SHAKESPEARE SINCE 1616
During Shakespeare's lifetime, his plays were mentioned and imitated as
often as those of any of his contemporaries. The more important
documents bearing on his growing reputation have already been noted in
this volume. This popularity, however, was confined to theater-goers and
the readers of the sixteen plays that had appeared before 1616. There
was no opportunity for a full estimate of his plays as literature until
their publication in the Folio of 1623. This is given full and worthy
expression in the fine verses which Ben Jonson contributed as a preface
to the Folio. He had girded at several of Shakespeare's plays, and his
own views of the principles and practices of the dramatic art were
largely opposed to Shakespeare's, but he took this opportunity to
express unstinted appreciation of Shakespeare's greatness. He notes with
discrimination that Shakespeare learned his art in an earlier day, but
far outshone Kyd, Lyly, and Marlowe.
Soul of the Age
The applause! delight! the wonder of our Stage!
He may challenge comparison with the great Greek tragedians, or in
comedies
Of all that insolent Greece or haughty Rome
Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come.
He was not of an age but for all time!
The magnitude of Shakespeare's achievement was thus enthusiastically
proclaimed by the literary dictator of the time.
From 1623, until the closing of the theaters, the plays continued
favorites on the stage, though they yielded somewhat in the current
taste to the theatrical successes of Fletcher and Massinger. After 1623,
they continued to be read and admired, as is shown by the publication of
the second and third folios in 1632 and 1663-1664, and by many
appreciations, including those of D'Avenant, Suckling, the Duchess of
Newcastle, and Milton. At the Restoration many of the plays were at once
revived on the stage, and Dryden's essay _Of Dramatick Poesie_ (1668)
summed up in a masterly fashion contemporary opinion on Shakespeare. He
is compared with other great dramatists, and is declared less correct
than Jonson and less popular and modern than Beaumont and Fletcher, yet
is "the man who of all Moderns, and perhaps Ancient Poets, had the
largest and most comprehensive soul."
[Page Heading: The Seventeenth Century]
The Restoration was in some doubt about Shakespeare, for while it found
in him much to admire, it also found much to condemn. His plays now had
the advantage of women actors for the female parts, but they
encountered changed fashions in the theater. The romantic comedies were
not to the taste of the time, and disappeared from the stage until
toward the middle of the eighteenth century. Meanwhile, _The Merry Wives
of Windsor_ was the most popular and most highly esteemed of his
comedies. The tragedies attracted the genius of Betterton and were
constantly acted, but these were subject to revision of various kinds.
_Hamlet_ and _Othello_ held their places without alterations, but Nahum
Tate's tame version of _King Lear_ and Cibber's version of _Richard III_
superseded the originals for many years. _Romeo and Juliet_, too, gave
way to Otway's _Caius Marius_, 1692, which kept large portions of
Shakespeare's play; and _Antony and Cleopatra_ yielded place on the
stage to Dryden's fine _All for Love_ (1678), in the style of which he
professes to imitate the "divine Shakespeare." By 1692, adaptations had
also been made of _Troilus and Cressida_, _The Tempest_, _Macbeth_, _The
Two Noble Kinsmen_, _Timon_, _Richard II_, _Coriolanus_, _Henry VI_,
_Cymbeline_, _Titus Andronicus_, _Julius Caesar_. A great deal of
contempt has been visited upon these revisions of Shakespeare, and their
attempts to improve on him are usually feeble enough; but sufficient
recognition has not been given to the testimony that these revisors bear
to a great appreciation and admiration of Shakespeare. They tried to
adapt him to current metrical conventions, to current literary fashions,
to an idea of art quite foreign to his, but they made these efforts
because they admired his genius. If they did not admire everything in
his thirty-seven plays, they admired a great deal.
