as "an obscure piece, recommended to his notice by a friend." Thereupon he discovered it to be "a heap of jewels unstrung and unpolished, yet so dazzling in their disorder that he soon perceived he had seized a treasure; " promptly he resolved, "out of zeal for all that remains of Shakespeare," to remodel the story. In like manner Ravenscroft, who, in 1672, had produced an adaptation of "Titus Andronicus," made it a subject of boasting that "none in all the author's works ever received greater alterations or additions, the language not only refined, but many scenes entirely new, besides most of the principal characters heightened and the plot much increased." In a new prologue, written expressly for the occasion, the adapter protested that he had "but winnowed Shakespeare's corn," declaring, indeed,

So far he was from robbing him of his treasure,
That he did add his own to make full measure.

The true adapter's tone is also preserved by Benjamin Victor, who, so late as 1762, produced a version of the "Two Gentlemen of Verona." "It is the general opinion," he writes, "that this comedy abounds with weeds. . . . . The rankest of those weeds I have endeavoured to remove," &c., &c. Further, it may be noted that Lord Shaftesbury, famous for his "Characteristics," 1711, complained of Shakespeare's rude, unpolished style, and his antiquated phrase and wit."

66

Steevens, in support of his allegation that Shakespeare was very little read at one time, pointed out that "the author of the 'Tatler,' having occasion to quote a few lines out of Macbeth, was content to receive them from Davenant's alteration of that celebrated drama, in which almost every original beauty is either awkwardly disguised or arbitrarily omitted." Steevens is clearly alluding to Steele, the founder and editor of the 'Tatler,' who in No. 167 of that publication attributes these lines to "Macbeth"-they proceed, of course, from Davenant's version of the tragedy:

To-morrow, to-morrow, and to-morrow
Creeps in a stealing pace from day to day,
To the last moment of recorded time!

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

To their eternal night! Out, out, short candle, &c.

But De Quincey supposes that Addison is referred to, and is at pains to explain that Addison had never read Shakespeare; that the author of "Lear" was manifestly unknown to the author of "Cato," and totally beyond the reach of his sympathies. De Quincey, indeed, professed "by express examination" to have ascertained "the curious fact that Ad

dison has never in one instance quoted or made any reference to Shakespeare." Such an assertion could not be maintained, as De Quincey himself, at a later date, was brought to admit. Almost the only objection to Tate's maltreatment of Shakespeare was indeed raised by Addison. In No. 40 of the "Spectator" he wrote: ""King Lear' is an admirable tragedy as Shakespeare wrote it, but, as it is reformed according to the chimerical notion of poetical justice, in my humble opinion it has lost half its beauty." But, if Addison's ignorance of Shakespeare had been as complete as De Quincey pronounced it, would not general ignorance of Shakespeare have been thereby implied? Is it probable that the public addressed by the "Spectator" and the "Tatler" were more enlightened on such a subject than were Addison and Steele? A writer in the "Tatler," No. 8-probably Steele himself-is even found exhorting "people of condition" to encourage the representation of the noble characters of Shakespeare, by way of amending the "low gratifications" of the stage of that time. Were dramas of a high class, he argues, more acceptable to the taste of the town, men who have genius would bend their studies to excel in them." There was at this period no enthusiasm on behalf of Shakespeare; but Addison and Steele certainly presented themselves as, in a placid way, the admirers and advocates of the poet-placing him on a par, say, with Lee, Rowe, or Southern.

The printing-press, as a means of testing popularity, cannot be safely depended upon in relation to early books. The collected plays of Shakespeare formed an expensive work, and the book-buying public of the seventeenth century must certainly have been limited. The first folio edition of the plays was published in 1623, the second in 1632, the third in 1664, the fourth in 1685. It is, of course, impossible to state the number of copies comprised in these editions. The expense of publication in folio probably interfered with the diffusion of the book, while the years of civil war no doubt weighed heavily upon the publishing trade as upon literature in general. But can it be said that these four editions in sixty years demonstrate the popularity of Shakespeare? Within a similar period there seem to have been as many editions issued of the works alike of Jonson and of Beaumont and Fletcher, quite as costly to print as were Shakespeare's; while it may be noted that of Sidney's "Arcadia " there were twelve editions published between 1590 and 1674. It was not until nearly a century after Shakespeare's death that there appeared an octavo edition of his works. This was edited by Rowe, and was followed by Pope's quarto edition in 1725; by Theobald's edition of 1733; Hanmer's of 1744; Warburton's of 1745; Blair's of 1753; Johnson's of 1765; Capell's of

1767--the list need hardly be continued. There has since been no lack of appreciation of Shakespeare, so far as publication and commen taries are concerned; edition after edition has appeared, and the poet has undergone the most searching analysis and criticism. But have Shakespeare's earlier editors-such as Pope and Johnson, for instance→→ really enhanced his fame? According to Schlegel, it has been due to the labours of the commentators that foreign opinion so long depreciated Shakespeare's plays as "monstrous productions which could only have been given to the world by a disordered imagination in a barbarous age." Even among Germans, "Lessing was the first to speak of Shakespeare in a becoming tone." David Hume's description of the poet and his period-" Born in a rude age, and educated in the lowest manner, without any instruction either from the world or from books" -had been generally adopted on the Continent: Hume's History being "the English work with which foreigners of every country are best acquainted."

