elaborate scenic presentation than was the
habit during the last of the nineteenth century. In one respect, at
least, the present offers a decided improvement on the past, for there
is now a strong sentiment in favor of as close an adherence as possible
to an authorized text of the plays.

[Page Heading: The Eighteenth Century]

Shakespeare has held his place on the stage in spite of many and great
changes in theatrical conditions and dramatic taste. He will probably
survive changes greater than those which separate the picture stage with
its electric lights from the projecting open-air platform of his own
day, or than those which separate the dramas of Ibsen, Shaw, and Barrie
from those of Marlowe and Fletcher, or the cinematograph and comic opera
from the bear-baiting and jugglery which rivaled the Globe. The visitor
who scans, in the Stratford Museum, the curious collection of portraits
of actors and actresses in Shakespearean parts may wonder what
peculiarities of costume, manner, and expression will be devised for the
admired interpretations of the centuries to come. But it hardly seems
possible that any actor of the future will influence as greatly the
appreciation of Shakespeare's characters and speeches as did Garrick and
Mrs. Siddons in England or Edwin Booth in America.

Shakespearean criticism in the eighteenth century was, as has been
noted, largely textual, but there was also a considerable discussion of
Shakespeare's learning, his art, and its violations of neo-classical
theory. John Dennis, in his _Letters_, 1711, proved a sturdy admirer,
and the consensus of opinion of following writers was that of Sedley's
couplet which described Shakespeare as

The pride of Nature, and the shame of Schools,
Born to Create, and not to Learn from Rules.

Voltaire's attacks brought rejoinders from Mrs. Elizabeth Montagu in
1769 and from Dr. Johnson in the preface to his edition, 1765. In fact,
admiration for Shakespeare was a powerful factor in forcing the
rejection of rules and standards of French criticism. Johnson's Preface
finds fault with Shakespeare's neglect of poetic justice and dwells at
length on the faults in plots and diction, but Johnson defends the
violation of the unities, and his praise is a discriminating summary of
the merits that the eighteenth century had found in Shakespeare. It is
praise that is likely to endure.

Within another generation, however, reverence for Shakespeare had
increa