The Sun.
London, England, 1849-09-03 00:00:00

FRASER.

By far the best paper in the present number of
Fraser, we should not, perhaps, be far wrong if we
were to say the best magazine paper of the month, is
the one entitled "Shakspere's Character of Cleopatra ;"
it is the work of one who has studied Shakspere in a
philosophical spirit, and who can give a reason for the
faith that is in him. In the opening paragraphs of
this admirable essay we find the following sound
canons of criticism :

" It is not the business of the present paper to test
the arguments of those who assert that, both as regards

literary description and the plastic delineation of the
human form, it is far more difficult to produce a perfect
model of man, in his energy and power, than of woman
in her gentleness and the full development of her beauty.
Our own opinion is, in both cases, directly opposed to
them. We believe that, as in the plastic and mimetic
arts, the highest genius is scarcely equal to a true repre-
sentation of the perfect female form; so in literature,
the highest efforts of fancy and imagination lag far be-
hind the cunning of nature's hand in the delineation of
the female character. People sometimes delude them-
selves into the notion that they can improve upon nature
and go beyond the perfection of humanity. But this is
mere self-deception. Truth constitutes the apex of the
pyramid, and it matters not on which side you fall short
of it; but if you fail in the verisimilitude of the cha-
racter you are lower than nature. It is mere delusion
to imagine you can soar above her. The highest point
to which humanity has reached must fix the limits of
our imitation of it; for whenever we overstep those
limits we become extravagant, and cease to treat of our
own species. _ _

" Slialtespere appears to have held on this subject
that which we believe to be the true theory, and tasked
his great powers to the utmost in producing numerous
pictures of womanhood, varying according to the
variety observable in nature, but invested every one of
them with as much grace, delicacy, truth, and beauty, as
his rare genius enabled him to bestow on them. He
obviously did not think it an easy matter to draw a
woman. Experience, to which he was wise enough to
bow, taught him the contrary, and made him feel that in
proportion to the apparent facility of the enterprise is its
real difficulty. He was too philosophical to imagine
with Pope that most women have no character at all; he
perceived that the surface which appears smooth to the
dim-sighted, presents a world of strikieg inequalites to
the keen and practiced eye.
"Accordingly, it is scarcely too much to say that the
greatest charm of Shakspere s works consist in his de-
lineation of female character, and that the loftiest and
most idealised of them all still falls short of nature.
Nor need any one be surprised at this. It is only
glimpses into the recesses of the heart that the most
daring and successful author can give us; only a small
fragment of that universe of thought, of passion, of
emotion, that dwells in the breast of man or woman,
that his pen can meddle with. His most elaborate pic-
ture is but an outline. The filling up, the colouring, the
infinite changes and fluctuations, the ever-varying
shades of feeling, the countless combinations which take
place every hour in the thoughts and ideas—all these
defy the grasp of art, and render the wisest man an
enigma to himself.
"To imagine, therefore, that there ever was an indi-
vidual who could range over the whole domain of _
hu-
man nature, penetrate through all its disguises, depict
all its peculiarities, comprehend all its idiosyncrasies,
is to adopt a strange hypothesis, which, if breathed upon
by experience, must dissolve. Shakbutspere has accom
with
-
plished more than any other matt; , compared
the limitless variety of nature, the whole extent of what
he has effected is...but as some
"land-locked bay compared
with the irameseltralsle oeean.