his want of simplicity why Jean Paul should not become popular among us; and these to many readers may also serve to render him less intelligible than other writers. Without intending to offer an apology for Jean Paul, which, considering his established European reputation, would be presumption on the part of the writer, and derogatory to the English reader, the translator would yet claim indulgence for a few remarks on his peculiarities, especially in reference to the present work, with the hope of averting the hasty condemnation of some least familiar with German literature.
There is much in the spirit of German authors generally, and of Jean Paul in particular, that is opposed to the national taste of England, but, as Novalis remarks, Germanism and Anglicism, like every other national individuality, are but types of the human, to be found everywhere, though more general in their respective countries. The authors of Germany are freer and bolder than we are, less confined in the expression of their thoughts by all that regards the forms, observances, and doctrines of common life. Literature is to them as a wide, unenclosed common; a sort of debatable ground, on which, as by universal assent, every one may freely express his sentiments and opinions, without either giving offence or losing caste in the degree which would be the consequence of a like openness in this country. Hence they have been considered visionary and irreligious; but surely this is too hasty a judgment.
The tendency of the German mind is more intellectual and speculative, that of the English more sentimental and conservative; therefore they naturally come into opposition. But may not one be as extreme as the
