[1057]. See xviii. 12-24, and other places in the index of that volume.
[1058]. See Scherer’s History of German Literature under this name. Grillparzer himself, at Schreyvogel’s death, regrets (xviii. 130) the loss of his literary opinion, and says that there is no one left in Germany with whom he could talk in the same way “except perhaps Heine, if he were not intrinsically a scurvy patronus.”
[1059]. Mr Bosanquet.
[1060]. 2 vols., Leipzig, 1859. Its constant and ingenious illustration, and the substantive importance given to Poetic, are its claims to admission here.
[1061]. Of course they have their merits, and have had their uses. In material criticism often; in textual criticism sometimes; in merely dramatic criticism not seldom, they are useful to those who want these things. But then, as Mr Locker’s immortal friend at the “Travellers” said about the company next door, “One doesn’t want them, you know,” or, rather, one wants something else and something more.
[1062]. I use the Leipsic ed., 5 vols., 1871-74.
[1063]. v. 37.
[1064]. Shakespeare-studien: Stuttgart, 1866. One of M. Scherer’s best short criticisms is devoted to this book (Études, vol. vi., translated by the present writer in Essays on English Literature, by E. Scherer: London, 1891). But the original deserves reading. It is not much against it that the author relied on forgeries to some extent. The religion of “the document” almost necessarily passes into the superstition of the forgery.
[1065]. Vol. xiv. of his Works (Leipzig, 1887). The Preface is dated 1863.
[1066]. 7 vols., Berlin, 1874-85. There is a newer edition, I believe. As long ago as 1868 he had published, in French and at Paris, a volume of Études Historiques et Littéraires, and he did much else.