im, he painted that human nature which is indeed constant
enough,--a rogue in the fifteenth century being _at heart_ what a
rogue is in the nineteenth, and was in the twelfth; and an honest or
knightly man being in like manner very similar to other such at any
other time. And the work of these great idealists is, therefore,
always universal; not because it is not _portrait_, but because it is
_complete_ portrait, down to the heart, which is the same in all ages;
and the work of the mean idealists is _not_ universal, not because it
is portrait, but because it is _half_ portrait--of the outside, the
manners and the dress, not of the heart. Thus Tintoret and Shakespeare
paint, both of them, simply Venetian and English nature, as they saw
it in their time, down to the root; and it does for _all_ time; but as
for any care to cast themselves into the particular ways and tones of
thought, or custom, of past time in their historical work, you will
find it in neither of them,[8] nor in any other perfectly great man
that I know of.

[8] What vestige of Egyptian character is there, for instance, in
Cleopatra?--of Athenian in Theseus or Timon?--of old English in Imogen
or Cordelia?--of old Scottish in Macbeth?--or even of mediaeval Italian
in Petruchio, the Merchant of Venice, or Desdemona? And the Roman plays
appear definitely Roman only because the strength of Rome was the
eternal strength of the world,--pure family life, sustained by
agriculture, and defended by simple and fearless manhood.

13. I think it probable that many readers may be surprised at my
calling Scott the great representative of the mind of the age of
literature. Those who can perceive the intense penetrative depth of
Wordsworth, and the exquisite finish and melodious power of Tennyson,
may be offended at my placing in higher rank that poetry of careless
glance and reckless rhyme in which Scott poured out the fancies of his
youth; and those who are familiar with the subtle analysis of the
French novelists, or who have in any wise submitted themselves to the
influence of German philosophy, may be equally indignant at my
ascribing a principality to Scott among the literary men of Europe, in
an age which has produced De Balzac, and Goethe.[9]

[9] I knew nothing of Goethe when I put him with Balzac; but the
intolerable dulness which encumbers the depth of Wilhelm Meister, and
the cruel reserve which conceals from all but the intensest readers the
meaning of F