¹ Cf. R. Weber, “Personen- und Sachregister zu ‘Dichtung und Wahrheit’”, Goethes Werke: Festausgabe (Leipzig, [1926]), xvi, 633, 626, 638; and G. v. Loeper's index to Dichtung und Wahrheit (Hempel edition).

² R. T. Clark, Jr., “The Psychological Framework of Goethe's Werther”, JEGP, xlvi (1947), 273-8; for quotation cf. P M LA, lxi, 1366).—H. Gose, Goethes “Werther”, Bau-steine z. Gesck. d. dt. Lit. XVIII (Halle a.S., 1921), p. 101 ff., utilizes this essay as well as other writings of Herder's to demonstrate “daß auch der junge Herder die pandy-namische Denkart schon so friih in sich ausgebildet hatte, dafi eine Beeinflussung des Wertherdichters möglich war.” Since there was a certain estrangement between Herder and Goethe from May 1773 until the end of 1774, it may be doubted whether Goethe knew and was influenced by an essay the earliest preserved draft of which is dated 1774.

³ Merck's not too effective attempts to get Goethe away from Wetzlar and Lotte Buff are described in Dichtung und Wahrheit, 12. Buch: “seine Gegenwart, sein Zureden, be-schleunigte doch [because Goethe did not leave Wetzlar until three weeks after Merck had departed from Darmstadt] den Entschlufi, den Ort zu verlassen.” Several characters in Werther besides Wilhelm have Merckian traits: Merck tried to divert Goethe's attention from Lotte by praising “die junonische Gestalt einer ihrer Freundinnen” and scolded him “dafi ich mich nicht um dièse prächtige Gestalt bemuht, um so mehr, da sie frei, ohne irgend ein Verhaltnis sich befinde” (D.u.W.); Lotte says, “Warum denn mich! Werther! … ich fûrchte, es ist nur die Unmoglichkeit mich zu besizzen, die Ihnen diesen Wunsch so reizend macht”, to which Werther's comment is, “sehr weise! hat vielleicht Albert diese Anmerkung gemacht?” (Dec. 20, 1772. All Werther references are by date, 1774 edition; Werther's written statements by date of letter.) Werther puts Merck-like advice in the mouth of the philistine of the “Gleichnifi” of his letter of May 26, 1771: “feiner junger Herr, lieben ist menschlich, nur mufit ihr menschlich lieben! Theilet eure Stunden ein however: the ”Lynch edition“ substitutes an alpha for the epsilon in Tαρaσσe. [etc.].” Goethe's powers of psychological observation and analysis can only have been strengthened by his association with a man of Merck's “Menschenkenntnis” (cf. H. Brâuning-Oktavio, Goethe-Handbuch, ed. J. Zeitler, ii, 586).

⁴ Ernst Feise has suggested that Werther's letter of Nov. 15, 1772, “the theistic tone of which somewhat contradicts the earlier pantheism of Werther, is probably due to Goethe's disagreement with Lavater” (Die Leiden desjungen Werthers von … Goethe, “Oxford German Series” [New York, 1914], p. 213; cf. also “Zu Entstehung, Problem und Technik von Goethes ‘Werther’”, JEGP, xiii [1914], 1–36, n. 77, p. 29).

⁵ Werther is treated in 12.–13. Buch (genesis, composition, reception of the novel). By composition Werther belongs to the spring of 1774. The 14. Buch of D.u.W. covers the summer of 1774, and introduces Lavater, whom Goethe then met for the first time; there is a brief retrospective survey of their relationship, for up to this point in D.u.W. there have been but three passing references to Lavater.

⁶ Early 1773; cf. Goethe-Eandbuch, iv, 424.

⁷ Cf. H. Buriot Darsiles, Goethe: Les Souffrances du jeune Werther (Die Leiden desjongen [!] Werthers) (Paris, 1931), p. xvi∗: “Quant aux extravagantes rêveries dont il est question ici, c'est sans doute une allusion à ses Aussichten in die Ewigkeit, dont les deux derniers volumes parurent en 1772. Goethe en rendit compte.”

⁸ “Der grubelnde Theil der Christen wird ihm immer viel Dank schuldig bleiben. Er zaubert ihnen wenigstens eine herrliche Welt vor die Augen, wo sie sonst nichts als Düster-heit und Verwirrung sahen” (M. Morris, ed., Der junge Goethe, m, 96–97–this work is hereafter referred to by the abbreviation D.j.G.).

