eels that he is no match
for it. Pope he does not deny, for he had no cause to fear him.
On the contrary, he mentions him, and shows him respect when he
can, for he knows well enough that Pope is a mere foil to
himself.'...

"Goethe seemed inexhaustible on the subject of Byron, and I
felt that I could not listen enough. After a few digressions,
he proceeded thus: 'His high rank as an English peer was very
injurious to Byron; for every talent is oppressed by the outer
world,--how much more, then, when there are such high birth and
so great a fortune. A certain middle rank is much more
favorable to talent, on which account we find all great artists
and poets in the middle classes. Byron's predilection for the
unbounded could not have been nearly so dangerous with more
humble birth and smaller means. But as it was, he was able to
put every fancy into practice, and this involved him in
innumerable scrapes. Besides, how could one of such high rank
be inspired with awe and respect by any rank whatever? He spoke
out whatever he felt, and this brought him into ceaseless
conflict with the world. It is surprising to remark,' continued
Goethe, 'how large a portion of the life of a rich Englishman
of rank is passed in duels and elopements. Lord Byron himself
says, that his father carried off three ladies. And let any man
be a steady son after that. Properly speaking, he lived
perpetually in a state of nature, and with his mode of
existence the necessity for self-defence floated daily before
his eyes. Hence his constant pistol-shooting. Every moment he
expected to be called out. He could not live alone. Hence, with
all his oddities, he was very indulgent to his associates. He
one evening read his fine poem on the Death of Sir John Moore,
and his noble friends did not know what to make of it. This did
not move him, but he put it away again. As a poet, he really
showed himself a lamb. Another would have commended them to the
devil.'"

Yet Goethe had a curious theory in respect to criticism, and believed it
possible for a foreigner to understand the achievements of a language
not his own better than those to whom it is native--in which we think he
was partially correct. In the following he criticises CARLYLE.

"'Sit down,' said he, 'and let us talk awhile. A new