Produced by Joshua Hutchinson, Sandra Brown, and the Project
Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team
We say dramatic element in the Bible, not dramatic element of theBible, since that of which we speak is not essential, but incidental; itis an aspect of the form of the book, not an attribute of itsinspiration.
By the use of the term dramatic in this connection, let us, in theoutset, be understood to have no reference whatever to the theatre andstage-effect, or to the sundry devices whereby the playhouse is made atonce popular and intolerable. Nor shall we anticipate any charge ofirreverence; since we claim the opportunity and indulge only the licenseof the painter, who, in the treatment of Scriptural themes, seeks bothto embellish the sacred page and to honor his art,—and of the sculptor,and the poet, likewise, each of whom, ranging divine ground, remarksupon the objects there presented according to the law of his profession.As the picturesque, the statuesque, the poetical in the Bible arelegitimate studies, so also the dramatic.
But in the premises, is not the term dramatic interdicted,—since itis that which is not the Bible, but which is foreign to the Bible, andeven directly contradistinguished therefrom? The drama isrepresentation,—the Bible is fact; the drama is imitation,—the Biblenarrative; the one is an embodiment,—the other a substance; the onetranscribes the actual by the personal,—the other is a return to thesimplest originality; the one exalts its subjects by poeticfreedom,—the other adheres to prosaic plainness.
Yet are there not points in which they meet, or in which, for thepurposes of this essay, they may be considered as coming together,—thatis, admitting of an artistical juxtaposition?
In the first place, to take Shakspeare for a type of the drama, what, weask, is the distinguishing merit of this great writer? It is hisfidelity to Nature. Is not the Bible also equally true to Nature? "It isthe praise of Shakspeare," says Dr. Johnson, "that his plays are themirror of life." Was there ever a more consummate mirror of life thanthe Bible affords? "Shakspeare copied the manners of the world thenpassing before him, and has more allusions than other poets to thetraditions and superstitions of the vulgar." The Bible, perhaps, excelsall other books in this sort of description. "Shakspeare was an exactsurveyor of the inanimate world." The Bible is full of similar sketches.An excellence of Shakspeare is the individuality of his characters."They are real beings of flesh and blood," the critics tell us; "theyspeak like men, not like authors." How truly this applies to the personsmentioned in sacred writ! Goethe has compared the characters ofShakspeare to "watches with crystalline cases and plates, which, whilethey point out with perfect accuracy the course of the hours andminutes, at the same time disclose the whole combination of springs andwheels whereby they are moved." A similar transparency of motive andpurpose, of individual traits and spontaneous action, belongs to theBible. From the hand of Shakspeare, "the lord and the tinker, the heroand the valet, come forth equally distinct and clear." In the Bible thevarious sorts of men are never confounded, but have the advantage ofbeing exhibited by Nature herself, and are not a contrivance of theimagination. "Shylock," observes a recent critic, "seems so much a manof Nat