18.  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, who 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.  ’Tis like making a question concerning the paper on which a king’s message is written.

19.  Shakspeare is as much out of the category of eminent authors, as he is out of the crowd.  He is inconceivably wise; the others, conceivably.  A good reader can, in a sort, nestle into Plato’s brain, and think from thence; but not into Shakspeare’s.  We are still out of doors.  For executive faculty, for creation, Shakspeare is unique.  No man can imagine it better.  He was the farthest reach of subtlety compatible with an individual self,—­the subtilest of authors, and only just within the possibility of authorship.  With this wisdom of life, is the equal endowment of imaginative and of lyric power.  He clothed the creatures of his legend with form and sentiments, as if they were people who had lived under his roof; and few real men have left such distinct characters as these fictions.  And they spoke in language as sweet as it was fit.  Yet his talents never seduced him into an ostentation, nor did he harp on one string.  An omnipresent humanity[643] cooerdinates all his faculties.  Give a man of