REVIEW.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4943, 25 January 1877, Page 3

REVIEW.

“THE NEW ZEALAND MAGAZINE.” - This magazine has entered on the second • . year of its existence. The editors do not seem" yet to appreciate the hints which from time to 'time and from various quarters have come to them respecting the generally heavy and uninviting nature of the literary matter. They - appear-to make the serious mistake of taking the tone and taste of Dunedin, and the topics for the moment occupying public interest , there, m exact indications of the tone and • taste of New Zealand. Thus, the' last ■number had- two articles on the subject of- “Evolution,” and the present number contains two, if not three, on the same ' ’ subject; at any rate there are ho less than four . articles (including those on evolution), treating - metaphysico-religious subjects. These are, “ The Christian Doctrine of Creation,” by - Professor Salmond ; “ Religions, Ancient and Modem,” by H.B. Henderson; “Evolution and Christianity,” part ii., by the Rev.' C. Fraser; and “ Hints Towards the True Theory of Evo- < lution,” by Mr. James Smith, the"well-known ■ literary man and spiritualist of Melbourne. - Her® we have-evolution usque ad nauseam.. The articles by Professor Salmond and Mr, ’■ Fraser are -not appreciably-different from the common dismal type of all such attempts to reconcile the incompatible. Xu attempting. to bring the cosmogony of the Hebrew scriptures - Into harmony with the teaching of modern ■ science, they only succeed in displaying the puerile conceit of the writers. The other articles are as follows“Shakapere’a ldea in Macbeth and Hamlet,’ by Mr, 1 J, H. Shaw; “ The Session of 1876,” by “Spec- ' tatoP’; “ Intemperance and Licensing," by Mr. Stout; “A Boyal Lover,” by Mr. F. B. Chapman. ■ Mr. Stout’s article seems to be simply a >■ plea for his unlucky Local Option Bill of lasi. : pesiion; and, like everything coming from him, ! partakes somewhat of the special pleader and file'. sophist. We - do not see that Mr. Chapman has in the least, by the pub- ' ' Ication of these letters, added to our -' ■knowledge of the character of the royai ‘ lover William the Fourth, that is to say, a - ‘ rather stupid, considerably immoral, but at bottom goodnatured and goodhearted old man. 1 The article, so-called, of Mr. Henderson is nothing but a lot of quotations. The review of the session by “Spectator,” although in places ' inaccurate, is on the whole a fair criticism of 1 the political campaign. But the two articles Which in our opinion are at all worthy of any special notice are those of Mr. J. H. Shaw and • ‘ Mr. James Smith. ' ■ Mr Shaw’s essay is an attempt, and we think a successful attempt, to put the two tragedies of “Macbeth” and “Hamlet” in a new ’ point of view, in order to be better understood. The paper displays great acuteness, • and is original and suggestive in the highest degree. Mr. Shaw finds this novel standpoint in a hint which Shakspere has given us in a curious 1 passage in the beginning of the second act of “ Julius Csesar.” The passage is as follows: " Between the acting of a dreadful thing And the first motion, all the interim is like » phantasma, or a hideous dream; The Genius and the mortal instruments Are then In council, and the state of man, like to »little kingdom, suffers then The nature of an insurrection.” Mr. Shaw shows that in this much-mis-understood passage the “Genius” is the ancient superstition of the natal governing spirit or guardian God. He proves quite clearly, by a • comparison of many passages from the plays, that Shakspere was well acquainted with this poetical notion; and he claims that in this fact we may find a key to the poet’s meaning in both “Macbeth” and “Hamlet.” “My theory,” he gays,."is that Shakspere, being quite familiar with the fine poetic ancient superstition of the governing natal genius or spirit, seized upon it for his own .purposes—that in the Boman plays he puts it in its direct Boman shape ; that in “Macbeth” and “Hamlet” using a egitimate poetic license, he has transformed it into a shape more congenial to living folk- ' • lore, and more likely to impress modern imaginations, but still retaining the objective ' nature of the spiritual . moving power, and strictly working upon the lines laid down in the key passage in “Julius Caesar.” In this view the supernatural power is represented in “ Macbeth ” by the witches ; in “ Hamlet ” by the ghost. In applying this theory Mr. Shaw skilfully analyses the two plays, and the extent to which the language and the thought of the key passage are reproduced, especially in “Macbeth” is quite startling. Thus in the “aside,” spoken by Macbeth (Act 1, s. 4, line 130), when he is first tempted by the witches, the thought and language are, if anyone will look at it carefully, almost identical with the canon. Again, in the end of the play the witches are plainly called “the angel whom thou still hast served.” In “Hamlet,” though the particular identities are , not so'striking, yet the harmony of the theory, as explained by Mr, Shaw, is equally happy, Mr. Shaw also analyses and contrasts, in the light of his theory, the characters of Macbeth and Hamlet,