⁹ D.j.G., in, 94; Werther, May 9, 1772 (“Auch schâzt er [Fürst∗∗] meinen Verstand und Talente mehr als dies Herz, das doch mein einziger Stolz ist. … Ach was ich weis, kann jeder wissen.—Mein Herz hab ich allein.”).

¹⁰ D.j.G., in, 95.

¹¹ E.g., Werther's “Ich ließ das gut seyn” at the end of his paragraph on the young V … (May 17, 1771); his “Ich lies mich aber in nichts stören” when the physician finds it undignified of him to play with “Lottens Kindern” (June 29, 1771); and his refusal to accept Wilhelm's “Entweder Oder” analysis of his position in relation to Lotte and Albert (Aug. 8, 1771); his refusal to do his secretarial work as his “Gesandter” wishes (Dec. 24, 1771 ff.; esp. Feb. 17, 1772: “Seine Art zu arbeiten und Geschäfte zu treiben ist so lächer-lich, daß ich mich nicht enthalten kann ihm zu widersprechen …”).

¹² D.j.G., iii, 95. It is unlikely that the author of these lines used any systematic source of psychological information “as a framework” (Clark, loc. cit.) for Werther.

¹³ D.j.G., iii, 95.

¹⁴ This and fi. quotations from D.j.G., iii, 96.

¹⁵ Op. cit., “Zwote verbesserte Auflage” (Hamburg, 1773), iii, 60. 16 Dec. 24, 1771.

¹⁷ Jan. 8, 1772.

¹⁸ Mar. 15, 1772: On Jan. 20 Werther had written of Fräulein von B.…,“Sie gleicht ihnen liebe Lotte. … ihr Stand ist ihr zur Last, der keinen der Wunsche ihres Herzens befriedigt. Sie sehnt sich aus dem Getummel [etc.].”

¹⁹ Cf. C. Janentzky, J. C. Lavaters Sturm uni Drang im Zusammenhang seines religiösen Bewusstseins (Halle, 1916), p. 47 ff.

²⁰ Die erste-zweyte Half le (Zürich, 1773). A review of Die erste Hälf te which appeared in the Frankfurter Gelehrte Anzeigen of 1773 is reprinted in the Ausgabe letzter Hand, v. 33; it is not by Goethe (cf. G. Witkowski, Goethes Werke, Weimar éd., 1. Abt., xxxviii, 306 ff.), but Goethe's endorsement of Eckermann's guess that it was by him—doubtless inspired by the Werther footnote, which, however, refers to a sermon in Die zweyte Hälfte—would indicate that the title Predigten Ueber das Buch Jonas still had strong associations for him in 1823. Cf. also D.j.G., iv, 84 (Lavater's diary, summer 1774).

²¹ Editors and commentators seem not to have verified Goethe's reference: thus O. Wal-zel, Goethes Werke (Festausgabe), ix, 292, writes: “Der 2. Teil von Lavaters ‘Predigten … ‘, der die erwahnte Predigt enthält, trâgt die Jahreszahl 1774, ist also wohl 1773 ausgegeben worden”; M. Herrmann, Goethes Samtliche Werke (Jubiläums-Ausgabe), xvi, 387, evidently had not seen the sermons. That both volumes appeared in 1773 is further authenticated by the fact that they are reviewed in the first number of the Allgemeine at. Bibliothek for 1774. (Cf. also n. 25.)

²² Op. cit., i, [xiv]—dated Nov. 1, 1772.

²³ Herder's first letter to Lavater is dated Oct. 30, 1772; cf. n. 25, infra.

²⁴ Lavater praises Herder as early as July 12, 1767 (letter to F. Hess) and lauds him in the 1st vol. of the Aussichten (1768).

²⁵ H. Duntzer, F. G. von Herder, Briefe an Herder von Lavater, Jacdbi, Forster u. A. (Frankfurt a.M., 1858), p. 23. The editors note ad “Predigten”: “Lavater hatte ‘Vermischte Predigten’ (1770) und ‘Predigten iiber das Buch Jonas’ (1772[!]) herausgegeben.” Herder can only be alluding to the former sermons, and he has seen only the first two parts of Aussichten (cf. postscript of Lavater's reply, Nov. 10, 1772).

²⁶ May 21, 1771; June 16, 1771; cf. use of disguised names, initials, asterisks, in text.

²⁷ June 16, 1771, Feb. 17, 1772.

