!♦
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY GERMANIC STUDIES
GOETHE'S FAUST IN ENGLAND
THE RECEPTION OF GOETHE'S FAUST
IN ENGLAND
IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY
BY
WILLIAM, FREDERIC HAUHART, Ph.D.
Sometime University Fellow in German in Columbia University
Kclu York
THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
1909
All rights reserved
Copyright, 1909
By The Columbia University Press
Printed from type May, 1909
Press of
The new Era Prjntins Company
Lancaster. Pa.
NOTE
The scope of this study is well enough indicated by the
author's introduction. I\Ir. Hauhart has attempted to de-
scribe the early reaction of the English mind on Goethe's
" Faust," and to account for the nature of the reaction. The
outline of the picture has long been familiar in a general way
to specialists, but the details are here filled in with such care
in the collection of data, and such insight in the handling of
them, as to make the work a useful contribution to scholarship.
Calvin Thomas
FOREWORD
The purpose of this study is to show how far the British
pubhc, during the first half of the nineteenth century, got hold
of and understood Goethe's " Faust " as Goethe meant it to be
understood. It is, to be sure, largely a story of misconception
and of prejudice, especially in the beginning. But that also is
of interest and significance. For, as Erich Schmidt has said,
in speaking of Goethe's "Faust" in England, " Auch das
Unverstandnis und das Missverstandnis weckt ein historisches
und volkerpsychologisches Interesse."^
The criticisms in the magazines have been taken into con-
sideration up to 1850. The translations of the First Part of
"Faust" have been treated for the same period, including
Miss Swanwick's, which was published in 1850. The author
expects later to discuss elsewhere the English stage versions of
Goethe's drama.
When this work was virtually completed, there was issued
" Die englischen Ubersetzungen von Goethes Faust," by Lina
Baumann, Halle, 1907. IMiss Baumann's publication and this
study overlap only in the treatment of the translations of
Hayward, Anster, and Aliss Swanwick. In this thesis the
translations that appeared during the period under considera-
tion, constitute only a part of the entire problem to be dis-
cussed, equal stress being laid upon the English criticism by the
magazine reviewers and by eminent literary men.
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Professors W. H.
Carpenter and Calvin Thomas, of Columbia University, for
the kindly interest they have shown in the progress of my
work. To Professor Thomas I am especially indebted for
valuable criticism in the preparation of this thesis. I con-
sider it a rare privilege to have been able to study Goethe's
^ Cf. " Festschrift zur Begriissung des 5. allgemeinen deutschen Neu-
philologentags zu Berlin." Pfingsten, 1892. Herausgegeben von Julius
Zupitza, p. 77.
vii
X
masterpiece under his direction. I desire also to thank Pro-
fessor Max Winkler, of the University of Michigan, for help-
ful suggestions; and Dr. W. E. Bohn, Mr. E. P. Kuhl, and
Dr. A. O. Lee, of the University of Michigan, for assistance in
reading the proofs.
VIU
CONTENTS
Chapter I
PAGE
Introductory : German Literature in England at the
Beginning of the Nineteenth Century .... i
Chapter II
"Faust" Criticism in the English Magazines i8
Chapter III
The Attitude of Eminent Literary Men of England
toward Goethe's " Faust "
1. Thomas Carlyle 52
2. Samuel Taylor Coleridge 63
3. Lord Byron 69
4. Walter Scott 74
5. Charles Lamb 76
Chapter IV
Theory of Translation
1. General Considerations 79
2. Difficulties of Translating " Faust " 83
3. Theories of Translation in England 88
Chapter V
Translations of the First Part of "Faust" up to 1850
1. George Soane , 92
2. Percy Bysshe Shelley 94
3. Lord Francis Leveson Gower 99
4. Abraham Hay ward 104
5. Anonymous of 1834 112
ix
X
PAGE
6. David Syme 114
7. John Stuart Blackie 115
8. John Anster 1 2 1
9. Robert Talbot 1 24
10. Anonymous of 1838 125
1 1 . Jonathan Birch 126
12. John Hills 127
13. Lewis Filmore 128
14. Sir George Lef evre 129
15. Captain Knox 130
16. Miss Anna Swanwick 131
Chapter VI
Bibliography
1. Translations of the First Part of " Faust" 136
2. Stage Plays and other Publications that show an
interest in " Faust " and the Faust-theme in
general 142
3. Translations and Criticisms of Part Second 144
4. General Bibliography 145
CHAPTER I
Introductory: German Literature in England at the
Beginning of the Nineteenth Century
The reception accorded to Goethe's " Faust " by the English
was, in a measure, the result of their attitude toward German
literature in general. It will be well, therefore, as an intro-
duction to this study, to sketch in outline the vogue of the
principal German authors in England at the beginning of the
nineteenth century. The year 1790 is to be the point of depar-
ture. This is the year of the publication of " Faust. Ein
Fragment." It represents also, approximately, the beginning
of a decade of newly awakened interest in German letters in
England.
Up to about 1790 not much was known of the Germans and
their literature. They had not yet overcome the disrepute
into which they had fallen during the Thirty Years' War.
They had but recently begun to regain prestige for their arms,
and thus indirectly also for their language. But this was a
slow process, as many prominent Germans themselves were
very backward in giving recognition to their own tongue.
When eminent scholars published most of their writings in
Latin and French, and Frederick the Great sat at the feet of
Voltaire, it was hardly to be expected that German could gain
much influence abroad. Then, too, the literature of Germany had
a very slow development. For two centuries (1550-1750) no
writings of great international importance had been produced.
