{"id":"01KG6S5HQZ1X5C24R81GK7QND2","cid":"bafkreiaixtx5r3oc5c6eeayhfnueklcao2kansjsgrtn3zln64u73xs24y","type":"section","properties":{"description":"# Early criticism.\n## Overview - What this is (type, form, dates, scope)\nThis is a section labeled \"Early criticism.\" extracted from a text file. It is part of the chapter [PERICLES](arke:01KG6S4D9MD59KJ70ZSS7J97J8) within the larger collection [PDF Workflow Main Test 2026-01-30T00:26:53](arke:01KG6NWQ2H2K4PGG7H4ZHYCZ3Y). The section discusses early critical responses to the play *Pericles*. The text was extracted on January 30, 2026, and spans lines 13863 to 13891 of the source file, `pdf-01KG6Q7Q25RHMFT3SJXPV18VFF.txt` ([pdf-01KG6Q7Q25RHMFT3SJXPV18VFF.txt](arke:01KG6S2X2EBB305ENM00G16GWA)).\n\n## Context - Background and provenance from related entities\nThis section is part of a chapter dedicated to *Pericles*, which is included in a collection of Shakespeare's works. The text was extracted from a larger file containing the play and related critical material. The section follows the section titled \"III\" ([III](arke:01KG6S5QAA9EM8VWKJVV5NYMZ5)) and precedes the section titled \"## IV\" ([## IV](arke:01KG6S5HR1ZH6X0PS98RYYQA93)). The text was extracted by the \"structure-extraction-lambda\" process.\n\n## Contents - What it contains, key subjects and details\nThe section begins by noting the early division among critics regarding the merits of *Pericles*. It references Samuel Sheppard's positive comparison of the play to Shakespeare's other works, and Owen Feltham's more critical view. It also quotes John Tatham's contemporary censure of *Pericles* as a failure. The section then discusses Dryden's negative assessment, and the later adaptation of the play by George Lillo in 1738. The section concludes by mentioning Dr. Farmer's acceptance of Lillo's suggestion regarding Shakespeare's authorship.\n","description_generated_at":"2026-01-30T06:26:31.725Z","description_model":"gemini-2.5-flash-lite","description_title":"Early criticism.","end_line":13891,"extracted_at":"2026-01-30T06:24:08.808Z","extracted_by":"structure-extraction-lambda","label":"Early criticism.","source_file":"01KG6S2X2EBB305ENM00G16GWA","start_line":13863,"text":"From an early date critics were divided as to its merits. Early criticism. An admirer, Samuel Sheppard, in 1646, in *The Times Displayed* blindly instanced the piece as that work of ‘great Shakespeare’ wherein he outran the powers of Aristophanes. Owen Feltham, in 1630, wrote more intelligibly of ‘th’ unlikely plot of pieces that ‘do displease As deep as Pericles’. Another poet, John Tatham, who personally approved the play, quoted in 1652 some current censure which condemned Pericles as one of Shakespeare’s conspicuous failures:\n\nBut *Shakespeare*, the *Plebean Driller*¹, was Founder’d in’s *Pericles*, and must not pass.\n\nA greater critic, Dryden, took a low view of the piece, although he never doubted Shakespeare’s responsibility. He wrongly excused the incompetence that he detected in it on the ground that it was Shakespeare’s first experiment in drama (*Prologue to Charles Davenant’s Circe*, 1684):\n\n*Shakespear’s* own Muse her *Pericles* first bore, The Prince of Tyre was elder than the *Moore*.\n\nAlthough the exclusion of the piece from the Folios of 1623 and 1632 may have been due to suspicion of Shakespeare’s full responsibility, the belief that Shakespeare was author, not of the whole play, but only of those scenes which are dominated by Marina, was not expressly stated till 1738. On August 1 in that year the dramatist George Lillo produced at Covent Garden Theatre an adaptation of the later portions of the drama in a piece entitled *Marina; a play in three Acts*. In the prologue the author, although no professional critic,\n\n¹ Driller is probably a misprint for ‘droller’.\n\nC 2\n\n<!-- [Page 583](arke:01KG6QKD3PHKB4PV7BYQRYER04) -->\n20\n# PERICLES\n\ndisplayed a saner judgement regarding Shakespeare's part in the composition of Pericles than any previous writer:—\n\nWe dare not charge the whole unequal play\nOf Pericles on him; yet let us say,\nAs gold though mix'd with baser matter shines,\nSo do his bright inimitable lines\nThroughout those rude wild scenes distinguish'd stand,\nAnd shew he touch'd them with no sparing hand.\n\nDr. Farmer was the earliest professed critic to accept Lillo’s suggestion. In 1766 he pronounced Shakespeare’s hand to be visible in certain scenes and in those only. He as stoutly opposed the attribution of the whole to Shakespeare as the complete withdrawal of the piece from his record. No subsequent Shakespearean commentator of repute has questioned in substance the justice of Dr. Farmer’s verdict.\n","title":"Early criticism."},"relationships":[{"peer":"01KG6S4D9MD59KJ70ZSS7J97J8","peer_type":"chapter","predicate":"in"},{"peer":"01KG6S2X2EBB305ENM00G16GWA","peer_type":"file","predicate":"extractedFrom"},{"peer":"01KG6NWQ2H2K4PGG7H4ZHYCZ3Y","peer_type":"collection","predicate":"collection"},{"peer":"01KG6S5QAA9EM8VWKJVV5NYMZ5","peer_type":"section","predicate":"prev"},{"peer":"01KG6S5HR1ZH6X0PS98RYYQA93","peer_type":"section","predicate":"next"}],"ver":3,"created_at":"2026-01-30T06:24:08.959Z","ts":"2026-01-30T06:26:31.928Z","edited_by":{"method":"manual","user_id":"01KFF5C36SQEVDHC9CBNZZJH9K"}}