ABSTRACT
Let us now praise famous men, and others not so famous, whose labours have made the study of Shakespeare's sources possible and fruitful. Many early critics and editors from Langbaine and Dennis onwards pointed out particular points of his indebtedness to classical and Renaissance authors. Mrs Charlotte Lennox thought that Shakespeare spoiled much that he borrowed, and Richard Farmer in his celebrated Essay (1767) put an end to the long controversy about Shakespeare's learning, though not, as he hoped, to the 'rage for parallelisms', and he was the first to insist on the importance of minor Tudor writers for the elucidation of the text.1 Charles Knight summed up the major developments in source-study until the Victorian period as follows:2
Rowe, Pope, Theobald, Hanmer, Johnson, belong to the school which did not seek any very exact acquaintance with our early literature . . . A new school arose, whose acquaintance with what has been called 'black letter literature' was extensive enough to produce a decided revolution in Shakespearean commentary. Capell, Steevens, Malone, Reed, Douce, are the representatives of the later school. The first school contained the most brilliant men; the second, the most painstaking commentators.