Not until the last half of the eighteenth century were works
brought forth that could claim the attention of foreign nations.
The interest in German literature manifested in England
before 1790 centered chiefly in the works of Wieland and
Gessner, and in Goethe's " Werther." The English were
attracted to Wieland by his wit and his easy, graceful style.
His manner of writing approached that of the French, and
the opinion of French literature and French style was very
2 1
high in England at that time. Wieland had, moreover, been
strongly influenced by Sterne, and the English felt the kinship
of his writings. More of his works were translated during
this period than of any other German writer.^ " Der gepriifte
Abraham" was translated into English as early as 1764. His
" Nachlass des Diogenes von Sinope " appeared in England
in 1 77 1. " Don Sylvio von Rosalva," in which Wieland imi-
tated " Don Quixote," was translated in 1773. Of his more
important works, " Agathon " appeared in English the same
year.
Gessner was also much read prior to 1790." His epic,
" Abels Tod," was translated into English as early as 1761,
three years after its publication in Germany. His " Idyls "
were favorably reviewed in 1769,^ and from time to time the
magazines published translations of some of them. Gessner
was strongly under the spell of Thomson, and in turn made
his influence felt in English literature. He found favor at
once with literary and cultured men, and at the same time
pleased the untutored intellect by his excessive sentiment and
florid language. The pastoral and religious character of his
works appealed strongly to the Englishmen of that day.
Of single German works, Goethe's " Werther " was most
warmly received. Goethe was then known in England as the
"Author of Werther." At times he was also called, "The
famous author of Werther," or as Scott put it on the title page
of his translation of " Gotz," " The elegant author of Werther."
This production of Goethe's storm and stress period had a
powerful effect upon the English people. Its sentimentalism
found favor with them. The women especially devoured it,
and many an English maiden wept over its perusal. Goethe's
Venetian Epigram, " England, freundlich empfingst du den
zerriitteten Gast," without doubt refers to " Werther."* The
^ Cf. Haney, "German Literature in England before 1790," p. 9. Re-
printed from Americana Germanica, Vol. IV, No. 2, p. 138.
^ Cf. Bertha Read, " The Influence of Solomon Gessner upon English
Literature." Philadelphia, 1905. Reprinted from German American An-
nals, Vol. III.
^Critical Review (1769), Vol. XIV.
* On the reception of " Werther " in England, see Appell, " Werther und
seine Zeit," Oldenburg, 1896, p. 317. On its reception in France, see
Baldensperger, " Goethe en France," Paris, 1904, p. 9.
French acted as mediators in introducing it to the EngHsh. It
was first translated from a French version in 1779." The fol-
lowing decade witnessed two other translations and no less
than eight imitations.
Schiller and Lessing received little attention from the
English before 1790. The " Robbers " was destined to make
itself felt across the Channel, but it was not translated before
1792. Lessing's important works had long been on the mar-
ket, but the English showed little appreciation of them. It is
true, his "Fables" were translated by Richardson in 1773;
" Nathan " was poorly rendered in English prose by Erich
Raspe in 1781, and an adaptation of "Minna von Banihelm "
was presented at the Haymarket Theater, July 3, 1786. But
Lessing's great works of criticism were not recognized. Of
his prime importance as a literary critic, the English had no
conception.^
Thus, while a few of the German productions were well
received the sentiment in favor of German literature was, upon
the whole, of a very slow growth. Several reasons may be
adduced to account for its tardy development.
First: An insufficient knowledge of the German language in
England. Only a few of the merchants had taken the trouble
to learn German, and they were prompted in this matter by
their practical and commercial instincts. It was not consid-
ered necessary to know German as a means of culture.'^
Second : The poor opinion of Germany and things German
that prevailed in Europe in the eighteenth century. This
prejudice was deep-seated, and affected not only the British,
but other nations as well. One is reminded of Pere Bouhours,
who questioned whether a German could have esprit.
"This probably accounts for the English title, "Sorrows of Werther,"
it being an imitation of the French : " Les Passions du jeune Werther."
* Macaulay refers to the then standing of Lessing in England in his
"Essay on Addison," of the year 1843, saying: "We suspect very few
of the accomplished men who, 60 or 70 years ago. used to dine in Leicester
Square with Sir Joshua, or at Streatham with Mrs. Thrale, had the slightest
notion that Wieland was one of the first wits and poets, and Lessing,
beyond all dispute, the first critic of Europe." " Essays," Vol. V, p. 340.
'The Edinburgh Review said in 1813: "Thirty years ago there were
probably in London as many Persian as German scholars." Vol. XXII,
p. 201.
Third : In the eighteenth century French literature and
French style were dominant in England. Unless a work came
well recommended by way of the French, its chances for a
favorable reception in England were small. The French were
at times unjust in their criticisms of German literature, and
their opinions naturally gained currency in England.^
Fourth : There is an essential difference in the character of
the Germans and the English. John Stuart Blackie, who under-
stood his own people and the Germans, has drawn this distinc-
tion in character very well, and shown its influence on the rela-
tions of the two peoples. He says : " The Englishman — and
I include my brother, the Scot, here under the general name —
is characteristically a man of action, not of contemplation.
His habit of mind is constitutional rather than philosophical;
his religion more ecclesiastical than spiritual, his statesman-
ship guided more by external expediency than by internal prin-
ciple. He is a denouncer of sentiment, enthusiasm, which Na-
poleon called ideology."