Further, these revisions are the outcome of critical strictures on the
plays which were then common and, in essence, have been frequently
repeated. Critics objected to the irregularity and confusion of their
structure, to their disregard of the unities of action, their mixture of
tragic and comic, their obscurity and archaism of diction, their mixed
and confused figures, their occasional puns and bombast. These are
substantially the criticisms that Dryden offers when under the influence
of Rymer. Rymer himself (_A Short View of Tragedy_, 1693) goes much
farther. He desires tragedy to give a rationalized view of life, dealing
poetic justice to various typical persons, and consequently condemns
Shakespeare's persons as too individual, his plots as too irregular, and
the total effect of his plays as insufficiently didactic and moral. This
view of tragedy was mainly due to the rationalistic and classical ideas
which continued for a century to dominate European criticism. But before
the seventeenth century was over, Shakespeare's growing reputation had
proved itself a rock against which the tendencies in criticism had
broken like unavailing waves. However much they might insist on rules in
art, critics were generally willing to hail Shakespeare as the great
exception. Champions were ready to answer Rymer and to defend
Shakespeare. _Othello_, selected by Rymer for special analysis and
condemnation, continued to hold its place on the stage and to incite
dramatists to emulation. The plays continued to be read, and new
editions were demanded. In the forty years from 1660 to 1700, in spite
of great changes in theatrical conditions, in spite of changes of taste
in readers that relegated most of Elizabethan drama to neglect, and in
spite of the formation of a criticism doubtful or neglectful of the very
qualities in literature that his plays present, Shakespeare continued to
win admirers. By 1700 he was recognized as a dramatist and poet who was
one of the great possessions of the English race.
[Page Heading: Widening Influence]
In the two centuries since, Shakespeare's fame and influence have spread
and multiplied to an extent difficult to characterize justly in a brief
summary. Some important evidences of this growth may indeed be collected
and analyzed. The position and importance of his plays on the stage, the
ever increasing number of editions, the changing attitudes of critics
and men of letters--on these matters it is not difficult to draw
conclusions as to Shakespeare's influence at home and abroad. But it is
not so easy to say what his influence was on the literature of any
generation, and still less easy to summarize with certainty the effects
on thought and feeling and conduct which made up his continuing power
over generation after generation of readers. This much is clear, that a
study of Shakespeare's influence is in part a study of changing ideas
and ideals in literature--that as he survived the Restoration taste, so
he survived the new classicism of the eighteenth and the romanticism of
the early nineteenth century. It is also clear that a full record of the
influence of Shakespeare on English-speaking readers would touch on
almost all the varied changes of thought and conduct that have entered
into the history of two centuries.
The most important of the successive editions of Shakespeare from that
of Nicholas Rowe, 1709, to the present time, have been noted in the
history of the text in Chapter VII. It must be observed that these
various publications indicate not only progress toward establishing a
sound text, but also a constantly increasing number of readers. The
multiplication of editions kept pace with the vast extension of the
middle-class interest in literature. By the end of the eighteenth
century, the works of Shakespeare were in the possession of everyone who
had a library, and with a text and notes that left few difficulties for
a person of any education.
The nineteenth century well maintained the tradition of earlier
scholarship. Malone's extensive antiquarian knowledge of Elizabethan
drama and theater served as the basis for further research in these
fields by Dyce, Ward, Fleay, and others. The chronological order of the
plays, which Malone was the first to investigate, was determined with
considerable certainty and gave a new significance to the study of
Shakespeare's work as a whole. Dyce, Sidney Walker, and Wright, Delius
of the Germans, Richard Grant White of the Americans, are a few among
the long list of scholars who have added notable emendations and
illustrative notes. Editions of the collected works indeed soon became
almost too numerous for record, and the number of readings, notes, and
illustrations too great for collection even in the largest variorum.
