Raphael's Poesy and Poesy in FaustAuthor(s): A. GerberSource: Modern Language Notes, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Feb., 1896), pp. 56-57Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2918420 .

Accessed: 16/05/2014 14:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toModern Language Notes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.99 on Fri, 16 May 2014 14:27:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

III February, I896. MODERN LANGUA GE NOTE.S. Vol. xi, No. 2. 112

begin before noon or whether it ceased before noon. If the former meaning is intended, the ambiguity will be removed by the substitution of before for fiil; if the latter sense is the right one, it should be apparent from the circumstances.

Returning Inow to the passage that has served as the text for this discourse-Dr. Hall's quotation from Howells-the question at once rises in the mind, IA " till " used there for " before ? "-" It seemed long till that fool- ish voice wvas stilled."-To me the sense is not quite the same as when before is substi- tuted. Tiil gives to " seemed " a continuaince that is not conveyed in before, and that pro- tracted duration of the seeming was doubt- less the sense intended by the author. The two quotationis from Howells that I have cited by conjectuLre as those referred to by Dr. Hall stand, perhaps, on a different footinig.

R. 0. WILLIAMS. New York.

RAPIIAEL'S POESY AND POESY IN FA US T.

IN a very interesting article in this journal,i Kuno Francke has recently called attention to a parallel to Goetlhe's Eplt,iborion. Indeed the reseml lance between Eutfizor-ion and Sckerz appears so striking that no one can lhelp agree- ing with thle author that Goethe must have been influenced in this case by Tieck. It is furthermore a well-known fact that Euphorion represents Poesy and gradually assumes the features of Lord Byron. There remains nevertheless one stanza of the chorus requir- ing explanation, an explanationi which will be attempted in the present article.

After Euplhorion lhas stopped playinig with the maidens he begins to ascetnd the rocks, and heedless of the warninigs anid pleadinlgs of botlh parents and clhorus, continues to mount until finally he canl overlook the whole of the Peloponnesus and perceive its warlike aspect. Thereuipon the chorus SilngS :2

Seht hinatif xvie hoch gestiegen! Und er scheint uns doch nicht kleiin. Wie iin Harnisch, wvic ztim Siegen, Wie von Erz uind Stahl der Schein

x Vol. X, cols. I29-I3I.

2 Vv. 985I-9854.

After Euphorion has replied in a speech full of warlike enthusiasm, the chorus continues:3

Heilige Poesie, Himmelani steige sie, Glanze, der schonste Stern, Fern und so weiter ferni, Und sie er-reicht tins doch Immer, mani hort sie noch, Vernimmt sie gerii.

Euplhorion, however, goes on in his martial strain, thereby calling fortlh sad and reproach- f-ul words of Helena and Faust.

The stainza concerninig Poesy is so truLly in- spired and so untirely in keepinlg witlh the beautiful lines in which Phorkyas has described4 the divinely poetical clharacter of Euplhorion, that the ordinary reader will scarcely notice any discrepancy hiere. A more careful inspec- tion, however, cannot fail to disclose it. In- deed, it is so great that Schroeder seems to suppose that this stanza is not addressed to Euphorion at all, wvhen he says :5 "Die Poesie steigt wie Euphorion- lhimmelani, fern und fer- ner wie ein Sterii," u.s.w.

Yet we may ask, how is it possible that at such a critical momenit the clhorus should ad- cdress its apostrophe not to Euphorion whlo represents Poesy, but to Poesy as distinct from him? Is it not muclh easier for us to substitute in our imagination Poesy for En- phorion who is clothed like Apollo, the God of Poetry, with lyre in haind, than to connect hiim wvith ILord Byron wlhich we have to do xvheni the clhorus sinlgs his funeral dirge?

But granted that Poesy anid Euphorion must be identical, we still wislh for an explanation as to xvhy Goethe shIouLld suddenly have sub- stituted: 'Sacredl Poesy rising heaveniward and shininig like the brightest star, yet ever reach- ing uis with her melodies,' for the Apolliinariani EUuphorion wlho only a momenit ago appeared to the choruLs like a yoUlng Mlars. This ex- llanation is, I think, furnislhed us by Raplhael's celebrated personification of Poesy in the Stalzza del/az Seg^sn a/nra of the Vatican. To be sure, Goethe does not mention this painting explicitly in any of hiis letters from Italy now extant, but it is evident that h-ie firnrecie-, d i-t hi -h v fo 1 tI nha o- f - t h P- 1,- f I I --- -1 D 1) - -; X - - - '' ''

1

3 Vy. 9863-9869.

4 Vv. 96I9 -9627.

5 GoeCtle's Fatust, Second a'Fr4, 2d. eCd. p. 27I.

56

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.99 on Fri, 16 May 2014 14:27:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

II3 Febritary, I896. AMODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Vol. xi, No. 2. II4

it wlhicli lhe procured may still be seen at his hoouse.