" The German is the reverse of all this. He is cosmopolitan
in his range, contemplative in his habit, and emotional in his
temper. When two such opposite types come near enough to
provoke a mutual estimate, they produce a clash: and in this
way the English, who in their days of intellectual isolation —
days yet fresh in the memory of living men — glorified in sim-
ply despising the Germans, now that the current of events has
brought with it a general necessity of international recognition,
too often make this recognition through an atmosphere of mis-
conception and prejudice.""
A century or more ago, when international communication
was comparatively limited, these characteristics stood out more
boldly than they do to-day, and exercised a strong influence on
literary intercourse.
* Cf. Madame de Stael, " Why are the French unjust to German Litera-
ture?" " L'Allemagne," London, 1813, Vol. 1, p. 211.
°John Stuart Blackie, "The Wisdom of Goethe," London, 1883, Intro-
duction, p. 14. Emerson, in discussing the character of the English after
visiting England in 1833 and 1847, also spoke of the difficulties which the
English had in understanding the Germans, saying : " The English cannot
interpret the German mind." Cf. " English Traits," under head of " Lit-
erature."
Fifth: The great expense connected with printing and the
duty on imported books hampered the introduction and study
of German Htcrature in England. The tariff on books became
burdensome at the beginning of the nineteenth century, although
they had been subject to duty all along. In 171 1, £^0 for every
£100 of real value was imposed on books in addition to the
regular duty. In 1713, this law was repealed by special act,
" it having been found by experience to have tended to the
discouragement of learning." In 1723, all ad valorem duties
were taken from imported bound books, and instead, 14s the
cwt. imposed. In 1787, imported books bound were taxed at
19s 3d the cwt. and unbound 8s lod. The duty again became
oppressive in 1803 when £4 were collected on each cwt. of
bound books, and £3 on the unbound. In 1826, a law was
passed authorizing a duty of £5 on books that were printed
after 1801, and £1 on those printed prior to 1801. This law
was in force until 1844, when the duty on works in a foreign
language was reduced to 15s the cwt.^**
There does not seem to have been much discussion of this
question in literary circles until the third decade of the new
century, when interest in foreign literature was again more
active. Then the exorbitant duties on imported books seem
to have been felt more keenly than before. In 1825, A. W.
Schlegel speaks of them in his introduction to a London book-
seller's catalogue, saying : " The addition to the price of German
books caused by the duty of importation seems to offer a slight
impediment to a wealthy nation. It presses severely, however,
on literary intercourse."^^ The London Magazine also refers
to this matter in the following terms : " One cause of this
neglect of important works is undoubtedly the enormous ex-
pense of printing in this country, which deters publishers from
risking their capital. While the Germans publish reprints and
translations of the best English w^orks at a fourth of the price
that we pay for the originals, we cannot afford to do the same
with theirs; and even those who understand the German lan-
guage are not able to purchase as they would gladly do, on
" Cf. " The Statutes of the United Kingdom " for the respective years.
" Introduction to the Catalog of J. H. Bothe, London, 1825. See
also, " Kritische Schriften," Berlin, 1828, Erster Teil, pp. i-i5-
account of the high prices charged by the London booksellers,
which are partly to be ascribed to the heavy duty on impor-
tations."^-
Sixth: Before 1790 there were no competent mediators who
appreciated the treasures of German literature and could intro-
duce them effectively to their countrymen. A little later, to be
sure, there were men like William Taylor of Norwich, jMatthew
Gregory Lewis, Henry Crabb Robinson, and Robert Pearse
Gillies, who were all well versed in German and did much
toward making German literature known in England. This
paved the way for the mediations of Carlyle, whose activity
began in 1822. As co-workers of Carlyle in this direction,
Abraham Hayward and Mrs. Sarah Austin are to be men-
tioned.
It will be of interest to describe briefly the activity of the
early interpreters of German literature before passing to the
discussion of the last decade of the eighteenth century. First
among these in point of time was William Taylor of Norwich
(1765-1836). His work extended over the years 1790-1830,
the year in which the last volume of his " Historic Survey of
German Poetry " appeared.^^ He wrote numerous articles on
German literature for the magazines, which were later incor-
porated in the " Historic Survey," many of them in revised
form. While he must be credited with much interest in Ger-
man literature and an honest endeavor to bring it to the atten-
tion of his countrymen, many of his opinions show a large
measure of obtuseness. Carlyle was irritated by Taylor's
methods and criticised the " Historic Survey of German
Poetry" severely.^*
'^London Magazine (1823), Vol. VIII, p. 210.
" " Historic Survey of German Poetry, interspersed with various trans-
lations." By William Taylor of Norwich. 3 vols. London, 1830. Re-
viewed by the Monthly Review (1830), Vol. XV, p. 609 and (1828), Vol.
IX, p. 543.
^* Edinburgh Reviezv, March, 1831. Reprinted in "Essays," Vol. Ill,
p, 283. That Carlyle's review was not entirely just, has been shown by
Herzfeld in his study of Taylor's activity, p. 51. In general, Carlyle's
criticism is well founded, however, as Taylor's recensions represented
largely an obsolete point of view. Cf. " William Taylor of Norwich. Eine
Studie uber den Einfluss der neueren deutschen Literatur in England."
By Geo. Herzfeld, Halle, 1897.
