Robertson opens his 1897 monograph by situating it within a lull in Shakespearean source criticism, recalling the battles between Furnivall, Spedding, and Halliwell-Phillipps over metrical tests and chronological psychology. He notes that the question of Montaigne's influence on Shakespeare has been neglected amid newer literary fashions, and proposes to examine it with a focus on psychological rather than merely verbal parallels. The excerpts show Robertson treating Shakespeare's development as a gradual deepening from the 'clear shallow flood' of Venus and Adonis to a more intensive, psychical mode, with Montaigne's skepticism as a possible catalyst.

The State of Shakespearean Source Study in 1897

Robertson's preface situates his work in the aftermath of the New Shakspere Society's heyday, when metrical tests and chronological disputes dominated. He references Fleay, Spedding, Furnivall, and Halliwell-Phillipps as recent combatants, and notes a subsequent period of quiet in Shakespeare studies. The author suggests that the Montaigne question has been overlooked partly because of this lull and partly because of competing interests in Browning, Meredith, Ibsen, and Tolstoi. He presents his inquiry as a 'peculiarly literary and psychological' problem, distinct from the earlier emphasis on external evidence. The excerpts do not yet reveal Robertson's specific textual parallels, but they establish his methodological framework: a combination of historical scholarship and psychological inference, grounded in the belief that Shakespeare's development can be traced through his handling of character and theme.

Shakespeare's Psychological Development Before Montaigne

Robertson traces Shakespeare's early career as a 'rhymer of Venus and Adonis' whose work initially showed limited tragic consciousness. He speculates that the death of Hamnet in 1596 and a possible episode of faithless love around 1594 may have deepened the poet's emotional range. The author emphasizes the role of acting in Shakespeare's psychological training, arguing that it gave him a 'plastic and receptive temperament' superior to that of his literary rivals. He notes that the early plays, while showing 'prevailing sanity of perception,' remain largely external in method, with the notable exception of Shylock. Even Falstaff, though a 'roundness of comic reality,' is built on a pre-existing popular figure. Robertson's argument here is that Shakespeare's turn toward internal, intensive drama required an external philosophical influence—which he will later attribute to Montaigne.

The Limits of Biographical Evidence in Source Studies

Robertson is careful to acknowledge the gaps in biographical knowledge. He cites Fleay's observation that Shakespeare may not have visited Stratford between 1587 and Hamnet's funeral, and he presents the sonnet episode as a surmise rather than a fact. The author's method is to infer psychological states from the plays themselves, while admitting that 'nothing is to show' for many of his conjectures. This cautious approach extends to his treatment of Montaigne: the excerpts do not yet provide direct textual comparisons, but Robertson's framing suggests he will argue for influence through conceptual parallels rather than verbal borrowings. The reader should note that Robertson's evidence is largely circumstantial, and his conclusions depend on a particular view of Shakespeare's artistic development as a movement from external to internal representation.

Robertson's study is best approached as a specimen of late-Victorian source criticism, with its characteristic blend of philological rigor and psychological speculation. Readers interested in the Montaigne-Shakespeare connection should compare Robertson's arguments with those of later scholars, who have often been more skeptical about direct influence. The excerpts here show Robertson at his most methodical, but the full text likely contains the detailed parallel passages that would test his thesis.