TRANS A CTIONS . 



SHAKESPEARIAN CRITICISM. 

 By Irvikg Browne. 



[Read before the Albany Institute, Xov. 23, 1880.] 



I have not invited you hither this evening to listen to a learned 

 philological or critical discourse. I have no pretensions for such an 

 office. In asking your attention to the subject of Shakespearian criti- 

 cism, my purpose is rather to recreate and amuse you for a few mo 

 ments with some of the humors and absurdities of criticism oil 

 Shakespeare and his plays. While we owe much to judicious criti- 

 cism for the correction of misprints, the emendation .of obscure and 

 incorrect passages, and the unfolding of hidden beauties in these im- 

 mortal works, it must be confessed that the poet's critics have in many 

 instances done their best to make him and themselves ridiculous, and 

 not only have disguised his works but have striven to unseat the man 

 himself. In short, criticism on Shakespeare has run mad and beaten 

 its own brains out. From this sweeping assertion I must except the 

 celebrated English editor, Mr. Knight, and our own American 

 scholars. Messrs. Verplanck, White, Hudson and Funiess. The vari- 

 orum edition, which the latter is now publishing, illustrates both 

 sides of my subject, and should be at the hand of every man who 

 loves and would know Shakespeare. 



But let us first inquire whether there was any Shakespeare, because 



The most audacious of many modern attempts at historical icono- 

 clasm is that which seeks to prove that the plays attributed to Shakes- 

 peare were not written by him, but probably by Lord Bacon. This 

 conjecture would dash down from his throne the acknowledged eover- 