Matthew Gregory Lewis (1775-1818), commonly known as
" Monk Lewis," on account of his novel, " The Monk," was a
translator of German works. In 1792-3 he was in Germany
and spent most of his time in Weimar, where he became
acquainted with Goethe. His interest in German literature
led in 1797 to the translation of Schiller's " Kabale und Liebe,"
which he published under the title: "The ^Minister." Lewis
influenced Scott, Byron, and Shelley. In 1816 he was with
Byron and Shelley in their Swiss retreat. Byron tells how
Lewis interpreted German for him, especially " Faust." But
it is not so much to Lewis's credit that he was one of the pur-
veyors of the Kotzebue dramas. He wished to introduce into
England what he conceived to be the prevailing German taste
in fiction and in the drama. His selections included largely
works of excessive sentiment and fantastic tendencies. He
had a fancy for the terrible and the grotesque, as is evidenced
by his own production, " The IMonk."^^
Henry Crabb Robinson (1775-1867) spent five years in Ger-
many ( 1 800-1 805) and returned home with a full appreciation
of German literature and philosophy. He wrote some maga-
zine articles, but upon the whole, his activity in this direction
was not very great. His services were of a more personal
nature. He inspired those with whom he came in contact with
an interest in German literature. His well-known ability as a
talker gave him a wide circle of influence. When he was in
Germany he endeavored to spread a knowledge of English lit-
erature. Goethe therefore called him a " missionary for Eng-
lish literature."^^ In the same way he might have been called
a missionary for German literature among the English. Rob-
inson has left an interesting account of his varied activity in
""Life and Correspondence of M. G. Lewis," 2 vols. London, 1839.
Scott touches on Lewis's work in his " Essay on the Imitations of the
Ancient Ballad." See also, " Matthew Gregory Lewis, mit besonderer
Berucksichtigung seines Romans, The Monk." By Max Rentsch, Leip-
zig, 1902.
" " Briefwechsel zwischen Goethe und Zelter." Berlin, 1834, Vol. V,
p. 280.
8
his diary, the important parts of which were pubhshed after
his death. ^'^
The work of Robert Pearse GilHes (1788-1858) consisted
chiefly of translations from the German for the magazines.
His Horae Germanicae in Blackwood's Magazine began in
1819.^^ In 1821 he was in Germany and also visited Goethe.
His main activity for German literature dates from this period.
When he became editor of the Foreign Quarterly Review in
1827, his influence in extending a knowledge of things German
increased. He has given a good account of his work and the
literary life of his period in his "Memoirs of a Literary
Veteran."i»
Of the later mediators between German literature and the
British public, only Mrs. Sarah Austin needs to be mentioned
here, as Carlyle's work has been frequently treated and Hay-
ward will be discussed among the translators of " Faust,"
Mrs. Sarah Austin was called by Macaulay " an interpreter
between the mind of Germany and the mind of Britain."-**
In 1827 she went to Germany with her husband, a jurist, and
lived for some time at Bonn. She acquired a thorough knowl-
edge of German and a deep interest in the Germans and their
literature. Her principal publication is her book on Goethe.-^
It is based chiefly on Falk and von Miiller. Her own criti-
cisms are few, but they are sane throughout, and show excel-
lent literary discrimination. Her other literary work consisted
mainly of translations from the German. Like Robinson, she
" " Diary, Reminiscences, and Correspondence of Henry Crabb Robin-
son." Edited by Thomas Sadler. 2 vols. Boston, 1870. See also,
Deutsche Rundschau, Vol. C, p. 172.
^*A11 of the Horce Germanica- of Blackzvood's Magazine are by Gillies,
excepting on " Faust " and a tragedy by Fouque. Cf. " Memoirs," Vol.
II, p. 203.
""Memoirs of a Literary Veteran." 3 vols. London, 1851. Also "Per-
sonal Reminiscences of Constable and Gillies." By R. H. Stoddard, New
York, 1876, and Zeiger, Stiidien zur vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte, Vol.
I, p. 251.
^ Macaulay's " Essay on von Ranke." " Essays," Vol. IV, p. 299.
""Characteristics of Goethe," London, 1833.
9
exerted a most potent influence by her conversations and her
correspondence with eminent Hterary men.--
We turn now to a consideration of the last decade of the
eighteenth century. Interest in German hterature and espe-
cially the German drama received a new impetus in the year
1788. On April 21, Henry Mackenzie, author of "The Man
of Feeling," read an enthusiastic paper before the Royal
Society of Edinburgh, giving an account of the German
theater.2^ Again it was by way of the French that attention
was attracted to the German drama. As a basis for his
remarks, Mackenzie used the '" Theatre Allemand," a compila-
tion of the most approved German plays, translated into
French by MAI. Friedel and De Bonneville.-* He also referred
to another collection by Juncker and Liebault.-' The prin-
cipal authors of these dramas were Goethe, Schiller, and
Lessing. Goethe was represented by " Gotz " and " Clavigo."
Mackenzie paid especial attention to the " Robbers." He gave
an appreciative account of the play, which he concluded by
saying : " I have ventured this long and particular account of
the tragedy in question, because it appears to me one of the
most uncommon productions of untutored genius that modern
times can boast. . . . If his (Schiller's) genius can accommo-
date itself to better subjects, and to a more regular conduct
of the drama, no modern poet seems to possess powers so
capable of bending the mind before him, of rousing its feelings
by the elevation of his sentiments, or of thrilling them with
the terrors of his imagination." His account of Goethe's
" Gotz " was also laudatory, Walter Scott, who was at this
^"Memoirs of Sarah Austin," London, 1891. An instance of her mis-
sionary wori< for German literature is given by Thomas Moore in his
" Diary," Vol. VI, p. 265, April, 1832. " Dined at Sterling's. . . . During
dinner a good deal of talk with Mrs. Austin about German literature, her
hobby. Mentioned a lovesong of Goethe's, and gave the literal English
of it, etc." This was, " Meine Ruh ist hin," from " Faust."
