The criticism of Shakespeare’s plays on the modern stage is practised from so many (and sometimes quite conflicting) angles and is so often overloaded by descriptive detail that, to begin with, it may seem worth while to ask some more general questions of method. During the last four decades literary criticism has so strenuously pleaded for standards of evaluation that the discussion of criteria by which to judge past plays on the contemporary stage may seem a trifle anachronistic. Theatre criticism, however, is not normally burdened by considerations of value or method; it is written so spontaneously, or with a view to reporting information, that it may appear almost ungrateful to look for more than a fair record of spontaneous impressions received on the evening of the performance. But if the performed play is by Shakespeare (or Racine, or Calderoón) this, perhaps, is not enough. Of course it is difficult to generalize about the criticism of Shakespeare productions, since the professional theatre critic’s approach is sometimes quite different from that of the Shakespearian scholar. The former, for instance, is perhaps more apt to be impressed by the originality or the unique style of a production. In things theatrical there is plenty of room for tempeérament, but the originality of either director or critic can be an unreliable basis on which to assess his performance. It is true, no one wants to see the mediocre reproduction of once-famous formulas, and theatre (or criticism) without discovery is unthinkable. The nature and the object of such discovery are, however, a legitimate and, it may be claimed, urgent matter of debate.