²⁸ Buriot Darsiles, p. ix∗, not the only critic misled by Düntzer's Erläuterungen zu den dt. Klassikern (Goethes Leiden des j. Ws., 2. Aufl., Leipzig, 1880), is satisfied to comment: “Duntzer dit de la note … qu'elle n‘était rien moins qu'indispensable et qu'en tout cas elle aurait dû, comme plus haut, l‘éloge de Klopstock, être fondue dans le texte, mais que Rousseau aussi a des notes de ce genre.” The realistic technique of Werther forbade the anachronism for one thing!

²⁹ If, as J. Wahle believes (Goethes Werke: Festausg., ix, 286), both pages of the first drafts of certain Werther passages published by Schöll in 1846 (cf. D.j.G., VI, 408–09; iv, 219) date from 1774, Goethe must have decided that the present prefatory paragraphs of the novel better suited the objective tone at which he aimed than did such a statement as: “schöpfe nicht nur wollustige Linderung aus seinem Leiden, laß indem du es liessest nicht den Hang zu einer unthätigen Mismuth in dir sich vermehren, sondern ermanne dich und lafi dir dieses Büchlein einen tröstenden, warnenden Freund seyn, wenn du aus Geschick oder eigner Schuld keinen nähern finden kanst, dem du vertrauen magst und der seine Erfahrungen mit Klugheit und Güte auf deinem Zustande anzupassen und dich mit oder wider willen auf den rechten Weeg zu leiten weis.” There is no immoralism in these words, but, as is pointed out infra in the text, any emphasis on “Zustand”, especially at the beginning of Werther, could easily disserve Goethe's aesthetic intention.

³⁰ After Lavater has treated the general religious theme of his introductory sermon, he immediately turns his attention at the beginning of the second to the problems of character in action: “Der Character und das Betragen des Propheten Jonas ist nun das erste, das sich unserer weitern Aufmerksamkeit darstellt.” Significantly, there is no corresponding “das zweyte.” Ci, i, 43 ff.

³¹ An early work of Lavater's bearing on the themes of the Aussichten was his translation (1769) of the latter part of Bonnet's Idées sur l‘état futur des êtres vivants, ou Palin-génésie philosophique. Developing ideas of Locke's empirical system, the Franco-Swiss naturalist and philosopher Charles Bonnet had expounded a materialistic psychology (Essai de psychologie, ou Considérations sur les opérations de l‘âme, 1755) with which he harmonized his teleological religious beliefs only with difficulty.

³² If it is recalled that because of the 1770–72 famine special days of prayer were obligatory in all churches, the titles are self-explanatory: 1. Von der Allgemeinheit der göttlichen Fürsehung; 2. Das Fehlerhafte in dem Betragen Jonas; 3. Das Gute in dem Betragen Jonas; 4. Die Schiffgefährten Jonas; 5. Jonas in und ausser dem Wallfische; 6. Unwandelbarkeit der göttlichen Güte; 7. Vorbereitungs-Predigt auf den Communionstag vor dem Bethtag [begins: “Wie mag dem Jonas zu Muth gewesen seyn, da er … ”]; 8. Glauben an Gott; 9. Bethtags-Predigt [begins: “So konnte doch Jonas seine Zuhôrer nicht anreden, wie ich diesen Augenblick Euch angeredet habe. … Ausrufen konnte er wol …”]; 10. Nachlese zum Bethtag; 11. Jonas Menschenfeindliche, Ehrgeitzige Unzufriedenheit mit Gottes Fiirsehung und Giite; 12. Mittel gegen Unzufriedenheit und iible Laune; 13. Von dem Ueberdrusse des Lebens; 14. Gottes Giite und Langmuth.

³³ See n. 32.

³⁴ Op. cit., n. 25, pp. 15–16, 19.

³⁵ This dedication is printed in a font otherwise not used for connected text in the Predigten; placed before the Vorrede, it authenticates with a high degree of probability the dating of the latter.

³⁶ Cf. D.j.G., iv, 15–17. The parallels between the two letters have been pointed out by Feise (cf. n. 4, esp. JEGP, p. 29).

³⁷ (Paris, 1911), p. 281 ff.; Loiseau's whole section must be read if his lucid and carefully documented analysis of the fundamental unity of Werther's religious utterances is to be appreciated. The assumption of various critics (e.g., Feise) that Werther's pantheism is incompatible with monotheism ignores the transcendental element in Storm-and-Stress pantheistic thinking; cf. A. Gillies, Herder (Oxford, 1945), pp. 7, 59, 94.

³⁸ Lavater's “emporbrausend” conveys a negative value judgment; Feise, Die Leiden des jungen Werthers, p. 177, correctly notes, “emportes [Werther, May 13, 1771] … is not to be taken as an absolute expression of dissatisfaction.” (The 1774 Werther has “empörendes.)