^"Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh," 1788, April 21.
*• " Nouveau Theatre Allemand." 12 vols. Paris, 1782-5.
'"'Theatre Allemand." Juncker and Leibault, 2 vols. Paris, 1782.
10
meeting, had his interest aroused ; this led to the study of the
German language and the translation of " Gotz " in 1799.-^
What ]\Iackenzie did for Scotland, was done for England by-
one E. Ash, who also discussed the collection of German dramas
by Friedel and De Bonneville in 1790 in Drake's Speculator.'^''
In a series of articles he called the attention of the English to
the dramas of Goethe, Schiller, and Lessing. Like Mackenzie,
he admired in them their titanic energy and their naturalness,
as opposed to the artificiality of the French drama. Ash rated
Goethe higher than did Mackenzie. He was especially pleased
with Goethe's female characters. To Mackenzie, Lessing was
the greatest German dramatist, probably on account of his
regard for the dramatic unities. Upon the whole, however,
they agreed in their estimate of the German drama. They had
very likely both been influenced in their opinions by the intro-
duction of Friedel and De Bonneville.
The paper by Mackenzie and the essays by Ash were widely
read and discussed.^* They mark the beginning of a decade
of enthusiasm for German literature in England. France was
at that time in the throes of her Revolution. This hampered
communication between the two countries and favored English
intercourse with Germany. The Monthly Review remarks on
this point :~^ " The French Revolution had hermetically sealed
the Gauls against the English, and the travels and literary
researches of our countrymen were in a manner forced into
Germany and made us better acquainted with her literature."
It was unfortunate that this newly awakened interest was
not fostered by the best works of German genius. The English
were much attracted by the sentimentalism of the dramas of
Kotzebue and Iffland, chiefly those of the former. Hasty
translations of his more hastily written dramas were made, and
^' Scott tells of this himself in his " Essay on the Imitations of the
Ancient Ballad." His translation of " Gotz " is reviewed by the Critical
Review (1799), Vol. XXVI, p. 429, and by the Monthly Review (1799),
Vol. XXIX, p. 222.
^' Cf. Brandl, Goethe-Jahrbuch, Vol. Ill, p. 39.
^ See, for example, Edinburgh Magazine (1790), Vol. XI, p. 379, and
Vol. XII, p. 193. Also, Monthly Review (1791), Vol. IV, p. 415.
''^Monthly Revieiv (1827), Vol. VI, p. 268.
11
produced a sensational success on the English stage. His
fame in England rapidly increased, and in the years 1798-9,
he stood at the height of his glory. He is first mentioned by
the Monthly Reviezv in 1796.^" At the close of the century
there are discussed in one volume of this magazine as many as
nine of his plays.^^
Alen like Henry Crabb Robinson, who had an appreciation
for the best in German literature, became impatient with their
countrymen for their admiration of the ephemeral productions
of Kotzebue. No wonder that Robinson wrote from Germany
in a letter to the Monthly Register and Encyclopedian Maga-
zine: " I have for the present but one observation. You know
nothing about German literature. Kotzebue's and Iffland's
plays are not German literature. Though popular German
works, they are not considered classical here."^-
So great was the enthusiasm for Kotzubue that the works
of Goethe and Schiller were for the time being almost eclipsed. ^^
Nevertheless both made gains during this decade after the
recognition they had received by Mackenzie and Ash. Goethe
continued to be popular as the "Author of Werther," but
" Gotz " was now considered his best work. " Iphigenie " was
translated in 1795 by William Taylor of Norwich and " Stella "
and " Clavigo " appeared in anonymous translations in 1798.
Schiller was in greater favor during this period than Goethe.
His early plays, especially the " Robbers " continued to receive
much attention. In 1792 it was translated by Alexander
Eraser Tytler. A second edition appeared in 1795 and a fourth
edition in 1800.^* " Kabale und Liebe " was translated in 1795,
and again in 1797 by Monk Lewis. It w^as produced as the
" Harper's Daughter " at the Covent Garden Theater, May 4,
^Monthly Review (1796), Vol. XX, p. 543.
"^Monthly Review, Vols. XXVIII and XXIX. See also, Critical Review,
Vol. XXVIII.
^Vol. I, p. 397-
^'Sellier, "Kotzebue in England." Diss. Leipzig, 1901, and E. Koppel,
Englische Stiidien, Vol. XIII, p. 530. Also, Bahlsen, Archiv, Vol.
LXXXI, p. 353-
" Another translation of the " Robbers " by R. M. Wender was published
in 1799. The same year also witnessed a translation of the " Biihnenaus-
gabe," and another version appeared in "Thompson's Theater" in 1800.
12
1803. "Fiesco" appeared in English in 1796 and "Don
Carlos" in 1798. In 1800 Coleridge published his translation
of " Wallenstein."^® The magazines took note of the English
attitude toward Schiller. In 1795 the Monthly Review said:
" Friedrich Schiller is by this time a popular writer with the
British."^^ The Critical Review remarked in a similar strain :
" The plays of Schiller have attained a celebrity which far
exceeds their merits, and which cannot be permanent."^'^
The introduction of BiArger's " Lenore," which exercised a
strong influence in England, took place in this decade. It fell
in with some phases of the English Romantic Movement.
