some notes on pniower's goethes faust

Some Notes on Pniower's Goethes FaustAuthor(s): A. GerberSource: Modern Language Notes, Vol. 15, No. 5 (May, 1900), pp. 129-134Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2917532 .

Accessed: 15/05/2014 02:58

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 [email protected].

.

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 194.29.185.110 on Thu, 15 May 2014 02:58:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2917532?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Baltimore, May, 1900.

SOAIE NO TES ON PNIO WER'S Goethes Faust.

OTTO PNIOWER'S Goethes Faust, Zeugnisse u-nd Excurse zu seiner Entstehungsgeschichte, ranks in importance and usefuilness next after the Weimar edition of the drama. It furnishes us with all the evidence upon the genesis of the work and Goethe's occupation with it that couild be collected from hiis diaries, hiis corre- spondenice, his conversations, his autobio- graphical writings, the correspondence of his friends, the Ausleihejournal of the WVeinar library, anid other sources. Instead of making an attemiipt to set fortlh the many excellencies and few shortcomings of the book, I offer some observations which,though prompted by points in wlhiclh I felt obliged to disagree witlh Pniower, yet are not strictly confinied to them.

THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE DIARIES.

Pniower lays special stress upon the insuif- ficiency of the diaries as a foundation of Faust chronology. Thle tllree inistances of insufficiency cited in the preface (p. ix), lhowvever, are not happily clhoseni. The first relates to Deceinber I797, a month for whiich, lie thiniks, the letters prove close occupation with Faust, while the diary has nio entries whatever. A closer examination of the letters reveals, however, that they testify to thoulghts and inten- tions concerniing Faust rather than to actual work. TIhat in fact nio real work was done dLuring that time is proved all btut coniclusively by a letter from the beginniinlg of the followinig month; oll J.n. 2, 1798, Goetlhe writes to Kniebel: Ich wilt ?un nachi tnd nach (!) wieder an irgend eine Arbeit gehen -.... Ichi denke den Faust zuterst vorzuunehmen.'. He, therefore, lhad niot been engaged upon Faust or anly otlher labor for a considerable lenigtlh of time.

Ptniower's seconid inistanice of supposed in- sLlflicienicy of tlhe diaries is founid unider JLune IS, I830, the date of tile sclheme of the prologLue of the tlhird act. Yet unider the samne date we

I I am ftlly aware that some work on Oberons ucnd Titnas Zo/dne Hoclzzeit may have been done during that time, but this production had not been coniceived as a par-t of fi4ust and as late as I)ec. 20 Goethe had niot definitively decided to incorporate it.

read in the diary: Fortsetziengen aller Art besorgi, and hence we ask the question why these nmay not comprise a continuation of Faust as well as other continuations.

The third instance, finally, is that of May i6, I831, the day when the long scheme of the fourth act was written. Here the diary of that particular day may indeed be silent, but an entry of the next day says: Poetische Vorarbeiten and, therefore, is exactly to the poitnt. Wlhether this coinflict of dates is due to an acttual mistake on the part of Goethe or John, or wlhether Goethe did not consider the scheme finished till the seventeenith, the case involves at most an error of twenty-four hours.

While Pniower's warning should be heeded as far as the desultory records of Goethe's daily doings at certain times of the period when he was comiipleting the First Part are concernied, my own experience has conviniced me that, however insufficient the extracts from the diaries as puiblished in Erich Schmidt's Ur- faust2 may have proved, the diaries themselves furnislh a firm basis for the study of the gradual evolution of the Second Part between i825 and 183I. Perhaps there may be a few more cases wlhere work done on onie day was recorded tin- der the next, or where it may be necessary to decide from the connection as to whether a certain expressiotn points to work on Faust or not, bUt upo(n the whole it may be safely said that wheniever duiring those years there is no reference to Faust, there was no occupation witlh it worth recording. Just a few lines may now and tlheni have been scribbled or some little Mundiren done at odd times without being chronicled.3

I HE RESUMPTION OF THE WORK ON FAUST

IN THE NINETIES.

It would seem that an unbiased reader of the references to the drama in Goethe's corre- spondenice and diaries of I797 and I798 must admit that their whole tenor shows that 1797

2 Erich Schmidt, Goethies Faust ix ur tiingliCJier Gestat 3rd ed. 3894, shows over fifty omissions and a number of other errors within the space of the four vears from 1827-1830. Piniower's extracts on the contrary are practically complete. Private advices say that the extracts from the diaries will not be republished in conniection with the 4th edition of the Urfuost.

