studied him as such, worshipped him for his incomparable skill in
doing what he tried, all his life and all the time, to do. In these
days much merit must be allowed to a Shakespearian critic who takes
his author steadily as a dramatist and not as a philosopher, or a
propagandist, or a lawyer's clerk, or a disappointed lover, or for
his acquaintance with botany, politics, cyphers, Christian Science,
any of the thousand and one things that with their rival degrees of
intrinsic importance agree in being, for Shakespeare, nihil ad rem.

(2) Secondly, Hazlitt always treats Shakespeare as, in my opinion,
he deserves to be treated; that is, absolutely and as 'patrone and
not compare' among the Elizabethans. I harbour an ungracious doubt
that he may have done so in 1816-17 for the simple and sufficient
reason that he had less than a bowing acquaintance with the other
Elizabethan dramatists. But he made their acquaintance in due
course, and discussed them, yet never (so far as I recall) committed
the error of ranking them alongside Shakespeare. With all love for
the memory of Lamb, and with all respect for the memory of
Swinburne, I hold that these two in their generations, both soaked
in enjoyment of the Elizabethan style--an enjoyment derivative from
Shakespeare--did some disservice to criticism by classing them with
him in the light they borrow; whenas truly he differs from them in
kind and beyond any reach of degrees. One can no more estimate
Shakespeare's genius in comparison with this, that, or the other
man's of the sixteenth century, than Milton's in comparison with any
one's of the seventeenth. Some few men are absolute and can only be
judged absolutely.

(3) For the third merit--if the Characters be considered
historically--what seems flimsy in them is often a promise of what