influences to show that human desires are not to be bound by the letter of books, or tenor of oaths.

In doing this our poet displays the freedom before noticed, in borrowing from sacred sources. This, on the occasion, may be held as indispensable; as piety is the great opponent of the carnal man, and must be mixed up in an argument, such as the poet enters upon. But whether the precise turn he gives to what he thus borrows is either indispensable, or devout, we may safely leave to the judgment of the reader.

One of the finest passages of St. Paul, in general estimation, is appropriated to a secular purpose, and pointed with a heathen moral. The doctrine of necessity (a characteristic of our poet's philosophy) is often enforced in this play, and the inutility of oaths is attempted to be demonstrated on the ground of necessity.

If our author is held not to satirise certain Scriptural recommendations to men, it will not be disputed that he satirises Puritanical peculiarities. It will be said, in extenuation, that Shakspere set himself to attack only the abuses of religion, but it may be fearlessly urged that no truly reverential' man, as we are told Shakspere was, ever satirised the earnest faith of another; he may pronounce him to be in error, but he feels too much the solemnity of the question to write down sacred interpretations in burlesque.

Towards the end of the play, Biron's impious facetiousness is indulged to such an extent, that Shakspere is obliged to step in and act the part of his own censor, by way of allaying excited suspicion. In the mouth of Rosaline are put such rebukes of his religious freedoms, à la Voltaire, who intentionally trod on his readers' toes, and politely raised his hat to beg pardon for the offence, that we may be sure, were Shakspere to return to life now, no one would be more surprised than he at his commentators so lauding him for serious piety and unsuspicious philosophy.

HAMLET, PRINCE OF DENMARK.

Had Shakspere never drawn but the character of Hamlet, as it now stands, and left all his other creations religious, he would have stamped himself as once a sceptic.

Hallam recognises in our author the 'censurer of mankind;' and it is not to be denied that he fulfils this office as the infidel, from time immemorial, has fulfilled it. But inasmuch as he tempers his satires with poetry and art, and garnishes them with philosophy, he has escaped the peculiar credit, which has fallen to the lot of others, who have essayed his functions.

The play of Hamlet combats the theory of Providence and the popular ideas of chance-subjects which seem always to have deeply engaged the attention of speculative freethinkers.

Shakspere's experience, as supposed by the judicious historian we have mentioned, and as corroborated by what we gather of his life and know of his plays, was precisely that which would produce a philosophical sceptic. It is this experience which he has embodied in Hamlet.

No theory of Shakspere reconciles so many contrarieties generally, as the one advanced in this 'Inquiry'-and it will be found that Hamlet is only intelligible upon the hypothesis maintained in the text-that of the Danish Prince being a sceptic.

We find that when Hamlet was produced before the Parisian public, in something like his true lineaments, this peculiarity was immediately recognised in him.

Those who are obliged to admit the freedom of Hamlet's speculations, will doubtless conclude that all is explained by what is termed the Prince's 'insanity.' But such should observe, that madness, like the creation of clowns in other plays, is the cloak wherewith our poet conceals his peculiar intention.

Could he be less than a sceptic who drew Hamlet with the weight of argument in his favour? His wit so pointed, his objections so subtle, his balances so determined. None could delineate such a character but he who understood it, and none would exalt it (as Shakspere does) but he who approved it.

Of Hamlet's scepticism, his famous soliloquy, beginning 'To be or not to be,' is a demonstrative proof. Nowhere in the whole range of literature are the pros and cons of life and death put with such perverse force. That there may

be an hereafter is the ancient position of the doubter. The Christian knows that there is a world to come. He is satisfied upon the point. He neither scruples, nor questions it. But Hamlet passes beyond mere doubt. He puts the moral disadvantages of the Christian belief. It makes calamity of so long life.' It makes us endure the proud man's contumely the whips and scorns of time' the oppressor's wrong'-and a thousand evils which the brave would trample under foot. He pursues the disparaging comparison farther. It makes cowards of us all'-' resolution' loses its native hue,' and 'enterprise is turned away' at its fell glance. Nothing bolder than this has been written on this theme. Language can no further go in favour of disbelief. Let those who please claim Hamlet for a religious character, but great purification' must be again instituted before it can be done successfully, or consistently.

If the reader bestows but common attention upon the speeches and peculiarities of our prince and his companions, there will be little necessity to press further upon his notice the full summary of their characteristics in our epitome.

