A. W. VON SCHLEGEL, the eldest of the two brothers whose several and joint labors have contributed so largely to the literary and aesthetic culture of their nation and age, occupies the front rank among the scholars and critics of this century, whether we regard the extent and variety of his learning or the acuteness of his analysis and his luminous judgment. As a translator he surpasses all who have ever labored in that line. The fidelity with which he has rendered Shakspeare, or rather the skill with which he has reproduced him, has naturalized that poet in all the states of Germany, and made him not less a German than he is an English classic,-perhaps even more popular in the translation than in the original:-a solitary instance of literary transplantation, unless the popular versions of the old Hebrew poets may be regarded as another. "Such," says Mrs. Austin," is Herr von Schlegel's masterly handling of his own language, and the exquisite nicety of his ear, that he has, in many cases (for example, Hamlet's Soliloquy), caught the very cadence of the original. With no other living language, perhaps, than the German, would this be possible; and even in that it is a wonderful achievement." "Calderon presented still greater difficulties of a metrical kind; these Herr von Schlegel has triumphantly overcome; he has adhered to the original even in metre, rhyme, and assonance, and has combined this exact imitation of form with an equally faithful interpretation of the meaning. The translation of the two greatest dramatic poets of two nations, so unlike in genius, shows a talent for discriminating, and a power of handling all the forms and resources of language, which have never been surpassed."

A. W. von Schlegel has attained no mean reputation as an original poet, and would probably have figured more illustriously in that capacity had not his poetic labors been eclipsed by his critical. His chief excellence, as a poet, consists in the perfection which he has given to the forms of poetic composition, and his magic mastery of language.

He was born at Hanover, on the 5th of September, 1767. His father held the office of Counsellor of the Consistory in the Lutheran Church. He received his early education in the Lyceum of his native city, where, at the age of eighteen, he recited before the Public, on the occasion of the King's birth-day, a poem on the history of German poetry, which attracted a good deal of attention at the time. In 1786 he entered the university of Göttingen, where he became intimate with the poet Bürger, and where he obtained the prize for a Latin disquisition on the geography of Homer. After he had finished his philological studies at the university, he resided for some time in Amsterdam, in the capacity of private tutor. In 1796 he returned to Germany, and resided at Jena, where he became a diligent contributor to various literary journals. He was soon made Professor in the university in that place, and produced a great impression far and wide by his lectures on aesthetics. In connection with his brother Friedrich, with Tieck, Schelling, and others, he edited a periodical work, in which he labored to establish the Romantic School of Art. In 1802 he removed to Berlin, where he lectured on literature and art, and contributed to various periodicals. In 1804 he travelled with Madame de Stael, and resided with her successively in Italy, in France, in Vienna, and finally in Stockholm, where the Crown-prince of Sweden cultivated his acquaintance, and employed him as political writer, and afterwards conferred upon him the title of nobility. In 1808 he read, in Vienna, the Lectures on Dramatic Art, from which the following extracts are taken. In 1818 he received an appointment as Professor at the new university at Bonn, which he held until his death. He commenced, in 1820, a journal devoted to the study of the Oriental languages, called the "Indian Library." He also published the Bhagavad-Gita, a philosophical poem in the Sanscrit, and accompanied it with a Latin translation. He wrote in the French and in the Italian, as well as in his vernacular

A. W. VON SCHLEGEL, the eldest of the two brothers whose several and joint labors have contributed so largely to the literary and aesthetic culture of their nation and age, occupies the front rank among the scholars and critics of this century, whether we regard the extent and variety of his learning or the acuteness of his analysis and his luminous judgment. As a translator he surpasses all who have ever labored in that line. The fidelity with which he has rendered Shakspeare, or rather the skill with which he has reproduced him, has naturalized that poet in all the states of Germany, and made him not less a German than he is an English classic,-perhaps even more popular in the translation than in the original:-a solitary instance of literary transplantation, unless the popular versions of the old Hebrew poets may be regarded as another. "Such," says Mrs. Austin, "is Herr von Schlegel's masterly handling of his own language, and the exquisite nicety of his ear, that he has, in many cases (for example, Hamlet's Soliloquy), caught the very cadence of the original. With no other living language, perhaps, than the German, would this be possible; and even in that it is a wonderful achievement." "Calderon presented still greater difficulties of a metrical kind; these Herr von Schlegel has triumphantly overcome; he has adhered to the original even in metre, rhyme, and assonance, and has combined this exact imitation of form with an equally faithful interpretation of the meaning. The translation of the two greatest dramatic poets of two nations, so unlike in genius, shows a talent for discriminating, and a power of handling all the forms and resources of language, which have never been surpassed."

A. W. von Schlegel has attained no mean reputation as an original poet, and would probably have figured more illustriously in that capacity had not his poetic labors been eclipsed by his critical. His chief excellence, as a poet, consists in the perfection which he has given to the forms of poetic composition, and his magic mastery of language.

