119.  For no man ever wrote sincerely and earnestly, or indeed ever did any one thing in such a spirit, without leaving some impress upon his work of his mental condition whilst he was doing it; and no such man ever continued his literary labours from the period of youth right through his manhood, without leaving behind him, in more or less legible character, a record of the ripening of his thought upon matters of eternal importance, although they may not be of necessity directly connected with the ostensible subject in hand.  Insincere men may ape sentiments they do not really believe in; but in the end they will either be exposed and held up to ridicule, or their work will sink into obscurity.  Sincerity in the expression of genuine thought and feeling alone can stand the test of time.  And this is in reality no contradiction to what has just been said as to the necessity of a receptive condition of mind in the production of works of true genius.  This capacity of receiving the most delicate objective impressions is, indeed, one essential; but without the cognate power to assimilate this food, and evolve the result that these influences have produced subjectively, it is, worse than useless.  The two must co-exist and act and react upon one another.  Nor must we be induced to surrender these principles, in the present particular case, on account of the usual fine but vague talk about Shakspere’s absolute self-annihilation in favour of the characters that he depicts.  It is said that Shakspere so identifies himself with each person in his dramas, that it is impossible to detect the great master and his thoughts behind this cunningly devised screen.  If this means that Shakespere has always a perfect comprehension of his characters, is competent to measure out to each absolute and unerring justice, and is capable of sympathy with even the most repulsive, it will not be disputed for an instant.  It is so true, that it is dangerous to take a sentence out of the mouth of any one of his characters and say for certain, “This Shakspere thought,” although there are many characters with whom every one must feel that Shakspere identified himself for the time being rather than others.  But if it is intended to assert that Shakspere has so eliminated himself from his writings as to make it impossible to trace anywhere the tendencies of his own thought at the time when he was writing, it must be most emphatically denied for the reasons just stated.  Freedom from prejudice must be carefully dissociated from lack of interest in the motive that underlies the construction of each play.  There is a tone or key-note in each drama that indicates the author’s mental condition at the time when it was produced; and if several plays, following each other in brisk succession, all have the same predominant tone, it seems to be past question that Shakspere is incidentally and indirectly uttering his own personal thought and experience.

120.  If it be granted, then, that it is possible to follow thus the growth of Shakspere’s thought through the medium of his successive works, there is only one small point to be glanced at before attempting to trace this growth in the matter of supernaturalism.