One instance may be cited, from among many, of the credit our author derives from our conjecture respecting his unbelief. Who can read, without startling, the cool, calculating diabolism of Hamlet, who waits for his uncle to rise from prayer before he kills him, that he may have a fairer chance of sending him to hell? Nothing but our hypothesis-that Shakspere was a disbeliever in this doctrine-saves 'gentle Willie' from being set down as the author of one of the most savage and shocking sentiments on record.

We find Polonius, in Hamlet, like the countess, in All's Well that Ends Well, amending the precepts of the New Testament. Not only are we struck with the little purpose for which the Ghost visits Hamlet, who neglects to ask him the very information for which he was panting, but at the comic strain in which the prince addresses the solemn visitant as ( Truepenny,'-the man of eternal blazons' as the fellow in the cellarage,' as the old mole.' author, save Shakspere, would be retained in the niche of serious believers in the supernatural who had produced a scene of this kind.

No

The resurrection, or rather establishment, of Shakspere's present reputation, is entirely owing to the latitude that has been suffered to creep into the compositions of this agethe silence which is preserved by modern editors respecting the tenor of his religion and philosophy arises from a carelessness, or a weakness, it would be difficult appropriately to characterise.

RICHARD II.

Shakspere presents a somewhat fairer picture in this religious king than in the last he drew. But this character is not without strong suspicious traits.

Our exposition of this play cites some remarks of Mr. Knight, to the effect that Shakspere has been religionised by act of parliament-a fact powerfully significant of the poet's taste, when his works needed such a revision. It is said, by the critic in question, that the habits of the times of Shakspere sanctioned the use of impious freedoms. But we are not to forget that real piety is the same in all ages, and always avoids the 'light employment of the sacred name' of God. Mr. Knight appears to regret that 'modern editors have not exercised this good taste in restoring [rendering] the readings of the earliest copies' of our dramatist. If this is to be tolerated, then farewell to every hope of learning the individual character and sentiments of Ŝhakspere. If we may omit every profane passage just as it suits our taste, and judge the author only by what we leave, or alter, of course we may transform him into an Apostle. By the exercise of the same 'good' and convenient 'taste,' we may make Toland into a Christian, Rabelais into a saint, and canonise Voltaire.

This play opens with a series of brutal invectives between Bolingbroke and Norfolk. These nobles, in their quarrel, make mutual appeals to heaven in the worst possible taste.

In adversity Richard resigns his religion. He had been told that heaven would championise his safety-he had boasted that the earth would feel' for him-that the very 'stones' would rise on his behalf-that neither the elements, nor man, could ever depose the deputy elected by the Lord' but in the hour of danger he sits down to talk of

graves,' and takes a stern and deadly view of human affairs, such as alone befits the eye of an Atheist. In the fate of abandoned and murdered kings, the reality is made to break in upon him, and dissipate, as a delusion, the pious and confident hopes that before characterised him.

In Pomfret Castle, at the prospect of speedy death, we find him playing the finished sceptic, and building on the contradictions of the Bible an argument in favour of annihilation. On being murdered by Exton he evidences piety again, and directs his 'soul to mount on high;' but by what ratiocination he had so suddenly persuaded himself of his celestial prospects the poet who concludes by rhyme informs

us not.

Comparisons between the sacrifice of the Son of God and mere mortals have always been held blasphemous. In this drama the reader will find such parallels unblushingly made between Jesus Christ and an oppressive' and unstable king.

In the speech of Gaunt, in Act 1, where he teaches Bolinbroke that there is no virtue like necessity,' we have an instance, of which this play affords several others, of Shakspere's partiality for that doctrine. It is curious that Warwick should teach it again to Bolingbroke, who became Henry IV.

RICHARD III.

Again our poet departs from historical truth, and in doing so, as before, he departs from religion. It has been recently established that Richard III. has been belied by historians. As Shakspere lived near to his time, it is likely that the truth was known to him; yet we find him making his hero more impious than the common histories warrant.

We see in this play, as in Macbeth, striking indications of our dramatist's peculiar philosophy, depreciating religious, raising moral influences-seeking in the constitution of human nature, rather than in grace, the inducements to vir

tue.

The author still reproduces his revolting groups of fierce and hateful disputants, contesting with each other the palm of malignity, and rivaling each other in invectives-with nothing in common save unanimous appeals to God to be