critics of that day of sufficient taste and acumen to recognise, or
partly recognise, his excellence . . . " {30a} (Here I omit some
words, presently to be restored to the text.) From such critics the
poet received such applause as has reached us. We also know that the
plays were popular; but the audiences have not rushed to pen and ink
to record their satisfaction. With them, as with all audiences, the
actors and the SPECTACLE, much more than the "cackle," were the
attractions. When Dr. Ingleby says that "the bard of our admiration
was unknown to the men of that age," he uses hyperbole, and means, I
presume, that he was unknown, as all authors are, to the great
majority; and that those who knew him in part made no modern fuss
about him. {31a}

The second puzzle is,--Why did Shakespeare, conscious of his great
powers, never secure for his collected plays the permanence of print
and publication? We cannot be sure that he and his company, in fact,
did not provide publishers with the copy for the better Quartos or
pamphlets of separate plays, as Mr. Pollard argues on good grounds
that they sometimes did. {31b} For the rest, no dramatic author
edited a complete edition of his works before Ben Jonson, a scholarly
man, set the example in the year of Shakespeare's, and of Beaumont's
death (1616). Neither Beaumont nor Fletcher collected and published
their works for the Stage. The idea was unheard of before Jonson set
the example, and much of his work lay unprinted till years after his
death. We must remember the conditions of play-writing in
Shakespeare's time.

There were then many poets of no mean merit, all capable of admirable
verse on occasion; and in various degrees possessed of the lofty,
vigorous, and vivid style of that great age. The theatre, and