The World's Greatest Books — Volume 20 — Miscellaneous Literature and Index
General
The World's Greatest Books — Volume 20 — Miscellaneous Literature and Index
Literature -- Collections
The peculiarity of Shakespeare's mind was its generic quality; its
power of communication with all other minds, so that it contained a
universe of thought and feeling within itself. He was just like any
other man, but he was like all other men. He was the least of an
egotist that it was possible to be. He was nothing in himself; but he
was all that others were, or that they could become. His genius shone
equally on the evil and on the good, on the wise and the foolish, the
monarch and the beggar. The world of spirits lay open to him, like
the world of real men and women; and there is the same truth in his
delineations of the one as of the other. Each of his characters is as
much itself, and as absolutely independent of the rest, as well as
of the author, as if they were living persons, not fictions of the
mind. His plays alone are properly expressions of the passions, not
descriptions of them.
Chaucer's characters are narrative; Shakespeare's, dramatic; Milton's,
epic. In Chaucer we perceive a fixed essence of character. In
Shakespeare there is a continual composition and decomposition of
its elements, a fermentation of every particle in the whole mass, by
its alternate affinity or antipathy to other principles which are
brought in contact with it. Milton took only a few simple principles of
character, and raised them to the utmost conceivable grandeur.
The passion in Shakespeare is full of dramatic fluctuation. In Chaucer
it is like the course of a river--strong, full, and increasing; but
in Shakespeare it is like the sea, agitated this way and that, and
loud-lashed by furious storms. Milton, on the other hand, takes only
the imaginative part of passion, that which remains after the event,
and abstracts it from the world of action to that of contemplation.
The great fault of a modern school of poetry [the Lake poets] is that
it would reduce poetry to a mere effusion of natural sensibility; or,
what is worse, would divest it both of imaginary splendour and human
passion, to surround the meanest objects with the morbid feelings and
devouring egotism of the writers' own minds. Milton and Shakespeare did
not so understand poetry. They gave a more liberal interpretation both
to Nature and art. They did not do all they could to get rid of the one
and the other, to fill up the dreary void with the moods of their own
minds.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account