cannot, it is submitted, be so inconsistent as wholly to rule out that testimony here. If, therefore, we listen to experts at all, we can hardly refuse our assent to their unanimous verdict. Despite all this, the present Editor's opinion, which, after what he has just said, he cannot, as a layman, expect to have any value, and which, in view of the magnitude of the discussion, he would be the last, as an Editor, to set forth at length, is that Hamlet is neither mad, nor pretends to be so. And in view of the fact that he has faithfully read and reported all the arguments on that side, the Editor begs the advocates of the theory of feigned insanity to allow him, out of reciprocal courtesy, to ask how they account for Hamlet's being able, in the flash of time between the vanishing of the Ghost and the coming of Horatio and Marcellus, to form, horrorstruck as he was, a plan for the whole conduct of his future life?

Then follow Notes on The Names and Characters, on the Duration of the Action, on Garrick's Version, and on Actors' Interpretations; it is greatly to be regretted that in this last department our accounts of how great actors spoke are so meagre. AS CIBBER says of BETTERTON: Pity it is that the momentary Beauties flowing from an 'harmonious Elocution cannot, like those of Poetry, be their own 'Record: That the animated Graces of the Player can live no 'longer than the instant Breath and Motion that presents them, 'or at best, can but faintly glimmer through the Memory or im'perfect Attestation of a few surviving Spectators. Could how Bet'terton spoke be as easily known as what he spoke, then might you 'see the Muse of Shakespeare in her Triumph, with all her Beau'ties, rising into real Life, and charming the Beholder. But, since 'this is so far out of the reach of description, how shall I show 'you Betterton ?'

Next comes the German Criticism.

With the rashness of ignorance, the present Editor, in laying out his plan for this edition, proposed to himself to preface it with an essay upon the remarkable literature which this great drama has created in Germany. His idea was to give the views of all the writings on Hamlet which have appeared down to the present time in that country,-of all, that is, which he could procure. But, in the

work of preparation for such an essay, after going carefully through what, at a rough and moderate computation, amounts to some two thousand pages and upwards, he finds himself,-no surprising discovery, quite unequal to the task. The sense of his incompetency is, however, greatly relieved by the one very clear conviction with which he emerged from the metaphysical atmosphere: the proposed essay, could it be written, would utterly defeat a purpose to be kept religiously in view in the preparation of this edition of Hamlet,namely, compression. It would far exceed in bulk all the rest of the volumes. The Editor therefore must restrict himself to a simple statement of the principles by which he has been guided in the selection of extracts from the German critics.

First: All unfavourable criticism of fellow-critics is excluded as much as possible. Although our German friends are somewhat jealous of their well-deserved reputation as a nation of thinkers, they sometimes seem, individually, very much disposed to grudge one another a share in that distinction. The propriety of the exclusion observed is obvious. To confound GOETHE, SCHLEGEL, or TIECK is one thing, to elucidate SHAKESPEARE is another. It is curious to observe how much of Shakespearian criticism,-and this applies to English as well as German,-is devoted to hostile criticism of fellowcritics, living and dead. It is submitted that this it is, and not 'sign-post criticism' alone, which has tended to bring disrepute on this branch of literature. 'I know not,' says Dr JOHNSON, 'why 'our editors should with such implacable anger persecute their pre'decessors. Of vexpoì ph dázvovat, the dead, it is true, can make 'no resistance, they may be attacked with great security; but, since 'they can neither feel nor mend, the safety of mauling them seems 'greater than the pleasure; nor, perhaps, could it much misbecome 'us to remember, amidst our triumphs over the nonsensical and 'senseless, that we likewise are men; that debemur morti, and, as 'Swift observed to Burnet, shall soon be among the dead ourselves.' Second: The selection is confined as closely as possible to one point: the character of Hamlet. It has been hardly possible to observe this rule with absolute strictness. TIECK's theory in regard to Ophelia's relationship to Hamlet bears so intimately upon the cha

racter of both, and has made so deep an impression upon the popular mind, as to demand its insertion here.

Lastly: Whatever has been found that is strikingly original, although not of necessity true, has been included among these extracts; such as the wonderful connection which KARPF imagines he has discovered between the 'courtier's kibe' and Thor's frozen toe, and FLATHE'S opinions concerning the family of Polonius. Of course the reader will not suppose where no bracketed exclamation-marks appear, that all these criticisms or commentaries are adopted by the present Editor; and this remark the Editor wishes most emphatically to apply to all the comments and notes, English and German, throughout these volumes. He has an especial aversion to that cheap and easy way of expressing dissent, or, as it most commonly reads, contempt. He can recall but one instance of its use, and even there it would have been avoided could the structure of the sentence, condensed to save space, have left the paternity of the note unambiguous. Those who read or study these volumes may be safely trusted to discover for themselves the wisdom or the folly of the critics, and the Editor gladly forgoes the pleasure of displaying how much wiser he is than those whom he cites.

