At last, by action of the inexorable, inescapable moral order, " the wheel is come full circle ;" evil is strangled. To such an equitable intellect, the idea of a Platonic Republic or Bacon's "New Atlantis" would be as impossible as impracticable. He knew too well the plasticity of human adjustments, the shifting, fleeting, rising and sinking of the social order, the possibilities of disturbance and recoil that ever lie at the core of a placid and smug order of things, to attempt any speculative panacea for the evils of society. He laid open the tap-root of a41 institutions and happenings-- the human heart. All this is a digression, but a strange fascination invests the name of Shakspeare. Thackeray said of the insanity of Dean Swift, " So great a man he seems to me, that thinking of him is like thinking of an empire falling." So when we talk of Shakspeare, italmost seems that we are talking of collective humanity. He was no economic idealist; he built no systems of philosophy of law. He understood humanity. In spite of all criticisms, his view of life followed more closely than the pretentious systems of closet philosophers, the gleam of the Democratic Ideal -- progression and growth. We may consider government, or rather the social organism, as a working basis on which men manage to live together, receiving from and giving to each other protection for life and property. There is a noble phrase of Edmund Burke -- he was a master of