should be withheld:  they will also find that, when he was in affliction, his comforters sought to comfort him with the cruel reproach of having been all the while secretly a bad man, and with arguments no less cruel, that his afflictions were sent upon him as a judgment for his secret sins:  and, further, they will find that, when his wife urged him to “curse God and die,” her counsel proceeded upon the principle, that the evils which fall upon the upright prove the government of the world to be in the hands of a being who has no respect for the moral character of his subjects; or, in other words, the sufferings of good men are taken by her as evidence that goodness is not the law of the Divine administration.

Now, it was from such teachers as Nature and Job, and not from such as Job’s Accuser and comforters and wife, that Shakespeare learnt his morality.

SHAKESPEARE’S CHARACTERS.

* * * * *

A MIDSUMMER-NIGHT’S DREAM.

A Midsummer-Night’s Dream was registered at the Stationers’ October 8, 1600, and two quarto editions of it were published in the course of that year.  The play is not known to have been printed again till it reappeared in the folio of 1623, where the repetition of certain misprints shows it to have been printed from one of the quarto copies.  In all three of these copies, however, the printing is remarkably clear and correct for the time, insomuch that modern editors have little difficulty about the text.  Probably none of the Poet’s dramas has reached us in a more satisfactory state.

The play is first heard of in the list given by Francis Meres in his Palladis Tamia, 1598.  But it was undoubtedly written several years before that time; and I am not aware that any editor places the writing at a later date than 1594.  This brings it into the same period with King John, King Richard the Second, and the finished Romeo and Juliet; and the internal marks of style naturally sort it into that company.  Our Mr. Verplanck, however, thinks there are some passages which relish strongly of an earlier time; while again there are others that with the prevailing sweetness of the whole have such an intertwisting of nerve and vigour, and such an energetic compactness of thought and imagery, mingled occasionally with the deeper tonings of “years that bring the philosophic mind,” as to argue that they were wrought into the structure of the play not long before it came from the press.  The part of the Athenian lovers certainly has a good deal that, viewed by itself, would scarce do credit even to such a boyhood as Shakespeare’s must have been.  On the other hand, there is a large philosophy in Theseus’ discourse of “the lunatic, the lover, and the poet,” a manly judgment in his reasons for preferring the “tedious brief scene of young Pyramus and his love Thisbe,” and a bracing freshness in