And thereby hangs a tale.

Shakspere certainly only wished to be comprehended by those who were kindly disposed to him and such doctrines; he had every personal reason not to explain to those who would have been sure to have persecuted him for his candour. Malevolence in those times would have equalled the ignorance that Jack Cade and his followers evidenced to the introducers of learning in Shakspere's Henry VI. That which was introduced was not Christian, therefore they must be put to death. Such was Cade's argument. The fool's conclusion is always Shakspere's moral on the subject; he always reasons so with life. But the Christian, whose reckoning up is of an account for a future day, does not so moralise on time. No doubt Shakspere enjoyed the constant introduction of these sentiments, inasmuch as he makes Jaques exult in them. With bitter irony he chuckled over the idea that the fool, in drawing these conclusions from the time and experience, was the profound philosopher, the deep-contemplative.' As to suitability of character, we should like to know whether fools did talk philosophy in those days, any more than the clowns we see in the circle at Astley's. We cannot help thinking that Shakspere speaks when Jaques says:

-

O, that I were a fool!

I am ambitious for a motley coat.
Duke S. Thou shalt have one.

Jaq.

It is my only suit;

Provided, that you weed your better judgments
Of all opinion that grows rank in them,

That I am wise.

To this motley' Shakspere probably owed his security in his own times as manager of a theatre. To this contrivance we owe the little we know about him, the apologies we have for him from a Johnson (who thinks he had no opinions of his own), down to a Knight, who would make him a complete cipher, without an experience in this 'strange eventful history.' Do not great writers, especially great poets, write themselves in their works? In the nature of man it must be so, and we may take it for granted in Shakspere's case. Is not the emphatic outbreak our poet's ?—

Give me leave

To speak my mind, and I will through and through
Cleanse the foul body of the infected world,

If they will patiently receive my medicine.

Was not all this spoken for the allowance of satire, on religion as well as politics? When the Duke says to Jaques, only asking for this liberty of speech:

Fie on thee! I can tell what thou would'st do.

Jaq. What, for a counter, would I do, but good?

We almost hear Shakspere saying this of his plays, and asking for more freedom. That Shakspere thought as Jaques did we think additionally apparent from his giving Jaques argument to opinion and the last long word, whilst the Duke's objection has no reason in it. What a fervour is there in the answer of Jaques to the Duke! What would I do but good?' It would suit one of our modern enthusiasts of progress. In the Duke's speech, too, is put one of the old objections of the wise, that in mentioning vice you propagate it to answer infidelity you spread it. Silence and ignorance and darkness being prescription for the foul body of this infected world. We think all this of personal application to Shakspere and his times, because it is evidently brought in as an isolated peculiarity.

On the entrance of Orlando, and after the recital of his and Adam's necessities, the Duke prefaces the famous speech of Jaques on the seven ages of man, by pointing to them as examples that we are not alone unhappy, but that there are always some more unhappy.

In the seven ages of man no religion is mentioned. The conclusion is strictly material:

Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

No hereafter to adjust these degrees of misery spoken of by the Duke, and no thought that man was made for anything else but to strut his hour on the stage. Nothing to explain this strange history-certainly strange without a denoue

ment.

Shakspere makes his clowns not only talk philosophy indirectly, but lets us know, by their mention of its name, that they are students in the science-are philosophers in character. And this he does not to ridicule it in them, but to point it against the world. Touchstone asks of Corin :Hast any philosophy in thee, shepherd?

The answer of Corin illustrates a vast number of mankind, infidels and believers, who rest content with the immediate cause, and go no further:

A great cause of the night is lack of the sun: he that hath learned no wit by nature, nor art, may complain of good breeding.

Touchstone says of Corin, after this speech:

Such a one is a natural philosopher.

Certainly not a spiritual one. What comes next is an episode, apparently suggested to Shakspere. It is applicable to the questions and replies, as eliminated by the commissioners recently appointed to inquire into the state of knowledge; the answers showed a state of perfect ignorance on the subject of religion:→

Touch. Wast ever in court, shepherd?

Cor. No, truly.