³⁹ Op. cit., i, 46.

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 53.

⁴¹ Quotation from letter to Schônbom, June 1, 1774, in which Goethe characterizes his forthcoming novel (D.j.G., iv, 26).

⁴² May 10, 1771.

⁴³ July 24, 1771.

⁴⁴ July 26, 1771. 45 July 20, 1771.

⁴⁶ July 21, 1771.

⁴⁷ Lessing, op. cit., v. vii. The metaphor common to both Werther and Emilia Galotti is not pointed out by E. Feise, “Lessings Emilia Galotti und Goethes Werther”, MP, xv (1917), 321–38, who, to be sure, considers the death of Emilia to be a “Mord” which in Werther “wird … zum Selbstmord” {ibid., p. 331); nor by R. T. Ittner, “Werther and Emilia Galotti”, JEGP, xli (1942), 418-26, who accepts, as does the author of the present study, the interpretation of H. J. Weigand, “Warum stirbt Emilia Galotti?”, JEGP, xxviii (1929), 467-81, but who seems not to know Feise's article.

⁴⁸ Op. cit., i, 124–25.

⁴⁹ Nov. 30, 1772.

⁵⁰ Predigten, 227-28.

⁵¹ Sept. 10, 1771.

⁵² Cf. also his undated comments on “Den Vorhang aufzuheben” (beginning of “Heraus-geberbericht”).

⁵³ Nov. 24, 1772. Ittner, loc. cit., p. 421, insists on Werther's “consciousness of guilt and … desire to atone for such guilt… as the immediate, although not, of course, the primary and ultimate cause of Werther's death.” This explanation disregards the way Werther makes fate responsible for the “unhappiness he caused through his guilt.” Referring to “Siinde abzubiissen—Siinde?” Ittner further declares that a “vow never to kiss Lotte is to be considered as having been immediately retracted. Werther feels that he will kiss her and he is ready to atone for this sin. … In his last letter his calm and resigned tone indicates that he has continued to consider this ethical point; now he feels unequivocally that his kisses are a sin,—and he is ready to pay the penalty” (p. 422). In finding confirmation of his interpretation in the words “Siinde? Gut! und ich strafe mich davor”, Ittner ignores both context and interrogation points.

⁵⁴ Predigten, ii, 19. 55 Ibid., p. 27.

⁵⁶ This passage is quoted by Ittner, p. 425, who realizes that Werther “is not dying for Lotte”, that “his vanity still leads him to feel that her calm and her happiness will not be restored.” But Ittner vitiates the value of his observations by adding: “And so Werther dies, conscious of the guilt of his uncontrolled passion, conscious too, and remorseful over [!] the unhappiness and suspicion he has caused between Albert and Lotte.” Ittner's assumption that he has refuted L. Simon's statement (V erantwortung und Schuld in Goethes Roman [Erlangen, 1934], p. 9), “Sozialethische Motive liegen Werthers Selbstmord nicht zugrunde”, is therefore unjustified, as is his feeling of “a kind of admiration for this Werther who finally takes cognizance of the institutions and standards of the world, and who acknowledges them by sacrificing himself.” He is, it may be hoped, speaking for the few when he says, “With respect to the tone of the last few pages of Werther, we are even reminded somewhat [!] of the transfiguration that takes place in Maria of Maria Stuart, in Johanna of Die Jungjrau von Orleans, and in Ottilie of Die Wahlverwandtschaften.”

⁵⁷ Op. cit., GR, i (1926), 185–253, esp. ii[.Teil], pp. 221–53 (Goethe as quoted by Ecker-mann, Jan. 2, 1824).

⁵⁸ Dec. 20, 1772 (evening).

⁵⁹ Mar. 16, 1772.

⁶⁰ The interpretation of passages in Dichtung und Wahrheit as historical evidence of the degree to which Goethe may have been conscious of how he created a given work is the one legitimate “use” of Goethe's autobiography for which Max Herrmann failed to allow when he condemned its “Überschatzung” by those who are blind to any but biographical interpretations of Goethe's works (Das Jahrmarktsfest zu Plunder sweilern: Entstehungs- und Buhnengeschichte [Berlin, 1900], p. 5). The traditional biographical emphasis on “Goethe's Wetzlar experience”, on “Kestner's account of Jerusalem's sad fate”, and on “Goethe's experience” as the “threefold inspiration” of Werther (Ittner, p. 420), is not only inadequate, as many critics have long realized, but actually misleading.

