opriation, in the use he has made of the labors of William Peter,
Parke Godwin, and others, in his various "translations" from the German,
has recently fallen in with Margaret Fuller d'Ossoli's version of the
_Conversations of Goethe with Eckermann_, published many years ago by
Mr. Ripley in his "Specimens of Foreign Literature;" and the result is
two volumes, embracing, with what Margaret Fuller translated, the great
poet's conversations with Soret. Among the chief notable men who existed
at the time of the conversations, and to whom reference is made, are
Scott and Byron. The first, whose _Fair Maid of Perth_ is read as a new
book, is praised for his "objective" qualities. The second is pronounced
the greatest modern poet of England, but censured for his polemic
tendency. Goethe's rapture is kindled when he speaks of him:

"'Lord Byron,' said Goethe, 'is to be regarded as a man, as an
Englishman, and as a great talent. His good qualities belong
chiefly to the man, his bad to the Englishman and the peer, his
talent is incommensurable. All Englishmen are, as such, without
reflection, properly so called; distractions and party spirit
will not permit them to unfold themselves in quiet. But they
are great as practical men. Thus, Lord Byron could never attain
reflection on himself, and on this account the maxims in
general are not successful, as is shown by his creed, 'much
money, no authority,' for much money always paralyzes
authority. But where he will create, he always succeeds; and we
may truly say that with him inspiration supplies the place of
reflection. He was always obliged to go on poetizing, and then
every thing that came from the man, especially from his heart,
was excellent. He produced his best things, as women do pretty
children, without thinking about it or knowing how it was done.
He is a great talent, a born talent, and I never saw the true
poetical power greater in any man than in him. In the
apprehension of external objects, and a clear penetration into
past situations, he is quite as great as Shakspeare. But as a
pure individuality, Shakspeare is his superior. This was felt
by Byron, and on this account he does not say much of
Shakspeare, although he knows whole passages by heart. He would
willingly have denied him altogether, for Shakspeare's
cheerfulness is in his way, and he f