Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 4, no. 22, August 1859 | Page 2

"Shylock,"
observes a recent critic, "seems so much a man of Nature's making, that
we can scarce accord to Shakspeare the merit of creating him." What
will you say of Balak, Nabal, Jeroboam? "Macbeth is rather guilty of
tempting the Weird Sisters than of being tempted by them, and is
surprised and horrified at his own hell-begotten conception." Saul is
guilty of tampering with the Witch of Endor, and is alarmed at the
Ghost of Samuel, whose words distinctly embody and vibrate the fears
of his own heart, and he "falls straightway all along on the earth." "The
exquisite refinement of Viola triumphs over her masculine attire." The
exquisite refinement of Ruth triumphs in the midst of men.

We see there are points in which dramatic representation and Scriptural
delineation mutually touch.
A distinguished divine of Connecticut said he wanted but two books in
his library, the Bible and Shakspeare,--the one for religion, the other to
be his instructor in human nature. In the same spirit, St. Chrysostom
kept a copy of Aristophanes under his pillow, that he might read it at
night before he slept and in the morning when he waked. The strong
and sprightly eloquence of this father, if we may trust tradition, drew its
support from the vigorous and masculine Atticism of the old comedian.
But human nature, in every stage of its development and every variety
of its operation, is as distinctly pronounced on the pages of Scripture as
in the scenes of the dramatist. Of Shakespeare it is said, "He turned the
globe round for his amusement, and surveyed the generations of men,
and the individuals as they passed, with their different concerns,
passions, follies, vices, virtues, actions, and motives." He has been
called the "thousand-minded," the "oceanic soul." The Bible creates the
world and peoples it, and gives us a profound and universal insight into
all its concerns.
Another peculiarity of Shakspeare is his self-forgetfulness. In reading
what is written, you do not think of him, but of his productions. "The
perfect absence of himself from his own pages makes it difficult for us
to conceive of a human being having written them." This remark
applies with obvious force to the Bible. The authors of the several
books do not thrust themselves upon your notice, or interfere with your
meditations on what they have written; indeed, to such an extent is this
self-abeyance maintained, that it is impossible, at this period of time, to
determine who are the authors of some of the books. The narrative of
events proceeds, for the most part, as if the author had never existed.
How _naïvely_ and perspicuously everything is told, without the
colouring of prejudice, or an infusion of egotism on the part of the
writer!
Coleridge says, Shakspeare gives us no moral highwaymen, no
sentimental thieves and rat-catchers, no interesting villains, no amiable
adulteresses. The Bible even goes farther than this, and is faithful to the
foibles and imperfections of its favorite characters, and describes a
rebellious Moses, a perjured David, a treacherous Peter.
"In nothing does Shakspeare so deeply and divinely touch the heart of

humanity as in the representation of woman." We have the grandeur of
Portia, the sprightliness of Rosalind, the passion of Juliet, the delicacy
of Ophelia, the mournful dignity of Hermione, the filial affection of
Cordelia. How shall we describe the Pythian greatness of Miriam, the
cheerful hospitality of Sarah, the heroism of Rahab, the industry of
Dorcas, the devotion of Mary? And we might set off Lady Macbeth
with Jezebel, and Cleopatra with Delilah.
But the Bible, it may be said, so far as the subject before us is
concerned, is chiefly historical, while Shakspeare is purely dramatic.
The one is description,--the other action; the one relates to events,--the
other to feelings; the department of the one is the general course of
human affairs,--that of the other, the narrower circle of individual
experience; the field of the one is that which the eye of philosophy may
embrace,--while that of the other is what the human frame may portray.
However this may apply to the average of history, it will be found that
the Bible, in its historical parts, is not so strictly historical as to
preclude associations of another sort. The Bible is remarkable for a
visual and embodied relief, a bold and vivid detail. We know of no
book, if we may except the compositions of professed dramatists, that
contains so much of personal feeling and incident. In simplicity and
directness, in freedom from exaggeration, and in the general unreserve
of its expression, it even exceeds the most of these. In it we may
discover a succession of little dramas of Nature that will affect us quite
as profoundly as those larger ones of Art.
If the structure of the