The preceding words were written in the summer of 1813; I ask that the reader will not now find fault with me, but simply recall what was said above,--that this is merely an individual attempt to show how different poetic geniuses have tried to reconcile and resolve that tremendous antithesis which has appeared in their works in so many forms. To say more would be superfluous, since interest has been centred in this question for the past few years, and excellent explanations have been given us. Above all I wish to mention Blümner’s highly valuable treatise, _On the Idea of Fate in the Tragedies of Æschylus_, and the excellent criticism of it in the supplement of the _Jenaische Literaturzeitung_. Therefore, I come without further comment to my third point, which relates immediately to the German theatre and to Schiller’s efforts to establish it for the future. _III. Shakespeare as Playwright_ When lovers of art wish to enjoy any work, they contemplate and delight in it as a whole, that is, they try to feel and apprehend the unity which the artist can bring to them. Whoever, on the other hand, wishes to judge such works theoretically, to assert some judgment about them, or instruct some one about them, must use his discriminating and analytic faculty. This we attempted to carry out when we discussed Shakespeare, first, as poet in general, and then compared him with the ancient and modern poets. Now we intend to close the matter by considering him as a playwright, or poet of the theatre. Shakespeare’s fame and excellence belong to the history of poetry; but it is an injustice towards all playwrights of earlier and more recent times to give him his entire merit in the annals of the theatre. A universally recognized talent may make of its capacities some use which is problematical. Not everything which the great do is done in the best fashion. So Shakespeare belongs by necessity in the annals of poetry; in the annals of the theatre he appears only by accident. Since we can honor him so unreservedly in the first case, it behooves us in the second to explain the conditions to which he had to accommodate himself, but not therefore to extol these conditions as either admirable or worthy of imitation. We must distinguish closely-related poetic _genres_, however often they may be confused and merged together in actual treatment,--epic, dialogue, drama, play. _Epic_ requires the verbal delivery to the crowd through the mouth of an individual; _dialogue_, conversation in a narrow circle, where the crowd may eventually listen; _drama_, conversation bound up with action, even if enacted only before the imagination; _play_, all three together, in so far as they appeal to the sense of vision, and can be embodied under certain conditions of personal presence and stage-setting.