OCRed data provided
for searching only. truly the Renaissance. But so wide was the gap between the new and the old that seldom did the new wine remain long in the old bottles. Indeed, we looking back upon the process frequently deny that the new wine ever came near the old bottles at all; but the sixteenth century thought so at least, and only by retracing the stages of their thought and work can we understand why and how they believed they had succeeded. Their actual originality was thus an undesired accident, and they would hardly take kindly to our praise of them for that quality. An original was, "God bless us, a thing of naught[" Their originality they obtained through adaptation by imitation. With our romantic theories of originality by transcendental inspiration, have we yet succeeded nearly so well?
We have seen that Shakspere knows this doctrine of his age, and upon occasion uses it. But here one interesting and fundamentally important observation should be made. One feels as he reads that Shakspere has usually taken from these authors things which are inevitably characteristic of himself, rather than of them. If one looks for more of the same kind of material, he does not find it. One can demonstrate this fact only by reading for himself in detail. But having read he will know that Shakspere did not borrow from these authors; he found bits of himself there and claimed them. Whatever materials may have been drilled into the boy, the man used only his own.
And here is the paradox, which Shakspere shares with his age. Shakspere never originated anything; literary types, verse forms, plots, etc., etc. And yet he is one of the most original authors who has ever lived. It is time that we quit befuddling ourselves with the abstract terminology of literary criticism, and think only in terms of the actualities which these terms when correctly applied shadow forth. Here in training, sources, influences, etc. is merely the meat on which our Caesar fed that he did grow so great. But how came he to be Caesar that he might feed thus and only so? Shakspere borrowed nothing; he found only himself. But how did he know him-self when found? How did he come to be himself? His contemporaries said Nature. But what ?
We have seen numerous instances where Shakspere has adapted some detail from others. In fact, as we have seen, many if not most of his most famous speeches are adapted and imitated from other speeches considered famous in his day. It is possible to show that in his earliest plays Shakspere had proceeded by the same process of
[ Volume
One ] 