In Raphael's painting we fin-d Poesy seated on a throne in the clouds, and her outspread winigs show that slhe is asceniding. A wreath of lauLrel crowns her head which is turned towards the right, whlile a golden lyre rests in her left hand and a book in her right. One winiged genliLis is seated by her right side holdinig a tablet iniscribed with the word Na7- inine, whilst another is kneeling on her left with one bearinig the legenid Afflatur. The figure riepresenlted is Sacred Poesy, anid the divine inspirationi lhas found a supreme expres- sion in her eyes that are gazing into the dis- tance.

Now we are so fortunate as to have a direct testimoniy for Goethe's fonidness for Raplhael, dating within a year or two of the time when lhe wrote the greater part of Helenia, for Eckermaiuin tells IS :6

Er beschlaftigt sich mit Rafael sehr oft, uim sich immerfort im Verkehr miit dem Bestell ZU erhalteni uncd sich immerfort zu fiben, die Gedankeil eines hoheni Menschen nachzudein- ken.

Certainily Goethe's and Raphael's personi- fications do not agree in every particular, for Raphael has not represented his Poesv in the act of singing, and Goethe mentions neitlher book nor lyre. Yet these are merely inherent differences between the Arts of Poetry and Painiting; in spirit the two are identical: Goetlhe tlhe Poet did think a thought of Raphael the Painter, and reproduced with equLal beauity in language and verse what his model had so loftily expressed witlh paint anid brush.

A. GERBER. Earilzai College.

SCHNOERKEL. IN vol. x, no. 3, of the Putblicalions of fne lodernii Lano'gage Associa lion, Professor H. Collitz very ingeniously derives German sclinbirkel from schrenkel, wlhlich is connilected with scliz1anik. Starting as he does from the earlier form-l sceinerkel, it is quLite among the possibilities to suLppose this a corruption of schrenzkel. Btut this is niot a natural change,

6 GesA^,6 lge, Vol. iii, 6th ed., p. 29,

and wotuld hardly occuir without sonme ouitside inifluence. We Imight easily ulnderstanid a metathesis clhanging schirenkel to *scher,ikel, but 1not so easily to sc/i zerkel.

The etymology previoLusl y given by Weigand, anid adopted doubtfuLlly by Kltige, connects schon(rkel with O.H.G. snar/zra and sizerhaia. Of this Collitz says:

" This etymology is in open coniflict with Grimm's law, since the gtuttural in snzer/aia is Germnaniic 4, shifted from Pregermnanic k, whlile the gtuttural in Sc/indrke/ clearly represents Germanlic k, shifted from I'regermiainic g."

This wvotuld settle the quiestion as far as WVeigand's derivation is concer-ned if the k belonged to the root-syllable, and could not be explainied in any other way. But that is not a safe assumption. Compromise-fornms arise, or forms which, like ezwig/eeil, have in- troduLced a sounid from the simplex that does niot properly belonlg in the compound. If we did not knioxv that -keit was to be divided -c-(k)eil, we should deny its relation to -leit. A priori, therefore, we cannot discard Wei- ganid's derivation. Tl his is a matter to be settled by evidence.

Collitz quotes from K ramiier's clictionary the form sc/nO-rchel, but regar(ds the ch as Upper Germani for k, wfhich it may or may not be. Schui^ZrAche/, or ratlher *sc/,inerc/el, is what we slhould expect in a derivative from snzariha, but sciinbr-kel is not witlhout a parallel. Of the deriv-ation of ferkel there canl be no douibt; but fromi O.H.G. fairh, dimiiiniutive farike/i(in), M.H.G. verch, verhel, ver/e/lin, O.E. fearli, we should expect to find ferchel. BuLt alreacldy in AII.H.G. occuir var-c, vorkel, verke/in. It vill be borne in mindl that the h in far/i is

Germanic, anid therefore sh1oul_d be expected in ILow as well as in High Germiian.

Now the M.L.G. veerkenz, Dutch varzken, is easily explained as *veerilke,z, the diminutive. The form veeichel yielded to vezrkel unilder the influenice of L.G. -verken, varzken. We may suppose that the M.H.G. varc/i was fuirther influLenced to assume the form varc from the diminutive varke/ze or fromii aniother word of simi- lar meaniing, barc. Thllere is also aniotlher possibiiity. Varke, pltur. nerken, occuLrs as a weak mascLuline. The silnguLlar here may have beein formed from the plural of the ciminulll;tive w iich xvas felt as a simplex. From this lhas

57

This content downloaded from 193.105.154.99 on Fri, 16 May 2014 14:27:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions