not seem, from his own declarations, to be sure of the subject in his hands, and we may conclude that it was not altogether congenial to his character.

MEASURE FOR MEASURE.

This performance is constructed on the same principle as Love's Labour's Lost, with more enlarged application. It opposes passion to piety, and nature to grace-demonstrates the force of blood over faith, and from the universality of such victories, inculcates leniency in our judgment of others.

We have the confession of Hallam and other crities, that in Measure for Measure we have a revelation of Shakspere's own nature of the depths of his own heart, and intricacies of his own being; and when we see the metaphysical liberties in which he indulges-the strange sentiments portrayed. -the sceptical and infidel displays with which it aboundsthis confession decides the character of our poet's religion and philosophy to be all along as we explain.

The much complained of moral unintelligibility of this drama is cleared up on the hypothesis we have laid down. Let our Shakspere be read as our colleges read Eschylus and Euripides, for dramatic and classical beauties, and the heathenism of these ideas be conceded, and the mystery exists no longer. Question the orthodoxy of Eschylus or Euripides, and the point is conceded; but when the identity of sentiment is pointed out in Shakspere, we are either called upon to shut our eyes to the fact, or accept an interpretation at which consistent criticism revolts.

Steevens allows that our author is responsible for the unnecessary solemnity with which the play opens, and the scriptural reader will discover two parables of Jesus Christ in the mouth of the Duke. The Ten Commandments are the basis of a witticism; and, in the speech of the Duke to Claudio, the reader will find sentiments respecting the relation of parent and child, since adopted by Sir Charles Morgan and by the Jesuits.

In Elbow we have the reproduction of the designedly profane Dogberry. In allusion to cardinal peccadilloes, we have an instance of Shakspere's readiness to satirise the failings of the clergy. In Isabella, we have an unreserved

defence of blasphemy; perhaps the most pointed and best ever given. Who would look for this in the mouth of a nun?

It is unnecessary to enumerate at length the points upon which we have at large dilated in the text, except to enlist the attention of the inquirer to the conduct, chiefly of the Friar, who, in this play, materialises human nature, and deduces from the condition of mortality the consolations of atheism, which he administers, in lieu of those of Revelation, to the condemned Claudio.

When the Duke priest had instilled his material philosophy into the criminal, he leaves him prepared for death; but when Isabella, the religious character of the play, has an interview with this same criminal, her brother, he craves for life with baseness, and is willing to purchase it at the expense of her infamy. The most casual reader cannot avoid being touched with the moral intended here. Claudio, who before had manned his heart to hug darkness as a bride,' now under the influence of the 'horrible imaginings' of religion, is laid prostrate in pitiable, maniacal terror. It is a startling and highly-finished illustration of Hamlet's daring reflection, that the religious conscience doth make cowards of us all.'

The leniency of our poet, not only to failings of life, but of sentiment, is strikingly illustrated in this play. Barnardine, a practical atheist, who apprehends no farther than this world, and squares his life accordingly,' is pardoned his murder, and dismissed in the most worldly way to prepare for better times.' Nor does the Duke's order to the Friar 'to advise him,' weaken the matter-of-fact forgiveness of the infidel murderer.

But we are quite saved from elaborate enumeration here, of these points of philosophy in Measure for Measure, by the concessions made respecting them. Mr. Knight, in his commentary, takes little or no notice of those remarkable passages which in the text we have brought under the reader's notice, and which no ingenuity can make comport with his theory of Shakspere's reverence. We are, indeed, told of the reverence with which we should approach Shaksperebut we hate that Germanic mysticism which erects an author

into an article of faith-which subdues us with vague ideas of depths never sounded, of philosophy never explained, of systems never arranged!

The passages and scenes which Knight confesses to 'hurry past,' and desires not to look at again, and at which the inquirer will find Coleridge was 'pained,' are significant facts, which we only notice as confirmatory of that view which we have been compelled to take of our author's opinions, and which have decisive weight in connection with a play so eminently the exponent of the poet's heart. Could we carry this investigation farther-could Shakspere's life and times be fairly revealed to us-his sentiments and associations-could we see, as we should desire to see, the true man in his own individuality, he would not be a less interesting metaphysical, moral, or dramatic study than now; but how many of his present eulogists would grow dumb! Though something of this kind should result from expositions like the present, it is better for all parties, we conceive, that the whole truth should be told.

OTHELLO.

Our poet, in this play, illustrates with equal brilliancy the passion of jealousy and the doctrine of necessity. So perfect a necessitarian is Iago, that modern materialists have recognised in his character the most perfect exemplification, in literature, of moral philosophy reduced to a science.*

We have pointed out that there is the same material gradation in Iago's revenge as in Othello's jealousy. We differ, for reasons adduced, from the common opinion that Iago's conduct was without adequate motives.