⁶¹ Goethes Werke (Festausgabe), xvi, 559.

⁶² Goethe ambiguously uses “jener” without antecedent once in the paragraph here quoted from and once in the one immediately before it; Duntzer, Goethes Dichtung uni Wahrheit: Erläutert … (Leipzig, 1881), ii, 196–97, felt constrained to note, “Jener Veberdruß, von dem bisher noch gar keine Rede war” and “Jener Ekel, im Uebergange, wie oben jener Ueberiruß fällt um so unangenehmer auf, als jene in anderer Beziehung bald folgt.” The first “jener” is, of course, proleptic, but Duntzer at least felt the forced character of Goethe's transitions in these paragraphs.

⁶³ A recent instance of Werther compounded is found in J. Hennig, “Goethe's Translation from Macpherson's ‘Berrathon’”, MLR, xlii (1947), 127–30: “In its shortness the Berrathon passage illustrates even better than Songs of Selma the perfect harmony to which Goethe-Werther's mind had attained with that of Ossian” (p. 128; = Goethe-Werther-Ossian!). As a result of creating Werther-Emilia Galotti, Ittner interpreted Werther's conduct according to Lessing's rationalistic moral psychology—toward which Goethe was very probably hostile (cf. Feise, “Lessings Emilia Galotti und Goethes Werther”, pp. 324–29, 337). For Werther-Spiegelbild der Charakterentwicklung Goethes, cf. n. 169. infra; and see n. 28, ante, for the result of having created a Goethe-Rousseau.

⁶⁴ That some of the emotional experiences of the young Goethe are commensurable with those of Werther has been well demonstrated by Feise, “Goethes Werther als nervöser Charakter”, p. 232 ff., who analyzes, for instance, Goethe's appreciation of the psychological effects of loneliness and isolation in 1772 and 1773. Feise's purpose, however, is to show that Werther-Goethe h; s psychological traits in common with Werther-Jerusalem, that “was Kestners dem Schicksale Werthers ‘angeklebt heissen, trutz ihnen und andern—eingewoben ist’ ([D.j.G.] iv, 147), weil es aus derselben Quelle des Selbst- und Miterlebens stammt.” This is psychoanalytical Quellenforschung and the technique of demonstrating that Goethe was ever writing fragments of his great confession.

⁶⁵ “Ich … fand nach Verlauf einer Stunde, daß ich eine … Zeichnung verfertigt hatte, ohne das mindeste von dem meinen hinzuthun.”

⁶⁶ Delight in “Einsamkeit”—1st letter, S; neglect of Amtmann S.'s invitation—June 16, 1771; preference of the solitude of a “Bauemherberge” to life “in dem traurigen Neste D … ”—Jan. 20, 1772, i.e. before Werther's “Verdruß” reported Mar. 15.

⁶⁷ Early cultivation of Lotte and her family circle to the exclusion of other social interests; while ministerial secretary Werther has only two intimates, viz. Fräulein von B … and Count von C …

⁶⁸ Chiefly with Wilhelm; at a period when letters were faithfully preserved and wide correspondence was the rule, the editor of Werther has “mit Fleiß gesammelt” a number averaging less than one per week.

⁶⁹ There is no reason to credit Werther's account with Ossian translations; long before he declared “Ossian hat in meinem Herzen den Homer verdrängt” (Oct. 12, 1772) he had indignantly observed, “Neulich fragte mich einer, wie mir Ossian gefiele” (July 10, 1771).

⁷⁰ D.j.G., iv, 26.

⁷¹ Op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 209–10.

⁷² The word “Schuld” has too strong moral or ethico-sociological overtones. In the final sentence of the paragraph from which these quotations are taken an aesthetic value judgment is introduced: “So gefaßt erhält diese ganze Episode erst [!] den Stempel tiefster tragischer Ironie.” Surely Lessing's simpler psychology does not exclude ironic implications of tragic significance.

⁷³ Pivotal also by its physical position at the exact middle of the “Erster Theil” of Werther (in D.j.G. the passage from “Wir Menschen beklagen uns oft” to the end of letter is preceded and followed by 23+ pp. text; in Goethes Werke: Festausgabe by 25J pp.).

⁷⁴ Op. cit., ii, 156.

⁷⁵ May 15, 1771.

⁷⁶ May 17, 1771.

⁷⁷ May 22, 1771.

⁷⁸ May 26, 1771.

⁷⁹ June 16, 1771.

⁸⁰ June 29, 1771.

⁸¹ Op. cit., π, 165–66.

