New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-08-02


There are certain subjects. which, without disrc-
spect may properly be ella .sihed as tritc The sym
pathetic humanity OF. Burns. for instance, the .
many-Sidcdness OF .oeJhe and the wonderful scope
and method OF tho genius OF Shakespeare are themes
OF this descrlp' ION, Very tempting they may be 10
the mind CT che cSSayist; but certainly they s'ahu
in no used If discussion. The latter subject IN pr
tiCulu mas been literally done TO death so that inc
appearance OF new book about Shakespeare ''
presses the sensitive mind very much Ike ire '-''
of a recognized bore. II is great ToEio.' Lo"-
ever in making the acquaintance OF such u'oA' ~
find that its ideas are definite ana IT'S s'a.o"0n''
rrecise. Il wish was as sure of anything s'id Il |
witty British peer "as Tom Macauiay Is OF erey !
thing Certainty on the part OF winter Is well
spring of refreSnnent to the reader Ihls
virtue. if no other, viii he 10nhd III
the volume of analysis which Nh Ruggles
has added 10 the already vast body
of Shakespe1ean commentary. His book announces
distinct theory, and expounds it in manner that
is always assured if not always lucid. The work
consists of an Introductory statement and three IL
Illustrative cssays-on Twelfth Night Hamlet"
and Macbeth 1t starts by affirming that no eX-
animation has yet been made of Shakespeares plays
"suficiently minute or detailed 10 reveal the won
derfu ingenuity of their workmanship or the eN-
quisite art of their style" 1t proceeds to promise
in modest language" one halting step towards
ing the promise. We cannot see however, that 1t
discloscs ANYTHING new with reference 10 Shake
speare's method as an artist that IT affords GER
tain clue-so long desired and so eagerly sought-to
the mystery which has ever hidden the manner in
which he wrote his plays. What II actually does ao-
oompsh is a sort Of apothoosis of Shakespeare as a
Moral Teacher Most readers aware that at least
two theories exist with respect to Shakespeares pro-
cess Of composition. One coutcmpates him as poet
41..f., IL r1ar in wi pst mn
power was fred by enthusiasm who worked IN a
sort Of a divine ccstacy. and who very often
"builded better than he knew The other
contempates him as a selfpoised self-consclouS'
all-embracng intellect-domnant over a grand
imagination and sensitive heart. and amenable 10
an exact sleepless energetic moral sense-Which ulu
its work with clear and deliberate purpose, know
ing beforehand every detail seeing beforehand every
result and consciously making every power SUD
servicnt 10 didactc intention. Both theories are rs
old as commentary. Mr.. Rugges stands upon the |
latter Shakespeare. TO him, was a literary artS'
who wrote with direct moral purpose; worked de-
hberatcly. according To plan; always had an Or
p3nc idea 90 enforce and llustratc.-Wlnch organic
idea was always moral ;labOred with al the pains
taking of a worker in mosaic aud, as thinker SUI
pervised and gave laws 10 himself as poet. " Each
one Of Shakespeare plays says Mr. Ruggies rests
upOn q moral idea which is assumed rs the law to !
which life i, subject under those special relations or
that particular phase which is represented in the
plav: and the method of constructing the leading |
characters is either O. render them embodlments OF
the law or representations Of some form OF error re-
sltng from an iutraction Of the law And, taking
vet further step the writer likewise anuounces-as
Illustrative Of Shakespeare's thorough workmanship
that he carries the enforcement of his organic idea
his Original pcmiual principle, his moral |
truth or law into the structure of the |
very metaphor and dictOn of every play. Mr..
Rugclcs i, not alone in this view Of the subject He
reGchoes the idea, 81 raft of German critics What
he says however, has all the natural sincerity OF
deepseated conviction. arrived at by process of care
full thought To us it is unsatisfactory, in so far as
it bears upon shakespcaIe's method of writing, be-
cause il seems to contradict and nvalidate all that
we have read, and all that have seen,
of the action Of the poetic mind II is, we
think. the law of that mind TO operate
through what Emerson subtly describes as
abandonment 10 the nature of things; to take
its direction from IFS celestial life and only to utter
iteolfin mood Of divine eNhilaraton. This IS es-
pecally true OF the great poets. There is goodies
of the book of arithmetic in baTds like Dryden
and Southey There is not a particle Of it in
Shakespeare. Al immense aud overwhelming tidal
wave of poetic inspiration suTges throughout the
marvellous creations Of that mighty master. When
We thinI. Of The Lrosity Of his lie and the bulk and
scope If lis writings il is impossible forUs to resist
the conviction that MS genus operated WIN ult
perfect ease Of routaueity with the majestic power
and the joyous freedom, ;Aat is, OF vast natural
process. II wa, lot the genius Of a mechanic
il was the genius OF poet The idea
that Shakespeare could have been inspired by a
moral pr,ccl therefore, strikes us as little short OF
ridiculous PIocrastination might have been the
thief of time 10 all etGnity, before its chronic
habit Of larceny would have inspired such poet as
Shakespeare 10 give il Illustration in such play as
Hamlet" Morality. by itself, is frgid. Only when
associated with the affections OF with the passions,
does il take fire and blaze into beauty Inadequate
though il be- however, fount Of Shakospearean
inspiration il is entitled TO ll credit and honor
an involuntary ally Of Shaiespearean art. While
we cannot fancy Shakespeare so stirred and thrilled
by perception Of a moral law that he would have
to wItca tragedy comedy to give it illustration,
we can readily fancy that. in writing tragedy or
comedy, he would construct it, in regard alike to
the development Of plot and character with com
plete ALLEGIANCE to the moral laws Of the universe.
This follows. as matter of course. Shakespeare's
poetry is Natures voice uttering Natures heart and
therefore uttc1ug the truth So far, then. it bears
upon the results Of his method in art, there is
objection to the theory-at least in a somewhat modi
fed foun-that Mr.. Rugges espOuses. We may freely
admit that the plays Of Shakespeare do frequently
suggest precise and definite rules Of life of uni
yersal application and absolute authority in the
actions and affairs Of men" But we distinctly repu-
date a. untenablc and even positively absurd,
the idea that an impulse to announce those rules
was either the motive that led to the writing of
those plays the animatng spirit that made their
composition possible TO observe Shakespeare
merely as a moralist is TO observe only aspect of
that "entire and perfect ChTysOlite' which COM