Secondly, having freed themselves from this hypnotic state, men will understand that the trivial and immoral works of Shakespeare and his imitators, aiming merely at the recreation and amusement of the spectators, can not possibly represent the teaching of life, and that, while there is no true religious drama, the teaching of life should be sought for in other sources. FOOTNOTES: [1] This essay owes its origin to Leo Tolstoy's desire to contribute a preface to the article he here mentions by Ernest Crosby, which latter follows in this volume.--(_Trans._) [2] "Shakespeare and His Writings," by George Brandes. [3] A Russian poet, remarkable for the delicacy of his works. PART II APPENDIX APPENDIX CONTENTS I. SHAKESPEARE'S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE WORKING CLASSES, BY ERNEST CROSBY, 127 II. LETTER FROM MR. G. BERNARD SHAW, 166 SHAKESPEARE'S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE WORKING CLASSES BY ERNEST CROSBY "Shakespeare was of us," cries Browning, in his "Lost Leader," while lamenting the defection of Wordsworth from the ranks of progress and liberalism--"Milton was for us, Burns, Shelley were with us--they watch from their graves!" There can, indeed, be no question of the fidelity to democracy of Milton, the republican pamphleteer, nor of Burns, the proud plowman, who proclaimed the fact that "a man's a man for a' that," nor of Shelley, the awakened aristocrat, who sang to such as Burns "Men of England, wherefore plow For the lords who lay ye low?" But Shakespeare?--Shakespeare?--where is there a line in Shakespeare to entitle him to a place in this brotherhood? Is there anything in his plays that is in the least inconsistent with all that is reactionary?