philosophical criticism is, however, accompanied by so sound and generally reliable a judgment in regard to the æsthetic value of Shakspeare's plays, and by so ingenious and deep an understanding of them, that his edition in this respect richly makes up for what we miss as regards the correctness of the text. J. P. Collier must be mentioned directly by the side of Ch. Knight, not only in point of time, but also as regards his criticisms. He too in his (first) edition: The Works of W. Shakespeare. The Text formed from an entirely new Collation of the old Editions; with the Various Readings, Notes, a Life of the Poet,' etc. (8 vols. 1842 f.), followed the original traditional text as closely as possible. He, however, has not done this as exclusively as Knight, and has shown a more correct judgment as regards the different value of the old quartos and folios. When we consider his great learning, the industry and the care with which he worked, it is to be regretted that Collier as a critic, was obviously wanting in fine feeling for style and poetical appreciation. This want showed itself not only in his adopting readings from the old quartos which were as untenable as those which Knight had endeavoured to retain from the folio of 1623,* but also manifested itself in the most striking manner in the fact that Collier, in his second edition (published in 1853 both in 8 vols. and in 1 vol.), suddenly went over to the directly opposite standpoint. In this second edition he adopts all the corrections some appropriate, some wholly untenable and arbitrary-which he had found in a copy of the folio of 1623 that had accidentally come into his possession, and which he considered or gave out to be corrections made towards the middle of the seventeenth century, as he thinks, by a person acquainted with the old theatrical practices, and perhaps drew his information from Shakspeare's original manuscripts. He has thus irremediably injured his reputation as a text-critic.† J. O. Halliwell's edition As Dyce has irrefutably proved in his Remarks on Mr. J. P. Collier's and Mr. C. Knight's Editions of Shakspere, 1844. A full discussion as to the value of these supposed old emendations of the text will be found in R. Grant White's Shakespeare's Scholar p. 33 ft. (4 vols. 1851), and more particularly his splendid edition in 15 vols. folio (1853), is likewise less distinguished for the excellence of his criticisms of the text, than for the great amount of historical and literary references, and the great correctness of the print of the text itself, as well as of all the documents which in any way affect the life and works of the poet. Four years later appeared Alexander Dyce's first edition entitled, The Works of W. Shakespeare. The Text Revised,' etc. (8 vols. 1857). He, in direct opposition to Collier, almost without exception rejected the emendations of the supposed old corrector, and adhered, with great strictness, but moderated by a finer critical tact, to the principle not to alter anything in the text of the old original editions, unless under pressing necessity, and accordingly, only in exceptional cases to admit emendations and conjectures. Even this first edition of Dyce's is perhaps, as regards text-criticism, the best of those which had hitherto appeared, in spite of the paralysing, one-sidedness of the principle he followed. Of even greater value, as I think, is his second edition (8 vols 1861). Dyce, in his preface, expressly declares himself to have become convinced of the incorrectness, of the overcautiousness, of the principle which he had favoured in his first edition, and then adds: If the most eminent classical scholars in editing the dramas of antiquity have not scrupled frequently to employ conjecture for the restoration of the text, I cannot understand why an editor of Shakspeare . . . should hesitate to adopt the happiest of the emendations proposed from time to time during more than a century and a half, by men of great sagacity and learning, always assuming that the deviations from the early editions are duly recorded.' This, I think, is the only right principle wherever, in fact, text-criticism is required, that is, wherever, as in Shakspeare's works the text has unquestionably been disfigured by all sorts of errors in orthography or printing. And, indeed, in the case of Shakspeare a comparatively greater freedom may be granted, in so far as we know with certainty that he himself had no hand either in the publication or in the printing of his writings, and as, therefore, it is extremely probable that even the manuscripts from which they were printed, may have experienced more or less unauthorized alteration. The difficulty-which moreover increases with the degree of the artistic value of the poem-is, to be perfectly sure of ascertaining what passages require emendation, and then carefully to change them in accordance with the author's style, his mind, and character. For this purpose-and especially in the case of a poet of Shakspeare's importance-it is not only necessary, as F. A. Leo rightly observes, to possess classic culture, acuteness of judgment, a diversity of knowledge and consequently respect for the poet's sources and authorities, but also a refined æ-thetic judgment, the