3 With regard to dating lines written on playbills or the like, compare Americana Gertanxica iii p. 213 U.

129



259 May, I9oo. MODERN LANG UA GE NO TES. Vol. xv, No. 5. 260

was the time when the work was resumed, and that this resumption took place aftera long in- terruption. Indeed, if all other evidence were lost, the Zueignung alone should prove this. Neverthieless Pniower makes a long argument in favor of I796. In the first place he quotes (p. 43) the statement in the Annalen for 1796: ... bei der entschiedenen Lust, das Theater kr&iftig zu beleben, ward ich anlgeregt, den Faust wieder hervorzunehmnen. But this is contradicted by a statement in the letter to Schiller of June 22, I797: Unser Ba/laden- studiurn hat inich wieder auf diesen Dunst- und. Nebelweg (that is, Faust) gebracht. The contemporary evidence naturally deserves more credence than the other, whichi is from twenty to thirty years later, and admittedly not over- particular in matters of chronology.

In the second place, Pniower (p. 44 ff.) calls attention to the influence which Joh. Friedrich Schiink's dramatic sketch Doktor Faust's Bund mit der HZIlle seems to have exercised tipon Goethe, and argues that, since the production of Schink was quiite insigniificant, Goetlhe can only have made use of it immediately upon its appearance in ttie summer of I796. But is it logical, we may ask, to maintain, on the one hand, that Schink's sketclh made such an im- pression upon Goethe that he began the work on the corresponding parts of his own drama anzgeregt duirchl die Lectiure der Schinkschen Dichtunig (p. 46), anid then to presume on the other that it was so insignificanit (unbedeutend) (p. 5o) that he was not at all likely to have given it a second reading at a later time? Cani such ani argutmient overrule the contemporary evidence which is all in favor of I797 ?4

Yet Pniiower has still a third and more elabo- rate clhain of reasoninig. He asserts (pp. 5I ff.) that Goethe, having begun the compositioni of Faust ' ohne einen dars g auze utnfassenden Plan, ' was as late as I795 prevenited from resuming the work because he had not found das kiinst- lerische Band and did not know how to fill die grosse Liicke. In 1797, however, expressions such as Die Arbeitpasstsich recht gut zu eiter verworrenen Stimmnung-Das Dramna ist eine barbarische Composition-and a designiation of his work as Possen prove that he had found

4 Pniower (p. 50) also calls attention to Schink's Pro?og zu einemn dramatischcen Gedlicht: Doktor Faust, whiclh appeared in x795. Strange to say, Lessing's prologue is not mentioned.

the artistic connectioni and knew how to fill the gap. As the solution canniot have occuirred to him in his restless state of mind in June I797, it must have come to him some time betweeni I795 anld I797, that is, in I796. Now a careful survey of the critical years and the geniesis of Faust in general, witlh the aid of the Weimar editioni and Pniower's owin book, lhas led me to quite different results. Goethe tells us that he did lhave a skeleton plan from the very begin- ning.s At least at the time of the Fragment he must have had in mind something in the nature of a conitest, or a wager, between Faust and Mephistopheles, because Mephistopheles does not get possession of Faust by virtuie of the compact, but is still merely hopeful of catching him after the compact has been made.6 Indeed, Luidetn reports that Goetlhe told him that the parts of the Frag-inent had been taken out of a wvhole.7 On the other land, even itn 1797, wheni, accordinig to Pniiower, the artistic cot)- nection lhad beeni founid, this very conniiectioni was evidenitly somewlhat loose. Goethe speaks of the platn as being eiget/ichz nur rinc Idee; he threatenis if he had timiie, so sollte (las Slerk zz mdlnniglicher Verwunidertg und Entselzen, wie Cine grosse Schwamnnfamnilie, aus der Erde wachsen; and in conitrast to Sclliller, who lays so much stress upon the poetischen Reif anid the philosophical part, he asserts that he is goinlg to take it easier and that the whole will always remain a fragment.8 Where is thiere a trace of a special intuitioni witlh regard to the great gap anid the artistic connectioni that had come to Goethe between Auigust I795 anld Junie 1797, or any iniclication that 1796 was suich ani epoclh-nmaking year in the genesis of Fa? ste