⁸² E. Feise, “Goethes Werther als nervôser Charakter”, p. 192, notes that Werther's “Berufsauffassung” is “eine organische Àufierung seines Charakters”; he accordingly begins his discussion of “das Problem des nervôsen Charakters” “von dieser Seite seines [Werthers] Wesens ausgehend, nicht von seiner Natur- und Liebesauffassung”—a very sound procedure.

⁸³ Op. cit., ii, 171–72.

⁸⁴ Ibid., p. 175. There is a significant “einander” in the second sentence of Werther's answer to Herr Schmidt's objection to his use of the term “Laster”: “Mit nichten … wenn das, womit man sich selbst und seinen Nächsten schadet, den Namen verdient. 1st es nicht genug, daß wir einander nicht glüklich machen können, miissen wir auch noch einander das Vergnügen rauben, das jedes Herz sich noch manchmal seJbst gewähren kann.” Werther's entire emphasis is on the hurt “üble Laune” causes others, and the “sich selbst” of one of his next statements, “Alle Geschenke … ersezzen nicht einen Augenblik Vergnügen an sich selbst, den uns eine neidische Unbehaglichkeit unsers Tyrannen vergällt hat”, refers to the victim of some other person's “üble Laune.” For the value of “neidisch” in this last quotation, cf. note 139, infra.

⁸⁵ May 27, 1771.

⁸⁶ 4th paragraph of “Herausgeberbericht.”

⁸⁷ Evening of Dec. 20 (editor's account).

⁸⁸ Dec. 21, 1772 (“fruh”).

⁸⁹ Op. cit., ii, 184–85.

⁹⁰ The terms “Type I–IV” in text replace Lavater's enumeration of “der selznen Menschen mancherley Arten” (“Einige”, “Andere”, “Wiederum andere”, and “Noch andere” as the opening words of four successive paragraphs, ibid., pp. 188–93).

⁹¹ Ibid., pp. 187–88.

⁹² Ibid., p. 188.

⁹³ Ibid., pp. 188–89.

⁹⁴ Ibid., pp. 189–90.

⁹⁶ Mar. 15, 1772 (because Werther's “Neider” are triumphing at the fall of an “Ueber-miithigen”).

⁹⁶ Mar. 16, 1772 (referring to the same triumph of “die schlechten Kerls alle”).

⁹⁷ Sept. 15, 1772 (because the “Nufibaume” at St … have been cut down).

⁹⁸ Oct. 27, 1772 (refers to Werther's realization in preceding letter that his disappearance from the world of Lotte and Albert would not leave a permanent emptiness even though he is now “diesem Hause … Allés in allem”).

⁹⁹ Nov. 15, 1772. The corresponding allusion in the last paragraphs of his farewell letter to Lotte is less bitter but hardly more patient: “Ich schaudere nicht den kalten schrok-lichen Kelch zu fassen, aus dem ich den Taumel [not ‘Ruhe‘!] des Todes trinken soil!”

¹⁰⁰ Op. cit., ii, 191.

¹⁰¹ Sept. 15, 1772.

¹⁰² Op. cit., ii, 192. ¹⁰³ Ibid., pp. 192-93.

¹⁰⁴ Dec. 24, 1771.

¹⁰⁵ Aug. 8, 1771.

¹⁰⁶ March 15, 1772 (“ihr seyd doch allein schuld daran”).

¹⁰⁷ May 13, 1771.

¹⁰⁸ July 24, 1771.

¹⁰⁹ Evening of Dec. 20, 1772.

¹¹⁰ Op. cit., ii, 196.

¹¹¹ Dec. 20, 1772.

¹¹² Op. cit., ii, 197.

¹¹³ Ibid., p. 198.

¹¹⁴ Lavater, op. cit.,, 194, also speaks of the “Lasterhaftigkeit” of “üble Laune.”

¹¹⁵ May 9, 1772. Early religious associations are immediately suggested by the beginning of this letter: “Ich habe die Wallfahrt nach meiner Heimath mit aller Andacht eines Pilgrims vollendet. …” Werther's love of children could have special significance if it had its source in a regretted first, happier part of childhood; cf. Feise's modern-psychological interpretation of this episode (“Goethes Werther als nervôser Charakter”, p. 202).

¹¹⁶ Op. cit., ii, 200–01.

¹¹⁷ Ibid., p. 201.

¹¹⁸ Ibid., p. 204.

¹¹⁹ With this expansion of his sermon's title Lavater announces (ii, 221) the topic on which he will talk. Although, exceptionally, this sermon has a tripartite division, it falls into Lavater's usual two-part pattern: parts and n, dealing with the worth of human life and permissible forms of longing for death, are together no longer than part hi with its counter-theme of sinful tœdium vita. The term “second part” is accordingly used here to refer to the latter half of this sermon.

¹²⁰ Op. cit., ii, 220.

¹²¹ Ibid., p. 229.

¹²² This letter-classification is Lavater's: (a) = op. cit., ii, 229-31; (b) 231-33; (c) 233–36.

¹²³ July 29, 1772. For the peculiar value of the word “Neid” in Werther's statement to Herr Schmidt, “ist sie [üble Laune] nicht vielmehr ein innerer Unmuth über unsre eigne Unwiirdigkeit, ein Misfallen an uns selbst, das immer mit einem Neide verkniipft ist, der durch eine thôrige Eitelkeit aufgehezt wird”, cf. H. J. Weigand, “Wandrers Sturmlied—‘Neidgetroffen’”, GR, xxi (1946), 165–72, esp. p. 170 and n. 14; cf. also, S. Atkins, “Werther's ‘Misfallen an uns selbst, das immer mit einem Neide verkniipft ist’”, MLR, xliii (1948), 96 ff.

¹²⁴ “nach eilfe.”

¹²⁵ Farewell letter to Lotte (last morning).

¹²⁶ Op. cit., ii, 237.

¹²⁷ Cf. n. 133, infra, and Goethe's full statement there referred to.

¹²⁸ Op. cit., ii, 237.

¹²⁹ Ibid., p. 239.

¹³⁰ This and ff. quotations from Werther's discussion of suicide with Albert: Aug. 12, 1771.

¹³¹ Op. cit., ii, 241–242.

¹³² “Ich bin mehr aïs einmal trunken gewesen, und meine Leidenschaften waren nie weit vom Wahnsinne, und beydes reut mich nicht, denn ich habe in meinem Maasse begreifen lernen: Wie man [etc., as quoted in text].”

¹³³ D.j.G., iv, 15–16. When Albert questions the aptness of his “Beyspiele”, Werther observes, “man hat mir schon of ter vorgeworfen, dafi meine Combinationsart manchmal an's Radotage gränze!” and later he declares “der Mensch ist Mensch.” Goethe's letter similarly emphasizes a peculiar way of thinking and a common human element. For the parallels noted by Feise, cf. notes 4 and 36, ante.

¹³⁴ Letter to Hartmann, Oct. 10, 1774 (cf. Janentzky, op. cit., p. 97); to Wieland, Aug. 9, 1776 (cf. C. F. Schreiber, Goethe's Works with the Exception of Faust; A Catalogue …[New Haven, London, 1940], item 949a).

¹³⁵ This point is fully elaborated by 0. Guinaudeau, Eludes sur J.-G. Lavater (Paris, 1924), p. 337 ff.

¹³⁶ Op. cit., ii, 242.

¹³⁷ Ibid., p. 223. (“Es ist kein vernünftiger Mensch, der das Seyn dem Nichtseyn, das Leben dem Tode nicht vorziehe; Kein gesunder verniinftiger Mensch, der natürlicher Weise nicht eine Furcht, eine Abneigung vor dem Tode, vor der Zerriittung und Zerstörung seiner Natur habe.” Is Lavater's “Seyn-Nichtseyn” a Hamlet “Anklang”, as critics have claimed Werther's of Nov. 15, 1772, to be? In Werther “zerriitten” and “zerstören” are also used synonymously; cf. text, next paragraph.)

¹³⁸ E. Feise, “Zu Entstehung, Problem und Technik von Goethes ‘Werther’”, p. 29; cf. M. Herrmann, Goethes Samtliche Werke (Jubilâums-Ausgabe), xvi, xviii.

¹³⁹ Op. cit., ii, 243.

¹⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 252.

¹⁴¹ D.j.G., v, 269–70.

¹⁴² Ibid., p. 245.

¹⁴³ Dj.G., iv, 157.

¹⁴⁴ Op. cit., v, 325.

¹⁴⁵ Ibid., p. 326; cf. also Faust's rejection of “Im Anfang war das Wort.”

¹⁴⁸ A second reason for this understatement was the necessity of making Werther as likable a character as possible, lest “normal” readers take offense and decide that a mere psychopathic case was unworthy of their attention.

¹⁴⁷ Anonymous review, Auserlesene Bibliothek der neuesten deutschen Litteratur, Lemgo, 1775, vm, 500–20; quoted by Gose, p. 6.

