and the king, what forms and humanities pleased him; his delight in troops of friends, in large hospitality, in cheerful giving.  Let Timon, let Warwick, let Antonio the merchant answer for his great heart.  So far from Shakspeare’s being the least known, he is the one person, in all modern history, known to us.  What point of morals, of manners, of economy, of philosophy, of religion, of taste, of the conduct of life, has he not settled?  What mystery has he not signified his knowledge of?  What office, or function, or district of man’s work has he not remembered?  What king has he not taught state, as Talma taught Napoleon?  What maiden has not found him finer than her delicacy?  What lover has he not outloved?  What sage has he not outseen?  What gentleman has he not instructed in the rudeness of his behavior?

Some able and appreciating critics think no criticism on Shakspeare valuable that does not rest purely on the dramatic merit; that he is falsely judged as poet and philosopher.  I think as highly as these critics of his dramatic merit, but still think it secondary.  He was a full man, who liked to talk; a brain exhaling thoughts and images, which, seeking vent, found the drama next at hand.  Had he been less, we should have had to consider how well he filled his place, how good a dramatist he was,—­and he is the best in the world.  But it turns out that what he has to say is of that weight as to withdraw some attention from the vehicle; and he is like some saint whose history is to be rendered into all languages, into verse and prose, into songs and pictures, and cut up into proverbs; so that the occasion which gave the saint’s meaning the form of a conversation, or of a prayer, or of a code of laws, is immaterial compared with the universality of its application.  So it fares with the wise Shakspeare and his book of life.  He wrote the airs for all our modern music; he wrote the text of modern life; the text of manners; he drew the man of England and Europe, the father of the man in America; he drew the man, and described the day, and what is done in it; he read the hearts of men and women, their probity, and their second thought and wiles; the wiles of innocence, and the transitions by which virtues and vices slide into their contraries; he could divide the mother’s part from the father’s part in the face of the child, or draw the fine demarcations of freedom and of fate; he knew the laws of repression which make the police of nature; and all the sweets and all the terrors of human lot lay in his mind as truly but as softly as the landscape lies on the eye.  And the importance of this wisdom of life sinks the form, as of Drama or Epic, out of notice.  ’T is like making a question concerning the paper on which a king’s message is written.