even that bedimmed and overwhelmed spirit recked not of its own immortality, still to seek to be,-to be a mind, a will.

As fame is to reputation, so heaven is to an estate, or immediate advantage. The difference is, that the self-love of the former cannot exist but by a complete suppression and habitual supplantation of immediate selfishness. In one point of view, the miser is more estimable than the spendthrift;-only that the miser's present feelings are as much of the present as the spendthrift's. But cæteris paribus, that is, upon the supposition that whatever is good or lovely in the one coexists equally in the other, then, doubtless, the master of the present is less a selfish being, an animal, than he who lives for the moment with no inheritance in the future. Whatever can degrade man, is supposed in the latter case; whatever can elevate him, in the former. And as to self;-strange and generous self! that can only be such a self by a complete divestment of all that men call self, of all that can make it either practically to others, or consciously to the individual himself, different from the human race in its ideal. Such self is but a perpetual religion, an inalienable acknowledgment of God, the sole basis and ground of being. In this sense, how can I love God, and not love myself, as far as it is of God?

Ib. sc. 2.—

"Pattern in himself to know,
Grace to stand, and virtue go.”

Worse metre, indeed, but better English would be,

"Grace to stand, virtue to go.”

"CYMBELINE."

Acr I. sc. 1.

"You do not meet a man, but frowns: our bloods
No more obey the heavens, than our courtiers'
Still seem, as does the king's"

HERE can be little doubt of Mr. Tyrwhitt's emendations of "courtiers" and "king," as to the sense;-only it is not impossible that Shakespeare's dramatic language may allow of the word "brows" or "faces" being understood after the word "courtiers'," which might then remain in the genitive case plural. But the nominative plural makes excellent sense, and is sufficiently elegant, and sounds to my ear Shakespearian. What, however, is meant by "our bloods no more obey the heavens?"-Dr. Johnson's assertion that "bloods" signify "countenances," is, I think, mistaken both in the thought conveyed-(for it was never a popular belief that the stars governed men's countenances)-and in the usage, which requires an antithesis of the blood, or the temperament of the four humours, choler, melancholy, phlegm, and the red globules, or the sanguine portion, which was supposed not to be in our own power, but to be dependent on the influences of the heavenly bodies, and the countenances which are in our power really, though from flattery we bring them into a no less apparent dependence on

Themen ations of couruers" and

the sovereign, than the former are in actual dependence on the constellations.

I have sometimes thought that the word "courtiers" was a misprint for "countenances," arising from an anticipation, by foreglance of the compositor's eye, of the word "courtier" a few lines below. The written is easily and often confounded with the written n. The compositor read the first syllable court, and his eye at the same time catching the word "courtier" lower downhe completed the word without reconsulting the copy. It is not unlikely that Shakespeare intended first to express, generally, the same thought, which a little afterwards he repeats with a particular application to the persons meant; a common usage of the pronominal "our," where the speaker does not really mean to include himself; and the word "you" is an additional confirmation of the “our," being used in this place for men" generally and indefinitely, just as "you do not meet" is the same as CC one does not meet." Act i. sc. 1. Imogen's speech:

"My dearest husband,

I something fear my father's wrath; but nothing
(Always reserved my holy duty) what

His rage can do on me:"

Place the emphasis on "me"; for "rage

mere repetition of "wrath."

"Cym. O disloyal thing,

That should'st repair my youth, thou heapest

A year's age on me!"

How is it that the commentators take no notice of the un-Shakespearian defect in the metre of the second line, and what in Shakespeare is the same,

in the harmony with the sense and feeling? Some word or words must have slipped out after "youth,"-possibly "and see":

"That should'st repair my youth!-and see, thou heap'st," &c.

"For so long

As he could make me with this eye or ear
Distinguish him from others," &c.

But "this eye," in spite of the supposition of its being used SEIKTIK@s, is very awkward. I should think that either "or or "the" was Shakespeare's word;

رؤ

"As he could make me or with eye or ear."

Ib. sc. 6. Iachimo's speech :-

"Hath nature given them eyes

To see this vaulted arch, and the rich crop
Of sea and land, which can distinguish 'twixt
The fiery orbs above, and the twinn'd stones
Upon the number'd beach.'

As to

I would suggest "cope" for " crop." "twinn'd stones"-may it not be a bold catachresis for muscles, cockles, and other empty shells with hinges, which are truly twinned? I would take Dr. Farmer's "umber'd," which I had proposed before I ever heard of its having been already offered by him: but I do not adopt his interpretation of the word, which I think is not derived from umbra, a shade, but from umber, a dingy yellow-brown soil, which most commonly forms the mass of the sludge on the sea-shore, and on the banks of tide-rivers at low water. One other possible interpretation of this sentence has occurred to me, just barely worth mentioning;

that the "twinn'd stones

are the augrim stones

upon the number'd beech,-that is, the astronomical tables of beech-wood.

Act v. sc. 5.—

"Sooth. When, as a lion's whelp," &c.

It is not easy to conjecture why Shakespeare should have introduced this ludicrous scroll, which answers no one purpose, either propulsive, or explicatory, unless as a joke on etymology.