ADVERTISEMENT

TO THE

THIRD EDITION.

THE difference between this edition and the last consists in a few verbal alterations of the text, some slight additions to the notes, and the omission of everything not required to illustrate the author's meaning, or explain the original intention of this work; which was simply to clear up certain misconceptions regarding the poem, and cause it to be more studied and better understood. The subsequent sudden and almost simultaneous appearance of seven or eight new translations, affords a fair presumption that the desired object has been at least partially attained; and, from the circumstance of their being all in verse, it may be inferred that prose versions are rather favorable than unfavorable to metrical ones. The author of the most admired, Dr. Anster, has generously given me the credit of encouraging him to the completion of his task; and this alone must be deemed no unimportant service to literature.

=5

In this edition much of the matter has been reärranged, the Notes are augmented by about a third, and an Appendix, of some length, has been annexed. The translation itself was found to require only a few verbal corrections; yet, even as regards the translation, I lay the work before the public with much more confidence than formerly, both on account of the trying ordeal it has passed through, and the many advantages I have enjoyed in revising it.

It is singular (and to the student of German literature at once cheering and delightful) to see the interest which Germans of the cultivated class take in the fame of their great authors, and most particularly of Goethe. They seem willing to undergo every sort of labor to convey to foreigners a just impression of his excellence; and many German gentlemen, personally unknown to me, have voluntarily undertaken the irksome task of verifying the translation word for word by the original, and obligingly forwarded to me the results of the comparison. The amateurs of German literature in this country, also, partake of the same spirit of enthusiasm, and I have received many valuable suggestions in consequence. My German friends will find that I have retained a few expressions objected to by them, but they must do me the justice to remember that they are at least as likely to err from not knowing the full force of an English idiom, as I am from not knowing the full force of a German

one. Another fertile, source of improvement has been afforded me by the numerous critical notices, in English and foreign journals, of my work.

Besides these advantages, I have recently paid another visit to Germany, during which I had the pleasure of talking over the puzzling parts of the poem with some of the most eminent living writers and artists, and some of Goethe's most intimate friends and connections. Amongst those, for instance, whom I have to thank for the kindest and most flattering reception, are Tieck, von Chamisso,* Franz Horn, the Baron de la Motte Fouqué, Dr. Hitzig,† Retzsch, and Madame de Goethe. M. Varnhagen von Ense, and Dr. Eckermann, of Weimar, (names associated by more than one relation with Goethe's,) whom I unfortunately missed seeing, have each favored me with suggestions or notes. I think, therefore, I may now venture to say, that the notes to this edition contain the sum of all that can be asserted with confidence as to the allusions and passages which have been made the subject of controversy.

As some of the notions hazarded in my original preface eliçited a good deal of remark, I have left it pretty nearly as it stood, to prove to future readers that I was guilty of no extraordinary heresies.

I have no desire to prolong the discussion as to the comparative merit of prose and metrical translations; but, to prevent renewed misconstructions, I take this opportunity of briefly restating my views.

Here (it may be said) is a poem, which, in addition to the exquisite charm of its versification, is supposed to abound in philosophical notions and practical maxims of life, and to have a great moral object in view. It is written in a language comparatively unfettered by rule, presenting great facilities for the composition of words, and, by reason of its ductile qualities, naturally, as it were, and idiomatically adapting itself to every variety of versification. The author is a man whose genius inclined (as his proud position authorized) him to employ the

The real author of Peter Schlémil, most unaccountably attributed, by the English translator, to De la Motte Fouqué.

† President of the Literary Society of Berlin

license thus enjoyed by the writers of his country to the full; and, in the compass of this single production, he has managed to introduce almost every conceivable description of metre and rhythm. The translator of such a work into English, a language strictly subjected to that "literary legislation,"* from which it is the present (perhaps idle) boast of Germany to be free, is obviously in this dilemma: he must sacrifice either metre or meaning; and in a poem which it is not uncommon to hear referred to in evidence of the moral, metaphysical, or theological views of the author, — which, as already intimated, has exercised a great part of its widely-spread influence by qualities that have no more necessary connection with verse than prose, - it is certainly best to sacrifice metre.

The dilemma was fairly stated in the "Edinburgh Review:" "When people are once aware how very rare a thing a successful translation must ever be, from the nature of the case, they will be more disposed to admit the prudence of lessening the obstacles as much as possible. There will be no lack of difficulties to surmount, (of that the French school may rest assured,) after removing out of the way every restraint that can be spared. If the very measure of the original can be preserved, the delight with which our ear and imagination recognize its return, add incomparably to the triumph and the effect. Many persons, however, are prepared to dispense with this condition, who, nevertheless, shrink from extending their indulgence to a dispensation from metre altogether. But it is really the same question which a writer and his critics have to determine in both cases. If the difficulty of the particular metre, or of metre generally, can be mastered, without sacrificing more on their account than they are worth, they ought, undoubtedly, to be preserved. What, however, in any given case, is a nation to do, until a genius shall arise who can reconcile contradictions which are too strong for ordinary hands? In the mean while, is it not the wisest course to make the most favorable bargain that the nature of the dilemma offers? Unless the public is absurd enough to abjure the literature of all languages which are not universally understood, there can be

* Mühlenfel's Lecture.