Very fortunately Goethe himself has told 5 Goethe to Zelter, June x, 1831:

Es ist keine Kleittigkeit, dats 7vas mnan ijt zw.nzigsten Y74Ihre conci,zrt hat, it: szweyundiachtzsgsten ausser sich darwrzusted- Zen, und ein solcles innetes le6bndiges Knochengerzi, mint Sehnen Fleisch und 01er/haun zu bekleiden, aucd: wohi dent fertig Hingestelite nod:t einite Mfantelfalten unzuschlagegi. Compare also the famous letter to Humboldt of Mlarch 17, 1832: Es sind iiber sechzs.g 7ahre, dass die Conceition des Faust bei nirjugendlick von vorne Iterein (in a local sense) katr, die ganze ReiMenfolge h.;n weniger ausfthrlich vor/ag. Finally Par/li otenon 63, which, thotugh penned in z8I6, surely in the maini represents his plani as it existed in 1775.

6 Fragmient. 1. 1998 (Seuffert)=*nmsl, 1. 3325: Ge/ tI dats icA dich fange I Compare also Fr ago:. 11. 339 ff=-F. 1. I86o ff.

7 Pniower, 1. c. p. 95. 8 Goethe to Schiller, June 22, July I; Schiller to Goethe,

June 26; Goethe to Schiller, June 27, 1797.

130



261 May, i900. MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Vol. xv, No. 5. 262

us-the passages are in Pniiower's book (pp. 63 and 43)-what in reality did prevenit hiim for so long a time from resum-iing the work. It was not wlhat Pniower alleges, but the difficulty of miieltinig again the material that had become conigealed, of dissolvinig again the powder that had formed a sediment. Says he in a letter to Schiller's wife, April 21, 1798: 'Was miicih so lanige Jahre abgehalten lhat wieder daran (that is, ani F'aust) zu geheni war die Schwiei-igkeit deni alteni geronnienen Stoff wieder ins Sclimelzen zu brinigen. Ich .... loffe nlunl das Werk gehorig im Fluiss zui erhalten-' anid almost three years earlier in a letter to Schiiller hiimself, AULg. 17, 1795: 'Mit diesem letzten (that is, Faust) geht mir's wvie mit einem Ptilver, das sichi atis seiner Aufl6sun-g nuni einmal nie(lergesetzt hat; so lange Sie drani ri-itteln, scheint es sich wieder zu vereinigen, sobald ich wieder far miiichi bill, setzt es sich1 nach utnd nachi zu Boden.'

The expressions, fuirtlhermore, in which Pniiower sees evidence of obstacles successfuilly overcome, lhave a very differenit meaninig. Goethe speaks in thsemi as a Grecian. Just as he designates Faust as Possen now, he had re- ferred to the Fragmnent as Tolihzeiten eight years before and was to couint Part First amonig ho/zschnzittartige(n) Spaisse eight years later.9 Andc wliat else could Faust be to a Grecian but a 'barbarouis composition?' Only we slhould he careful to take 'barbarous hlere in the Greek senise, not in its modern meaniing. The verzvorreae Sti1Jmmu?nig, finially, wlhile it clearly unfitted Goetlhe for the suistainied anid objective effort wlhich hiis epic plani requiired, still allowed hinm to lhope that he miglht he able to make somie lheadway witlh a work assLibjec- tive as Faust anid to whichl he migh-t appl) lyim- self at odd hours.To As a matter of fact, to be suire, Faust also proved too lhard a task uinder the circumnstances, anid ceased to progress after little more than the Zuieigniung and an Aus- fiihr-licher-es Schema lhad been completed."I3I

Betweeni the etnd of JLInie 1797 anid the early l)art of Ap)ril I798 we lhear only of interest in the work anid initenitions anid concerni about it. Not till May 5, 1798, does Goetlhe report that he hia% really carried out thie itntentionis ex-

9 Letters of Nov. 5, 1789 and Sept. 30, 1805. I0 Letters of Jtune 29 and Julile 22, 1797. Ii rhe Eckermanni-Rieiner Faust chroniology assigns the