Touch. Then thou art damned.

Cor. Nay, I hope

Touch. Truly, thou art damned, like an ill roasted egg all on one side.

Cor. For not being at court? your reason,

Touch. Why, if thou never wast at court, thou never saw'st good manners, then thy manners must be wicked; and wickedness is a sin, and sin is damnation. Thou art in a parlous (perilous) state, shepherd.

This is evidently intended as a satire upon religion, and the manner of it in vogue with the Puritans. The point of it is not in the reply of Corin, as some would only see. That would be but a flat conclusion to the wit of Touchstone. On the contrary, Touchstone returns to the charge, and answering his objections to his appearing at court, says:

Thou worm's meat-Learn of the wise.

This is said in irony of their usages and of them, whom he thought silly:

Cor. You have too courtly a wit for me, and I'll rest.

Touch. Wilt thou rest damned? God help thee, shallow man! God make incision in thee! thou art raw.

This is no doubt a parody on the religious language of those times, and would, in these days, often suit those exhortations to sinners, who, showing no signs of repentance, no opening of the heart or enlightenment of the understanding, have God invoked to help them out of their unhappy and stupid condition. The expression, 'to have incision made in them,' is no doubt a burlesque of those who call upon God to awaken sinners by some sudden illumination or catastrophe. Corin, though attacked upon a point of religion, is silent respecting it, and answers:—

Sir, I am a true labourer; I earn that I eat, get that I wear; owe no man hate, envy no man's happiness; glad of other men's good, content with my harm: and the greatest of my pride is to see my ewes graze and my lambs suck.

Corin's morality is certainly beautiful, and is intended, doubtlessly (inasmuch as it is a theory of life without piety, a clause of which any other author would have inserted in it) as another of our author's emendations of Christianity-as Eloisa says of Abelard: 'and truths divine came mended from that tongue.' On Corin concluding by saying that his greatest pride is to see his ewes graze, and his lambs suck, Touchstone answers him by a mention of sin arising from it. A similar sentiment to which is to be found in the Hypocrite, and the Tartuffe of Molière, neither of which will be suspected of having much reverence of religion:

Touch. That is another simple sin in you: to bring the ewes and the rams together, and to offer to get your living by the copulation of cattle. If thou be'st not damned for this, the devil himself will have no shepherds. I cannot see how thou should'st 'scape.

This is a repetition of the former ribaldry and satire on religion, as well as those professing it. Something more, too, is meant than meets the eye in the devil having no shepherds, considering it is the very emblem employed by the

Saviour. This concludes the subject, without Corin replying to it. People may say why should Shakspere introduce religion, he is of too reverential a mind even to praise it, or show his belief in it, when in real life it would be natural for persons in such situations as he describes, to express religious sentiments if they held any. We have pointed out unvarying materialism, and no mention of the eternal spirit in man. We have shown argument for opinion used on the materialist side, and banter applied to religion, and no answer given on its part.

Touchstone remarks of the tree where Rosalind found the verses addressed to her by Orlando :

Truly the tree yields bad fruit.

Rosalind says of them :

O most gentle Jupiter! what tedious homily of love have you wearied your parishioners withal, and never cried, 'Have patience, good people.'

What an incongruous mixture!—

Ros. I was never so be-rhymed since Pythagoras's time, that I was an Irish rat, which I can hardly remember.

About three times Shakspere introduces the transmigration of souls, and once apparently with some seriousness as to its probability in opposition to Christianity :

Cel. O Lord, Lord! It is a hard matter for friends to meet; but mountains may be removed by earthquakes, and so encounter.

This passage seems suggested by one in the New Testament. The O Lord, Lord,' in the beginning points to the sequel, that something was coming in the shape of religion. After a gross declaration of Celia's, that the versifier can perform the office of a man to the wish of Rosalind, she says, 'Is he of God's making?' which is of a piece with the many inuendos of Shakspere respecting man's origin.

When Celia says, 'he hath but a little beard,' Rosalind replies:

Why God will send more, if the man will be thankful.

We think the whole of it a reflection on religion, on God