were on, Of all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome When, like Apollo, he came forth to warm As they were not of Nature's family. Such as thine are, — and strike the second heat - Upon the Muses' anvil; turn the same, And himself with it, that he thinks to frame; For a good poet 's made, as well as born: And such wert thou. - Look how the father's face Lives in his issue; even so the race Of Shakespeare's mind and manners brightly shines In each of which he seems to shake a lance, As brandish'd at the eyes of ignorance. Sweet Swan of Avon, what a sight it were To see thee in our waters yet appear, And make those flights upon the banks of Thames But stay; I see thee in the hemisphere Which, since thy flight from hence, hath mourn'd like night, And despairs day, but for thy volume's light. BEN JONSON. |