Prolog- im 1-Emm ; 1 to 1797, we do niot kniow upon what ati- thority. If this should b_ correct, it was perhaps comnposed during the same few days in Junie.

pressed in the letter of June 22, I797. Only then the old manuiscript has been copied, and the separate parts of it lhave been arraniged in in fascicles accordinig to the niumbers eines ansfahrlichen Schem ias. Here Pniower fails to realize the identity of this scheme witlh the one nioted in the diary under Junie 23, 1797. Con- sequiently a reference to May 5, 1798, is wanti;ng in the latter place, anid a reference to the imag- iniary Schemna vom S. Mai 1798 is made unider Aug. 3. i8i5. Inideed it almost seems as if he considered the various Paralipomena which conitain ad followed by some niumber not as classified according to the scheme, but as parts of it, sinice he says (p. 65): Mit Sicherheit darf man aucd die Paralipomena 93-95 Zu dem al/en -tSchema rechneni. A sclheme is of course always in prose.

THE DOG-SHAPE OF MEPHISTOPHELES.

In the couirse of an interesting discuissioni of the time wlhen Goethe composed the lines that speak of the trail of fire wvhich follows the poodle, Pniiower (pp. 132 ff.) decides in favor of the time of the Fragmsentt, anid against the FranikfuLrt period, because he regards the lines of the Urfanst, p. 8o, 11. I5 ff.: wandle den Wnirm wieder in die Hundsgeslalt in der er sic/i ni/ich/licher Weile off gefiel vor nir herzutrotten, demn harm/1osen iltindrer vor die Fiisse Zn ko/llern . . . Wandl' i/in wieder in seinie Lieblingsbildunsg as evidence of a different plan. He, therefore, probably supposes thenm to imply that before assuminiilg hutmatn form AMephistopheles was as- sociated with Faust for a conisiderable period in the shape of a dog. I will not undertake to poiint out at ally great length that suclh pro- loniged nmute association between the two prin- cipal characters is conitrary to the Fauist legend and would have proved miost unsatisfactory, if not unmanageable, from a dramatic point of view; I will simply state what the real meanl- ing of the lines appears to be. ' Chanige the worm againi into the dog-shape in which he by niight (niot at other times) often (riot always) was pleased (in the past, no loniger now) to divert me ! Clha.nge lim again into his favorite shape! ' (Cf. also Schrber.) That is, we are giveni to understand that Meph- istopheles hiad not lost the faculty of assutming the slhape in which he first introduced himself to Faust, and whichi in that case he lhad donnied

I31



263 May, i90o. AMODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Vol. xv, N0o. 5. 264

at wvill, but that, as long as Faust had been in a nmood to enjoy suich diversions, hie had often reassumed it otn their nightly walks when his services were not otlherwise needed, and niaturally had been pleased to do so because it was the shape lhe preferred to atny other. Fauist had been able to constraini hitm to asstunie humian form, but he hald no power to convert himi inlto a dog againi. If the lines had con- tained evidence of an abandoned plan, notlhing would have been easier for Goethe, had he been so minded, than to adjust them tothe new circumstanices when he revised them for pub- licationi between I798 and i8o6. But instead of making a considerable change, as lhe did in a few otlher places of the scene, lhe conifined himl- self to writing in seine Hundsgestalt, wie er sick oft ndc/z/licher Weile gefiel instead of in die Hundsges/alt in der er sic/ i nich/icher Weile offt gefiel. On this trait of the lharm- lessness of Faust's and Meplhistopheles' earlier intercourse, whiclh statnds out with stclh brighit effect in the midst of the fearful sombreness of tlle scene wlhich lhad defied the poet's efforts to give it metrical form, learned Fancstcriticism, so often bent UpOIl ferretting out inicongruities instead of giving explanations that are obvious, has reared a whole edifice of lhypotlheses concerniing an earlier platn, until somie who could not imagine that Meplhistopheles in hiis ca- pacity as a spirit miglht well know all about Faust's initention of taking hiis own life, without lhavinig been present in some corporeal shape, have gone so far as seriouLsly to believe that originally the poodle occupied the place of the Easter bells, ani idea whiclh indeed is more wortlhy of a critic than of a poet. Whlo- ever, oni the otlher lhand, can accept the straiglht and plain interpretation of the lines as giveni above, is also at liberty to admit that the passage about the trail of fire which follows the poodle may belong to the Franikfurt period, an assumiiption whichi, all tlhings considered, appears most likely froii the way in wlhichi Goethe speaks of that optical illtusion in hiis essay on Plhysiologe Farben.I2 THE SCHEMES OF THE ' ANTECEDENZIEN' OF

