2 L. A. Sherman 



assume that every successful novelist, as well as playwright, 

 might supply at least some ray towards illuminating the supreme 

 mystery of literature. As a study in interpretation, on the other 

 hand, the book surpasses expectation. Its criticisms are almost 

 everywhere constructive. One finds throughout the several 

 chapters, keen discrimination, fresh common-sense judgments, 

 along with flashes of insight, and more than occasional intima- 

 tions of this writer's creative powers. And the whole is langu- 

 aged in an easy and suggestive rather than a literary or dis- 

 tinguished vein. 



The work consists of lectures, slightly altered, which were 

 originally " spoken before an audience in the University of Cam- 

 bridge." They evince the informal and catchy character incident 

 to such a purpose, and are as slightly academic as could be looked 

 for from a novelist, who is also a professor of English literature 

 and fellow of a college. Quite evidently this author is no spe- 

 cialist in the lore of Shakespeare. Many of his observations 

 would have been impossible to an inquirer working with a shorter 

 focus. On the other hand, some of his conclusions, as will prob- 

 ably appear, could hardly have been reached by one with less ex 

 itinere motivation and approach. 



Without better justification than might be claimed from neces- 

 sitated and prolonged ponderings on vexed matters of Shake- 

 speare exegesis, the writer of this appreciation proposes to 

 examine some of the notions propounded in the pages here. He 

 has nothing to match against the author's prestige and brilliancy 

 except repudiations and revisions of many favorite ideas. For- 

 tunately, Quiller-Couch's work is largely selective, and nowhere 

 attempts the systematic or complete analysis of any single play. 

 His plan has been mainly to consider such isolated examples of 

 Shakespeare's art as appeal to the intviitive rather than the 

 reflective powers of the mind. 



The author bases his studies, as might have been expected, upon 

 the workmanship of Macbeth. Shakespeare's dramatic instincts 

 work nowhere else so openly. Very agreeably Quiller-Couch 

 explains why he is thus drawn aside from the purposes usually 

 pursued by critics : 



104 



