The manuscript is written as if a letter replying to a request for a critique. It analyses in depth a series of points about Voltaire’s Histoire de Charles XII, roi de Suède, which the critic believes are ‘deficient, redundant, or mistaken’, and provides references to particular pages in the left-hand margins.

König begins with a discussion of his translation of the Figure de la Terre by Maupertuis which had recently been published, adding that he is surprised that the largest critique of the work should come from Maupertuis. He then mentions a letter that he had received from Voltaire in which Voltaire wrote that he had left King Solomon [Frederick II of Prussia] because he loved the Queen of Sheba [Émilie du Châtelet]. König ends the letter by critiquing Émilie du Châtelet’s Institutions de Physique which had been published in the preceding year.

Frederick begins by saying that he hopes the marquis has a peaceful summer, before moving on to political matters. He discusses the negotiations between the French and the English, and criticises Voltaire for his desire to become rich.

Byron discusses various literary works and corrects a series of errors he feels Goethe has made, adding that he regrets if Goethe is upset by the hasty and unjust judgements of English critics, about which he notes that he himself complained. He then offers his appreciation of Goethe’s works, and mentions Voltaire, Alexander Pope, and Jonathan Swift.

Reinhard apologies for his delayed response and thanks Goethe for sending some of his writings. He praises Goethe’s biography and talks of having devoured it, before reflecting on the past. He suggests that today’s youth have it harder in the face of the destroyed values, if they want to settle at home on the barrier-free realm full of rubble, on desecrated ground. Reinhard goes on to speak of his literary studies in youth, noting that he read Voltaire’s writings as well as the excerpt from the general world history; his mother forbade him to read novels and other “bad” books. He then turns to German readers, who for some time, he remarks, have become such a shasty, grumpy, attitudeless and shapeless monster. He goes on to discuss literary and political matters, and especially about the growing tensions between England and France.

The author of the billet asks rhetorically what can be said of the author of the Epitre d’Uranie. They note that he is aa poet, historian, critic, and on all subjects can showcase his genius.

The writer expresses deep gratitude to the King for his guidance and support in his later years. He criticises the value of metaphysical and theological debates, asserting that true distinction comes from meaningful contributions like those of Archimedes and Newton, rather than from the mundane tasks of lesser scholars. He acknowledges that while literature and style hold real merit, history often falls short in accuracy. Finally, he reflects on his own financial dealings, praises the King’s example of humanity, and offers his humble thanks and admiration.

The writer praises the recipient, an aide-maréchal and a noted poet, for their grace and skill in their literary craft, particularly highlighting their work Rosière. They express disappointment with a critic of the poem who reproaches a minor element of the story, arguing that such a criticism is misplaced given the character’s virtue. The writer thanks the recipient for a delightful package, which brought them happiness, and notes their continued admiration for Mr Dorat, though acknowledging that the response to Ninon and the odes was not from him. They conclude by expressing enduring affection for the recipient, even as they remain unwell.