Summary

Various,  Notes and Queries, Vol. III, Number 86…

“ Why should Shakspeare be constantly twitted with this "small Latin," as if the "school-like gloss" of a hundred Porsons could add one scintilla to the glory of his name? His was the universal language of nature; and well does MR. SINGER remark that "We all know, by intuition as it were, what Shakspeare meant." It is true that we discuss his mere words in the endeavour to school our understandings to HIS level; but he, hedged by the divinity of immeasurable genius, must, himself, be sacred;—to attempt to measure his attainments by our finite estimation, is indeed sacrilege! ”
Source: Gutenberg

Various,  Notes and Queries, Vol. III, Number 86…

“ It will not be difficult, I conceive, to find out what sense Shakspeare meant to convey by this word, and to show that what he meant he has expressed with sufficient accuracy, though his meaning was soon after misunderstood. Our language owes much of its wealth of words to the talent which our great poet possessed for coining them—a talent which he exercised with marvelous tact: and if now and then some of them failed for want of being properly printed, we may rather wonder that so many obtained currency, than that a few ceased to circulate soon after they were first introduced. ”
Source: Gutenberg

Various,  Notes and Queries, Vol. III, Number 86…

“ In retailing Ben Jonson's unluckily chosen expression, J.S.W. does not seem to be aware that it has been doubted, and ably doubted, by Mr. Knight, in his History of Opinion, that Jonson himself used it by any means in the pedagogue sense usually adopted. And it does seem scarcely credible that Jonson would give utterance to a puff so miserably threadbare, so absurd too on the very face of it; for in what possible way could an alleged deficiency of Greek and Latin in Shakspeare, affect a comparison, made by Jonson, between Shakspeare and the poets of Greece and Rome? ”
Source: Gutenberg

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature