cited; two pages ARE cited; and "similarities, however striking they
may be in metaphorical expression," cannot safely be used; several
pages of them follow.

Finally, Mr. Collins chooses a single play, the Aias of Sophocles,
and tests Shakespeare by that, unluckily in part from Titus
Andronicus, which Mr. Greenwood regards (usually) as non-
Shakespearean, or not by his unknown great author. Troilus and
Cressida, whatever part Shakespeare may have had in it, does suggest
to me that the author or authors knew of Homer no more than the few
books of the Iliad, first translated by Chapman and published in
1598. But he or they did know the Aias of Sophocles, according to
Mr. Collins: so did the author of Romeo and Juliet.

Now all these sorts of parallels between Shakespeare and the Greeks
are, Mr. Collins tells us, not to count as proofs that Shakespeare
knew the Greek tragedians. "We have obviously to be on our guard"
{77a} against three kinds of such parallels, which "may be mere
coincidences," {77b} fortuitous coincidences. But these coincidences
against which "we must be on our guard" fill sixteen pages (pp. 46-
63). These pages must necessarily produce a considerable effect in
the way of persuading the reader that Shakespeare knew the Greek
tragedians as intimately as Mr. Collins did. Mr. Greenwood is
obliged to leave these parallels to readers of Mr. Collins's essay.
Indeed, what more can we do? Who would read through a criticism of
each instance? Two or three may be given. The Queen in Hamlet
reminds that prince, grieving for his father's death, that "all that
live must die":