From The Library of Literary Criticism of English and American Authors, ed. Charles Wells Moulton, 8 vols. (London: Moulton Publishing, 1901), 1: 461.
[This section was prepared and proofread by Deborah Hill.]
THE PHOENIX AND THE TURTLE
1601
To unassisted readers, it would appear to be a lament on the death of a poet, and of his poetic mistress. But the poem is so quaint, and charming in diction, tone, and allusions, and in its perfect metre and harmony, that I would gladly have the fullest illustration yet attainable. I consider this piece a good example of the rule, that there is a poetry for bards proper, as well as a poetry for the world of readers. This poem, if published for the first time, and without a known author's name, would find no general reception. Only the poets would save it. -- EMERSON, RALPH WALDO, 1875, Parnassus, Preface, p. vi.
Priceless and unique. -- GROSART, ALEXANDER B., 1878, ed. Chester's Loves Martyr, Introduction.
The contribution of.the great dramatist is a remarkable poem in which he makes a notice of the obsequies of the phoenix and turtle-dove subservient to the delineation of spiritual union. It is generally thought that, in his own work, Chester meditated a personal allegory, but, if that be the case, there is nothing to indicate that Shakespeare participated in the design, nor even that he had endured the punishment of reading "Love's Martyr." -- HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS, J. O., 1881-86 Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, vol. I, p. 173.
For ourself we agree with Malone, Emerson, Halliwell-Phillipps, and others, that the poem is clearly Shakespeare's. Aside from the internal evidence, the circumstances of its publication seem to us enough to settle the question. . . . The other poems he prints are all, we believe, acknowledged to be from the authors to whom he ascribes them. Why should we hesitate to accept "The Phoenix and the Turtle" as Shakespeare's, when Chester marks it as his, and when it is in no respect unworthy of him? -- WOLFE WILLIAM J., 1883, Shakespeariana, Literary World, vol. 14, p. 96.
The genuineness of the contribution with Shakespeare's name subscribed is now generally admitted, though no successful attempt has yet been made to explain the allegory, nor is any light thrown upon it by the other poems in the collection; among the contributors, in addition to Shakespeare, were Jonson, Chapman, and Marston. In all probability the occasion and subject of the whole collection, which has so long baffled patient research will some day be discovered, and Shakespeare's meaning will be clear. It would seem from the title-page that the private family history of Sir John Salisbury ought to yield the necessary clue to the events. -- GOLLANCZ, ISRAEL, 1896, ed. Temple Shakespeare, Preface to Lucrece, p. viii.
Links to other sites on the Web
Get your own Free Home Page