Von Knebel thanks Goethe for his gift and praises his writing, noting that in both Mahomet and Tancred, the poetic gait and expression if much stronger than in Voltaire’s originals. He then discusses their mutual friends before returning to Goethe’s literary works.

Karl August says that he will send him his manuscript of Mahomet that day, along with the French original which belongs to the Duchess Luise. He then concludes the letter with a discussion of experiments performed unsuccessfully with coal.

Schiller begins by speaking of the baptism of his daughter, Karoline, before turning to Goethe’s adaptation of Voltaire’s Mahomet. He notes that of the French pieces, Mahomet is the best suited for a German translation, and that whilst he believes in the project he is hesitant to attempt the same with other French pieces due to their content and the formal difficulties that arise.

Robert opens by praising Goethe’s translations of Voltaire’s Tancrède and Mahomet, and sends his own translation of a recent French tragedy, Etienne Méhul’s Joseph en Égypte (1807) which he hopes to see performed under Goethe’s direction at the Weimar Theatre.

Schiller begins by saying that Körner will not come to Lauchstädt and that he will not travel their either because of his poor health. He then addresses Goethe’s translation of Voltaire’s Tancrède, stating that the freedom Goethe has demonstrated suggests that he will go a step further than he did with Mahomet. He notes that Goethe’s intention to use choirs in the theatre will be an important experiment, and adds that he hopes to present his finished version of La Pucelle d’Orleans upon Goethe’s return. He concludes by discussing his collection of poems and suggests that Goethe could get finished printed sheets of them.

Prince August thanks Goethe for sending him two letters and a copy of Mahomet. He notes that he has been as sick as last Spring and 1796 since 28th November, adding that he feels so weak that it is as if he helped Napoleon to settle and unpack the Egyptian pyramids in St Claud. He claims that this is why he can’t compare Mahomet wit the original, instead looking at it as a German masterpiece; Voltaire made Muhammad too evil a companion.

The copy also features notes pertaining to performances of the play made at the Comédie Française between 9 and 15 August 1742.

De Missy writes to Voltaire about his edition of Voltaire’s tragedy Mahomet. De Missy divides the letter into a series of numbered points. Point One concerns the beginning of Act Three which is in need of revision. De Missy says that he could have corrected the Act himself but did not want to taint Voltaire’s writing. Point Two concerns a few passages that De Missy notes he will not punctuate in line with Voltaire’s intentions. He notes that this is particularly relevant to the first verses of p.55 in At IV. Point Three concerns various corrections in Voltaire’s copy that are in the London edition, and some passages in this edition that have been more heavily corrected than Voltaire’s version. He draws attention to p.7, p.33, p.42, p.45, p.48, and p.50. He asks Voltaire how he would like these sections to read, and whether or not he should follow the example of the London edition. Point Four concerns p.28 where the printer had written ‘They sit’ and Voltaire had not corrected it. De Missy asks if Voltaire’s lack of correction was intentional or not. Point Five concerns a verse on p.13, about which De Missy questions Voltaire’s phrasing. There then follow two paragraphs that are left incomplete, with large gaps in the copy suggesting that De Missy intended to expand on them and complete them. The paragraphs concern the topics of gender, virtues, and vices, with De Missy noting that men and women alike have both vices and virtues, and that one gender cannot be said to be more virtuous than the other. De Missy then goes on to discuss religion, and the ways in which divides between various religious denominations are largely artificial because human action traverses them. He states that he does not want to go to America but would do so tomorrow if they were the place that hated fraud and tyranny. He says he should like to do this journey with Voltaire. De Missy makes mention of the letter to Frederick II that Voltaire had sent him [D2386], adding some further details about the people mentioned in the letter: The Dias brothers, James Shepherd, and Luther. He then turns to Muhammad himself, questioning why Christians should be offended by Voltaire’s play when it shows Islam in a bad light as it was, he writes, founded on deceit and violence, not Christianity which was established with, he suggests, the best faith, great sweetness, and patience. De Missy then turns to Pascal’s comments on inconceivable proposals, problematising Voltaire’s understanding of this notion. De Missy ends his letter with a discussion of a Warning in the English papers from a wife whose husband had left home and not returned, with the wife claiming that if he came back within three days he would be graciously received. He writes that he had discussed this with a friend who concluded that the woman perhaps beat her husband. By means of an ending, he summarises his earlier questions about his edition of Mahomet, and this copy is left unfinished at the reiteration of Point Four.

Voltaire briefly touches upon the Dias brothers and James Shephard, before mentioning a forgotten word. He then states that he defers to de Missy for the preface to Mahomet as he sees from his letters that he is far from superstitious and that he is a good editor and friend. He ends by asking about the progress of the universal histoy.