The first translation was made by William Taylor of Norwich
in 1790, although it was not published until 1796. Walter
Scott also translated it in 1796 with one other of Biirger's
ballads, the two constituting his first published volume. " Le-
nore " at once took hold of the popular imagination, evidence
of its popularity being the numerous other translations and
parodies.^*
While both Goethe and Schiller found public favor, their
plays were rarely performed in the theaters, because the English
stage was occupied by the dramas of Kotzebue. At the close
of the century he was in the heyday of his success. But a
reaction was soon to set in, and instead of helping the cause of
German literature, he injured it. Along with his works, the
entire German drama was condemned. A period of apathy
ensued, dating approximately from the beginning of the century.
There were also other inflviences that assisted in bringing
about this reaction. Literary satires and parodies flourished
in England at this time. Anything that was objectionable in
literature was mercilessly satirized and held up to public ridi-
cule. In 1798, there appeared a parody on Schiller's " Rob-
bers " and Goethe's "Stella" in the Anti-Jacobin, entitled,
" The Rovers." The plot, as stated in the introduction, is
^ The translation by Coleridge is reviewed in the Critical Review (1800),
Vol. XXX, p. 17s,
^^ Monthly Reviezu (1795), Vol. XVIII, p. 346.
^''Critical Review (1798), Vol. XXII, p. 103.
^ On Biirger's " Lenore " in England, see, Alois Brandl, in " Charakteris-
tiken," by Erich Schmidt, Berlin, 1886, p. 244.
13
formed by the combination of the plots of two of the most
popular German plays. A number of scenes in the parody
bear a resemblance to incidents in Goethe's " Stella," but there
is very little in it that reminds one of the " Robbers," except
the title. It may be gathered that it was the intention also to
ridicule " Kabale und Liebe " and Kotzebue's " Menschenhass
und Reue."^" This caricature did its part to bring the German
drama into disrepute. Canning and Frere, the authors, were
workers on the Anti-Jacobin, or Weekly Examiner, which was
inimical to German literature. This magazine, which was
founded in November, 1797, was the organ of the Conservative
party in England. It was begun with the express purpose of
combating everything that was liberal in politics and literature.
Since the German drama of the Storm and Stress stood for
opposition to absolutism, and glorified the freedom of the indi-
vidual, it was attacked by the Anti-Jacobins.
Another parody, probably an imitation of the " Rovers,"
was published in the magazine. The Meteors, in 1799-1800.***
It was called : " The Benevolent Cutthroat," by Klotzboggen-
hagen (translated by Fabius Pictor). It was preceded by an
introduction called : " A Prologue for any German Play." In
this prologue reference was made to the " Robbers " as follows :
Despising rigid rules the German Muse
Prepares whate'er she thinks you'll not refuse ;
Is there a dismal act appears too long?
Its close is sweetened with a soothing song,"
And in the mirthful scenes the jokes advance
Progressively till finished with a dance.
**********
What character by sportive nature formed
But has some well-wrought German play adorned !
Robbers of gentle manners and polite
Teach you to steal and prove 'tis just and right.
^ The " Rovers " has been republished in Vol. VI of the " Carisbroke
Library," edited by Henry Morley. London, 1890, p. 282.
*»Cf. Rhea, Studien zur vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte, Ergdn-
zungshefte, Vol. V, p. 167.
" Songs of Amalia.
14
While it is clear from this quotation that the " Robbers " is
aimed at in this parody, the text itself shows no similarity-
whatever to Schiller's drama. It consists of a series of extrav-
agances quite foreign to the plot of Schiller's play.
These publications appeared in London, but in other parts
of Britain voices were also raised in opposition to the German
drama. In 1802 William Preston read a paper before the
Royal Irish Academy, entitled : " Reflections on the Peculiari-
ties of Style and Manner of the late German Writers whose
Works have appeared in English and on the Tendency of Their
Productions."*- This article pointed out the weakness of the
dramas of Kotzebue in a forcible way. Goethe and Schiller
also came in for a share of Preston's criticism. Goethe was
called the dramatic father of Schiller and the " great patriarch
of the terrible and ferocious school." It was said that he
established the " reign of terror and blood " by his " Goss (sic)
with the Iron Hand." Preston regarded the admiration that
had been bestowed upon German literature as an indication of
the decline of true taste and sound morality. The magazines
took up this article for discussion.*^ Its importance as emanat-
ing from one of the learned societies, gave it widespread
publicity.
Thus the sentiment against German literature grew. The
magazines that had given so much attention to Kotzebue now
came out in opposition to his plays. In 1801 the Monthly
Review, in reviewing one of his biographies, spoke lightly of
his dramas : " We pass over the attempt to defend the author's
dramatic works, which we conceive to be of little importance,
as the public has already formed its decisive judgment concern-
ing them."** If the English had put Kotzebue aside for the
*^ " Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy," Vol. VIII, pp. 15-79.
*^ Monthly Review (1803), Vol. XLI, p. 194, and Critical Review (1804),
p. 612.
