question for us, then, is as to his own quality, by which his work must be tinged and limited. "We want the man the man himself, in his word; and if we find he is not in it, his word is hollow." In this requirement, our essayist is not wanting. We realize, at the slightest touch or question, that we have beside us a guide quiveringly sensitive, conscientious, spiritual,- one whose rhetoric is feeling, whose words express the inward perception and picture, whose knowledge has been faithfully and laboriously sought, and saved, and sifted.

Who reads a good book has made an unchanging friend. This is a noble book. And it will not detract from the pleasure of him who gives it due place on his shelf, that its re-issue will smooth the closing path of the author. A few years ago, the friends and admirers of Henry Giles were numerous and enthusiastic. How few there are

who have known how the shadow fell across his life; how the strong mind wore on the weak body, till its own essence leaked through the rifts; but how tenderly the hands of friendship and love have relieved the strain, and patiently made easy the declining way.

But for no lesser reason than its own high value is this golden thread brought to light again in the

fabric of literature. It is a book that brings us sensibly nearer to the great poet. It is filled with fine life as an organism; its parts wisely ordered and related. It prepares the reader gradually for the meaning of its splendid concluding sentence: "Let Athens have Aristophanes; but even all Greece shall not keep Homer: we give Calderon to Spain; but every nation owns Cervantes : Dante belongs to Italy; Milton to England; but Shakespeare belongs to MAN."

JOHN BOYLE O'REILLY.

March 15, 1882.

HUMAN LIFE IN SHAKESPEARE.

THE GROWING AND PERPETUAL

INFLUENCE OF SHAKESPEARE.

WHETHER

WHETHER Shakespeare did or did not study law, Lord Campbell implies that he did,—is of interest only as every inquiry is which concerns the personal existence of a poet who has fully revealed man, and entirely concealed himself. Shakespeare is, indeed, as to his individuality, THE GREAT UNKNOWN; so, instead of knowledge, we strive after hints, conjectures, guesses, and we are excited if any one of them serves even as an illusive link by which we can connect our common life with his. So it is that association with the mighty confers dignity on trifles. When, therefore, we ridicule contemporary gossip about the peculiarities of distinguished characters, we are ridicul

ee

ing by anticipation matters that ere long will be invaluable for biography. What an amount of interest there is in that short letter of Cicero's, in which he describes how Cæsar dined witn him; how he ate and drank without reserve; sumptuously, indeed, and with due preparation ; and not only that, "but with good conversation, well digested and seasoned, and, if you ask, cheerfully;" how the guest was not one to whom you would say, "Pray come to me in the same manner when you return; how once was enough;" how "there was nothing of importance in the conversation, but a great deal of liberal learning;" how, "in short, he was highly pleased, and enjoyed himself"! Thus we find that "the man who kept the world in awe” ate, and drank, and talked as any other cultivated gentleman would; and the community of nature between him and us, which the majesty of his genius seemed to destroy, the dinner-table thoroughly restores. Nor is the interest lessened by the recollection that, even then, the dagger was nearly ready for Cæsar's imperial heart. In the same way, we long for particulars which would put aside the majesty of Shakespeare's genius, and open an entrance for us to his individual humanity. We would like even to learn surely that he had been a lawyer's clerk, in order to see

him in some prosaic relation to life, which would make him our familiar and our companion. But all Lord Campbell's acute investigation does not give us such assurance. In the intermediate

details of the argument, his lordship is confident and emphatic; but a sceptic he begins, and a sceptic he ends, although in the course of the discussion leaning to the positive. The whole argument - leaving out the illustrative quotations and the comments on them may be stated in small compass. Shakespeare constantly uses law phrases and terms. He does this, not as with any conscious preparation, but with a spontaneous freedom, which, by the evident absence of design, shows intimate mental familiarity with legal habits.

His frequent use of legal phraseology is not in the manner of such casual analogy as any intelligent person might be equal to ; it is with a subtile and scientific discrimination, in which even practised lawyers might commit mistakes. All this seems to imply actual experience in the business working of the law. In addition to the whole, a contemporary called him, in derision, by the nickname of "Naverint," intending, it is said, to stigmatize him as an attorney's hack. After laying the fullest stress allowable on thes indications, Lord Campbell suggests various possible explanations, and considers the cast as