56. And first let us take Shakespeare.

Note broadly in the outset, Shakespeare has no heroes;--he has only

heroines. There is not one entirely heroic figure in all his plays,

except the slight sketch of Henry the Fifth, exaggerated for the

purposes of the stage: and the still slighter Valentine in The Two

Gentlemen of Verona. In his labored and perfect plays you have no

hero. Othello would have been one, if his simplicity had not been so

great as to leave him the prey of every base practice round him; but he

is the only example even approximating to the heroic type.

Coriolanus--Caesar--Antony, stand in flawed strength, and fall by their

vanities;--Hamlet is indolent, and drowsily speculative; Romeo an

impatient boy; the Merchant of Venice languidly submissive to adverse

fortune; Kent, in King Lear, is entirely noble at heart, but too rough

and unpolished to be of true use at the critical time, and he sinks

into the office of a servant only. Orlando, no less noble, is yet the

despairing toy of chance, followed, comforted, saved, by Rosalind.

Whereas there is hardly a play that has not a perfect woman in it,

steadfast in grave hope and errorless purpose: Cordelia, Desdemona,

Isabella, Hermione, Imogen, Queen Katherine, Perdita, Silvia, Viola,

Rosalind, Helena, and last, and perhaps loveliest, Virgilia, are all

faultless: conceived in the highest heroic type of humanity.

Harvard Classics Volume 28 Essays English and American · 第 38 / 85 题