"Cf. Monthly Review (1801), Vol. XXXIV, p. 78. It should be noted,
however, that Kotzebue by no means ceased to interest the English at
the end of the century. As late as 1830, William Taylor of Norwich said
in his "Historic Survey of German Poetry," Vol. Ill, p. 102: "According
to my judgment, Kotzebue is the greatest dramatic genius that Europe has
evolved since Shakespeare." Cf. also, the Monthly Reviezv of 1821, Vol.
XCV, p. 448 : " It will probably be admitted that Kotzebue is the greatest
dramatist of the Germans and one of the ornaments of Europe."
15
better productions of the German IMusc, it would have been
well, but for more than a decade of the new century they were
almost indifferent to all German writers.
During this period of apathy literary intercourse was further
hampered by the Napoleonic Wars. Communication was en-
tirely cut off at times and at others possible only under the
most trying circumstances. The Critical Rcviezv touched on
this matter apropos of a discussion of Wieland's works in 1809 :
" Our communication with the continent has been so much
interrupted of late that we can only now continue the account
of the new edition of Wieland's works. "'^'^ Napoleon endeav-
ored to realize, as A. W. Schlegel says, by the continental
system, the language of the ancient poet, Toto divisos orbe
Britannos.*^ At the conclusion of peace in 181 5, this difficulty
was removed, but some years passed before a normal literary
intercourse was restored.
There was one influence that again brought Germany and the
Germans, as well as their literature, vividly before the minds of
the Englishmen, and that was the appearance of Aladame de
Stael's book on " Germany " in an English translation in 1813.'*^
As the book was suppressed by the French police, it aroused
much attention in England. Its effect in reviving interest in
German literature was marked. Madame de Stael's opinions
were received with much respect by the English. As late as
1835 the Quarterly Revieiv speaks as follows of their reverence
for the views of Madame de Stael : " We believe that the two
nations, France and England, look equally to Madame de Stael
as their principal authority on all matters connected with the
belles lettres and philosophy of Germany."*^
Carlyle himself, as a writer in the Grenzhoten testifies, first
had his curiosity for things German aroused by this work.
"Dass dieses Buch ihn (Carlyle) mit respektvoller Neugier
nach den literarischen Schatzen der Deutschen erfullt, und
*^ Critical Review (1809), Vol. XVII, p. 517.
""Kritische Schriften," Erster Teil, Berlin, 1828, p. 9.
" " Germany," by the Baronness von Holstein. Translated from the
French. In 3 vols. London 181 3. A French edition was also printed in
London the same year.
'^Quarterly Review (1835), Vol. LIII, p. 216.
16
zur sauren Erlernung der deutschen Sprache veranlasst habe,
weiss ich aus Carlyles eignem Munde."*® Carlyle also refers
to the influence of Madame de Stael's work in his translation
of Jean Paul's review of that book, saying : " The work indeed,
which, with all its vagueness and manifold shortcomings, must
be regarded as the precursor, if not parent, of whatever
acquaintance with German literature exists among us."^° It is
finally of interest to note what Goethe had to say about Madame
de Stael's work in the " Annalen " : " That work on Germany
which owed its origin to such social conversations, must be
looked on as a mighty implement, whereby, in the Chinese
wall of antiquated prejudices which divides us from France, a
broad gap was broken ; so that across the Rhine, and in conse-
quence of this, across the Channel, our neighbors at last took
closer knowledge of us; and now the whole remote West is
open to our influence."^^
In 1815 A. W. Schlegel's "Lectures on Dramatic Art" were
translated into English.^^ They were well known on the con-
tinent and were favorably received by the English, thus also
exerting an influence in bringing German literature to their
attention. The last, or fifteenth chapter, is devoted to the
" Drama of Germany." The English translator comments in
his preface on the boldness with which Schlegel attacked dra-
matic rules that the French considered sacred, and the severity
with which he criticized French works. But he adds : " It will
be no disadvantage to him in our eyes that he has been unspar-
ing in his attack on the literature of our enemies." One sees
that international prejudices affected the literary intercourse
of the European nations.
Another influence that came into play in the early decades
of the new century was the founding of three important maga-
^'Grenzboten (1869), Vol. XXVIII, p. 295.
^"Fraser's Magazine (1830), Vol. I, p. 28. Also, "Essays," Vol. II,
p. 363.
°^ Translation by Carlyle in " Schiller, Goethe, and De Stael." " Essays,"
Vol. II, p. 405. Cf. also Goethe's "Annalen" of 1804, " Werke, Jubi-
laums-Ausgabe," Vol. XXX, p. 134.
^ " A Course of Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature," by A. W.
Schlegel. Translated from the original by John Black. In 2 vols. London,
Edinburgh, and Dublin, 1815.
17
zines, the Edinburgh Review in 1802; the Quarterly Rcviczv in
1809; and Blackzi'ood's Magazine in 1817. These three maga-
zines, with the Monthly and Critical Rcvien's, of older date,
were important factors in hterary criticism. At times, to be
sure, they were not entirely unprejudiced in their reviews of
literature, both German and English." Generally speaking,
however, these magazines were favorable to German literature
and did much to bring it prominently before the public in book
reviews and original articles. By the various means that have
been enumerated, the interest in German literature was revived
and increased, reaching its height under the leadership of
Carlyle.
â– "The Monthly Review, in January, 1817, p. 22, called Coleridge's
" Christabel," " rude, unfashioned stuff." See also, Edinburgh Review,
Sept. 1816, pp. 58-67. Byron retaliated for unjust criticism in " English
Bards and Scotch Reviewers."
