But what good purpose is attained by such caprices? In three sentences the sum of the philosophy may be stated. It has been computed (see _Duclos_) that the Italian opera has not above six hundred words in its whole vocabulary: so narrow is the range of its emotions, and so little are these emotions disposed to expand themselves into any variety of thinking. The same remark applies to that class of simple, household, homely passion, which belongs to the early ballad poetry. Their passion is of a quality more venerable, it is true, and deeper than that of the opera, because more permanent and coextensive with human life; but it is not much wider in its sphere, nor more apt to coalesce with contemplative or philosophic thinking. Pass from these narrow fields of the intellect, where the relations of the objects are so few and simple, and the whole prospect so bounded, to the immeasurable and sea-like arena upon which Shakspeare careers--co-infinite with life itself--yes, and with something more than life. Here is the other pole, the opposite extreme. And what is the choice of diction? What is the _lexis_? Is it Saxon exclusively, or is it Saxon by preference? So far from that, the Latinity is intense--not, indeed, in his construction, but in his choice of words; and so continually are these Latin words used, with a critical respect to their earliest (and, where _that_ happens to have existed, to their unfigurative) meaning, that, upon this one argument I would rely for upsetting the else impregnable thesis of Dr. Farmer as to Shakspeare's learning. Nay, I will affirm that, out of this regard to the Latin acceptation of Latin words, may be absolutely explained the Shakspearian meaning of certain words, which has hitherto baffled all his critics. For instance, the word _modern_, of which Dr. Johnson professes himself unable to explain the _rationale_ or principle regulating its Shakspearian use, though he felt its value, it is to be deduced thus: First of all, change the pronunciation a little, by substituting for the short _o_, as we pronounce it in _modern_, the long _o_, as heard in _modish_, and you will then, perhaps, perceive the process of analogy by which it passed into the Shakspearian use. The _matter_ or substance of a thing is, usually, so much more important than its fashion or _manner_, that we have hence adopted, as one way for expressing what is important as opposed to what is trivial, the word _material_. Now, by parity of reason, we are entitled to invert this order, and to express what is unimportant by some word indicating the mere fashion or external manner of an object as opposed to its substance. This is effected by the word _modal_ or _modern_, as the adjective from _modus_, a fashion or manner; and in that sense Shakspeare employs the word. Thus, Cleopatra, undervaluing to Caesar's agent the bijouterie which she has kept back from inventory, and which her treacherous steward had betrayed, describes them as mere trifles