THE HELENA DRAMA FROM Nov. 9 TO

DEC. I8, I826. In Pniiower's opinion (pp. I64 ff.) the evoli-

I2 Piliower, 1. c., states, p. 134, that the essay seems to have been written in i820. Faust 11. 3270 f. refer to 1. I57I.

tionI and interrelation of the schemes of No- vember and IDecember i826 is in, suibstauice as follows. On Nov. 8, Goethe ttirnied his atten- tioni to the old Pralizipomiienon No. 63. Oni the next two days he contintued this Paralipomoe- non, but nach vornz. Thl-ie first part of this continuation, coverinig Nos. i-6, was lost. The second lhas been preserv ed in the draft of Nov. 9 anid Paralipoi7menon No 99, wlvich belonigs to Nov. io. Between Dec. 15 anid i8, Goetlhe weent to work to enlarge this ParalSpomzenon No. 99. The enlarged sclheme which in the diary is termed Antecedenzien zit Fauzzst, Dec. I5, and Einleitung zur Helenza, Dec. i6 anid i8, is Paraipoonemnon No. I23, altlhotigh this bears the date of Dec. 17. The Sckema zu dei An- tecedenzien der Helena nmenitioned in the diary utinder Dec. I7 is onlce milore Paralipomi/enoni No. 99, andc this was conicltided oni tlat day. While I am glad to see Pniiower agree witlh nme in assiginiglc Paralipbomneyzon No. 99 to Nov. io, I have to take exception to a number of otlher points. Paralibomenon No. 63 was not con- tinued (fortgefiUzrt) niach vornz but in the mid- dle. Nos. i-6 were probably not lost but left blank, becatise Goethe wvas then only cot- cernied about the inine(liate Antecedeuzien of Helena. If they lhad actually beetn written, it would be a strange coincidence that the sclhemes of Nov. 9 anid io (Paralip. No. 99) shouild botl begin at tle salie poinit. The An- tecedenzien znt Faust of I)ec. I5 do tnot refer to Paralipomiienton No. 123 but to its draft of Dec. I5, a docunietit whiichi seems to have escajped Pniower's notice altogethier, wvlile the Aiinleil- inng zr Helen.a, otn the other lhand, is stirely identical witlh that Paralipootenon. It tlhen remains to explain wliat is meanit by the Sc-hemiia zn den Antecedenzien der Helelena of I)ec. 17, and whiy the Einleitunzg zur Heleena bears the date of I)ec. 17, thioughl, accordinig to the diary, it was niot finiislhed till the eighlteenithi. In this ratlher perplexinlg question onie tlinig is per- fectly certaini, iatnamely that the Schema ztn den Antecedenzien caniniot refer to Paral-iP,omenou No. 99, as Pniiower maintains, because it would have been to no purpose to finiish an old schiemiie after it lhad juist beeni superseded by a tnew onie maniy tinmes as full as it aind extending beyond( it. 'The expressioni Schzema za den Anteceden- zien der H-eleaz migiht refer both to the draft of Dec. 15 anid to Paraliiomenon No. I23, for

I32



265 Aay, Igoo. AODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Vol. xv, No. 5. 266

eitlher calls itself: Schena . . . die Anteceden- zien bekanit zn machen.13 The draft of Dec. I5 does not consist of four folio pages, as I stated in MOD. LANG. NOTES, VOl. XiV, COI. 209, misled by the somewhat indefinite statement in the Weimar edition,-but of eight anid a slip of paper, and Paralipobmenon No. I23

does not fill seven folio pages, but fifteen and a number of slips.

