-
Articles/Ads
Article WILLIAM SHAKSPERE. ← Page 12 of 17 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
William Shakspere.
Yet this criticism is founded upon a misconception , as the invocation is uttered by Lady Macbeth , and not , as Johnson supposes , by her husband . * Dr . Johnson had neither any very accurate knowledge of Shakspere's Avorks , nor keen insight into his marvellous rjo \ vers . In his preface he jumbles praise and censure together in a most inconceivable manner ; and
although he has taken great pains in pointing out defects in each particular drama , passes this high encomium upon their author , Avhich , vieAved Avith the context and his other criticisms , really means nothing : — " The sand heaped by one flood is scattered by another , but the rock always continues in its place . The stream of timewhich is continuall
, y washing the dissoluble fabrics of other poets , passes without injury by the adamant of Shakspeare . " Such verbiage forcibly reminds us of W . S . Landor's description of modern critics : — -
" Our critics are onion-eaters hy the Pyramids of Poetry . They sprawl along the sands , without an idea how high and wonderful are the edifices above , whose base is solid as the earth itself , and whose summits are visible over a hundred ages . " f Coleridge , at the commencement of the century , raised a higher standard , and laid down the proper canons for the criticism of Shakspere . To himin a great measureis clue that
, , extraordinary change that has ensued , and the deep love and veneration for our great dramatic author that is UOAV general amongst all classes . All honour to the man who , at that cold and gloomy period of poetical criticism , boldly declared : — " Assuredly that criticism of Shakspeare will alone be genial which is reverential . An Englishmanwho without reverence—a proud and
affec-, tionate reverence—can utter the name of William S hakspeare , stands disqualified for the office of critic . He wants one , at least , ofthe very senses , the language of which he is to employ , and will discourse at best , but as a blind man , while the whole harmonious creation of light and shade , with all its subtle interchange of deepening and dissolving colours , rises in silence to the silent fiat of the uprising Apollo . " J
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
William Shakspere.
Yet this criticism is founded upon a misconception , as the invocation is uttered by Lady Macbeth , and not , as Johnson supposes , by her husband . * Dr . Johnson had neither any very accurate knowledge of Shakspere's Avorks , nor keen insight into his marvellous rjo \ vers . In his preface he jumbles praise and censure together in a most inconceivable manner ; and
although he has taken great pains in pointing out defects in each particular drama , passes this high encomium upon their author , Avhich , vieAved Avith the context and his other criticisms , really means nothing : — " The sand heaped by one flood is scattered by another , but the rock always continues in its place . The stream of timewhich is continuall
, y washing the dissoluble fabrics of other poets , passes without injury by the adamant of Shakspeare . " Such verbiage forcibly reminds us of W . S . Landor's description of modern critics : — -
" Our critics are onion-eaters hy the Pyramids of Poetry . They sprawl along the sands , without an idea how high and wonderful are the edifices above , whose base is solid as the earth itself , and whose summits are visible over a hundred ages . " f Coleridge , at the commencement of the century , raised a higher standard , and laid down the proper canons for the criticism of Shakspere . To himin a great measureis clue that
, , extraordinary change that has ensued , and the deep love and veneration for our great dramatic author that is UOAV general amongst all classes . All honour to the man who , at that cold and gloomy period of poetical criticism , boldly declared : — " Assuredly that criticism of Shakspeare will alone be genial which is reverential . An Englishmanwho without reverence—a proud and
affec-, tionate reverence—can utter the name of William S hakspeare , stands disqualified for the office of critic . He wants one , at least , ofthe very senses , the language of which he is to employ , and will discourse at best , but as a blind man , while the whole harmonious creation of light and shade , with all its subtle interchange of deepening and dissolving colours , rises in silence to the silent fiat of the uprising Apollo . " J