"It is hardly possible but the character should take a higher and better tone from his constant habit of associating in thought with a class of thinkers, to say the least of it, above the average of humanity. It is morally impossible but that the manners should take a tinge of good breeding and civilization from having constantly before our eyes the way in which the best bred and best informed men have talked and conducted themselves in their intercourse with each other. There is a gentle but perfectly irresistible coercion in a habit of reading well directed over the whole tenor of a man's character and conduct, which is not the least effectual because it works insensibly, and because it is really the last thing he dreams of. It cannot be better summed up than in the words of the Latin poet, 'Emollit mores, nec sinit esse feros! It civilizes the conduct of men, and suffers them not to remain barbarous." Reading is, indeed, one great means of mental improvement, yet if our reading is not at the same time connected with a good literary training, we cannot properly relish the compositions of those wise and good men who have laboured so assiduously for our intellectual and moral advancement. It is the want of this training then, which, in a great measure, accounts for the ignorance, rudeness, and indiscretion of a large portion of the community. Nothing gives us a greater relish for good books, nothing more readily induces us to approve the correct and eloquent orator than our sympathy with the language which he employs, as well as our approbation of the sentiments which he utters. But we cannot possess this sympathy, we cannot award this approbation, unless we have very carefully attended to the study of language, more especially our own,-our own in its syntax, our own in its derivation, our own in the style and composition of our best writers. To none of these do our remarks apply more justly than to Shakspere, who, "among his other excellencies," says Doctor Johnson, "deserves to be studied as one of the original masters of our language." * Good books are never old. The following remarks from the pen of Mrs. Grant, of Laggan, convey a merited censure on injudicious readers. "You cannot think," says this lady, "what contempt I feel for silly and worldly people, (and are not all worldly people silly ?) when I hear them say of any of those productions of genius, which it exalts our nature even to contemplate, 'I have read it already;' as if it had no other charm but novelty, or as if their opaque minds could take in at a single reading, all that high-gifted spirits have produced, either from intense thinking, or a kind of lofty inspiration. When I find a book not worth reading, as soon as I am aware of the symptoms of mortality, I throw it down to be no more opened; but the ever-living labour of 'spirits never finely touched but to fine issues,' I dwell upon and return to, again and again, with ever new delight. The second reading I find better than the first; and, after an interval, the third speaks to me with the accustomed voice of a friend, with whom one dwells in old stories, because they are old, and rich in kindly associations." What would Mrs. G. say to those persons, many of them boasting knowledge and judgment, who never vouchsafe a first reading to the best and improved works; nay, who are so wise in their estimation, as never to take a book into their hands, and We are not surprised at the ignorance which prevails around us, when we examine the libraries even of those who are somewhat elevated (if we may so write) in the scale of English society. Very frequently they are so scanty, or else arranged with so little judgment, that they can be of no real value to the possessor. In some cases we discover costly furniture, paintings, and perhaps even statuary, and nothing deserving the name of a library. We would not be severe, but we are reminded of the old saying that, "good sense is rarely found in people of fortune." Rather than exclude books altogether, we would commend the taste of those excellent classics and collectors of books, Dr. Samuel Parr, and the late Archdeacon Wrangham, of Dr. Adam Clarke, a linguist, bibliographer, and commentator of great eminence; and to mention only another, the late Duke of Sussex, whose princely library contained so many valuable copies of the Scriptures, as well as other works of the such, indeed, we have discovered in our experience, most frequently, however, amongst the vulgar and uneducated? Our remarks should be pondered more especially by those whose means of mental cultivation are ample, and yet who prefer to remain in a state of ignorance and degradation. Is not the reading of Reviews and other critical works, although much neglected, most improving, containing, as these do, a great amount of criticism which is frequently clothed in the best language that can be employed? When will Blackwood, the Quarterly, and other periodicals, after they have become a few months old, cease to be regarded as no better than waste paper? Only when Britain asserts her superiority as a highly intellectual and cultivated nation? greatest rarity and importance, and who might have adopted the language of Prospero, the rightful Duke of Milan, who, in the Tempest,' speaks of volumes from his library, he "prized above his dukedom," and also states with the enthusiasm peculiar to a lover of books, that his "library was dukedom large enough." Good education then, and a choice selection of books, (estimable for quality rather than quantity) should not be wanting to the people of any nation which makes any pretensions to knowledge and civilization. In this choice selection, let the works of Shakspere and Milton hold a distinguished place. Do justice to the memory of those illustrious men by an attentive perusal of their writings, and whatever in these (since perfection belongs not to humanity) whatever in these, we say, partakes of error and imperfection, consider it your duty to reject, while at the same time you retain the lessons of wisdom and virtue which those incomparable productions are so well calculated to afford to the unprejudiced and judicious reader. But to resume the incomplete notices of Shakspere already furnished in the former portion of the volume, it may be stated, that we are not without evidence to show, that during the later years of the poet's life which were spent in his native town, he was well-known and respected by his neighbours. Mr. Halliwell, the eminent Shaksperean critic, whose article on the last days of Shakspere, inserted in the third number of the first volume of the St. James's Magazine, we would advise our readers to consult, has, in his careful and laborious researches, discovered amongst the records of the corporation of Stratford, memoranda, which prove, that in September, 1615, only a few months before his death, Shakspere was busied with matters of local interest, and that his opinions on those subjects which were discussed by the corporation, carried considerable weight, insomuch that those opinions were specially noted and preserved. In connexion, however, with affairs of greater moment, we are more particularly indebted to Mr. Halliwell's contribution. We cannot revert to the religious principles or profession of remarkable characters without considerable interest. After the publication of the first edition of our little work, the writer was asked by a Romish ecclesiastic, 'Was Shakspere a Catholic or a Protestant?' In our first endeavour to furnish the history of our poet, we had not attempted to indicate Shakspere's religious profession, and in reply to this gentleman's inquiry, we could only confess our ignorance on the subject. We were told, however, in this brief conversation, that the poet was a Roman Catholic, while, at the same time, no evidence was produced to corroborate the assertion, and, in consequence, we were left to form an opinion from other sources. The Church of Rome, it seems, wants to claim Shakspere as a member of her communion, but we think the following passage from Mr. Halliwell's commuication, may rather induce us to believe that the poet was a son of the Protestant church. Mr. Halliwell thus proceeds: "It is proved |