power of, as it were, living into the creations of the poet, and likewise sufficient poetic talent to find out the corresponding expression for what had thus been called into life. Dyce possesses these requirements in a high degree, and what he perhaps wants in poetic talent and a sure feeling for style and beanty, is amply compensated for by his fine critical tact, and by his sound knowledge of the language and the literature, the life, the manners and customs, etc., of the Shakspearian age, and more particularly of Shakspeare's style of language, as is proved by his extremely valuable Glossary to Shakespeare,' which forms the ninth volume of his second edition of the poet's works. edition, accordingly, may be regarded as the best of all the English collective editions. His The one which approaches nearest to it, which is worked out in the same spirit, and appeared almost contemporaneously, is that of Richard Grant White: The Plays of W. Shakespeare. Edited from the Folio of 1623, with Various Readings from all the Editions,' etc. (12 vols., Boston, 1862). This eminent American Shakspearestudent has here endeavoured to turn to account all the treasures contained in his ' Shakespeare's Scholar.' Worthily by the side of these stands the excellent edition of our eminent German scholar, Nicholas Delius; * the text is in English, with German notes, explanations, and introductions. Shakspeare's Werke. Herausgegeben u. erkiari, etc. (7 vols. Elber feld, 1854; 2nd ed. 1864). BOOK IX. HISTORY OF SHAKSPEARE'S PLAYS IN GERMANY. CHAPTER I. FROM THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY TO THE DAYS OF LESSING. THE points in which German enquiry and German criticism affected the history of Shakspeare's works in England have already been intimated. I shall add to these intimations a short sketch of the relations, the circumstances and events under the influence of which Shakspeare not only became known in Germany, but gradually became established and nationalised there, in fact, a German poet of the most far-fanied reputation, of the most universal recognition.* About the time when Shakspeare was becoming celebrated in London, that is, towards the year 1589, the fame of the excellence of the English stage had extended as far as Germany; this was more especially owing to the travels of men from the higher ranks of German society, for instance, Count Frederick of Mömpelgardt (afterwards Duke of Wirtemberg), who was in England in 1589; also * In this sketch I have referred principally to the following works: A. Koberstein, Vermischte Aufsätze zur Literaturgeschichte und Aesthetik (Leipzig, 1858); W. Fürstenau, Zur Geschichte der Musik und des Theaters (Dresden, 1861; K. Elze, Die Englische Sprache und Literatur in Deutschland (Dresden, 1864); R. Köhler, Kunst über alle Künste ein bös Weib gut zu machen (a German adaptation of Shakspeare's Taming of the Shrew), Leipzig, 1864; A. Cohn, Shakespeare in Germany in the sixteenth and seventeenth century (London, 1865). of Prince Louis of Anhalt, who resided in London in 1593; of Paul Hentzner, a companion of a Baron von Rehdinger, who was there at the beginning of the seventeenth century; and of Prince Otto of Hesse, who was likewise in London in 1611. However, it is the latter only who mentions that, among the entertainments provided for him at King James' Court, he saw two of Shakspeare's plays, The Tempest' and The Winter's Tale.' The enthusiastic praise bestowed upon these by Prince Otto, probably awakened in his countrymen the desire to become personally acquainted with the famous plays; and the actors also, partly for the sake of gain and partly from the old fondness of Englishmen for travelling, may have been glad to comply with the pressing invitations they received. It may, however, have been that the actors-being conscious of their skill-accidentally, and without any special request, tried their fortune on the continent; we know, at all events, that as early as 1585 the Earl of Leicester's players accompanied him on his journey to Holland. Whatever may have been the inducement that led them to undertake such journeys, this much is certain, that as early as 1603 English musicians and actors appeared before the Court at Stuttgart And about the same time we hear of English "instrumentalists" at the Courts of Saxony and Brandenburg; these, however, as Cohn points out, were probably actors as well. At a later date (between 1615-1625) there came to Germany by way of Holland and Friesland, another, and, as it seems, a larger and more complete company of players provided with a French passport, which gives the names of the four principal members, and states that the object of their journey was to give performances in music, as well as all kinds of plays, comédies, tragédies, histoires. There can be no doubt that these English companies met with success, and that the acquaintance with the English drama even at that early date influenced the formation of the German theatre. This is proved not only from a humorous poem written by a Frankfurt versifier (quoted by Cohn), but als from the circumstance that the English companies in the course of time made longer sojourns, and, supported by German coadjutors, gradually made tours through the |