MAN'S RELATIONS TO THE SUPERNATURAL AS SHOWN IN "MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM," "HAMLET," AND "THE TEMPEST" N the last lecture not only did two trains of discussion come fairly together and coalesce, but a number of other strands of thought which have been presenting their ends here and there twined into the main result. Permit me for a single moment to present this coalescence of all our inquiries freshly before your minds from a common point of view, as affording the proper light in which we are now to contrast these wonderful plays of Shakspere. You remember that as we studied those phenomena of sound which are connoted under the term Verse, we found that all our three largest classifications - the Tunes of Verse, the Rhythms of Verse, and the Colours of Verse were in reality due to rhythmic vibration in various forms, and, going further, we found that all rhythmic vibration seemed to be produced by the Opposition of Forces. In short, after having viewed a great many technical details of verse-construction, the outcome ap peared to be that the poet, in arranging the tunes of verse, the rhythms of verse, and the colours of verse, was simply managing a diverse set of vibrations, that is, of oppositions — managing these as the material of his poetic art. The diagram Tunes of Verse Rhythms of Verse Colours of Verse = Vibrations = Oppositions brings this outcome clearly before your mind. We But then the theory of oppositions came upon us from quite another direction. In two lectures we studied the Metrical Tests; and having examined Shakspere's early verse as compared with his late verse by these tests, we found that his whole progress as an artist in versification was towards a more artistic management of oppositions, these oppositions being a wholly different set from those last named, a set depending upon the singular esthetic demands of the ear in listening to series of sounds. found that the ear demanded regularity in verse-structure: but that it also demanded with equal rigour the very opposite of that, namely, irregularity; and since by the rime test we found Shakspere ever more artistically balancing the rime line, which represented regularity, against the blank line, which represented its opposite irregularity, the end-stopped line (regularity) against run-on line (irregularity), single-ending (regularity) against double-ending (irregularity), strong-ending (regularity) against weak-ending (irregularity), normal accent (regularity) against abnormal accent (irregu larity), we were here led to contemplate Shakspere's artistic management of a wholly different set of oppositions, these being the oppositions of the esthetic demands of the ear, instead of, as before, the oppositions of forces, which result in periodic or rhythmic vibration. The next diagram here, then, will present this outcome clearly to your eyes, viz.: Thus we discovered that Shakspere grew all the time in the artistic management of these verse-oppositions. We are now to go on and show, by the comparison of these plays, the Midsummer Night's Dream as representative of Shakspere's youthful period, and The Tempest as representative of his perfectly mature period, that just he advanced in the artistic management of these rhythmical oppositions, so he advanced in the artistic management of those moral oppositions which make up human life as these esthetic and physical oppositions make up verse. And we are to see if it is not, after all, the same exaltation of faculty, or genius, which arrives at supreme excellence in the due ordering of moral oppositions with that which arrives at supreme excellence in the due ordering of esthetic oppositions. It will add a valuable weight of cumulative evidence to this now pending inquiry if I here ask your notice of a still different set of artistic oppositions which Shakspere clearly learned better and better how to manage as he grew older. These are the oppositions of character against character, of figure against figure, of event against event, which are arranged with so much more freedom in later plays than in earlier ones. You observe that all these oppositions here in our diagrams concern Shakspere's art as verse-maker: the oppositions I now speak of concern his art as drama-maker, as playwright. Notice in how many of the early comedies there is a suspicion of stiffness, arising from the tendency to present every figure in the play with a kind of contrasting figure or foil to set it off, or at least with a kind of echo or companion. For example, in The Two Gentlemen of Verona we have Valentine, the symbol of constancy in love, set off with his contrast and foil, Proteus, the symbol of inconstancy; the one is named from the Valentine of St. Valentine's day, you observe, the other from the old Proteus of the Greek mythus who changed his shape at will and so represented the inconstant lover. Further, we have Speed, the servant of Valentine, set over against Launce, the servant of Proteus; and so on. Again, in the Comedy of Errors we have Antipholus of Ephesus and his servant Dromio of Ephesus set over against their twins Antipholus of Syracuse and Dromio of Syracuse. Again, in Love's Labour's Lost we have King Ferdinand set over against the Princess, Biron against Rosaline, Dumain against Katherine, Longaville against Maria, Armado against Jaquenetta, and so on, till at the last the whole company go off in pairs, every Jack having his Jill. Again, in Midsummer Night's Dream we have Theseus against Hippolyta, Lysander against Hermia, Demetrius against Helena, by way of echoes; and, by way of foils, a group of clowns against a group of fairies, a rude ass against a dainty queen, a tragedy of Pyramus and Thisbe turned into its opposing farce, and so on; while to cite no more examples — in Romeo and Juliet we have the enmity of Montague and Capulet set off against the love of Montague and Capulet, bridal scene set off against burial scene, love against death. In short, at first, if we narrowly scrutinise Shakspere's early management of his oppositions as playwright, we perceive everywhere a tendency of things to go in pairs, to move by twos, in short, a tendency towards direct and pronounced oppositions. But if we consider the later plays with reference to this matter, there is a clear advance towards less pronounced pairing of figures and events, in short, towards less direct oppositions. There are still oppositions of this sort; there must be: the esthetic sense. of proportion in the spectator demands them, just as the esthetic sense of the ear demands these other oppositions. But also, in the present series of oppositions, we find, as I said, Shakspere using more art in ordering these playwright's oppositions, more temperately and exquisitely adjusting figure to figure and foil to foil, when we come to the later plays, just as we found him exercising precisely the same temperance and wise control in ordering the oppositions of effect in verse-technic. This relation of the stiff oppositions of the early plays to the freer and more graceful oppositions of the later plays may be very clearly illustrated to the eye by asking one's self, if we had two lines to arrange in the most pleasant relations to each other, the most pleasant relations, that is, for satisfying the eye's sense of proportion,- how should we go about it? Well, Shakspere goes about it in the early plays by making both lines exactly equal in length and laying one exactly athwart the middle of the other, presenting the effect of this cross to the eye: |