She can teach ye how to climb Heaven itself would stoop to her!" How exquisite is his reference to "The virtuous mind that ever walks attended Milton as a moralist stands, I think, extremely high. He is utterly free from prejudice: abjures all bigotry, dogmatism, servility, and mental slavery. A more thoroughly independent mind never existed. Consequently his morality is never tinged with the pride of the Pharisee. He loves virtue for its own sake, and makes no boast of it. He may not perhaps have written so large a code of morality as Shakspere has produced, but it is quite as pure, and quite as practically useful. That character of Satan has been of wonderful service to us: it has taught us the virtue of endurance and had Milton done no more than this, he would be deserving of the highest honour as a moralist. TWELFTH SPEAKER.-Sir, I am not quite so sure as the last gentleman who spoke seems to be that the character of Satan is likely to affect us morally or beneficially. What is it? A fallen angel defying the Al mighty, and in his own strength enduring and scorning the Almighty's punishments. We hear him say that 'tis “Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.” We are told by him that into hell "he brings A mind not to be changed by place or time: Can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven." I really doubt the morality of this. The picture seems to me likely to do at least as much harm as good. I will suppose a man far gone in vice brooding over these sentiments. What would be the result? Why that he like Satan would say "Then farewell hope, and, with hope, farewell fear! He, too, would "disdain submission; " and in his despair "defy the Omnipotent." The Satan of Milton, the Prometheus of Shelley, and the Cain of Byron, all seem to me to be alike immoral and dangerous pictures to present. They are all represented as unconquered by the Almighty, though fallen; and this leads the mind to think that Evil is too strong for God, and can safely defy him a very dangerous doctrine to teach. The morality of Milton always appears to me (even the best of it) to be of a vague controversial character: he puts forth declamatory arguments instead of practical maxims: and tries to describe Truth instead of showing her. In a word, Milton's is the morality of Intellect: whilst Shakspere's is the morality of the Heart. Choosing between these two, Sir, I incline to Shakspere: his morality is indisputable, whilst Milton's, however pure, is always open to controversy. THIRTEENTH SPEAKER.-Sir, Although I do not think Milton so great a Poet as Shakspere, I yet think a word or two may be said for him as respects the moral influence of his character of Satan. We have been told that it is a demoralising and dangerous representation: that we are prone to be fascinated by it; and that when we see the Arch-Fiend braving and heroically enduring the vengeance of the Almighty, we feel a sympathy, which may probably become an admiration, for him and may lead us to imitate his fierce and dauntless bravery. But it seems to me that our sympathy fastens, not on what is evil, but on what is good. It is not the bold and daring defiance of the Almighty, but the uncontrollable power of mind, that we admire; the energy which makes soul superior to circumstance; and as a great writer says, "Many a man has borrowed new strength from the force, constancy, and dauntless courage of evil agents." Besides, the horrors of Hell must counterbalance its pleasures even in the mind of the most abandoned calculator. Milton's mastery over the art of Poetry has not yet been noticed: his magnificent blank verse;his "linked sweetness long drawn out; "-his vigorous and polished style; and his lofty mode of thought. All these are qualities which he exhibits very remarkably, and should be taken into account when the comparison is made. OPENER (in reply).—Sir, The propositions which I submitted to you in opening this debate have been proved, rather than refuted, by my opponents: so I have not much now to say. As far as regards the art, the mere mechanism of Poetry, Milton may have been superior to Shakspere: Shakspere was not at all a mechanist, and never could be. Still, even upon this point it must be borne in mind that Milton is very much indebted to his learning, whilst Shakspere "Warbles his native wood-notes-wild." Take away Milton's learning, and then you will find that, even as an artist, he is not so great as Shakspere. But, after all, it is in the essential qualities of Poetry, that the poet's greatness lies: and these, therefore, are the only proper tests. The conclusion to which this debate leads me is unquestionably that Shakspere possesses these qualities more eminently than his rival. In imagination I hold that he is at least equal; in passion, he is far superior; in perception, he is immensely more quick and intelligent; in sympathy, he is infinitely greater: in intellect, he is more intuitive and clear: in ideality, he is undoubtedly more serene and vivid: and in the aggregate of mind he is more united, harmonious, and complete. To use the words of Dryden, he "is the man of the largest, truest, and most comprehensive soul yet born into the world." See JEFFREY'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE EDINBURGH MACAULAY'S CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL ES- KNIGHT'S SHAKSPERE; A BIOGRAPHY. EDINBURGH REVIEW, vol. xii. p. 59. CHANNING'S ESSAY ON MILTON. HAZLITT ON SHAKSPERE. |