has done more to advance religion than if he had attempted to imitate, in detail, the peculiarities of the original. In vain has been the subsequent endeavour to make Job, the Psalms, and the other lyrical books, capable of affording enjoyment in their poetical form. For the multitude, upon whom the effect is to be produced, a plain translation always remains the best. Those critical translations, which vie with the original, really only seem to amuse the learned among themselves.
And thus in our Strasburg society did Shakespeare, translated and in the original, by fragments and as a whole, by passages and by extracts, influence us in such a manner, that, as there are men well versed in the Bible (Bibelfest), so did we gradually make ourselves thoroughly acquainted with Shakespeare, imitated in our conversations those virtues and defects of his time with which he had made us so well acquainted, took the greatest delight in his "quibbles,"[1] and, by translating them, nay, with original recklessness, tried to rival him. To this, the fact that I had seized upon him, above all, with great enthusiasm, did not a little contribute. A happy confession that something higher hovered over me was infectious for my friends, who all resigned themselves to this mode of thought. We did not deny the possibility of knowing such merits more closely, of comprehending them, of judging them with penetration; but this we reserved for later epochs. At present we only wished to sympathise gladly, and to imitate with spirit; and, while we had so much enjoyment, we did not wish to inquire and haggle about the man who afforded it, but unconditionally to revere him.
If any one would learn immediately what was thought, talked about, and discussed in this lively society, let him read Herder's essay on Shakespeare,
- ↑ This English word is used in the original.—Trans.
