82 



diffidence, and dealing chiefly with the beauties and re- 

 sources of the poet, in an analytic and philosophic spirit : 

 the latter almost as uniformly criticising only to con- 

 demn ; and using alike the memory of the poet and his 

 immortal labours with, a presumption only equalled by 

 ignorance. It is obvious at sight that such a classifi- 

 cation by nationalities is most imperfect ; for the names 

 of Coleridge, Charles Knight, Mrs. Jameson, Brown, 

 and Collier, with others no less familiar, at once occur 

 to impair it. But unquestionably it serves to mark 

 a distinction in the general tone of German, as dis- 

 tinguished from English criticism, which as certainly 

 exists — very largely to the credit of the former. With- 

 out proceeding so far back as that period, not very 

 remote, when "Lear" — the sublime play of " Lear ! " — 

 was pronounced a dust heap, and some of its passages 

 were accepted as jewels, lost in their irregular setting, 

 it was the fashion and custom of every writer to consider 

 the want of art and ignorance of Shakspere as matters 

 understood. Criticism meant nothing but calumny, 

 and the commentators were nothing if not critical. They 

 discovered, or pretended to discover, geographic blun- 

 ders, anachronisms, false quantities, broken metaphors, 

 instances of obscenity, and rhythmical errors without 

 number ; and descended Hai"pies in horrid flight — 



"Et magnis quatiunt clangoribus, alias 



Diripiuntque dapes, contactuque omnia foedant 

 Immundo." 



No critic was qualified for ofiice unless he could con- 

 tribute his quota of proofs of Shakspere's folly, or Shak- 

 spere's literary, artistic, or moral criminality. All this is 

 now changed ; but it would be difiicult to say how much 

 of the change has been effected or aided by German 

 literary influences. It is now customary to speak of the 

 poet more reverentially in print. But with honourable 



