74 PART II. SOME IMPORTANT METHODOLOGICAL TERMS. 



gedy he is always struggling after some occasion to be comic, but in 

 comedy he seems to repose, or to luxuriate, as in a mode of thinking 

 congenial to his nature. In his tragic scenes there is always something 

 wanting, but his comedy often surpasses expectation or desire. . . . His 

 tragedy seems to be skill, his comedy to be instinct." 



"Shakespeare, with his excellencies, has likewise faults, and faults 

 sufficient to obscure and overwhelm any other merit." 



"The plots are often so loosely formed that a very slight consideration 

 may improve them, and so carelessly pursued, that he seems not always 

 fully to comprehend his own design." 



"In his comic scenes he is seldom very successful, when he engages 

 his characters in reciprocations of smartness and contests of sarcasm ; 

 their jests are commonly gross and their pleasantry licentious; neither 

 his gentlemen nor his ladies have much delicacy, nor are sufficiently 

 distinguished from his clowns by any appearance of refined manners." 



"In narration he affects a disproportionate pomp of diction and a weari- 

 some train of circumlocution, and tells the incident imperfectly in many 

 words, which might have been more plainly delivered in few." 



And much more to the same effect. 



In 1709 Rowe published an edition of Shakespeare's plays in 

 a number of volumes, prefacing it with a life of the author. 

 This "life", mostly based on traditions, did much to direct 

 attention to Shakespeare, and to spread his fame. We observe 

 here an interesting psychological reaction. The emphasis on 

 Shakespeare's humble origin and reputed lack of learning 

 magnified by contrast his dramatic achievements, and fixed 

 men's regards on him. His deficiencies cried out for an ex- 

 planation and evoked sympathy. They attracted scholars to 

 the interesting task of elucidating the work of that precocious 

 child of nature. 



A series of critical editions of Shakespeare's plays was the 

 result, all introduced by very readable prefaces. The latter 

 dilate on Shakespeare's genius, but also on his ignorance of 

 the classics, his frequent lapses, his numerous imperfections, 

 and the corruptions and obscurities of the text of his plays. 

 The comparison is always between Shakespeare and the an- 

 cients, and references to other Elizabethan playwrights are not 

 only extremely rare, but there is every indication that, apart 

 from, Ben Jonson and Beaumont and Fletcher, the plays of the 

 Elizabethans were unknown, copies of their works being pro- 

 bably inaccessible to the editors in those days when there were 

 no great public libraries. In this we are supported by the fact 

 that all the high qualities which Dr. Johnson ascribes to Shake- 

 speare are qualities generically distinguishing the Elizabethan 

 and Jacobean drama. 



Eighteenth century England found its energies only equal to 

 the task of critically studying one author, the number of com- 

 petent scholars being presumably too small to attempt the further 

 task of doing justice to other Elizabethan dramatists. Several 

 editions of Beaumont and Fletcher were published during the 

 century, but scholardom had no time left for examining the works 

 of these authors. 