When Iago tells Brabantio that he would not serve God if the devil bid him, our author, in the mouth of Brabantio, pronounces him a profane wretch.' Now, why should we hesitate to admit what Shakspere himself allows? It may be said that what he knew to be profane he would desire to conceal, and not himself proclaim. But Shakspere had sagacity to see that it was to his advantage to do that himself.

How surely did Iago calculate the effects of the handkerchief on the jealous mind of Othello-the laws of mind being equally fixed and certain as those of the magnet, etc.-Zoist.

He could dull the edge of censure in applying it to himself, and avert suspicion from other instances where he omitted to remark it.

Cassio drunk is religious. What reverence could be intended by these contemptible exhibitions of sottish piety? The Lord's Prayer seasons the merriment of his inebriation.

Othello, in the last act, utters one of those determined blasphemies we have before noticed, when he demands' 'if there are no stones in heaven but what serve for thunder,' which called forth the evasive ingenuity of Steevens. He is indeed terrified at the fiends which will 'snatch him;' but this does not deter him from self-murder, by which he realises those horrors, and descends straight down to 'gulfs of liquid fire.' The lesson is equivocal. But from the first he is as unchristian in his sentiments, as at last he is in his conduct. On meeting Desdemona in Cyprus, the reader will find that he utters precisely the idea of Chærea, in the Eunuch of Terence: Proh Jupiter! Nunc est profecto, cum interfici perpeti me possum. Ne hoc gaudium contaminet vita ægritudine aliquâ.'

Johnson recognises, in a speech of Othello, an idea of some sympathy between cause and effect which extends throughout the universe. In truth, he might have said, that this play in particular illustrates this sympathy. We think the moral of Othello a continuation of the moral of Measure for Measure in this respect. In the latter play, Shakspere would show that justice, divine or human, which would punish offences according to the laws of earth, or those supposed to be of heaven, is in its penalties out of all proportion to the sins. He would set mercy and forgiveness far above justice. In Othello, on the other hand, he would paint the bad effects of private justice, the wild justice of revenge as it is called, that left to ourselves we are very bad judges of punishment for injuries; that we are much worse often than can be imagined in proportioning penalties to offences; that Iago, in Othello, following Measure for Measure, is out of all measure.

KING LEAR.

The materialistic character of this play is well indicated by the early enunciation in it, and disquisition upon the

ancient axiom of materialists. Lear perpetually employs Lucretian oaths. Nature is the goddess of Edmund. Gloster's prediction is an imitation of a solemn prophecy of Jesus. The purport of it here is, that the intentions of heaven are indicated by certain conduct of men on earth -signs which Christ pointed out. Edmund ridicules the whole, and styles such forebodings the excellent foppery of the world.' Shakspere's idea of the religious was, that they were melancholy, and accordingly Edmund is set to sigh out, 'fa, sol, la, mi.' A dialogue is cut short with 'come, come,' our author's usual abbreviation of irreverence. The fool asks 'a schoolmaster to whip him for speaking the truth'-a further apology for unallowed liberties taken. Kent satirises the creation of man in a style often occurring. He vows that 'a tailor, a stone-cutter, or a painter, could not have made Cornwall so ill, though they had been but two hours at the trade.' Lear ridiculously anthropomorphises heaven. He asks, if they do love old men.' When Lear would physic pomp,' it is to 'show the heavens more just.' His ideas are always material: he would alter men as the means of improving the reputation of the gods. Edgar, feigned mad, and Lear, quite so, are set to question each other upon the cause of nature, and origin of its laws. Surely if 'deep satire' is anywhere in our author, this is an instance of it. The pious Gloster once consoles himself with the hope that he shall see heaven avenge ingratitude to Lear. Cruelly is this hope mocked, as heaven permits his eyes to be torn out to prevent the fulfilment of his expectation. But the ingratitude of Goneril and Regan arouses natural opposition, and Shakspere shows in its delineation how deeply he was imbued with a belief in what has since been much paraded—the natural laws of morality.

Lear burlesques yea' and 'nay.' He speaks to the thunder as Christ did to the tempest-using the very words. The judgment of Jesus on the woman taken in adultery, is also in his mouth.

Cordelia is not religious. When Edgar proclaims 'the gods are just, and of our pleasant vices make instruments to scourge us,' it includes the philosophy insisted upon by Dr. Gall. Kent, in despair, commits himself to sleep and the