"But clay and clay differ in dignity

Where dust is both alike."

We have not space to enter minutely into the author's estimate of Shylock as a type; we must glance only at one aspect of it, and ask our readers to study the others for themselves. As in Hamlet and Macbeth, so in the remarks on Shylock, our attention is turned at every page to the learning, talent, and critical acumen of the author. It is impossible to follow him without being struck with the freshness of thought and riches of information in seldom explored tracts of literature, which have been brought to bear on the theme. But these excellences must not hide the strong prejudices which make the author's conclusions in ethics unsafe. In illustrating his theory in the case of Shylock, his estimate of the religious element, apart from which no right judgment can be formed of the Hebrew race, is extremely defective and unsatisfactory. We are most unwilling even to associate him with the would be original and profound, but in reality shallow-brained Theodore Parker. Again and again, however, when religion and the influence of the "Book Divine" crosses his path, we have been reminded of the prejudice and helpless logic of the Boston Lecturer. It is quite true that the two are wide asunder as the poles in ability, tastes, and sympathies; but both make the power of the religious principle depend on the characteristic tendencies of those who receive the Scriptures, and do not acknowledge that they present to man something which takes the lead of his being, and which, while not breaking down individuality, controls and modifies tendencies common to the race to which he belongs. This must have pressed itself on the attention of any student who has seen the influence of the same truth, preached, too, by the same men, on different races. For example, in the Scottish Highlands, the moral and social features of the Protestant Celts have, as the people yielded fully to the Protestant teaching, become wholly unlike to the marks which distinguish those who cling to the superstitions of the Papacy. Those who know the Protestant Highlanders best will be most ready to acknowledge this. This form of truth has, if our author will permit us to say so, brought his favourite race into much greater conformity with his ideal Celtic type, than they were before they were brought into "a reverence for what is writ," led to give themselves lovingly to Friar Bacon's recipe for the sin-sick world-"The study of the Bible as the fountain of all truth," and even to fall into "Teuton sympathies for Hebrew records," from all of which the writer of this work dissents. The difficulties which the author of the "New Interpretation" found lying in his way, when he brought his keen intellect to bear on the exposition of "The Merchant of Venice," led him, as

Features of the Hebrew Race.

489

it seems to us, to attempt a new interpretation of the Scriptures as well as of Shakespeare. Take one or two results of this: "The Jews," he says, at p. 232, "had no distinct notion of either soul or immortality." Now, if he will admit that the Bible is to be held a trustworthy witness on this point, we offer to give him hundreds of passages from which it is very plain that they not only had distinct notions of both, but such a firm, life-possessing faith in them, as made the hopes which spring out of such beliefs like wells of water to wilderness pilgrims. If the Bible be not a true witness, from what source are we to obtain evidence on the one side or the other? It is no doubt true, that, as to a small portion of the Divine record, he might plead the authority of Warburton ; but, even on this part, such names as Augustine and Edwards can be opposed to the author of the "Divine Legation of Moses," while, in the other portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, belief in immortality and the possession of well-defined views of the soul, lie, like lines of light, ever attracting to them the attention of the thoughtful reader.

Again: "Of course the reasoning power [of the Hebrew race] is totally null." Will our author take this sentence and read the Epistle to the Romans in the light of it—a letter written by one who was, what he loved to say of himself, "an Hebrew of the Hebrews?" We are convinced that if the writer of this work were as well acquainted with the "Hebrew Records" as he has shown himself to be with Shakespeare, he would come to a different conclusion. And, if he shall continue to hold the Jew to be but a dwarfed Teuton, he will then regard the Teuton, when he gets quit of his strong bias, as verily a son of Anak! Had the poet, in drawing Shylock, his mind full of a Jewish ideal type, then how account we for the way he has pictured Jessica -a daughter of the race, and therefore by nature a sharer of all its peculiarities?

"Shy. I say my daughter is my flesh and blood." Yet the poet makes the first approaches of a not very interesting lover urge her to protest

"O, Lorenzo,

If thou keep promise, I shall end this strife;

Become a Christian, and thy loving wife."

Then we have what might seem a contradiction, but what, excluding the theory now before us, illustrates the profound penetration of the poet. In the case of the father, hatred of the Christian triumphs over the engrained love even for the ducats. But Jessica's pure Jewish extraction serves her nothing when put to the trial. She is ready not only to dishonour her own flesh and blood, but to steal for behoof of her lover.

'Divine Legation of Moses. Book V.

"Jes. I will make fast the doors, and gild myself

With some more ducats, and be with you straight.”

If the subordinate characters in Hamlet and Macbeth are to be held consonant to the ideal type, why not Jessica? But when we regard Shylock as the expression of Shakespeare's acquaintance with an individual Jew, and not an attempt to represent through him the Hebrew race, the difficulty here indicated is lost sight of.

We can now do no more than refer to the concluding parts of the volume. An elaborate and, as before, a well-written chapter is devoted to the question, "To what race did Shakespeare himself belong?" Our author claims him for the Celtic! In attempting to make out this point, he shows some good thinking, some learning, and an amount of bitter prejudice, from which we hope, with all our Celtic leanings, we are free. The English are held to be destitute of everything like intellectual and moral dignity. They are selfish, gloomy, lubberly. Their very physiognomy is "mauled" until the subject described might begin to doubt his identity. "The English countenance," says he, "is notoriously not merely the least expressive, but even the most insignificant among the children of men." In intellectual and moral characteristics Shakespeare was wholly un-English, therefore he must have been a Celt! Here is the best written portion of this part of the subject:

