r?le of the "poor ghost" in the first production of his play of Hamlet in 1602. There is no doubt at all that Shakespeare con

ime-"These plays have had their trial already, and stood out all appeals." Matthew Arnold, apparently quite unconsciously,

our judgment,

ary hierarchy by the professional critic, nearly two and a half centuries after the dramatist's death. There

of th

elight, and won

n playgoers. It was acted within its first year of production repeatedly ("divers times"), not merely in London "and elsewhere," but

ce that throughout his lifetime and for a generation afterwards his plays drew crowds to pit, boxes, and gallery alike. It is true that he was one of a number of popular dramatists, many of whom had rare gifts, and all of whom glowed with a spark of the genuine literary fire. But Shakespeare was the sun in the firmament: when his light shone, the fires of all contemporaries paled in the contemporary playgoer's eye. There is forcible and humorous portrayal of human frailty and eccentricity in plays of Shakespeare's contemporary, Ben Jons

n when C?sar

ge at half-swo

ssius-oh! how

ith what wonder

ay they would n

ough well-lab

e is also a hero with the cultivated few. But Shakespeare's universality of appeal was such as to