ace the whole series on a
level with contemporary knowledge and criticism.

Nor can anyone who knows how much the industry and enthusiasm of Dyce
did, in his day, for the study of Shakespeare, do more than urge that
while, viewed historically, Dyce's criticism is entirely respectable,
it happens to be a trifle belated in the year 1894. The points of
difference between him and Charles Lamb are perhaps too obvious to
need indication; but we may sum them up by saying that whereas Lamb,
being a genius, belongs to all time, Dyce, being but an industrious
person, belongs to a period. It was a period of rapid development, no
doubt--how rapid we may learn for ourselves by the easy process of
taking down Volume V. of Chalmers's "English Poets," and turning to
that immortal passage on Shakespeare's poems which Chalmers put forth
in the year 1810:--

"The peremptory decision of Mr. Steevens on the merits of these
poems must not be omitted. 'We have not reprinted the Sonnets,
etc., of Shakespeare, because the strongest Act of Parliament
that could be framed would fail to compel readers into their
service. Had Shakespeare produced no other works than these, his
name would have reached us with as little celebrity as time has
conferred upon that of Thomas Watson, an older and much more
elegant sonnetteer.' Severe as this may appear, it only amounts
to the general conclusion which modern critics have formed.
Still, it cannot be denied that there are many scattered beauties
among his Sonnets, and in the Rape of Lucrece; enough, it is
hoped, to justify their admission into the present collection,
especially as the Songs, etc., from his plays have been added,
and a few smaller pieces selected by Mr. Ellis...."

No comment can add to, or take from, the stupendousness of this. And
yet it was the criticism proper to its time. "I have only to hope,"
writes Chalmers in his preface, "that my criticisms will not be found
destitute of candour, or improperly interfering with the general and
acknowledged principles of taste." Indeed they are not. They were the
right opinions for Chalmers; as Dyce's were the right opinions for
Dyce: and if, as we hope, ours is a larger appreciation of
Shakespeare, we probably hold it by no merit of our own, but as the
common possession of our generation, derived through the chastening
experiences of our grandfathers. That, however, is no reason