Chapter LI: Book III: and App

Footnote 1032:

§ 39.

Footnote 1033:

App. on Poetry.

Footnote 1034:

§ 51.

Footnote 1035:

_V. sup._, ii. 86.

Footnote 1036:

One could develop, with special relevance, the philosopher’s
peremptory limitation of the attractive season of womankind to the
time between the ages of eighteen and eight-and-twenty: and his
positive anathema on the _retroussé_ nose. It is astonishing how this
feature disturbs critics! Cf. Lessing, Alison, Carrière, &c.

Footnote 1037:

Ed. Cotta, Works, vols. xv.-xviii. The two vols. of _Letters_ and
_Pocketbooks_, with which this edition has been reinforced since I
wrote the text, add very much to our knowledge of Grillparzer’s
personality, and something to that of his critical position: but need
change nothing in the estimate above given.

Footnote 1038:

Vol. xv.

Footnote 1039:

xv. 24. The “peace” of Boccaccio and the “peace” of Dante combined!

Footnote 1040:

Ibid.

Footnote 1041:

xv. 27.

Footnote 1042:

xv. 35-45.

Footnote 1043:

P. 40.

Footnote 1044:

P. 49.

Footnote 1045:

P. 58.

Footnote 1046:

P. 62, and elsewhere.

Footnote 1047:

xv. 163. “Die Betrachtung tödtet, weil sie die Personlichkeit aufhebt:
die Bemerkung erfrischt, denn sie erregt und unterstützt die
Thätigkeit.” “Consideration” and “Observation” come nearest: but they
are not fully adequate.

Footnote 1048:

P. 176.

Footnote 1049:

Filling the other three vols.

Footnote 1050:

xvi. 158.

Footnote 1051:

xviii. 97, 98. There is, not a judgment, but a curious mixture of
compliment and fling on him, at p. 130, on which _v. inf._

Footnote 1052:

xvi. 175.

Footnote 1053:

xvi. 185.

Footnote 1054:

xviii. 41.

Footnote 1055:

xviii. 47-74.

Footnote 1056:

xviii. 36. Grillparzer evidently did not care much for “woodnotes.”

Footnote 1057:

See xviii. 12-24, and other places in the index of that volume.

Footnote 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_.”

Footnote 1059:

Mr Bosanquet.

Footnote 1060:

2 vols., Leipzig, 1859. Its constant and ingenious _illustration_, and
the substantive importance given to Poetic, are its claims to
admission here.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 1062:

I use the Leipsic ed., 5 vols., 1871-74.

Footnote 1063:

v. 37.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 1065:

Vol. xiv. of his _Works_ (Leipzig, 1887). The Preface is dated 1863.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 1067:

His Works are now obtainable in several forms, there being two
_complete_ editions (Leipzig, n. d.), which give all the work
published during his lifetime, in 8 vols., and a still lengthening
tail of _Remains_ (7 vols. up to 1904), and several others of separate
works. Writing on him has been exceedingly copious, “he has become a
name”: but there is probably no sounder and fairer contribution to the
_Um-Nietzschung_ of Nietzsche, from a portent into an intelligible
phenomenon, than Professor Pringle-Pattison’s Essay in the 2nd ed. of
_Man’s Place in the Cosmos_ (Edinburgh, 1902).

Footnote 1068:

_Der Fall Wagner_, p. 36 and elsewhere.

Footnote 1069:

I was pleased, in reading Nietzsche, after I had written the section
above on Grillparzer, and when I had already assigned Hillebrand’s
place here, to find him frequently quoting the Austrian dramatist with
respect, and definitely selecting the other as the representative
German critic of his time.

Footnote 1070:

_V. inf._ The two books which preceded this, _Menschliches
Allzumenschliches_ and _Morgenröthe_, are also almost purely ethical,
though the extensive handling of moral philosophers in the past is
necessarily literary too.

Footnote 1071:

It would be improper to dwell on this point here. I hope to do more
justice to Nietzsche’s purely literary side elsewhere.

Footnote 1072:

This word has been objected to by precisians. But it has the authority
of Thackeray: and if it had none, it is exactly the word wanted for a
certain flagrant quality of the latest nineteenth century, and more
especially for the _ethos_ of Nietzsche. With all his originality in
form, he is simply parasitic in fact. He can only deny and pervert and
“topsyturvify” the established and accepted. The _Uebermensch_ himself
is much more an “_Un_mensch,” who is not to be God but an un-God. And
the philosopher’s famous syllogism, “There cannot be a God, or why am
_I_ not one if there is?” amounts simply to a turning topsyturvy of
the much sounder and in fact unanswerable argument, “There must be a
God; for _I_ am not one.”

