z 
ing to Grimm. This intercourse turned upon literature and philosophy 
exclusively, and Goethe kept to himself his studies in art, science, and 
human nature. At best, Schiller only half possessed him. So far from 
“developing” Goethe, Schiller was the recipient, Goethe the giver ; and 
it remains an open question whether the copartnership was not for Goethe 
a disturbance rather than a gain—in other words, whether Goethe would 
not have moved on in his appointed career had Schiller never existed. 
Grimm’s essay is not more noteworthy in what it contains than in 
what it does not contain. We have been discouraged so often by so-called 
“defences” of Goethe from paltry accusations, that we are positively 
gladdened by the sight of any work that turns its back upon the chatter 
of scandal-mongers and leaves “ the great heathen and sinner ” to defend 
himself. Such accusations are of two widely different kinds. One is 
concerned with his relations to women, the other with his alleged want of 
patriotism. The former is touched upon by Grimm very lightly yet 
firmly, with what might be called a gentlemanly hand. Goethe’s relations 
with Friederike Brion, Charlotte Buff, Frau v. Stein, and Christine Vul- 
pius are placed in a light that is not only pleasing but informing, and 
that leaves the reader to draw his own inferences. There is also a respect 
fulness in Grimm’s manner and tone that imparts itself to the reader, and 
renders it impossible to judge even the weaknesses of the great poet in a 
harsh, censorious spirit. As for the alleged want of patriotism, Grimm 
skilfully turns the attack by showing that it was begun, not by the men 
who suffered most from the catastrophes of 1806-1810, but by a much 
later generation, who misunderstood Goethe, and were led more by blind 
zeal than by discretion. 
The general impression that Grimm’s essay makes is one of power and 
insight, but not that of a perfectly finished work. The latter half of the 
second volume is too condensed and meagre. ‘ Faust ’ and the * Meister ’ 
are sufficiently praised,but they are not analyzed as searchingly as ‘ Götz,’ 
* Werther,’ and * Tasso.’ We are forced to doubt once more the possibility 
of doing justice to such a subject within such restricted limits, or the pos 
sibility in any case of securing the proper perspective. We are still too 
near the object. It is less than half a century since Goethe’s death; Ger 
many is in a transition state ; the dust of temporary political disturbance 
and the mists of traditional prejudice are still too dense. By the turning 
of the century we may look forward to clearer skies and that sobriety of 
judgment that comes only from great political experience.