"
It is a fact which is highly interesting in itself, and one which
strongly impeaches the candour of the majority of Shakspere's
commentators, that the impenetrable obscurity which must have
pervaded the whole of this passage should never have been made the
subject of remark. As far as we can remember, not a word has been
said upon the matter in any one of the many superfluously explanatory
editions of our dramatist's productions. Censures have been
repeatedly lavished upon minor cases of obscurity, none upon this. In
the former case the fault has been felt to be Shakspere's, for it has
usually existed in the expression; but in the latter the language is
unexceptional, and the avowal of obscurity might imply the
possibility of misapprehension or stupidity upon the part of the
avower.
Probably the only considerable obstacle likely to act against the
general adoption of those views will be the doubt, whether so
important a feature of this consummate tragedy can have been left by
Shakspere so obscurely expressed as to be capable of remaining
totally unperceived during upwards of two centuries, within which
period the genius of a Coleridge and of a Schlegel has been applied
to its interpretation. Should this objection be brought forward, we
reply, in the first place, that the objector is 'begging' his
question in assuming that the feature under examination has remained
_totally_ unperceived.
Pages:
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235