full of himself, very proud and conceited and contemptuous, we find when we come nearer to him, that he thinks very humbly of himself, and that he is towards us all respect, deference, and attention. The homage of those who seem constitutionally constructed to pay homage to every body affects and delights us not, but the homage of those who seem to expect homage is truly delightful. By this kind of art, Mr. Henry Augustus Tippetson rendered himself tolerable in spite of his foppery and exquisite affectations. We have introduced this gentleman again, because he is about to introduce himself; and though we would willingly let our characters speak for themselves, as we have said in the preceding volume, we cannot always trust them, for we know that they are all more or less hypocritical, and would put the best side outwards. Besides, there is wanting in narrative or written dialogue the countenance or expression, which the actor in a drama gives to the character. There may be much individuality in the characters of Shakspeare's dramas, but we question whether there be not somewhat less than most persons imagine. With all the individuality, however, that may be supposed to belong to them, we have very little doubt but that to different minds the names of Hamlet, Macbeth, Shylock, &c. present an almost infinite variety of moral portrait; and there is great truth in the common language and philosophy in the common phraseology, of "Kean's Richard," "Garrick's Richard," "Kemble's Coriolanus." "Kean's Richard" and "Garrick's Richard" were no doubt different persons. Our characters, therefore, cannot speak definitely enough, if they only speak for themselves. But Mr. Henry Augustus Tippetson is coming.