"Northrop Frye on Shakespeare" was a great pleasure for me to read probably because I was an undergraduate at Victoria College in the 1970s while he was still teaching there. The book is comprised of the lecture notes that Frye used for his undergraduate course on Shakespeare. The goal of these lectures it must be noted was not to present any of Frye's major theses but rather to tell freshmen and sophomores what they needed to know about Shakespeare in order to participate effectively in more advanced courses in their junior or senior years. These lectures served brilliantly in their day but are they are probably not well-suited to the current crop of first year students who are arriving on campus with different reading experiences from those of my generation.
This much said, the pedagogical virtues of the lectures in this collection are many. Frye is very good at explaining what can be learned from the study of the first published Shakespearean works (i.e. the quartos and the folios.) Similarly, he does an outstanding job comparing the thematic interests of Shakespeare with those of his fellow Elizabethan dramatists (Ben Jonson, John Lyly, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Dekker etc.) Finally, he describes in enlightening fashion how Shakespeare used the works of historians such as Geoffrey of Monmouth ("King Lear") and Plutarch ("Anthony and Cleopatra", "Julius Caesar").
There are lapses of scholarship to be found in Frye's book however. Inexplicably Frye does not mention Matteo Bandello's "Romeo and Juliet" as the source for Shakespeare's play which it clearly is but instead implies that the origin can be found in anecdote in Dante's "Divine Comedy" .
Given that a major theme in Frye's works was the great influence of the Bible on Western Literature, it is not surprising that in his lectures on Shakespeare, he frequently cites instances the characters quote or paraphrase scripture. He does so with admirable discretion however not allowing it to overwhelm the other issues discussed.
Frye also makes the interesting point, that the Shakespearean plays that most interest the public vary with the historical era. Frye asserts that " Hamlet" was the most highly regarded work in the 19th when Romanticism held sway. During the first half of the 20th century when world events were dominated by "predatory rulers", "King Lear" came to the fore. Frye then makes the prediction that in the second half of the 20th Century, when politics is dominated by intrigue, "Anthony and Cleopatra" will attract more attention. This in fact did not come out but Frye was still correct to point out that the popularities of the different plays fluctuate from one era to the next.
Frye was a charming man who throughout his career had the ability to fire the enthusiasm of young people for literature. Unfortunately I am not so sure that the lectures contained in this book will have the same magical effect that they did 50 years ago. Too much has changed in the interim.