1815, speaks with indignation of the current English misunderstanding of
Shakspere. "That foreigners, and Frenchmen in particular, who frequently
speak in the strangest language about antiquity and the Middle Age, as if
cannibalism had been first put an end in Europe by Louis XIV., should
entertain this opinion of Shakspere might be pardonable. But that
Englishmen should adopt such a calumniation . . . is to me
incomprehensible."[17]

The beginnings of the romantic movement in England were uncertain. There
was a vague dissent from current literary estimates, a vague discontent
with reigning literary modes, especially with the merely intellectual
poetry then in vogue, which did not feed the soul. But there was, at
first, no conscious, concerted effort toward something of creative
activity. The new group of poets, partly contemporaries of Pope, partly
successors to him--Thomson, Shenstone, Dyer, Akenside, Gray, Collins, and
the Warton brothers--found their point of departure in the loving study
and revival of old authors. From what has been said of the survival of
Shakspere's influence it might be expected that his would have been the
name paramount among the pioneers of English romanticism. There are
several reasons why this was not the case.

In the first place, the genius of the new poets was lyrical or
descriptive, rather than dramatic. The divorce between literature and
the stage had not yet, indeed, become total; and, in obedience to the
expectation that every man of letters should try his hand at
play-writing, Thomson, at least, as well as his friend and disciple
Mallet, composed a number of dramas. But these were little better than
failures even at the time; and while "The Seasons" has outlived all
changes of taste, and "The Castle of Indolence" has never wanted
admirers, tragedies like "Agamemnon" and "Sophonisba" have been long