To-day the task of scholarship may lie in the restriction,
simplification, and final determination of certain varying editorial
practices rather than in the accumulation of further illustrative and
appreciative comment. But to the work of adding new editions there can
be no end so long as the number of readers increases. Volumes of all
sizes, for many classes, following various editorial methods, are likely
to continue to meet the changing but ever increasing demands of
English-speaking readers. At the end of the nineteenth century
Shakespeare's works were not merely a household possession, they were to
be had in every possible form to suit every possible taste or
convenience.
[Page Heading: On the Stage]
The extension of Shakespeare's popularity on the stage was concurrent
with this widening range of readers. In the first thirty years of the
eighteenth century, which marked a revolution in the nature of the drama
and the taste of the audiences, Shakespeare's tragedies continued to be
among the most frequently acted stock plays at the two patented
theaters. The middle of the century saw the revival of most of the
romantic comedies and the appearance of David Garrick. Some of the
adaptations continued, but others were displaced by genuine
Shakespeare, as in _Macbeth_, _The Merchant of Venice_, and _Romeo and
Juliet_. _All's Well That Ends Well_, _As You Like It_, _Cymbeline_,
_Much Ado_, _Twelfth Night_, _The Winter's Tale_, were all revived. In
fact, if we include adaptations, every play of Shakespeare was seen on
the stage during the eighteenth century, with the exceptions of _2_ and
_3 Henry VI_, only parts of these appearing, and of _Love's Labour's
Lost_, of which a version prepared for acting was published in 1762 but
not produced.
The traditions of Betterton had been carried on by Wilks (1670-1732),
Barton Booth (1681-1733), Colley Cibber (1671-1757), and others. But the
prevailing manner was condemned as stiff and lifeless in comparison with
the energy of Garrick's presentation. From his first triumph in Richard
III in 1741, to his farewell performance of Lear in 1776, he won a
series of signal successes in both tragedy and comedy, in Hamlet, Lear,
Macbeth, Richard III, Falconbridge, Romeo, Hotspur, Iago, Leontes,
Posthumus, Benedick, and Antony. Garrick's services to Shakespeare
extended beyond the parts which he impersonated. He revived many plays,
and though he garbled the texts freely, yet in comparison with earlier
practice he really had some right to boast that he had restored the text
of Shakespeare to the stage. Further, his example led to an increased
popularity of Shakespeare in the theater and afforded new incentives for
other actors. Mrs. Clive, Mrs. Cibber, and Mrs. Pritchard were among
the women who acted with Garrick. Macklin, by his revival of Shylock as
a tragic character, Henderson by his impersonation of Falstaff, and John
Palmer in secondary characters, as Iago, Mercutio, Touchstone, and Sir
Toby, were his contemporaries most famous in their day.
[Page Heading: Kemble and Kean]
Garrick's place at the head of the English stage was taken by John
Philip Kemble (1757-1823), an actor of great dignity of presence and
manner, who won general admiration in the great tragic parts, especially
those offering opportunities for declamation. His sister, Mrs. Sarah
Siddons, was doubtless the greatest of English actresses; her Lady
Macbeth, Queen Katherine, and Constance overwhelmed her audiences by
their majesty and passion. Kemble's reputation was surpassed by Edmund
Kean, whose appearance as Shylock in 1819, at Drury Lane, was the first
of a series of great successes in most of the tragic parts, including
Hamlet, Lear, Othello, and Richard III. In contrast to Kemble's
declamation, Kean's acting was vehement and passionate. Coleridge
declared that to see him was "reading Shakespeare by flashes of
lightning." Readers of the dramatic criticism of Hazlitt and Lamb will
recall tributes to Kean and to other favorite actors, especially perhaps
their praise of Mrs. Jordan's Viola and Rosalind. Macready for forty
years maintained the great traditions of English acting, and during his
managements of Drury Lane sought to retain for Shakespeare's plays their
preeminence on the stage. Associated with his many impersonations were
those of Mrs. Warner and Helen Faucit (Lady Martin). From Garrick's
debut to the retirement of Macready (1851) is a century of great actors
and actresses who brought to the interpretation of the many characters
of the plays a skill and intelligence that satisfied the most critical
theater-goers and extended vastly the appreciation and knowledge of
Shakespeare's men and women.
