which in ordinary use has a bare prosaic character may receive a fairer
and finer quality from its place in verse. The prose translator should
certainly be able to feel the manifestation of this law in both
languages, and should so choose his words as to meet their reciprocal
requirements. A man, however, who is not keenly sensible to the power
and beauty and value of rhythm, is likely to overlook these delicate yet
most necessary distinctions. The author's thought is stripped of a last
grace in passing through his mind, and frequently presents very much the
same resemblance to the original as an unhewn shaft to the fluted
column. Mr. Hayward unconsciously illustrates his lack of a refined
appreciation of verse, "in giving," as he says, "_a sort of rhythmical
arrangement_ to the lyrical parts," his object being "to convey some
notion of the variety of versification which forms one great charm of
the poem." A literal translation is always possible in the unrhymed
passages; but even here Mr. Hayward's ear did not dictate to him the
necessity of preserving the original rhythm.

While, therefore, I heartily recognize his lofty appreciation of
_Faust_,--while I honor him for the patient and conscientious labor he
has bestowed upon his translation,--I cannot but feel that he has
himself illustrated the unsoundness of his argument. Nevertheless, the
circumstance that his prose translation of _Faust_ has received so much
acceptance proves those qualities of the original work which cannot be
destroyed by a test so violent. From the cold bare outline thus
produced, the reader unacquainted with the German language would
scarcely guess what glow of color, what richness of changeful life, what
fluent grace and energy of movement have been lost in the process. We
must, of course, gratefully receive such an outline, where a nearer
approach to the form of the original is impossible, but, until the
latter has been demonstrated, we are wrong to remain content with the