and in this he displays much critical power. He believes that the poet s interntion as to the character of Macbeth has been commonly misapprehended, and that Shakspere meant to show how a character originally high and heroic can, wnen once it swerves from the right path, come down to all that is base and bad. This view is very happily sustained by quotations and criticisms of the text itself. In the same way it is conclusively shown that any theory assuming the real madness of Hamlet is totally irreconcilable with the express facts and lan-.. guage of the drama, and that Hamlet is no more mad than the awful stirring up of a soul from its innermost deeps, under the influence of the supernatural power, can be called madness. This fine essay presents evidence of psychological analysis, original thought, critical acumen, poetical, discernment, quite, refreshing to read in these days of inflated twaddle and weak common-place. But it must,, in order to be appreciated, be read, as its writer claims, “side by side with the text of Shakspere. Persons who have not .the :comraon honesty to do this ought to have the common decency to hold their tongues, leprous as they are with personality and slander. Such persons we unfortunately have among us, who, being as .destitute of all delicacy of - feeling as they are guiltless of any education , or. culture, cannot be expected to appreciate the points of such. a paper as this,- any more than decency will restrain them from'parading-their deformity in the light of day. But this paper, as'the verdict of the Press is already proving, can stand on its own merits. We regret our space will not admit of extracts, but; the essay will repay perusal. It is, we hesitate not to : say, a valuable contribution to Shaksperian scholarship. There appear to be one or two misprints in the paper, none of any consequence, except that on page 27 the context shows the word “casually” has been substituted for,“causally;” it is only the transposition of one letter, but the entire meaning is altered. Mr. f’mith’s article'is in more than one way a remarkable production. It displays, much culture, great command of a style.terse,.exact, and at the same time copious and eloquent...lt is equally remarkable for strange hallucination, whimsical views, and a curious logical fallacy at the root of the whole theory. The paper is an attempt to define the unknowable. It is a curions cross between, the idealism of Berkely and modern spiritualism. It wants to find under phenomena “ essential vital principles or minds,” whereas all our knowledge is phenomenal ; essences constantly elude our grasp. “ Chemists tell us,” says Mr. Smith,. “ that the maximum distance apart of atoms in a molecule is the ten-millionth part of the twentyfifth of an inch, and that the number of atoms contained in a pin’s head is 8,000,000,000,000;000,000,000; to count which, at the rate of ten millions a second, would occupy 250,000 years. Each atom %s the abode of a - mind, for it obeys a law of attraction, cohesion, expansion, contraction, &0., and this implies sentience, the correlated power of disobeying such law, implying also conscience.” This extraordinary delusion has been’ arrived at through what is a palpable fallacy.- On page 61, we read;— “ Every form of organic * life moves along definite lines, obeys an invariable law, and proves upon examination to be actuated by- ■ ah inner and inVariable life. Now, obedience to a law presupposes or implies the presence . of a mental principle inivhatsoever renders that obedience." Thus the whole of this curious clelusion in the ;word'“law. ? ’- Strictly ahd properly, a' law is a rule or command imposed by ‘ a superior upon inferiors, - who obey because they' know they must. This obedience being rendered by a number, the result is a uniformity of conduct in the persons .obeying ; but this uniformity is the effect of the law, not the law itself. The 1 command is the law, and the law is the cause . of the uniform conduct. When we speak of a 1 law in nature, or of physical things obeying a law, the language is secondary and metaphorical : a law in that sense is simply a uniformity of succession or co-existence, which we see ! subsisting, among certain, groups of physical I objects or phenomena. But to go on and infer that the cause nf this uniformity and the relation of the objects or the phenomena to it is the same as that of conscious and sentient beings to- each other, is very like the act of A, madman. . ; It is a pity the editors do not make choice • of -a larger number of generally entertaining! subjects, or that they are not fortunate enough ’ in finding a, larger number of persons able to contribute such . matter. The only-,, really literary paper in this number is that °* Mr. Shaw. Surely there ’ are abundance of subjects of national importance which would be of interest to the whole colony. We must repeat that, as we think, the editors look too exclusively, to Dunedin. ,