In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Goethe Yearbook 355 identify "speakers." There is also a listing of word occurrences by frequency. Sensibly, since specialists are less likely than general readers to need a Faust concordance, the text (like the verse or — for prose — page/line numbering) is that of the universally available Hamburg edition (HA), with attention drawn in the compiler's introduction to readings that vary from those of the Weimar and other critical editions. It is no inconvenience to look for "Breter" under Brett or "That" under Tat, and if, because orthographical modernization in HA is not always consistent, "weiter geht" must be sought under weitergeben, where one more naturally finds "weitergehen?," geben entries are helpfully preceded by instructions to see also 19 compound forms that include weitergehen. (In the editio princeps of 1808 neither "weiter" was printed together with its verb. And why vergehen is listed among the otherwise only adverbially modified forms of geben I do not understand, nor why under leben there is a cross-reference to überleben but not to beleben, with its also inseparable prefix). Given the HA text, there is no entry zulieb[e], which in 1808 appeared as "zu lieb gethan" and in HA is "zu Lieb' getan." The compilers helpfully distinguish between adverbs and prepositions (e.g., for auf), and between adverb, conjunction, and preposition in the case of zu, but fail to differentiate between wie as conjunction (e.g., v. 1374 and v. 2558) and wie as (mere) adverb; since in Part II the conjunctival usage is quite frequent and its function not always understood by modern readers, I hope that if, as it deserves to be, this concordance is expanded to include the whole text oiFaust, each kind of wie will then be given a separate entry. Except in such minor matters as I have noted, however, the compilers have solved the problems that must arise in preparing a Faust concordance judiciously and have produced a work distinguished by its meticulous accuracy. At its price of DM 258 however, it is better recommended for library than for private purchase. University of California, Santa Barbara Stuart Atkins Wittkowski, Wolfgang, ed., Verlorene Klassik? Ein Symposium. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1986. German intellectuals struggle with and against Goethe much as Catholic intellectuals confront Aquinas: in both cases a huge balanced and richly satisfying synthesis which can all too easily become ossified and oppressive, either in mechanical scholastics (Aquinas) or in philistine righteousness (Goethe). This is not necessarily the fault of the monumental figures themselves (in the same way in which neither Nietzsche nor Marx can be exclusively held to account for the actions of their political descendants), and yet there is undoubtedly some ingredient in their comprehensiveness, roundedness and evenhandedness which permitted, perhaps encouraged, epigonic distortions and closures. This suspicion rather than any dark conspiracy and malignant itch for destruction encouraged 356 Book Reviews writers like Martin Walser or Brecht, as well as many recent philosophers and critics to submit Goethe, Schiller and their contemporaries to continuous attacks, questionings and belittling interpretations. (This is less new as a phenomenon than the authors of the present volume may think. A recent essay by Rio Preisner reminds us of the long tradition of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century distinguished anti-Goetheans.) Often the critics started from a kind of identification between the Adenauer era and the Goethezeit, simply on the ground that the former had at some level chosen the latter as a kind of model for itself; an intrinsic and structural kinship was hence inferred. The symposium organized by W. Wittkowski at SUNY Albany and here published (with records of the discussions: a questionable innovation inspired by French practice, which is only occasionally helpful and clarifying here) starts from the premise that things have gone too far and that the barrage of criticism is beginning to threaten if not the foundations of the canon, at least its rightful social, moral and aesthetic function. This position is clearly expressed by a number of scholars. Hildburg Herbst (388—Õ 05) criticizes Egon Günther's film version of Thomas Mann's Lotte in Weimar (an East German production of the seventies with lili Palmer) both for deliberately cutting down Goethe...

pdf

Share