He was born at Hanover, on the 5th of September, 1767. His father held the office of Counsellor of the Consistory in the Lutheran Church. He received his early education in the Lyceum of his native city, where, at the age of eighteen, he recited before the Public, on the occasion of the King's birth-day, a poem on the history of German poetry, which attracted a good deal of attention at the time. In 1786 he entered the university of Göttingen, where he became intimate with the poet Bürger, and where he obtained the prize for a Latin disquisition on the geography of Homer. After he had finished his philological studies at the university, he resided for some time in Amsterdam, in the capacity of private tutor. In 1796 he returned to Germany, and resided at Jena, where he became a diligent contributor to various literary journals. He was soon made Professor in the university in that place, and produced a great impression far and wide by his lectures on aesthetics. In connection with his brother Friedrich, with Tieck, Schelling, and others, he edited a periodical work, in which he labored to establish the Romantic School of Art. In 1802 he removed to Berlin, where he lectured on literature and art, and contributed to various periodicals. In 1804 he travelled with Madame de Stael, and resided with her successively in Italy, in France, in Vienna, and finally in Stockholm, where the Crown-prince of Sweden cultivated his acquaintance, and employed him as political writer, and afterwards conferred upon him the title of nobility. In 1808 he read, in Vienna, the Lectures on Dramatic Art, from which the following extracts are taken. In 1818 he received an appointment as Professor at the new university at Bonn, which he held until his death. He commenced, in 1820, a journal devoted to the study of the Oriental languages, called the "Indian Library." He also published the Bhagavad-Gita, a philosophical poem in the Sanscrit, and accompanied it with a Latin translation. He wrote in the French and in the Italian, as well as in his vernacular

tongue. His "Comparison of the Phædra of Euripides with that of Racine," in the former of those languages, and his treatise on the bronze horses at Venice, in the latter, are

among the most important of his essays. He was twice married and twice divorced. He died at Bonn, 1845.

LECTURES ON DRAMATIC LITERATURE.

THE GREEK DRAMA.

(From the translation of John Black.) WHEN We hear the word theatre, we naturally think of what with us bears the same name; and yet nothing can be more different from our theatre than the Grecian, in every part of its construction. If in reading the Grecian pieces we associate our own stage with them, the light in which we shall view them must be false in every respect.

The accurate mathematical dimensions of the principal part of it are to be found in Vitruvius, who also distinctly points out the great difference between the Greek and Roman theatres. But these and similar passages of the ancient writers have been most perversely interpreted by architects unacquainted with the ancient dramatists; and the philologists on the other hand, who were altogether ignorant of architecture, have also fallen into egregious errors. The ancient dramatists are still, therefore, altogether in want of that sort of illustration which relates to scenic regulation. In many tragedies I conceive that my ideas on this subject are sufficiently clear; but others again present difficulties which are not so easily solved. We find ourselves most at a loss in figuring to ourselves the representation of the pieces of Aristophanes; the ingenious poet must have brought his wonderful inventions before the eyes of his audience in a manner equally bold and astonishing. Even Barthelemy's description of the Grecian stage is not a little confused, and the subjoined plan extremely erroneous; in the place which he assigns for the representation of the pieces in Antigone and Ajax, for instance, he is altogether wrong. The following observations will not therefore appear the less superfluous.t

The theatres of the Greeks were quite open above, and their dramas were always acted in open day, and beneath the canopy of heaven.

*We have a remarkable instance of this in the pretended ancient theatre of Palladio, at Vicenza. Herculaneum, it is true, had not then been discovered, and the ruins of the ancient theatre are not easily understood, if we have never seen one in an entire state.

I am partly indebted for them to the illustrations of a learned architect, M. Genelli, of Berlin, author of the ingenious Letters on Vitruvius. We have compared several Greek tragedies with our interpretation of this description of Vitruvius, and endeavored to figure to ourselves the manner in which they were represented; and I afterwards found my ideas confirmed, on examination of the theatre of Herculaneum, and the two very small theatres at Pompeii.

The Romans, at an after period, endeavored by a covering to shelter the audience from the rays of the sun; but this degree of luxury was hardly ever enjoyed by the Greeks. Such a state of things appears very inconvenient to us; but the Greeks had nothing of effeminacy about them, and we must not forget, too, the beauty of their climate. When they were overtaken by a storm or a shower, the play was of course interrupted; and they would much rather expose themselves to an accidental inconvenience, than, by shutting themselves up in a close and crowded house, entirely destroy the serenity of a religious solemnity, which their plays certainly were.* To have covered in the scene itself, and imprisoned gods and heroes in dark and gloomy apartments with difficulty lighted up, would have appeared still more ridiculous to them. An action which so nobly served to establish the belief of the relations with heaven could only be exhibited under an unobstructed heaven, and under the very eyes of the gods as it were, for whom, according to Seneca, the sight of a brave man struggling with adversity is a becoming spectacle. With respect to the supposed inconvenience, which, according to the assertion of many modern critics, was felt by the poets from the necessity of always laying the scene of their pieces before houses, a circumstance that often forced them to violate probability, this inconvenience was very little felt by tragedy and the older comedy. The Greeks, like so many southern nations of the present day, lived much more in the open air than we do, and transacted many things in public which usually take place with us in houses. For the theatre did not represent the street, but a place before the house belonging to it, where the altar stood on which sacrifices to the household gods were offered up. Here the women, who lived

in so retired a manner among the Greeks, even those who were unmarried, might appear without impropriety. Neither was it impossible for them to give a view of the interior of the houses; and this was effected, as we shall immediately see, by means of the encyclema.

But the principal reason for this observance was that publicity, according to the republican notions of the Greeks, was essential to a grave and important transaction. This is clearly proved by the presence of the chorus, whose

*They carefully made choice of a beautiful situation. The theatre at Tauromenium, at present Taormina, in Sicily, of which the ruins are still visible, was, according to Munter's description, situated in such a manner that the audience had a view of Etna over the back-ground of the theatre.