In conclusion I wish to call attention to a very curious similarity wlhich seems to exist between Parahipomenon No. 123, 11. 244-256, and a passage in Dante's Infernio ix, 55-6o. After having saved Faust from the lhead of Gorgo, wlhichi comes to meet them oni their way to Proserpina, Manto says: ' Das Gorgonenlhaupt natnlich sey ihnien .... enitgegen gezogei .... haitte Faust darauf ge- blicket so wiir er gleich vernichtet worden, (so dass weder voni Leib nochi Geist im Universuim jenials wieder etwas von ihm ware zu finden gewesen).' When the three Furies on the flaming tower of the city of Dis cry Venga AMedutsa, Vergil says:

Volgiti indietro, e tien lo viso chiuiso: Chb se'l Gorgon si mostra, e ttu il vedessi, Nulla sarebbe del tornar mai suso.

Again witlh Goethe we read: 'Auf einmal deckt Manto ihren Beschiitzteni mit dem Schleyer und driingt ihln vom Wege ab gegeni die Felsenwiinde, (so dass er zu er- sticken und zu vergehen ffirclhtet).' while Dante continues:

Cosi disse'l Maestro; ed egli stessi Mi volse, e non si tenne alle mie mani, Che con le sue ancor non mi chiudessi.

In either case, tlherefore, the guide protects the traveller in the lower world from thle head of Gorgo, Malnto by puslinlg Faust off the road and coverinig him with her veil, Vergil by turning Danite and closiig his eyes with his hands. B3oth with Goetlhe anid Danite the protector especially states to theprotlgi that lie would niever have returnied to the upper world again if he had beheld the hiead, only that Goethe intimates as thorough a destruction as Dante could hardly have conceived. Since we kno1W, Imioreover, that Goethe was muclh itnterested in Karl Streck- fuss' Dante translationi and that lie derived the Fla'wnetistadt, 1. II647, fronm the preced- ing canto, it seemiis almost impossible to avoid the ('fl,1tlwsiion that the nassave in the JIferno

13 Weimar Edit. xv. 2. Paraifioemnon 123, 11. 285 ff., and variants below. The former is also printed with Pniower, 1. C. p- 174.

influenced,ifit did not suggest,the meeting with the head of Gorgo in the Paralipomenon.

THE PLEA BEFORE PROSERPINA.

Pniower (p. 179) contends that Eckermann's statement of Jan. I5, I827, that Faust was to make the plea before Proserpina may possibly be correct and may thus disclose an older plan. I must consider this absolutely improbable, if iiot impossible, for certainly when Goethe composed the last part of Helena, and probably even considerably before that time, he intended that Manito should manage Helena's return to life. That is what is hinted at in the words Der alt-thessalisehen Vet/el wiisten Geistes- zwang. To say that this refers to Mephis- topheles, whom the chorus itself had only a little while before addressed as Crc/a's Er- zeuigle, seems rather arbitrary. Mephistopheles does niot even enter Hades, much less con- strain the womeni to appear on earth. He only takes clharge of tlhem some time after they have arrived there. In perfect harmony with this idea the first introduction to Helena, which was written June IO, 1826, just after the pre- liminary completion of the drama, says in so maniy words that Helena could not be obtained through Mephistopheles,butthat ddmonische(n) Siby/len ini den Bergkliif/enx Thessalienis bring it about through merkwiirdige Verhandlungen that Proserpina allows Helena to return to life. In accordance with this, again, the schemes of Dec. 15 and I7, which were elaborated only four weeks before Eckermann's conversation, have not Faust but Manto make the plea before Proserpina, and the same is true regard- ing the three schemes of 1830, the last of which closes with the significanit words Man/o ist die Einuleit/ng liberlassen. In the face of all this evidence it does not seem possible to avoid the conclusion that Eckermanin made a nmis- take in his report, as he seems also to have done in another case, to which we shall come presently.

SOME POINTS IN THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE FIFTH ACT.

Eckermann's statement that in December I830 Goethe devoted his whole interest to the fourth act of Faust anid the fourth volume of Wahrheit und Dickt/wg is allowed by Pniower (pp. 253 f.) to pass unchalleniged. It seeins,

I33



267 May, I900. MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES. Vol. xv, No. 5. 268

however, that ' thefourthi volume' caused Ec- kermann to write ' the fourtlh act' instead of the fifth; for, as a matter of fact, the fourth act was not begun till February iI or I2, or even May 4, I831, May i6 being the date of the main scheme, while the fifth act was completed during that very monlth of December.'4 It has not yet been determined how much was added during this month, because it is not exactly known how the fifth act closed after the work that had been done on it in I825. One might feel inclined to thinik that the state in whiclh this act was left int 1825 is represented by VH2 and that, therefore, Mephistopheles' complaint about the loss of Faust's soul (II825- I I831) followed by Abkiindigunig and Abschied at that time formed the conclusion.s5 The de- scription of the course of the action as leading Vorn Hinmmet durch die Welt zur HUile in the conversation with Eckermanni of May 6, I827, would favor such a supposition if the occur- renice of the statement dass ein aus schweren Verirrungen itimmerfort zurm Bessern aufstre- bender Mensch zu ertosen sei did not point rather strongly to the existence of lines II936 f.:

"Wer immer strebend sich bemliht Den klinnen wir erlUsen."