The endeavour, in all honesty, has been to select from every author the passages wherein he appears to most advantage, and wherein also he contributes his best thought to the elucidation of the great tragedy. At the same time, it must be confessed, there has been a little amusement had, now and then, in citing passages where our admirable friends stumble and fall in the interpretation of words, as when GERTH states that slings (in the slings and arrows of outrageous 'fortune') are the cables with which buoys are attached to sunken anchors or are placed to indicate hidden reefs or shoals.

Notwithstanding these trivial deductions, no one who has made any acquaintance with the labours of Shakespeare students in Germany can fail to be impressed by the excellence they show even in the department of verbal criticism. It is too late a week with SCHMIDT'S Lexicon and a dozen Shakespeare Yearbooks on Our shelves to cast any slurs on German Shakespeare criticism. Were such the intention, German criticism could well endure them with

equanimity. For the indefatigable labour, the keen analysis, the sympathetic and loving appreciation which characterise the treatment of SHAKESPEARE by German men of letters, command the warmest admiration. Their devotion to this tragedy in particular is impressive. Everywhere throughout the length and breadth of their land commentators on it arise; not only at the prominent centres of culture, but in towns and villages, whose names Englishspeaking people have perhaps never heard of, do these writers spring up. Even while the Editor is closing his labours, two more volumes on Hamlet have been added to the list. Although it would be a comfort to think that he had collected all, yet,-Rusticus exspectat, &c. Verily, given a printing-press on German soil (and the printing-press is indigenous there), and, lo! an essay on Hamlet. Let Germans themselves ridicule this devotion if they will. No man born to the inheritance of the language of SHAKESPEARE can regard it otherwise than with respectful admiration and pride, or fail to welcome the aid which it contributes to an enlightened appreciation of the great Poet. We all hold ourselves partakers of his glory, and such fine adoration of our household divinity we accept as a flattering tribute to ourselves.

And what a tribute is it to SHAKESPEARE'S genius! Here, at last, we may venture to set a limit to his imagination. Not even he could have imagined such a fame. No one of mortal mould (save Him 'whose blessed feet were nailed for our advantage to the bitter 'cross') ever trod this earth, commanding such absorbing interest as this Hamlet, this mere creation of a poet's brain. No syllable that he whispers, no word let fall by any one near him, but is caught and pondered as no words ever have been, except of Holy Writ. Upon no throne built by mortal hands has ever beat so fierce a light' as upon that airy fabric reared at Elsinore.

IN SHAKESPEARE'S allusions to Wittenberg the Germans have found a direct intimation that Hamlet was written with especial reference to their own nation; and FREILIGRATH struck a keynote, which found an echo in all hearts, when he exclaimed: 'Germany 'is Hamlet.' LESSING, that most healthy and earnest of German scholars, the Englishman born in Germany', was the first, now

more than a hundred years ago, to announce to his countrymen the advent of SHAKESPEARE. His masterly criticisms of the Hamburg Theatre, written in the interest of the great English Poet, levelled Voltaire and the French school of taste, and opened the path ten years later for the extraordinary success that attended BROCKMANN'S Hamlet. The enthusiasm which BROCKMANN inspired in this character was unprecedented in Germany, and can be paralleled only by Mr IRVING'S recent success in London. Fine steel engravings appeared, representing different scenes of the trag edy; silver medals were struck in honour of the popular actor, and, what was before unheard of on the Berlin stage, he was called before the curtain after the play.

The enthusiasm for Hamlet, thus kindled, has not died out to this day. GOETHE'S interpretation, everywhere as widely known as the play itself, quickened the popular admiration by apparently relieving the tragedy of its painful mystery; and although there are not wanting keen critics who dissent from GOETHE'S interpretation of Hamlet's character, yet as a piece of criticism it filled Lord MaCAULAY with wonder and despair,' and still underlies most of the theories, English and German, that have since appeared.

The last theory of Hamlet's character, which has arrested special attention in Germany by the bold and animated way in which it has been set forth by its chiefest expounder, WERDER, was first proposed in strong terms by KLEIN. It sweeps aside every vestige of GOETHE'S explanation, with all theories akin to it. It affirms Hamlet to be a man of action, never at a loss, never wavering, taking in at once the position of affairs, adjusting himself thereto with admirable sagacity, and instantly acting with consummate tact as occasions require. A theory so directly opposed to all accepted ideas of Hamlet claims a full exposition. It has been found im

possible, in justice, to compress it into a narrower space than it occupies in the Appendix.

The Editor is well aware that he incurs some hazard in thus selecting extracts from the German essayists. If he has unwittingly committed any injustice, and omitted to notice theories for which their authors claim originality, he can only plead innocence of in