Footnote 1073:

Even later his alleged doctrine of “Recurrence”—not his most repugnant
to poetry, or philosophy, or religion itself—was only an echo of the
carpenter in _Peter Simple_!

Footnote 1074:

_Beleidigende Klarheit._

Footnote 1075:

_Ein Geist der entnervt._

Footnote 1076:

He somewhere speaks of Stendhal and Dostoieffsky as his “two great
discoveries.” A curious fling by implication at Baudelaire means, I
think, only that Baudelaire had the impudence to admire Wagner.

Footnote 1077:

_Falschmünzler._

Footnote 1078:

16th ed., pp. x, 756 (Città di Castello, 1902).

Footnote 1079:

One famous person may be noted exceptionally. A critic who held
political and other views contrary to Mazzini’s, and who thought (as
too many critics have apparently thought) that it is lawful to wreak
vengeance in the literary sphere for sins committed elsewhere, would
have a considerable opportunity with Mazzini himself, as a critic. He
has written not a little apparently of the kind, and about very
important persons—Dante, Goethe, Byron, Mr Carlyle, papers on all of
whom will be found in Mr William Clarke’s useful English edition of
Mazzini’s selected Essays (London, n.d.) He has said things for which,
if one were a Veuillot, one could, in Veuillot’s own phrase, “promise
him sensations.” But this is not _our_ way. One soon sees (in fact, I
think, he frankly confesses it in more than one place) that the writer
is not thinking of these great writers as writers at all, nor of their
books as books. He is thinking of their relation, actual or by
ingenuity representable, towards his idol of “Collective Humanity,”
and he is talking, as he is thinking, of nothing else. We have nothing
here to do with Collective Humanity, but much with the Humanities,
which are different: and so he escapes our jurisdiction. Perhaps a
good many more modern Italians would do the same, that influence of
Vico, which we noted in Signor Croce, being very strong in them.

Footnote 1080:

_Saggi Critici_, _v. inf._

Footnote 1081:

Naples (2nd ed.), 1869.

Footnote 1082:

Naples, 1872.

Footnote 1083:

Sismondi—French-writing, Swiss-born, Italian by origin—may seem to
claim admission, if only for his _Littérature du Midi_: but I think
not.

Footnote 1084:

3 vols., Bâle, 1829-30.

Footnote 1085:

2 vols., Paris, 1851.

Footnote 1086:

2nd ed., 3 vols., Paris, 1857.

Footnote 1087:

A very large part (about two-thirds) of the 1st volume is occupied by
Chateaubriand.

Footnote 1088:

Lamartine (with whom Vinet is, of course, more _comfortable_) and Hugo
have about three-fourths of the 2nd vol. between them. In this and the
3rd, Béranger, Delavigne, Sainte-Beuve, Quinet, Michelet, and many
others, figure.

Footnote 1089:

ii. 387-412.

Footnote 1090:

It is fair to say that much of his work, being posthumously published,
_is_ lecture, and might, if he had lived, have been worked up by him
into a better form.

Footnote 1091:

In the article on Saint-Marc Girardin, which concludes the third
volume.

Footnote 1092:

8th ed., 2 vols., Geneva, 1901.

Footnote 1093:

Nor can I recognise his description of Amiel’s treatment of a literary
subject at p. xix of the Introduction—“Il l’embrasse, mais au dehors.”
Alas! the Lucretian _nequicquam_ comes in here again: but I should say
that few men’s critical embraces were more intimate than Amiel’s,
brief as they are.

Footnote 1094:

i. 12.

Footnote 1095:

i. 17.

Footnote 1096:

i. 69.

Footnote 1097:

i. 129.

Footnote 1098:

The _entrefilet_ of the 7th of November 1862 on _la critique
indifférente_, though it quite certainly is not meant wholly or even
mainly for literary criticism, should not be missed.

Footnote 1099:

i. 167, April 24, 1862; and i. 176-183, January 8 and 13, April 8,
1863.

Footnote 1100:

i. 194; ii. 219.

Footnote 1101:

i. 229.

Footnote 1102:

ii. 110.

Footnote 1103:

On German “vulgarity,” p. 112 (with which an acute passage on Goethe
at p. 120 should be compared); on the two poetesses, Louisa Siefert
and Mme. Ackermann (141 and 174); a valiant promulgation of the truth
that most fear to speak, “There is no Progress” (167); notes on M.
Coppée (200); Hugo again (228); La Fontaine (232); Laprade (280);
Stendhal (286).

Footnote 1104:

It does not seem necessary to follow the lines of the earlier
Interchapters by summarising distributively the critical results of
the period in different countries and phases. The very indefiniteness
of the whole establishes a community which can be generally pointed
out.

APPENDICES