Tucker Brooke

Summary

Tucker Brooke Shakespeare of Stratford (1926)

From Biron in Love’s Labour’s Lost to Prospero in The Tempest, Shakespeare elaborates the principle that thought is the very core of life and feeling but its outer husk. ‘There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.’ [24] His two greatest figures, the two who are most truly representative of him, Hamlet and Falstaff, are men of thought, not men of feeling, and not men of action. So in their different ways are Ulysses and Brutus, Henry the Fifth and Iago. In Cleopatra he paints not the witchery that inflames the passions, but that which unhinges the intellect.
Source: Wikisource

Tucker Brooke Shakespeare of Stratford (1926)

Had Shakespeare been the sort of man that he is thought to have been by those who identify him with Francis or with Anthony Bacon, or with Ralegh, or with Marlowe, or with Rutland or Southampton, or with Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, or with William Stanley, Earl of Derby—that is, had he been well-bred and college-trained, all this, we may feel sure, would have been different. He would have been more precocious and more clever. In all human probability he would have been much less wise.
Source: Wikisource

Tucker Brooke Shakespeare of Stratford (1926)

For Spenser and Marlowe, Sidney and Ralegh, it is not so hard to find expressive and satisfying characterizations: the critic of Shakespeare is thrown back upon paradox. The greatest English writer is in many ways one of the least literary; the most brilliant constructor of plot one of the least inventive; the most successful searcher of the human heart one of the least obviously subtle. Shakespeare was neither an artist in the sense in which Spenser was, nor a romanticist as Ralegh was, nor an intellectualist as Marlowe was.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature