kindliness of his humour, nor the intellectual depth of his psychological motives. His intelligent patriotism, and his prudent practical views in almost every branch of human life and activity, also form an important portion of his greatness, and therefore of his title to fame. To give one proof only of his glowing love for his beautiful English fatherland, what poet has ever praised the greatness and the beauty of his country in finer words than Shakespeare in the verses which, in Richard II., he puts into the mouth of the dying John of Gaunt, Earl of Lancaster:

This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress, built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less nappier lands,

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Fear'd by their breed, and famous by their birth,
Renowned for their deeds as far from home,
For Christian service and true chivalry,

As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry,

Of the world's ransom, blessed Mary's Son,
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world.

Richard II., act ii. scene 1.

If the question be put, How must an age be constituted in order to be capable of producing great minds and to favour their development? it will be found that the whole history of the development of human culture furnishes the answer. Thus it will be seen that those ages are best adapted to this end in which the opinions and convictions of the intellectual, active, and ruling classes of the people are wholly in agreement, as regards all important matters, with the efforts of the Government, let this be constituted as

it may. Further, it is requisite that the people should have the tranquillising conviction that in all domains of public life, measures of progress and improvement are being applied, a conviction that is of itself a spur towards renewed efforts on their part. If any age in English history has responded to these conditions, this was the case in a striking degree in the time of Queen Elizabeth. Even the hateful side of that period, and of Elizabeth's system of government, characteristic of all the rulers in her family, that tendency, viz., to despotism, that steady propensity on the part of the royal authority to overstep the bounds of the constitution, and the ever-renewed attempts made against the rights of the people, will appear to us in a milder and less ungracious light if we cease to compare them with the circumstances of our own day, cease to make use of our own points of view, which are accustomed to such very different standards. We should rather consider certain other circumstances which must have exerted a great influence at that time. Indeed, this attitude is absolutely necessary in order to judge the men and the events of other epochs with justice and impartiality. For example, a great and fundamental difference exists between the development of public affairs as they occurred in England, and those which history records of the kingdoms of the Continent, especially of France. Here the feudal monarchy of the Middle Ages, after the power of the great tributaries had been broken, changed into an absolute unlimited despotism, into the most pronounced royal autocracy. Such a development was only possible because these monarchs had understood the necessity of assuring to themselves the aid of a strong well-disciplined standing army. This placed them in a position to safeguard their absolute authority against the already shaken power of the great nobles, and the unarmed, helpless mass of the common people, and so secure themselves from all attacks from either. This aid was lacking to the English kings. Hence, although apparently and outwardly they issued with success from the

terrible Civil War that raged because of the succession between the rival princely houses of York and Lancaster, which destroyed so many of the nobility, and decimated the civic and agricultural classes on most bloody battlefields, or destroyed them by means of no less bloody trials on the scaffold, yet, as they were without this terrible and only effectual means of coercion, they were never able to achieve absolute monarchy in England. Nor must it be forgotten that the populace, who had suffered terribly during these wars, regarded the monarchical power as that which had reestablished order and quiet in the land, enabling them once more to go about their occupations in peace and to return to relative prosperity. Therefore they were quite willing to suffer that their rulers, and above all their admired and beloved Queen Elizabeth, should transgress from time to time the limits of constitutional authority. But, in spite of this inclination on the part of the populace to accept these breaches of the constitution instead of meeting them with energetic contradiction or with formal opposition, there was inherent in the circumstances a factor that made it impossible to change these relations into a complete and permanent system of absolute royal authority; and this, too, despite the fact that in those days there were wholly wanting those safeguards of the civil and political liberty of the subject now so highly prized and so eagerly sought, which have been, in truth, discovered and established with sense, earnestness, and energy-safeguards such as the freedom of the press, the right of combination, and of assembly, these immovable landmarks of the boundary between the right to make laws and the power to enforce them-the Government in every danger, in every threatened invasion from without was simply dependent upon the good-will of the people. When the terrible Spanish Armada threatened to attack England, to destroy the whole existence of all that was dear and sacred to its people, to sweep away their entire political and religious independence, nay, their very existence,

not merely to deprive them of some single right or privilege, as their own monarchs had done, Elizabeth had to turn to the authorities of her capital. She asked them what they were prepared and willing to do in order to save their threatened fatherland from the impending danger, and informed them in how far she counted upon their aid. She received the gratifying answer that the capital entreated she would accept, "as a token of their absolute affection and submission," twice the amount she had asked for. Macaulay says with perfect truth that a people who could furnish such a proof of loyalty could never long have been ill-governed with impunity. Elizabeth understood this perfectly well. Her greatness, as well as the brilliant results of her reign, were due in no small degree to the power which she had the wisdom and prudence to exert over herself, through which she controlled her inborn and inherited inclination towards self-willed and arbitrary modes of procedure. While she delighted in ruling despotically those who most nearly surrounded her, thus playing, amid her courtiers, the part of an absolute queen, she knew how to yield at the right time to that powerful stream of public opinion, upon whose affection and adherence the safety and splendour of her throne depended. This is seen most clearly in the conduct of the Queen with regard to the Monopoly question, which gave occasion for a most brilliant proof of her wisdom as a ruler, and her deep insight into the requirements of the time and of public opinion. She began by expressing in the strongest manner her unlimited sovereign power as against the Parliament, and by forbidding in the most unequivocal manner any interference on its part in the internal rule of her realm. This declaration was received with dumb submission. Nevertheless, when the practical question arose that the people complained of their burdens, which threatened to become insupportable, this did not hinder Parliament from being the mouthpiece of their complaints. These were expressed in earnest and

impressive though submissive and unexceptionable terms. The Queen had granted certain monopolies to various branches of trade, by virtue of her prerogative to settle these things independently of Parliament. Some of these monopolies dealt with the necessaries of life. The natural result was that worthless commodities were sold at high prices, thus bringing great gain to the monopolists, while they imposed heavy hardships, and even injury, on the consuming public, and especially on the lower and poorer classes. Elizabeth yielded to the universal voice of the people thus brought under her notice by Parliament. Without hesitation she annulled all such monopolies, and expressed her gratitude besides to the representatives of her people, who had opened her eyes to their true interests. To such events was due that ideal union which, in England, bound the people and Government together into one body in all really important matters, in spite of certain temporary troubles and misunderstandings. This union led to marked progress in internal affairs, and to a strong and victorious position abroad. Commerce and manufactures flourished, the prosperity of the people increased, the English trading flag floated in the most distant waters, and the English warstandard ruled the seas after the destruction of the mighty maritime power of Spain. All Europe looked up to England. The Protestants regarded her as the bulwark of their faith, the Catholic Princes looked up with respect and awe to the Virgin Queen, who, in spite of her arbitrariness, was a truly wise ruler, and who, in concert with her people, attained to the acme of glory. Thus we see that Shakespeare lived in an active and stirring time, amid a people who had discovered the natural road whereby to attain great and brilliant goals. The England of his time was roused and excited by delight in great enterprises, which resulted in peace at home and in civil liberty, which grew steadily if slowly, notwithstanding occasional disturbances which the need to hold together for the sake of common interests and