broken down the observance of the distinctions which in those days were most rigidly clung to. It appears from this letter that in 1608 Shakspere had ceased to be an actor; but he was still a sharer in the company. Thus honoured and esteemed, it is not unlikely that he had retired to Stratford, where, for several years, before his death, he was employed in the culture of his grounds, and the production of his inestimable dramas. It is not improbable that the direction of Shakspere's mind to Roman subjects, in his closing period, and the marvellous accuracy, the real substantial learning with which he has treated them, would lead us to believe that he had renewed the studies of his boyhood in the last years of his retirement. It is probable that he continued to write till he was removed by death, and that the Roman plays were the beginning of a new series. Who will with equal ability

finish that series?

Amongst the too few contemporary notices of Shakspere, which we rejoice to possess, imperfect and contracted as those are, there is one which for its fulness and explicitness, counterbalances the lack of more extensive information. It is taken from a "Comparative Discourse of our English Poets," prefixed to a work, entitled "Wit's Treasury," and published in 1598, by Francis Meres, who was a Master of Arts of Cambridge, and subsequently entered the church. Nothing can be more decisive than this "Comparative Discourse" as to the rank which, in 1598, Shakspere had taken amongst the most eminent of his contemporaries.

'As the Greek tongue,' says he, 'is made famous and eloquent by Homer, Hesiod, Euripides, Eschylus, Sophocles, Pindarus, Phocylides, and Aristophanes, and also the Latin tongue by Virgil, Ovid, Horace, Silius Italicus, Lucanus, Lucretius, Ausonius, and Claudianus; so the English tongue is mightily enriched and gorgeously invested in rare ornaments and resplendent habiliments, by Sir Philip Sidney, Spenser, Daniel, Drayton, Warner, Shakspere, Marlow, and Chapman.”

"As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras, so the sweet witty soul of Ovid, lives in mellifluous and honey-tongued Shakspere; witness his 'Venus and Adonis,' his 'Lucrece,' his sugared Sonnets among his private friends, &c."

"As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for comedy and tragedy among the Latins, so Shakspere among the English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage; for comedy witness his "Gentlemen of Verona," his "Errors," his "Love's Labour Lost," his "Love's Labour Won," his "Midsummer Night's Dream," and his "Merchant of Venice; for tragedy, his "Richard II," "Richard III," "Henry IV," "King John," "Titus Andronicus," and his "Romeo and Juliet."

"As Epins Stolo said that the Muses would speak with Plautus's tongue, if they would speak Latin; so I say that the Muses would speak with Shakspere's fine filed phrase if they would speak English."

We have already adverted to the marriage of Shakspere. This took place before the close of the year 1582. Susanna, his eldest daughter, born the following year, married, in 1607, a physician resident at Stratford- —a man of high professional eminence-Dr. Hall. In 1608, his grand-daughter, Elizabeth, was born. To this child he bequeathed a sum of money, and all his plate, "except," says he, "my broad silver and gilt bowl." Early in 1585, twin children were born to our great poet, and they were baptized on the 2nd of February as 'Hamnet and Judith.'

In 1596,

he lost his only son, who was buried at Stratford. He survived the marriage of his daughter Judith to Thomas Quiney only two months, and he made his will probably on the occasion of that marriage. By this will which is long, Shakspere gives his real estates to his eldest daughter. It was his object to perpetuate a family estate. In doing so, did he (as some infer) neglect the duty and affection which he owed to his wife? He did not not. His estates, with the exception of a copyhold tenement, expressly mentioned in his will, were freehold. His wife was entitled to dower. She was provided for amply, by the clear and undeniable operation of the English Law.

We may mention that in 1597, nearly twenty years before the death of our poet, he bought the principal house in Stratford, built by Sir Hugh Clopton, in the reign of Henry VII, described by Dugdale, as a ‘fair house built of brick and timber,' and in the poet's will as "all that capital messuage or tenement, with

the appurtenances, in Stratford aforesaid, called the New Place." In a subsequent part of this discourse, we shall have to refer, not however without unpleasant reflections, to the demolition of this house, which took place scarcely a century ago, through the directions of the then proprietor, the Rev. Francis Gastrell. There is a tradition that the valuable estate of New Place was purchased by Shakspere through the munificient assistance of Lord Southampton. It is certainly not unpleasant to believe such a tradition, yet the bard's profits may not only have secured him property in the Blackfriars and Globe Theatres, but also enabled him to purchase New Place without any extraordinary assistance from his friend and patron.

We now, with considerable satisfaction, contemplate our incomparable poet, as the possessor of an adequate portion of wealth; our minds are gratified by the thought, that his retirement would afford to him facilities for contemplation, and such opportunities for the cultivation of the best feelings of humanity, and the constant exercise of acts of kindness and charity, which are only shared by a small portion of our fellow-men.

We shall follow the narrative, after we have presented our readers with a few mighty utterances of our poet, manifesting, as these do, a fertility of imagination, an extensive knowledge of men and things, a power of argument, an adherence to truth, a sympathetic and benevolent feeling, a high-toned moral, and

a command of language, scarcely, if ever exhibited by any other human being.—

"Lord Byron," says a writer* of some taste and ability, “had always a nervous horror of floating with the stream, and was never inclined to express any other opinions than those which he knew to be in direct opposition to the general judgment of mankind, more especially of his own contemporaries. It was this feeling that led him to undervalue Shakspere, and make Pope his idol."

It is to be hoped that feelings of this character will not influence those who may consult the following pages. Good poets are sometimes bad judges of excellence in their own art.†

* Richardson, in his "Literary Gems."

A literary gentleman, speaking of a certain Book, once said to us that the book was very suggestive. We think that this remark was very complimentary. In a work wherein much is left to fancy and conjecture, and where, perhaps, conclusiveness can scarcely be arrived at, we may rejoice to be able to offer suggestions which we hope will produce reflections of a useful and interesting character. These remarks refer to our Life of Shakspere.