And while you're at it, you Allemani folk, why did Wittgenstein think Shakespeare second rate?
Probably because he wasn't Tolstoy. He talks about this in the stuff collected as Culture and Value. Here are some snips from the web:
If Shakespeare is great, his greatness is displayed only in the whole *corpus* of his plays, which create their *own* language and world.
(_Culture and Value_, p. 83e).
I am *deeply* suspicious of most of Shakespeare's admirers. The misfortune is, I believe, that he stands by himself, at least in the culture of the west, so that one can only place him by placing him wrongly. (p. 84e)
[Shakespeare's] pieces give me the impression of enormous *sketches* rather than paintings; as thouh they had been *dashed off* by someone who can permit himself *anything*, so to speak. And I can understand how someone can admire that and call it *supreme* art, but I don't like it.-So if anyone stands in fromt of these pieces speechless, I can understand him; but anyone who admires them as one admires, say, Beethoven, seems to me to misunderstand Shakespeare. (p. 86e) ----------- Robert Paul Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html