Shakespeare's position on the stage was, however, maintained only with
difficulty against the melodramas, musical farces, and spectacles that
absorbed the theaters. Yet from 1844 to 1862, Samuel Phelps, at Sadler's
Wells, presented thirty-one of the plays. Since then the stage has
hardly seen an equally important revival; but the great traditions of
acting have been carried on by many eminent actors: Sir Henry Irving,
Ellen Terry, Forbes Robertson, in England; Edwin Forrest, Edwin Booth,
Junius Brutus Booth, Charlotte Cushman, Ada Rehan, Julia Marlowe, and
Edward Sothern in America. Lately, successful attempts have been made to
perform plays in the Elizabethan manner, and perhaps there is a tendency
to pay less attention to elaborate scenic presentation than was the
habit during the last of the nineteenth century. In one respect, at
least, the present offers a decided improvement on the past, for there
is now a strong sentiment in favor of as close an adherence as possible
to an authorized text of the plays.
[Page Heading: The Eighteenth Century]
Shakespeare has held his place on the stage in spite of many and great
changes in theatrical conditions and dramatic taste. He will probably
survive changes greater than those which separate the picture stage with
its electric lights from the projecting open-air platform of his own
day, or than those which separate the dramas of Ibsen, Shaw, and Barrie
from those of Marlowe and Fletcher, or the cinematograph and comic opera
from the bear-baiting and jugglery which rivaled the Globe. The visitor
who scans, in the Stratford Museum, the curious collection of portraits
of actors and actresses in Shakespearean parts may wonder what
peculiarities of costume, manner, and expression will be devised for the
admired interpretations of the centuries to come. But it hardly seems
possible that any actor of the future will influence as greatly the
appreciation of Shakespeare's characters and speeches as did Garrick and
Mrs. Siddons in England or Edwin Booth in America.
Shakespearean criticism in the eighteenth century was, as has been
noted, largely textual, but there was also a considerable discussion of
Shakespeare's learning, his art, and its violations of neo-classical
theory. John Dennis, in his _Letters_, 1711, proved a sturdy admirer,
and the consensus of opinion of following writers was that of Sedley's
couplet which described Shakespeare as
The pride of Nature, and the shame of Schools,
Born to Create, and not to Learn from Rules.
Voltaire's attacks brought rejoinders from Mrs. Elizabeth Montagu in
1769 and from Dr. Johnson in the preface to his edition, 1765. In fact,
admiration for Shakespeare was a powerful factor in forcing the
rejection of rules and standards of French criticism. Johnson's Preface
finds fault with Shakespeare's neglect of poetic justice and dwells at
length on the faults in plots and diction, but Johnson defends the
violation of the unities, and his praise is a discriminating summary of
the merits that the eighteenth century had found in Shakespeare. It is
praise that is likely to endure.
Within another generation, however, reverence for Shakespeare had
increased to an intensity that made Johnson's admiration seem feeble and
niggardly. This transformation was due to many causes, but in the main
it was a part of the vast changes in European literature known as the
Romantic movement. This resulted in a rejection of the rules and models
of neo-classicism, a new interest in the literature and manners of the
Middle Ages, a conception of poetry as the expression of individuality,
attention to the individual man in all orders of society, a fresh
concern for external nature, an emphasis on the emotions rather than
mere reason, a desire for wonder and mystery, and an exaltation of
natural instincts and intuitions as opposed to general truths or social
conventions. In each of these particulars, Shakespeare seemed the
complete fulfilment of the new tendencies--which indeed his growing
influence had undoubtedly encouraged. More than Spenser or Milton or
the old ballads, he was the inspiration and guide for new endeavors in
literature. It seemed to the new age of critics and poets that they had
rediscovered him, and they hastened to raise him from neglect to the
throne of omniscience. He was no longer a wayward genius, he was the
model from whom art and wisdom were to be learned.
[Page Heading: Appreciative Criticism]
This new criticism was esthetic and appreciative. It did not try to
balance Shakespeare's merits and faults, or to test him by codes of arts
or morals. It recognized him as supreme, and its discipleship was
devoted to reverent interpretation and enthusiastic admiration.
Believing in the importance of the poetic imagination in the affairs of
men, it found in him a gospel and an example for its creed. Its
delightful task was to find new beauties and to search out the
hiding-places that revealed the god of its idolatry. If the genius of
the master-poet was the source of art and wisdom, the personality of the
critic gained a new refulgence through its service of reflecting the
rays of glory. The interest in the study of individual characters had
resulted, even in Johnson's day, in some notable interpretive essays, as
Maurice Morgann's on Falstaff (1777). In the next generation, Coleridge,
Lamb, and Hazlitt in England, and Schlegel and Goethe in Germany,
brought the keenest intelligence and most sympathetic taste to a
criticism that aspired to reveal the full range and height of
Shakespeare's creative faculty.
The results of this criticism may be more specifically summarized. (1)
It viewed the individual characters of the plays as if they were real
persons, analyzing their motives and elaborating or repainting their
portraits, as in the analyses of Hamlet by Goethe and Coleridge, or in
the brilliant sketches of Hazlitt. The few hundred lines spoken by a
leading character have thus been expanded by the impressions made on
successive critics into volumes of biography. (2) Shakespeare's works
were studied as a whole in an effort to study the development of his art
and mind. Schlegel and Coleridge gave a unity to the phenomena of the
thirty-seven plays that had not been recognized hitherto; but they and
their followers naturally tended to make of their author a sort of
nineteenth-century romanticist. (3) Exalting the services of poetry and
the creative imagination, they viewed Shakespeare's exhibition of human
nature and his incidental wisdom as profound, consistent, and immensely
valuable for the human race. Hence they were ever seeking in his work
for a philosophy, a synthetic ethics, and making the widest applications
of his words to conduct. Believing that he could do no wrong, they
inevitably came to attribute to him ideas and morals that were of their
own creation.
The defects of this criticism are most apparent in critics like Ulrici
and Gervinus who carry its methods to extremes. Personal, fanciful,
unhistorical, idolatrous, it is yet a tremendous tribute and an amazing
record of the sway that Shakespeare has exerted on the human mind. The
writings of no other man have been studied so intimately by so many
sympathetic readers, or have excited such different impressions.
Throughout the nineteenth century this appreciative criticism has
continued, and Shakespeare has been interpreted through the personality
of many critics, German and American, as well as British, more recently
through the delicate sensibility of Professor Dowden, and the
penetrating reflection of Professor A. C. Bradley.
[Page Heading: The Nineteenth Century]
At the end of the nineteenth century, Shakespearean criticism has become
too varied for a brief survey. Textual and esthetic criticism both
continue. The biography has been established on a sound basis of fact by
Halliwell-Phillipps and Sidney Lee; and still new facts reward patient
investigators of the legal and court documents, almost the only records
preserved that can possibly bear on Shakespeare's life. Special studies
of all sorts have been numerous, as to his reading, religion, folk-lore,
and so on. More significant in its effect on our general view have been
the efforts of historical criticism. As our knowledge of Elizabethan
literature, drama, theater, have increased, it has been possible to see
Shakespeare in relation to his time and environment. The study of
Shakespeare as a sixteenth-century dramatist aims not merely at a better
appreciation of his work, but also to explain his development and to
account for some of the qualities of his achievement. Its attitude is
that of the scientific historian examining the records of any great
human activity, and trying to understand its causes, results, and
meaning. Somewhat allied to this has been technical dramatic criticism,
which is uniting knowledge of the Elizabethan theater with interest in
drama as a peculiar form, and thereby studying Shakespeare as a
dramatist rather than as a poet or philosopher. In fact, Shakespeare is
no longer merely man, poet, dramatist, philosopher, or genius. Jonson's
tribute, Dryden's summary, Johnson's judicial essay, or Coleridge's
admiring studies, all seem hopelessly inadequate to express the range of
his dominion. He has become the source of the most various and extensive
interests, a continent that ever expands its fields for exploration, an
epoch that ever extends the years of its duration, a race that never
dies, though its progeny ever multiplies.