“But then, this universality [of Shakespeare's genius] could, by the law of progression, have occurred but in the highest of the races concerned. This would be the case though the series were simple; for even then, whereas each of the secondary terms would effectually include, and might interpret all below it, the superior or succeeding must be above its comprehension, and all the stages be conceivable alone by the supreme race. But the series is, moreover, not direct, simple; it is complex. It consists in each stage, as has been seen, of three elements, two of which are antagonised, and the third opposed to both as mediator. These conditions must impose on the subordinate constituents a further restriction of their scope of comprehension. This sphere of sympathy extends, then, even in the lower terms, not to all, but to the corresponding race in each stage. For example, the highest genius in the Teutonic race must always fail to understand the Italic race, though lower, because it is antagonised with, and thus exclusive of, its specialty; it must pass down into the system of the antecedent stage to find its proper analoque, the Semitic or Hebrew race. Hence, respectively, the sympathy and the antipathy of ages between the Teutons and those races in the matter of religion -this instinctive and most infallible of all expressions of organisation; also in their whole history, as could be easily evinced. So, on the other hand, with the Italic race respecting the Jewish, which it must overstep in turn to interpret a lower element. As to the

third and mediatorial or synthetic race, it must be capable, on the contrary, as concentering these extremes, of comprehending both alike, and through them mediately all their analoques; it is the head of the resultant diagonal of the whole series. Furthermore, this key of the historical progression gives alone to the supreme race the comprehension of even itself. This consummation is attained in the methodical or reasoning faculty, which would be best, perhaps, distinguished as that intellectual position from which the reasoner himself is seen and judged like other objects; and in the case of the race in question, the mental organism becomes a virtual summary of all the antecedent stages. But this position of rationality, universality, sociability, has been perceived to be organically that of the Celtic race; and the power of representing this race, with all the others, to be a specific distinction of the genius of Shakespeare. There are also direct arguments and facts in confirmation. His spontaneous flow of wit, the exuberant and graceful fancy, the airy delicacy of the sprightliness, the inexhaustible and various eloquence, are each, not merely in degree, but very really in kind, and vastly more so, all united, quite peculiarly Celtic. Throughout the entire Teutonic family especially, there is not one writer, unequivocally gentilitial, who presents not only all, but any one of them, in higher perfection.' -P. 250.

Our readers have now before them a brief analysis of this able and original work. If it get a tithe of the attention which it deserves, its author will have little cause to complain of want of criticism, though he may have to bear many hard blows. For these, however, he will no doubt console himself with the thought, that nothing else was to be hoped for from Saxon stupidity and spite. We have looked at his work with the eyes of a Scottish Lowlander, and, therefore, as one who, in the estimate of the author, is more Celt than Saxon, though we never knew it before; and this may account for our mingled praise and blame. When a theory like this is put forward as at last supplying a key to Shakespeare, and when its author lets the commentators all understand that they know nothing about him, it is sure to be roughly handled; yet the author will have his reward. Be the value of the theory what it may, it is stated and illustrated in this volume with great ability; and even dull Teutons are not slow to recognise superior talent-a feature which they know is rare, at least in recent Shakespearian criticism. He has done his work well. To extensive, solid, and exact acquirements in language, philosophy, and history, he adds a logical subtilty of which even Duns Scotus might have been proud. But while unfolding and illustrating his views of Shakespearian exegesis, he never forgets that he is the champion of "the down-trodden Celt." That this race can supply such a defender will go far to convince many that there are good grounds for the claims he

makes in their behalf.

ART. X.-1. The Report of the Evidence and other Proceedings in Parliament respecting the Invention of the Life-Boat. By HENRY GREATHEAD, of South Shields. Lond. 1804. Pp. 71.

2. The Invention, Principles of Construction, and Uses of Unimmergible Boats, stated in a Letter to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. By LIONEL LUKIN. Lond. 1806. Pp. 43.

3. Shipwreck Investigated. By HENRY TRENGROUSE, Helston. Falmouth, 1817. Pp. 112.

4. Our Life-Boat. Communicated by RICHARD LEWIS, of the Inner Temple, and Secretary to the National Life-Boat Institution. Reprinted from the United Service Magazine, Sept. and Oct. 1857. Lond. 1857. Pp. 27.

5. An Essay on the Preservation of Shipwrecked Persons. By Capt. MANBY. Lond. 1812.

6. A Lecture on the most Efficacious Means of Saving Shipwrecked Sailors. By Capt. MANBY. Yarmouth, 1829. 7. Invention for Saving from Shipwreck. By JOHN MURRAY, F.G.S.A. Lond. 1831. With Supplement.

8. The Life-Boat; a Journal of the National Life-Boat Institution, from the 1st of March 1852 to the 1st of July 1859. 33 Nos., in 4 vols. Lond. 1852-1859.

9. Instructions for the Management of Open Boats in Heavy Surfs and Broken Water, issued by the Royal National LifeBoat Institution. Lond. 1859.

10. Annual Report of the Committee of the Royal National LifeBoat Institution for 1859. Lond. 1859.

11. On the Nature of Thunderstorms, and on the Means of Protecting Buildings and Shipping against the Destructive Effects of Lightning. By Sir W. SNOW HARRIS, F.R.S. Lond. 1843.

12. The Meteorology of Thunderstorms, with a History of the Effects of Lightning on 210 Ships of the British Navy. By Sir W. SNOW HARRIS. Lond. 1844.

13. Remarkable Instances of the Protection of Certain Ships of Her Majesty's Navy from the Destructive Effects of Lightning. By Sir WILLIAM SNOW HARRIS, F.R.S., etc. Lond. 1847. Pp. 70.

14. Treatise on Burning Instruments, containing the Method of Building large Polyzonal Lenses, and an Apparatus for Increasing the Intensity and the Size of the Refracted Beams. By DAVID BREWSTER, LL.D., F.R.S. In the Edinburgh Encyclopædia, vol. v., p. 140, 143. Edin. 1812.