Shakespeare Ancient and Modern : the 1750s Reception. / Smith, J.A.

In: Review of English Studies, Vol. 68, No. 285, 06.2017, p. 566-582.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Shakespeare Ancient and Modern : the 1750s Reception. / Smith, J.A.

In: Review of English Studies, Vol. 68, No. 285, 06.2017, p. 566-582.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Smith, JA 2017, 'Shakespeare Ancient and Modern: the 1750s Reception', Review of English Studies, vol. 68, no. 285, pp. 566-582. https://doi.org/10.1093/res/hgw108

APA

Vancouver

Author

Smith, J.A. / Shakespeare Ancient and Modern : the 1750s Reception. In: Review of English Studies. 2017 ; Vol. 68, No. 285. pp. 566-582.

BibTeX

@article{a6293470b5bc4ba08ef46a80bcf96550,
title = "Shakespeare Ancient and Modern: the 1750s Reception",
abstract = "Eighteenth-century writers on Shakespeare were very attached to the view, originating among Shakespeare{\textquoteright}s own contemporaries, that his work had a kind of universality, communicating “for all time”. Yet they were also often preoccupied with how difficult many readers found it to even understand him. This essay examines statements of both kinds from the early and mid-century, to argue that in the 1750s, distinctively, commentators concluded both that Shakespeare was “modern” – in the sense that he wrote in an everyday idiom, unbound by classical conventions – and that he was “ancient”, in the sense that Elizabethan culture and its language itself had become historically alien and obscure. Comparing representations of Shakespeare by Samuel Richardson, Samuel Johnson, Edward Young, Charlotte Lennox, David Hume, and other writers of the 1750s, with their forebears in the earlier parts of the century, this essay makes the case for the originality of this position, and considers the implications of the paradoxical fact that Shakespeare seemed to become “ancient” and “modern” simultaneously at this time. ",
author = "J.A. Smith",
year = "2017",
month = jun,
doi = "10.1093/res/hgw108",
language = "English",
volume = "68",
pages = "566--582",
journal = "Review of English Studies",
issn = "0034-6551",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "285",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shakespeare Ancient and Modern

T2 - the 1750s Reception

AU - Smith, J.A.

PY - 2017/6

Y1 - 2017/6

N2 - Eighteenth-century writers on Shakespeare were very attached to the view, originating among Shakespeare’s own contemporaries, that his work had a kind of universality, communicating “for all time”. Yet they were also often preoccupied with how difficult many readers found it to even understand him. This essay examines statements of both kinds from the early and mid-century, to argue that in the 1750s, distinctively, commentators concluded both that Shakespeare was “modern” – in the sense that he wrote in an everyday idiom, unbound by classical conventions – and that he was “ancient”, in the sense that Elizabethan culture and its language itself had become historically alien and obscure. Comparing representations of Shakespeare by Samuel Richardson, Samuel Johnson, Edward Young, Charlotte Lennox, David Hume, and other writers of the 1750s, with their forebears in the earlier parts of the century, this essay makes the case for the originality of this position, and considers the implications of the paradoxical fact that Shakespeare seemed to become “ancient” and “modern” simultaneously at this time.

AB - Eighteenth-century writers on Shakespeare were very attached to the view, originating among Shakespeare’s own contemporaries, that his work had a kind of universality, communicating “for all time”. Yet they were also often preoccupied with how difficult many readers found it to even understand him. This essay examines statements of both kinds from the early and mid-century, to argue that in the 1750s, distinctively, commentators concluded both that Shakespeare was “modern” – in the sense that he wrote in an everyday idiom, unbound by classical conventions – and that he was “ancient”, in the sense that Elizabethan culture and its language itself had become historically alien and obscure. Comparing representations of Shakespeare by Samuel Richardson, Samuel Johnson, Edward Young, Charlotte Lennox, David Hume, and other writers of the 1750s, with their forebears in the earlier parts of the century, this essay makes the case for the originality of this position, and considers the implications of the paradoxical fact that Shakespeare seemed to become “ancient” and “modern” simultaneously at this time.

U2 - 10.1093/res/hgw108

DO - 10.1093/res/hgw108

M3 - Article

VL - 68

SP - 566

EP - 582

JO - Review of English Studies

JF - Review of English Studies

SN - 0034-6551

IS - 285

ER -