[Page Heading: In Germany]
It is in the nineteenth century that Shakespeare's dominance becomes
international. Four of his plays were acted at Dresden and elsewhere
early in the seventeenth century, but there seems to have been no
literary acquaintance with the plays in Germany until about the middle
of the eighteenth century, when two poor translations of _Julius Caesar_
and _Romeo and Juliet_ appeared, and J. C. Gottsched severely criticized
Shakespeare's art. In 1759, in a journal, "Litteraturbriefe," Lessing
began a warm defense of Shakespeare and declared his superiority to
Racine and Corneille. His _Hamburgische Dramaturgie_ (1767) went far in
directing the change of taste from French classicism and in
establishing Shakespeare in German thought as the greatest of poets,
whether ancient or modern. A prose translation was begun by Wieland in
1762 and completed by Eschenburg in 1789. What is perhaps the best
translation of Shakespeare into any foreign tongue was begun in 1797 by
A. W. von Schlegel and Ludwig Tieck, two leaders of German romanticism,
and finally completed in 1853. Schlegel's lectures on _Shakespeare and
the Drama_ were delivered in Vienna in 1808, and present both the
romanticist's idolizing of Shakespeare and a new kind of esthetic
criticism destined to exercise great influence on Coleridge and the
English critics. Meanwhile Goethe was adapting _Romeo and Juliet_ for
the Weimar theater (1801) and Schiller was arranging _Macbeth_ for
presentation at Stuttgart (1801). Goethe indeed was, throughout his
life, an enthusiastic admirer of Shakespeare, and his works are full of
discriminating criticism, of which perhaps the most famous passage is
the analysis of Hamlet in _Wilhelm Meister_. Since Lessing and Herder,
German poetry and drama have felt Shakespeare's influence, and in both
textual and esthetic criticism, Germany has rivaled England and the
United States. Delius and Schmidt, whose _Shakespeare-Lexicon_ (1874) is
one of the great monuments of Shakespeare scholarship, are perhaps first
among textual students; since 1865 the German Shakespeare Society has
published yearly contributions of all kinds to Shakespeare criticism,
and especially an excellent bibliography. On the stage Shakespeare has
been constantly acted since the beginning of the century, and has
engaged the services of some of the greatest actors, as Schroeder, the
two Devrients, and Barnay. At present a large number of his plays are
performed annually, in the smaller as well as the larger cities, and
more frequently than in Britain or America. Twenty-six of the plays were
acted in 1911, _Othello_ leading with 158 performances. For the years
1909, 1910, 1911, _Hamlet_, _Othello_, _The Merchant of Venice_ have
been the favorites, with _The Taming of the Shrew_ and _A
Midsummer-Night's Dream_ the most popular of the comedies. For over a
century Shakespeare has profoundly influenced German life and letters.
Rarely, if ever, has a great people been so powerfully affected by a
writer in a foreign tongue.
In France, during the eighteenth century, Shakespeare's reputation was
both aided and hindered by Voltaire. Though there are a few earlier
notices of the English dramatist, Voltaire, after his visit to England,
1720-1729, was virtually the first to win attention for Shakespeare. He
admired Shakespeare, acknowledged his influence, but deplored his
deficiencies in taste and art, "le Corneille de Londres, grand fou
d'ailleurs, mais il a des morceaux admirables." Voltaire's criticism
provoked replies in England and a defense from Diderot, who shared with
Lessing the effort to emancipate the drama from some of its
neo-classical restriction. Translations of twelve plays by La Place
(1745-1748) and all of the plays by Le Tourneur (1776-1782) gave an
opportunity for greater acquaintance with his work. A version of
_Hamlet_ by Ducis was acted at Paris in 1769. But even at the end of the
century, French literary opinion, though partly won by Le Tourneur's
praise of Shakespeare, still sympathized with Voltaire, now engaged in
an attack on Englishmen and their favorite. His last opinion (1778)
declares, "Shakespeare est un sauvage avec des etincelles de genie qui
brillent dans une nuit horrible."
[Page Heading: In France]
The nineteenth century saw a reaction from this criticism, indicated by
the praise of Madame de Stael (_De la Litterature_, 1804), by Guizot's
essay accompanying a revision of Le Tourneur's translation (1821), and
later in the appreciation of Mezieres's _Shakespeare ses [OE]uvres et
ses Critiques_ (1860), in several translations, and in Victor Hugo's
eulogy (1869). The best of the translations is by the poet's son,
Francois Victor Hugo in prose (1859-1866). On the Paris stage, the
leading English actors have appeared from time to time, and French
versions of _Hamlet_, _Macbeth_, and _Othello_ have made a permanent
place. M. Jusserand is the chief authority for the history of
Shakespeare in France and an ambassador of peace between the conflicting
literary tastes of the two nations.
In Italy, Holland, Russia, Poland, and Hungary, during the nineteenth
century, many of the plays have been regularly acted, and from Italy
have come great actors and actresses, as Ristori, Salvini, and Rossi.
Complete translations have been published in these countries and in
Bohemian, Swedish, Danish, Finnish, and Spanish; and separate plays have
been translated and acted in many other languages including those of
India, Japan, and China.
In music and painting Shakespeare's influence has also been
international. Books have been devoted to the history of Shakespeare's
music, and such surveys include nearly every English composer of note,
and also Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Ambroise Thomas,
Saint Saens, Rossini, and Verdi. In painting as well, the persons and
scenes of the play have excited the efforts of English, German, and
American artists.
In America, as has already been indicated, the interest in Shakespeare
is hardly separable from that in Great Britain. Editors, critics,
scholars, have been numerous and their contributions important, and the
plays have been acted constantly and widely through the country.
Probably there is no part of the world to-day where the study of
Shakespeare is so active and where the interest in his work is so
widespread. In one respect, at least, the United States in recent years
has carried this study and interest beyond England, in the fields of
education. As the study of the mother tongue has become the basis of
American education, so Shakespeare has come to play a more and more
important part in the training of youth. The universities offer training
in the various departments of Shakespearean scholarship, every college
offers courses on his plays, a number of them are prescribed for reading
and study in the high schools; a few of them are read and extracts
memorized in the primary schools. The child begins his education with
Ariel and the fairies, and until his schooling is completed is kept in
almost daily intercourse with the poetry and persons of the dramas.
Homer was not better known in Athens. In a democracy still young and
widely separated from older nations and cultures, Shakespeare has become
one of the links that bind the American public not only to the common
inheritances of the English-speaking races, but to the traditional
culture of Europe.
[Page Heading: In the United States]
Known in the literature and theater of every civilized nation, the
subject of a vast and increasing amount of discussion and criticism, the
source of a scholarship rivaling that devoted to the writers of
antiquity, the familiar theme for music and painting, the household
possession of Great Britain, Germany, and America, influencing thought
and conduct as few books have ever influenced them, and now an important
element in the education of a great democracy,--the plays of Shakespeare
occupy a position whence imagination "can not pierce a wink beyond, but
doubt discovery there." His reputation and influence must change greatly
in the years to come; but this at least is secure--three hundred years
of an ever increasing sway over the human mind.