his
Stratford home?

Mr. White's history of the Drama, though far from copious, supplies
enough, perhaps, to put the reader right as regards Shakespeare's
historical relations to that great branch of English literature. From
what is there given, any one can, with reasonable attention, learn that
the English drama, as we have it in Shakespeare, was the well-ripened
fruit of centuries of preparation: the form, structure, and order of the
thing being settled long before his time. The attentive reader will also
see, though this point is not emphasized so much as it might be, that
the national mind and taste were ready and eager to welcome the right
man as soon as the right man came; so that, in catering wisely for the
public taste, the poet could hardly fail of the supremacy due to his
transcendent genius; which infers, of course, that the public taste had
nearly as much to do in forming him as he had in forming it. On one or
two points, as, for instance, in the matter of Shakespeare's senior
contemporaries, we should have preferred a somewhat larger outlay of the
author's learned and well-practised strength; while, again, in reference
to the old plays of "Jeronimo" and "The Spanish Tragedy," he might well
have used more economy of strength, as the matter is neither interesting
in itself nor helpful to his purpose. Here is a specimen of his
felicity, referring to the plays of old John Lily, the euphuist.

"They are in all respects opposed to the genius of the English drama.
They do not even pretend to be representations of human life and human
character, but are pure fantasy pieces, in which the personages are a
heterogeneous medley of Grecian gods and goddesses, and impassible,
colorless creatures, with sublunary names, all thinking with one brain,
and speaking with one tongue,--the conceitful, crotchety brain, and the
dainty, well-trained tongue of clever, witty John Lily."

This is, indeed, the exact truth of the matter, and it could hardly be
better said. On divers points, however, the little that he gives us just
sets the reader on fire for more: that is, he does not satisfy the
desire quite enough in proportion as he stimulates it. But he probably
goes on the safe principle, that in such cases an intelligent reader is
apt to crave more than he will justify a writer in giving; or, in other
words, that he does not seem to have enough, until he has too much.

But the "Essay" is most decidedly the jewel of the volume: