instances of the author’s irregular and capricious genius. In this, as in other branches of German literature, Goëthe stands pre-eminent: and the translation of his ‘Wilhelm Meister’ has placed within the reach of all readers a series of original and masterly criticisms, especially on that stumbling-block of commentators, the character of Hamlet. We may quote as a specimen his exposition of the principle upon which the anomalies of the Prince of Denmark’s conduct are to be solved. “It is clear to me that Shakspeare’s intention was to exhibit the effects of a great action, imposed as a duty upon a mind too feeble for its accomplishment. In this case I find the character consistent throughout. Here is an oak tree planted in a china vase, proper only to receive the most delicate flowers. The roots strike out and the vessel flies to pieces. A pure, noble, highly moral disposition, but without that energy of soul which constitutes the hero, sinks under a load which it can neither support nor endure to abandon altogether. _All_ his obligations are sacred to him; but this alone is above his powers! An impossibility is required at his hands; not an impossibility in itself, but that which is so to him. Observe, how he turns, shifts, hesitates, advances, and recedes;—how he is continually reminded and reminding himself of his real commission, which he nevertheless in the end seems almost entirely to lose sight of, and this without ever recovering his former tranquillity!” How different this from the praise of _variety_ allowed to this tragedy by Johnson, to “the pretended madness, causing mirth,” without any adequate cause for feigning it, and the objection that through the whole piece he is “rather an instrument than an agent!”