spires, and all that longest moves it. Thought, truth, power, beauty,― melted into the music of humanity, constitute the poetry, which is everlasting; and these are supremely felt in the poetry of Shakespeare. But I must pass on, and make my last remark; it is, that the study of Shakespeare has a practical value. I have already spoken of reason as speculative, spiritual, mystical, and moral: I might also have spoken of it as practical, as that which has relation to the ruling of will, to the direction of conduct, to the formation of character; in short, to all that concerns energy or weakness, wisdom or folly, in the visible activities of mankind. I need not tell you how pregnant, in this respect, Shakespeare's writings are; how by maxims, speeches, deeds, consequences, even by mere costume and grimace, he embodies his versatile sagacity. But it is not on sagacity that I rest the practical value of Shakespeare's influence on the study of life; I rest it on the entireness of his power; on the enlargement of soul to be gained from his amplitude; on the schooling of judgment to be learned from the endless diversities of experience into which he carries us; on the candor of opinion to be drawn from his equity; on the tolerance of thought to be cultivated in his calmness; on the charities of heart to be imbibed from the fulness of - his humanity. All this is practical; for it can enter into our ordinary conditions and occupations: but, if I should insist on the enrichment and the glory with which Shakespeare floods the mind by the splendor of his imagination, by the might of his passion, by the majesty of his ideas, such also I would hold as practical. If I am told that there are those who read Shakespeare, who read him with admiration and intelligence, who yet are small of soul, rash in judgment, unfair in opinion, dogmatic in thought, and poor in all the charities, if I am told there are those who can laugh at the mirth of Shakespeare's comedy, and weep at the sorrow of his tragedy, who are, notwithstanding, grim in their families, and insensible to the misery which is near them, or which they cause, I can only observe, that Shakespeare did not make these people so, and it is a greater power than Shakespeare's which can make them otherwise. For all such I would not wish, as the Archbishop of Grenada did for Gil Blas, a little more taste; I would simply wish for them "a little more grace." However often we read Shakespeare, or speak of him, one thought never fails to present itself; and the more familiarly we study him, the more intimately we feel with him, the more this thought becomes conviction: it is the persuasion that Shakespeare must endure as long as man can read. This faith we have as well from the comic power as from the tragic power of his genius. So long as Falstaff shall make men laugh; so long as Lear shall make them weep; so long as Richard shall make them throb; so long as Hamlet shall make them think; so long as the innocent beauty of Miranda can charm; so long as the impassioned loveliness of Juliet can move; so long as the womanly grief of Desdemona can sadden; so long as the murderous guilt of Macbeth's lady can appall—so long will the genius of Shakespeare be a living power to the world; and that will be until time has no more any concern with man, or until man has no more any communion with letters. MAN IN SHAKESPEARE. I PROPOSE to speak on Man in Shakespeare; I mean the male side of human nature as it appears to us in his dramatic representations. 1. Nature has but one humanity, one human life; but this humanity, this human life, has two distinct manifestations; these manifestations are in sex. The distinction runs into all the currents of life: it commences with life in its primal fountain; it is, therefore, inherent, radical, thorough. It is subtile, pervading; we cannot analyze it, we cannot define it; but we feel it. We find in each sex certain tendencies and aptitudes, ways of thinking, ideals, emotions, forces, language, in which one distinctively differs from the other. This difference may evade logic and defy statement; but it is not the less absolute. The distinction is in nature, and therefore it is in Shakespeare. Even in the spiritual constitution of Shakespeare's personages there is the evidence Humor, of sex; in the very innermost nature it is implanted: they think out of it, they speak out of it. The men are distinguished from the women of Shakespeare even in the movements of the mind. Sometimes this is in faculty; sometimes in degree; sometimes only in manner. Take as an example of faculty that of humor. in all its forms, Shakespeare puts into the mouths of men. Herein he assuredly accords with nature. Genius is but the highest expression of nature; and the genius of humor, in any of its methods of expression, has been mostly, if not entirely, found in men. But if Shakespeare gives humor exclusively to men, he also makes them exclusively the objects of it. It is rarely that he makes a woman ludicrous; and it is rarely that nature does. Woman may be odious, repulsive, detestable, but she is seldom laughable. We may hate her, but we cannot mock her; we may pity, but we cannot deride her. Yet if man surpasses woman in humor, he does not in wit; more frequently he comes short of her; and it is in this relation that Shakespeare places man. In the wit combats between man and woman Shakespeare, as he ought, invariably gives the victory to woman. But most peculiarly, most notedly, man excels woman in the faculty of being a fool. Here men will hardly believe me; no matter, -- |