dictates of prudence in our zeal for
the dictates of poetry, we have no great cause to fear it. Hitherto,
at least, there has always been enough of dull reality, on every side
of us, to abate such fervours in good time, and bring us back to the
most sober level of prose, if not to sink us below it. We should thank
the poet who performs such a service; and forbear to inquire too
rigidly whether there is any 'moral' in his piece or not. The writer
of a work, which interests and excites the spiritual feelings of men,
has as little need to justify himself by showing how it exemplifies
some wise saw or modern instance, as the doer of a generous action has
to demonstrate its merit, by deducing it from the system of
Shaftesbury, or Smith, or Paley, or whichever happens to be the
favourite system for the age and place. The instructiveness of the
one, and the virtue of the other, exist independently of all systems
or saws, and in spite of all.

But the tragedy of the _Robbers_ produced some inconveniences of a
kind much more sensible than these its theoretical mischiefs. We have
called it the signal of Schiller's deliverance from school tyranny and
military constraint; but its operation in this respect was not
immediate; at first it seemed to involve him more deeply and
dangerously than before. He had finished the original sketch of it in
1778; but for fear of offence, he kept it secret till his medical
studies were completed.[6] These, in the mean time, he had pursued
with sufficient assiduity to merit the usual honours;[7] in 1780, he
had, in consequence, obtained the post of surgeon to the regiment
_Auge_, in the Wuertemberg army. This advancement enabled him to
complete his project, to print the _Robbers_ at his own expense, not
being able to find any bookseller that would undertake it. The nature
of the work, and the universal interest it awakened, drew attention to
the private circumstances of the author, whom the _Robbers_, as well
as other pieces of his writing, that had found their way into the
periodical publications of the time, sufficiently showed to be no
common man. Many grave persons were offended at the vehement
sentiments expressed in the _Robbers_; and the unquestioned ability
with which these extravagances were expressed, but made the matter
worse. To Schiller's superiors, above all, such things were
inconceivable: he might perhaps be a very great genius, but was
certainly a dangerous servant for his Highn