In another place (p. 294 f.) Pniower holds that in the points in which the fragment of the Achitteis of I799 agrees with the fifth act of Faust, the former draws on the latter and not vice versa. However true this may be of the rest, it is not correct as far as the expression Wiminein von neuern Votk is concerned, because the line Solch eim Gewimmnet m6cht'ich sehn is later than VH2, where the last words of Fatust are much shorter and do not yet con- taim that expressioni. Oni the other lhanid the lines

Es kann die Spur von meinen Erdetagen Nicht in )Eonen untergehn.-

whichi accordinig to a writer in MOD. LANG. NOTES, of last December,col. 476, were written by Goethe wenige Wochen vor seinem 7ode are found in VH2 and, therefore, belong at least to the year I825, if indeed they do not date back to the time of his communion with Schiller.

A. GERBER. Earlharn ColleFe.

14 Diary, Dec. 13, 1830: Weiftre Erginxzuxg des Faust; Dec. 17: Abschluuss von Faust und Mundism desselben. Ichi giab ihmi LEckermann] den Absch/uss von Faust mit.

15 Paraijiomgenon 203 would probably have been inserted before 11825. The greater part of VH2 may go back to the time of Schiller.

VALTEGER, "HENGES" AND THE MAYOR OF QUEENVBOROUGH.

IN the old account book which Philip Henslowe kept from 1591 to I609, which Collier printed unsatisfactorily in I845 for the Shakespeare Society atnd called "Henslowe's Diary," there are nearly a score of entries concerniing a play variously entitled "Valteger," I Vortiger" or (in one case) "Vortemar." These entries disclose that this play was performed for the first time December 4, I596, and five times more witlhin that month, thrice in January 1597, anid once in eachi of the following three months, with a possible further performance itn the following June., In "The Envetntary of all the aparell for my Lord Admiralles men tacken the IO of marche 1598 " occurs the "Item, j payer of hosse, and a gerken for Valteger," anid in a further invenitory for the same company taken three lays later we finid: "Item, Vartemar sewtte" and "Valteger robe of riclh tafitie."2 Lastly, Henslowe records: Pd at the apoyntmnent of the corrpanye, unto

my sonnle, E. Alleyn, for a Boocke called Vortiger, the 20 of novmbr i6oi the some of XXXXB."3

This entry poinlts to the revival of the play at that date. I have mentionied the entry of June I597 as possibly referring to the same play, al- though in that entry Vorteger is not mentioned, buit Henges." In a note to that passage Collier writes: "The proper title was probably

Hengist," and there is still an existin g MS. play called Hengist, King of Kent.'"4

If we turn now to Mr. Fleay's list of anony- mous plays we find the followitng passage: "Valteger (Vortigern), 4th I)ec. The same play as Hengist, 22nd Jutne 1597, whlich was not a new play; beyond doubt Middleton's Afayor of Queenborougkh."5 Tlhis last named play takes its title from the underplot whiclh concerns the humors of a personage named Simotn the Tat]ner. The main story is that of the usurper Vortigern (called Vorteger in the text), who having de- throned his lawfuLl sovereigni, the saintly Con- stantius, seeks the aid of the Saxon princes Hengist anid Horsus and is finally overthrown with his foreign allies, by the rightful heirs, Auirelius aid his brother Uter Penidragon. rhe story is ultimately referable to Geoffrey of Mon-

I Henslowe, pp. 83-86 and 89 under " Henges." 2 Ibid. pp. 273, 274. 3 Ibid. p. 204. 4 Ibid. p. 89. 5 Chronicle of the Englise Dram)a, 2, 305.

I34



some notes on pniower's goethes faust

Documents