devoted to the French, exclaimed before his death: "If I were young, I should take to English and the German." And if the stubborn old king was thus moved-he whose great ambition it was to make a name for himself in French literature-can we wonder that others who had not the same predilections should be still more moved, and that such a band of heroes should rise up to be the champions of Shakspere as Wieland, Eschenberg, Lenz, Goethe, Herder, Schiller, the Schlegels, Tieck, Ulrici, Horn-names which include the very greatest that Germany can boast of? Wieland (1762-66) translated most of the plays of Shakspere with a reverence which taught him to present the poet as he really is, and not with his errors, or fancied errors, softened down to suit the fashion of the moment. He was succeeded by Augustus Schlegel, who in 1797 produced a still more faithful and spirited translation; and he by Tieck, who, with the assistance of the Count W. Baudissin, revised and completed (1825-33) the translation of Schlegel, taking, as Mr Knight has done in the present edition, the folio of 1623 as the basis of his text. And Shakspere thus brought into more intimate and direct union with the German mind, the concurrent criticisms were worthy of the translations, of which we have not mentioned all. The criticism of Eschenberg, indeed, as well as of other writers, was not of much importance in itself; the greater part of it being plagiarised from English authors, and

what of it is original, not being very valuable. But the appearance of his different volumes served at least to shew the growing importance of Shakspere, and to bring his plays more prominently before the German public. Passing from Eschenberg and Gerstenberg, Lenz, Herder, and Schiller, we come to Goethe, who, by his single criticism of "Hamlet" in "Wilhelm Meister," has probably done more for the correct appreciation of Shakspere than any other German since the time of Lessing. That interpretation is too detailed to be quoted here, and must be read as a whole in order to be thoroughly understood; and although it is the elucidation of but one play, still it is an exemplar of criticism—a method of universal application. His general idea of Shakspere he thus expresses by the mouth of Wilhelm : "All the anticipations I have ever had regarding man and his destiny, which have accompanied me from youth upwards, often unobserved by myself, I find developed and fulfilled in Shakspere's writings. It seems as if he cleared up every one of our enigmas to us, though we cannot say: Here or there is the word of solution. His men appear like natural men, and yet they are not. These, the most mysterious and complex productions of creation, here act before us as if they were watches, whose dial-plates and cases are of crystal; which point out, according to their use, the course of the hours and minutes; while, at the same time, you can discern the combination of wheels and springs that turn

them.” While mentioning this reverence of Shakspere to Goethe's honour, we are not to overlook a certain arrogance which reminds one of Dryden, or Davenant, or Nahum Tate, remodelling Shakspere to fit him for stage-representation. Goethe did not think Shakspere sufficiently dramatic, although he conceded the praise of superabounding poetry. This opinion was pretty plainly expressed in "Wilhelm Meister," where we find the hero adapting "Hamlet" for the stage, and almost writing it anew. Goethe followed the example of his hero, and actually remodelled "Romeo and Juliet" for the theatre at Weimar! As it came from Shakspere's hands—it is a drama for study; he wished to make it an acting drama, fit for the stage. The opinion of Germany has been very clearly expressed in the fact, that this adaptation has never once been acted.

The names of Schlegel, Horn, and Ulrici, still remain. In Shaksperean criticism, Schlegel is a diminutive Coleridge; Horn is another Hazlitt; Ulrici-no -no Englishman can be compared with him; he is a German of the Germans.

Augustus Schlegel popularised the philosophy of Lessing and Herder, and wrote very eloquently about Shakspere. When we come to analyse what he says, much of it melts away, like beautiful frostwork before the radiance of the day. But, after all deductions, and stripped of his pompous language, Schlegel's criticism contains much gold: his admiration for Shakspere was so great, that it has been

called raving; and through his eloquence and his influence over Madame de Staël, he has perhaps done more than any man to raise the English dramatist in the esteem of Europe. As we have remarked, however, he cannot always be relied upon. This may be gathered from the fact, that, in common with various German authors, he attributes "Sir John Oldcastle," "Thomas Lord Cromwell,” and “A Yorkshire Tragedy," to Shakspere; and says they "are not only unquestionably Shakspere's, but, in my opinion, deserve to be classed among his best and maturest works." It is strange that in this, as in so many other instances, the German critics will pit their opinion against that of the most competent English judges, which is unanimous against them, and is entitled to the weight which ought to be attached to a minute acquaintance with the language in a thousand shades of meaning and sparkles of allusion which we can hardly expect a foreigner to possess. And not only here, but Shakspere's quibbles, Shakspere's anachronisms, he defends as the oracles of a god, as if “committed for the most part purposely, and after great consideration."

Schlegel's extravagances of this kind were pushed still further by Franz Horn and Herman Ulrici. The former looks at Shakspere as a poet; the latter, as a philosopher. The former makes no pretensions, and deserves to be studied. The latter, too, deserves attention; but not so much as his pomp of profession demands. He finds philosophy in every page, every line of Shakspere-a fixed

66

purpose, so that all hangs together perfect according to the idea of the piece. What he says of the quibbles of the poet, is not a bad specimen of his manner, and we hope that it will be understood. It will be remembered that Johnson said of the poet : "A quibble was to him the fatal Cleopatra for which he lost the world, and was content to lose it." Ulrici interprets the quibbling as follows: 'If, then, we go back to the origin of this verbal play, and further reflect that Shakspere never kept up this game of rejoinder and antithesis emptily and unmeaningly, but that with him it has always some meaning, and not unfrequently a most profound significance, we shall see good reason for the whole representation being pervaded by it. For in this discrepancy between the indicated matter and its indication, and the appropriateness of the same or similar words to express wholly different objects, we have the revelation of the deep fundamental and original disagreement between human life and its true idea; as well as the inadequacy of human cognition and knowledge, of which language is the expression, for the wide range of objective truth and reality-and, consequently, of the weakness entailed upon man's noblest intellectual power by the fall and the first lie." Spite of such profundities, it must be mentioned, to the praise of Ulrici, that he attributes to Shakspere only one play rejected by the English editors. Of all the others ascribed to Shakspere so confidently by Schlegel and Tieck, he speaks doubtfully. Of the

U