The burden of Shakespeare criticism has become so grievous that no one today can undertake a general study of the dramatist in the confident belief that he has read, and remembered, everything of value that has already been written concerning his theme. He will be likely, therefore, to come to a point of disregard, trying to see the works by his own light, aided only by those writers who have exercised a special influence upon him. This might not be altogether a bad thing if there were not also in our time a strong desire to systematize a writer’s outlook, to find in him a code or firmly held attitude that we can take for our own. Thus in general studies there is a powerful urge to devise a pattern agreeable to the critic and, with some neglect of other current views, to assert its dominance in Shakespeare. The danger is less great in studies of individual plays: there it is possible, though not easy, to familiarize oneself with a large part of what has already been written, and this should discourage one from arriving too quickly at a conclusion that claims definitive rank. Moreover, the fact that the critic is restricting himself to a single play limits the extent of his claim. It is modester and safer to interpret a play than to present ‘Shakespeare’ in a nutshell.