But, in the wind and tempest of her frown,
Distinction, with a broad and powerful fan,
Puffing at all, winnows the light away;
And, what hath mass, or matter, by itself
Lies rich in virtue and unmingled.

Much as we admire the lines which we have already commended, we find a parallel passage in that which we have now cited. We are reminded of an extract

from one of our old English poets, George Wither, which is quoted by Doctor Trench, in his excellent book, "The Study of Words," where that admirable scholar, now the Archbishop of Dublin, is commenting on the word "tribulation." But to return, Shakspere is always himself; he never never flags; his noble utterances will bear repetition.

Duke Senior. Come, shall we go and kill us venison? And yet it irks me, the poor dappled fools,

Being native burghers of this desert city,

Should in their own confines, with forked heads

Have their round haunches gor'd.

First Lord.

Indeed, my Lord,

The melancholy Jaques grieves at that;
And, in that kind, swears you do more usurp

Than doth your brother that hath banished you.
To-day, my lord of Amiens, and myself,

Did steal behind him, as he lay along

Under an oak, whose antique root peeps out
Upon the brook that brawls along this wood:
To the which place a poor sequester'd stag,
That from the hunter's aim had ta'en a hurt,
Did come to languish; and, indeed, my lord,
The wretched animal heaved forth such groans,
That their discharge did stretch his leathern cost
Almost to bursting; and the big round tears
Cours'd one another down his innocent nose
In piteous chase; and thus the hairy fool,
Much marked of the melancholy Jaques,
Stood on the extremest verge of the swift brook,
Augmenting it with tears.

Duke S.

But what said Jaques ?

Did he not moralize this spectacle?

1st Lord. O, yes, into a thousand similes.

First, for his weeping into the needless stream; 'Poor deer,' quoth he, thou mak’st a testament As worldlings do, giving thy sum of more

To that which had too much :" then, being there alone, Left and abandon'd of his velvet friends;

669

'Tis right," quoth he; "thus misery doth part

The flux of company:" Anon, a careless herd,
Full of the pasture, jumps along by him,

And never stays to greet him: 'Ay,' quoth Jaques,
Sweep on, you fat and greasy citizens;

'Tis just the fashion. Wherefore do you look
Upon that
poor and broken bankrupt there?'.
Thus most invectively he pierceth through
The body of the country, city, court,

Yea, and of this our life; swearing, that we
Are mere usurpers, tyrants, and what's worse,
To fright the animals, and to kill them up,
In their assign'd and native dwelling-place.

A passage from the Play of Titus Andronicus, may not inaptly be associated with these touching and beautiful lines. The passages taken together exhibit such beauty of language, and kindness of disposition, as must inevitably commend them to the admiration of every humane person.

Marcus. Alas, my lord, I have but kill'd a fly.

Titus. But how, if that fly had a father and mother?
How would he hang his slender gilded wings,
And buzz lamenting doings in the air?

Poor harmless fly!

That with his pretty buzzing melody,

Came here to make us merry; and thou hast kill'd him!

The amiable and benevolent Cowper, whose noble generosity and contemplative habits, strongly remind us of the melancholy Jaques, in that noble poem, ‘The Task,' gives utterance to sentiments of a similar character.

Shakspere himself, however, may yet be quoted as the best illustrator of his own sentiments. In the

Play of Pericles, Prince of Tyre, the lovely Marina, in allusion to the wicked purpose of the cruel Dionyza, who urges her servant Leonine to put her to death, thus speaks:

Why would she have me kill'd?

Now, as I can remember, by my troth,
I never did her hurt in all my life;
I never spake bad word, nor did ill turn
To any living creature: believe me, la,
I never kill'd a mouse, nor hurt a fly:
I trod upon a worm against my will,
But I wept for it. How have I offended,
Wherein my death might yield her any profit,
Or my life imply her any danger?

We may readily suppose that had Shakspere flourished in our times, he would have been a distinguished member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and he might probably have speculated on the future existence of the animal creation, this being a subject which has employed, and doth now employ the thoughts of many eminent and philanthropic men. To thoughtful, generous minds, the subject is full of interest. At this moment, the Rev. Francis Morris, B.A., Rector of Nunburnholme, has published a volume in relation to Natural History, under the title of "Records of Animal Sagacity and Character." We have not the work at hand, but we learn from a notice of it, which appeared in one of the public prints, that a preface accompanies the volume, which treats some

what copiously on the resurrection of animals. Mr. Morris quotes from numerous divines and authors in support of the theory of the immortality of animals, and concludes by stating that "it must be confessed by every candid person, that there is much in favour of the notion that the spiritual life of animals is not extinguished at the time of their bodily death, and that the most that can be said in opposition to the idea is only in the words of Sir Edward Lytton Bulwer, that they have 'no warrant of an hereafter.' I dare not, and do not affirm that they have; but I do say, "Why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should raise the dead, in the case of the animal creation, any more than in that of men-God, in whose hands is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind?"

A curious anecdote on this subject is to be found in Boswell's Life of Doctor Johnson! It will be seen that the Doctor was not inclined to converse upon the subject. We are told that an "essay, written by Mr. Deane, a Divine of the Church of England, maintaining the future life of brutes, by an explication of certain parts of the Scriptures, was mentioned, and the doctrine insisted on by a gentleman who seemed fond of curious speculation. Johnson, who did not like to hear anything concerning a future state which was not authorised by the regular canons of orthodoxy, discouraged this talk; and being offended at its continuation, he watched an opportunity to give the gentleman a blow of reprehension. So, when the

C