Will leave him never till he parts with life. What though to thee he breathed no kind farewell, Too well he loved, that last sad word to say: Nay, do not doubt him! he must win a name, Without his love thy heaven is dark and drear; Alas, for youth, when its first grief doth fall- And to the loved ideal clingeth still, Though doubt become sad truth-truth all too clear. Nay, as a shattered mirror multiplies The object when reflected on its breast, Each fragment of her broken, bleeding heart, Gives back the image in its wild unrest: At every turn one only face she sees, The voice she still must love yet trembles on the breeze. But hark, a shout, the hour of conflict's past, And claim the hand he hath so nobly won; Where now thy doubts? As mists of morning flown Thy conflict too is past-thy struggle o'er- SHAKSPEARE'S KNOWLEDGE OF HIS OWN GREATNESS. BY THE LATE WILLIAM GODWIN, ESQ., JUNIOR. F all the popular fallacies that are rife in the world of letters, in my opinion there is not one so fallacious as that which asserts that Shakspeare was ignorant of his own greatness; and yet, like other errors that I could name, it is now enwrapped in the venerable gaberdine of antiquity, on the rusty reputation of which it passes from mouth to mouth unquestioned and unresisted. It may on this account be perhaps thought presumptuous in me to venture for a moment to attempt to overturn the dictum: but in fighting this battle, I take Shakspeare himself for my Ithuriel spear, and Nature for my Palladian shield; and, like an errant of old, trust that the weakness of my arm may be more than counterbalanced by the potent magic that has been expended on my panoply. Truth is mighty, and will prevail. I am sure that the assertion of our Poet's unconsciousness is contrary to analogy and to reason: I believe that it is contrary to the A* facts that remain to us of his life. If I can prove these two positions, the field will be won. The great, and indeed the only argument urged in support of the sophism I have to combat, is the fact that Shakspeare published no edition of his plays, but risked them to the care of chance and of posterity. The logic that has been built upon this datum is, that if the poet had been conscious of the ineffable splendor with which he has illumined his dramas, it was in the course of things impossible, that he could be content to let them pass down the stream of time without tending their outset under the guardianship of his own paternal eye. This argument I admit to be plausible on the first glance; but when we come to examine it, we shall find that it omits a world of facts, and that it is adverse to the laws of nature and of truth. In the first place, it is a matter of record that Shakspeare re-wrote many of his plays-amongst which may more particularly be mentioned, Hamlet and the Merry Wives of Windsor. That is not the act of a man who writes merely for profit, and with a view to supply the popular demand of the day. It rather betokens a painstaking examination of the original document; a consciousness that the full energy of the mind has not been lavished on its formation; and a resolution "to lay on load" and forward it to that pitch of excellence which lies germinating within the brain of the author. |