turies, and if they have grown greatly in men's estimation,
this has not been without much variability of appreciation and
uncertainty as to their value. What, then, are the qualities of the
plays that raised them at once above the measure of contemporary
influence and rivalry? Are these the qualities that have continued to
win the most general appreciation? Despite all the stress we are to-day
taught to place on change, growth, evolution, are there qualities in
these plays which insure them a continued preeminence in literature?

[Page Heading: Qualities of the Plays]

Differences of opinion testify, indeed, to the comprehensive appeal of
the plays to different minds, nations, or epochs, but they have not
greatly affected the essential elements in men's admiration. If some
critic brings into new prominence a quality that has partly escaped
attention, his discovery is not likely to affect the more permanent
elements of their reputation. If for a time attention is turned to the
plays as plays rather than as poems and to the merits of Shakespeare as
a dramatist, this criticism does not lead to any lasting disregard of
their poetic quality or to the permanent acceptance of skill in dramatic
structure as a chief element in their literary preeminence. Nor is such
an element discoverable in their philosophical synthesis or their
incidental wisdom, although some of the most brilliant criticism has
exalted that wisdom or sought to formulate and expound their view of
life. Concerning the essential elements of their greatness no real
difference of opinion has arisen from the time they were written down to
the present day. They were lifted at once above the level of
contemporary endeavor, and they have continued to grow in reputation
chiefly because of their poetry and their characterization.

Concerning the nature and quality of these there is little difference of
opinion, though critics may vary in estimating their beauty or value.
One may prefer the verse of Homer or of Milton, but he will not deny the
traits that distinguish Shakespeare's. Another may prefer the
well-ordered study of human motives in Sophocles, or the realistic
analysis of a modern realist like Turgenieff, but he will recognize the
qualities in Shakespeare's characterization that are the basis of
general admiration. Still another may condemn that admiration, but he
will not differ from us as to the chief sources of its existence.

These two sources are hard