¹⁴⁸ Gose, p. 1.

¹⁴⁹ Ibid., p. 11; cf., however, p. 2, where Gose justifies his procedure: “Da sich die Wertherforschung bisher vorwiegend mit den philosophischen, den stofflichen und den ästhetisch-formalen Fragen beschäftigt hat, eine methodisch erschöpfende Herausar-beitung des Gedankengehalts aber noch aussteht, so betont die vorliegende Arbeit mit bewufiter Einseitigkeit das Gedankliche.” “Damit”, Feise (“Goethes Werther als nervöser Charakter”, pp. 185–86) observes, “ist aber der Charakter Werthers noch nicht erschöpft. Denn aus der Idee allein wird noch kein Werk geboren. …” Feise wisely notes that Werther is no allegory, but then, by applying a negative value judgment to the term “allegory” and a positive one to “symbol”, manages to find in the work symbolic value and to reach his absolute, “Typus”: “1st das Symbol ein menschlicher Charakter, so wird seine Einheit demnach nie in einer Idee aufgehen, auf einen Typus werden wir ihn trotz aller seiner Widerspriiche zuruckfiihren kônnen, wenn er wahr und lebensfâhig ist.”

¹⁵⁰ Gose, p. 24. The concept of “dynamischer Pantheismus” as the fundamental “An-schauung von den letzten Dingen” in Werther is the premise of H. Schöffler's interpretation of Goethe's novel as “der Urfall eines Leidens in Sehnsucht nach unerreichbarem dies-seitigem Werte” (Die Leiden des jungen Werther; ihr geistesgeschichtlicher Eintergrund, Frankfurt a.M., [1938], p. 29) and as a seriously intended parody of the Christian “Erlo-sungstod” (p. 30)—“die erste nichtdualistische Tragôdie unserer Geistesentwicklung” (p. 32) because “Die Geschlechterliebe ist der absolute Wert in diesem Kunstwerk, und kann dieser Wert nicht erlangt werden, so wird das Leben wert-los” (p. 27). SchôfHer, who finds Goethe-Werther of the “Erster Theil” “weit entfernt vom Jerusalem-Werther des zweiten Jahres” (p. 7), calls it a “Tatbestand, dafi Werther seinen Tod als Opfertod bezeichnet” (p. 16), and seems to see Werther's course of conduct as completely “folgerichtig” (cf. p. 28); he is thus able to establish startling parallels between Werther's story and that of Christ as told by St. John.

¹⁵¹ Gose, p. 65; his next sentence renders Goethe the further disservice of reemphasizing the static quality attributed to Werther's personality: “Im Ethischen bleibt also Werther seinem Naturalismus treu.” Because of its component “natura”, ethischer Naturalismus suggests a positive value judgment hardly inherent in its synonym: “egocentric voluntarism” (and Werther's desires are his only law !).

¹⁵² Helmut Hirsch, GR, xxi (1946), 247–56, esp. 247–50; in this interpretation Werther's suicide decision is evoked by Lotte's “Seien Sie ein Mann” (p. 250) and really represents the conduct pattern “die bosen Eltern durch Selbstbestrafung zu riihren” (p. 249).

¹⁵³ Hirsch, p. 247.

¹⁵⁴ Cf. notes 2 and 12, ante, and text.

¹⁵⁵ M. Herrmann, op. cit., pp. xix–xxvi.

¹⁵⁶ Ibid., pp. xix–xx, xxvi.

¹⁵⁷ Cf. M. Diez, “The Principle of the Dominant Metaphor in Goethe's Werther”, PMLA, Li (1936), 821–41, 985-1006: “Werther's suicide is the principle theme, the most important event and climax of the whole development” (p. 830). In this invaluable study can be found in systematic form plentiful evidence of the importance of non-static imagery in Werther: for instance, metaphors and similes classified together as relating to death (a “Zustand”!) more often than not refer to the processes of dying, killing, being killed or decaying (cf. pp. 838-41); there is, moreover, full treatment of metaphoric use of words of motion (pp. 991–95).

¹⁵⁸ Cf. Die Wahlverwandtschaften, n. Teil, 4. Kap., “Aus Ottiliens Tagebuche.”

¹⁶⁹ Jubiläums-Ausgabe, xvi, viii; whether “ursprünglich” means at some point in Werther's past, or, as Feise (“Goethes Werther als nervoser Charakter”, p. 202), repudiating Herrmann's assumption, seems to interpret this statement, at the time the novel begins, hardly affects the irrelevancy of the assumption.