But there came at last a remarkable change in the point of view and in the tone of the critics and the commentators. They now spoke of the poet with "bated breath and whispering humbleness;" they judged him-so far as it can be said that they judged him at all-no longer looking down upon him as from a superior position, but looking up at him most reverently the while they humbled themselves and crouched at his feet. Hallam ascribes "the apotheosis of Shakespeare," as he calls it, to "what has been styled a frigid and tasteless generation, the age of George II.," and asserts that "the idolatry of Shakespeare has been carried so far of late years that Drake, and perhaps greater authorities, have been unwilling to acknowledge any faults in his plays an extravagance rather derogatory to the critic than honourable to the poet." No doubt the arrival of Garrick upon the scene restored certain of Shakespeare's works to the list of acting dramas. But the enthusiasm stirred by the actor must not be mistaken for admiration of the poet. Theatres are crowded rather because of the players than because of the plays. As Hazlitt writes: "It would be ridiculous to suppose that any one ever went to see Hamlet or Othello represented by Kean or Kemble; we go to see Kean or Kemble in Hamlet or Othello." And Lamb, contrasting the impressions obtained at a theatre with those derived from reading, observes: "We are apt not only to sink the playwriter in the consideration which we pay to the actor, but even to identify in our minds, in a perverse manner, the actor with the character which he represents. It is difficult for a frequent playgoer to disembarrass the idea of Hamlet from the voice and person of Mr. K. We speak of Lady Macbeth

while we are in reality thinking of Mrs. Siddons." Lamb notes, too, a certain levelling quality as in the nature of histrionic exhibitions. They, as it were, handicap the great poet and the mere playwright. "Who does not speak indifferently of the Gamester and of Macbeth as fine stage performances, and praise the Mrs. Beverley in the same way as the Lady Macbeth of Mrs. S. ? Belvidera and Calista, and Isabella and Euphrasia, are they less liked than Imogen, or than Juliet, or than Desdemona ? are they not spoken of and remembered in the same way? Is not the female performer as great (as they call it) in one as in the other? Did not Garrick shine, and was he not ambitious of shining, in every drawling tragedy that his wretched day produced, the productions of the Hills, and the Murphys, and the Browns? and shall he have that honour to dwell in our minds for ever as an inseparable concomitant with Shakespeare?" Lamb is moreover disposed to deny to Garrick the merit of being even an admirer of Shakespeare. "A true lover of his excellencies he certainly was not; for would any true lover of them have admitted into his matchless scenes such ribald trash as Tate, and Cibber, and the rest of them, that' with their darkness durst affront his light,' have foisted into the acting plays of Shakespeare? . . . . Yet I doubt not he delivered this vulgar stuff with as much anxiety of emphasis as any of the genuine parts, and, for acting, it is as well calculated as any."

Lamb and Hazlitt may certainly be credited with that "idolatry of Shakespeare" of which Hallam has made mention, that complete recognition of his supremacy, that unhesitating preference of him to all the world, which has become the faith of these later times, but which scarcely existed throughout the seventeenth and great part of the eighteenth centuries, and of which Addison and his contemporaries assuredly knew but little. Lamb held that Shakespeare's plays were incompatible with stage representation-were less calculated for performance than the productions of almost any other dramatist whatever; "their distinguishing excellence is a reason that they should be so." Hazlitt asserted that poetry and the stage do not agree together. "The attempt to reconcile them fails not only of effect but of decorum." He was further of opinion that the representation of Shakespeare upon the stage, even by the best actor, was an abuse of the genius of the poet." He concludes: "The reader of the plays of Shakespeare is almost always disappointed in seeing them acted; and, for our own parts, we should never go to see them acted if we could help it."

While, therefore, apathy or imperception in regard to the merits of Shakespeare has led to the ruthless mangling of his plays, under the

pretext of suiting them to later tastes and requirements, enthusiasm on his behalf would thus deprive him of stage representation altogether. The poet has been held to be at once too good and too bad for performance. The attitude of the general public meantime has been one of acquiescence in both opinions-the result perhaps of indifference. The playgoers have not resented the tamperings or tinkerings of the adapters, have been no sticklers for the original text, and have indeed occasionally evinced a decided preference for the stage or acting editions of the poet. In regard to certain of the plays, it has only been in quite recent times that there has been rejection of the changes and interpolations of the adapters. Mr. Macready and Mr. Phelps have shown more respect for the integrity of the poet than any of their more illustrious predecessors. De Quincey has urged: "Even for the vilest alteration it ought in candour to be considered that possession is nine points of the law. He who would not have introduced was often obliged to retain." But the playerswho can only be held responsible, however, when they happened to be managers as well as players-were long willing enough both to retain and introduce. Garrick, adding a last dying speech of his own contriving, otherwise restored the text of "Macbeth," and suppressed Davenant's alterations, much to the amazement of Quin. "What does he mean?" cried the veteran tragedian, reading Garrick's announcement of the production of the play as originally written; "pray, don't I play Macbeth as written by Shakespeare?" But Garrick is chargeable with many sins against Shakespeare. He retained Cibber's "Richard "and Tate's "Lear." He mangled "Hamlet," in deference, presumably, to Voltaire's objections; he maltreated "Cymbeline," "Romeo and Juliet," and the "Winter's Tale." He turned the "Tempest" and the Midsummer Night's Dream" into operas, and reduced the "Taming of a Shrew" into a farce. John Kemble also, while professing extraordinary veneration for Shakespeare, garbled several of the plays, and acted in many very corrupt versions. He, too, retained Cibber's "Richard" and Tate's "Lear," with, in addition, the "Tempest" of Davenant and Dryden. The "Coriolanus" in which he appeared was a blending of Shakespeare and Thomson. "The name of Shakespeare," as Hallam writes, "is the greatest in our literature-is the greatest in all literature." The esteem in which the poet is held by his countrymen is, perhaps, best demonstrated by the multiplicity of editions of his works, by the endless processes of comment, elucidation, and laudation to which he is still subjected. The editions of course find purchasers and are read—by some, The students of Shakespeare, indeed, constitute a large class.