CHAPTER II
Faust " Criticism in English Magazines
«
Faust. Ein Fragment " appeared in 1790. Most of it had
been written by Goethe in the years 1773-1775. After setthng
in Weimar, in 1775, he was wont occasionally to give readings
from his " Faust." Fraulein von Gochhausen, one of the
maids-of-honor at the Weimar court, procured the manuscript
from Goethe upon one of these occasions, and made a copy of
it. This was safely handed down in the family archives, where
it was discovered by Erich Schmidt in 1887, who at once pub-
lished it. It represents, generally speaking, what Goethe had
completed of his plan by 1775, and is usually referred to as
the " Urfaust."!
During the next decade Goethe was busy with other matters
and no attention was given to "Faust." In 1786 he took his
manuscript with him to Italy, but nothing was done upon it
until shortly before his return to Weimar in 1788. He was
prompted to take up " Faust " again by the plan of publishing
a complete edition of his works.^ He probably wished to finish
as much for publication as there is now in the completed First
Part. At any rate, he made a plan for its continuation before
leaving Italy, and wrote one scene — the Witch's Kitchen.
When he returned to Weimar, the preparation of all his writ-
ings for immediate publication gave him little time for concen-
tration upon " Faust." He therefore decided as early as July,
1789, not to attempt its completion, but to publish it as a frag-
ment, and as such it appeared at Easter, 1790, in the seventh
volume of his works.^ It should be noted that, while the
"Fragment" contains considerable matter not in the "Urfaust,"
^ " Goethes Faust in urspriinglicher Gestalt nach der Gochhausenschen
Abschrift," herausgegeben von Erich Schmidt. 6. Abdruck. Weimar, 1905.
'' Minor, " Goethes Faust," Vol. I, p. 283.
^ The " Fragment " has been republished in convenient form in " Seuf-
ferts Literaturdenkmale des 18. Jahrhunderts." Heilbronn, 1882. Another
edition has been published by W. Holland, Freiburg, 1882.
18
19
Goethe also withheld parts of the " Urfaust " from the " Frag-
ment."
An idea of what the " Fragment " contains and what it does
not contain is best obtained by comparing it with the completed
First Part, published in 1808. In length it is about half of
Part First. It begins with Faust's first monologue : " Habe
nun, ach ! Philosophic," etc., and closes with the Cathedral
Scene, including, therefore, the Earth Spirit Scene, the first
conversation with Wagner, the Student Scene, Aucrbach's
Cellar, the Witch's Kitchen, and the whole Gretchen Tragedy,
with the exception of the last, or Dungeon, scene, which was in
prose in the " Urfaust," and was withheld from the " Frag-
ment." The scene, Forest and Cavern, was inserted between
the scene, At the Well, and the Mater Dolorosa, instead of
being given the place it later received, before Gretchen's mono-
logue, " Meine Ruh ist hin." Faust's second monologue, the
Easter holiday scene, the completed Valentine scene, the Wal-
purgis-Night and Intermezzo, the Dedication, the Prelude, and
the Prologue were not published until 1808. Stated exactly,
the following lines of Part First are found in the " Fragment " :
354-597; 602-605; 1770-2365; 2378-2389; 2394-3148; 3153-
3216; 3374-3586; 3217-3373; 3587-3619; 377^3788; 3790-
3834.
The fragmentary character of the " Faust " of 1790 was a
barrier to its appreciation. It was received but indifferently
by the German public. The interest with which its appearance
had been looked forward to in the seventies, was cooled by the
years of its delay, and when it did appear in 1790 other events
occupied the public mind. Men like Schiller and the Schlegel
brothers naturally saw more in it than the Germans at large.
In writing to Goethe, November 29, 1794, Schiller called the
" Fragment " " Der Torso des Herkules," and expressed his
admiration of the power and wealth of genius shown in these
scenes. A. W. Schlegel called the plan of "Faust" "unique,
not to be compared, either with one of Goethe's other works,
or with the dramas of any other poet."* Friedrich Schlegel
*A. W. Schlegel, " Werke," Vol. X, p. 17. See also, Minor, "Faust,"
Vol. I, p. 296.
20
said that this fragment was to be classed among the greatest
works that the mind of man had produced.^ An anonymous
review of the Nciie Nilrnbergische Gelehrte Zeitung of 1790
was also quite favorable. It stated that if the continuation of
any work had ever been looked forward to with intense inter-
est, this was certainly the case with " Faust.'"^ The reviews
of eminent literary men were favorable, but in general Goethe's
purpose was not understood. The " Fragment " offered no
solution of the problems suggested by it, and no one knew what
the completed " Faust " was going to be like.
And Goethe intended to complete it, but found it harder now
than ever to return to the subject. Schiller, with whom he
formed a bond of friendship in 1794, and who valued the
" Fragment " so highly, urged him on by gentle persuasion to
a continuation of the work.'^ During the last years of the cen-
tury, Goethe then reverted to " Faust," and in June, 1797, he
looked up the plan he had made while in Italy and on this basis
proceeded with the work. It is known that he was busy with
" Faust " in 1800, and according to Schiller's letter of Septem-
ber 13 of that year, the bipartition of the poem had now been
decided upon. For a number of years after this not much was
accomplished. Again it was the plan to publish a complete
edition of his works that gave Goethe the impulse to continue
" Faust."* In March, 1806, he began a revision of the manu-
script, assisted by Riemer, and in April it was sent to Gotta,
the publisher. But on account of the political troubles in Ger-
many it was not printed until 1808. It appeared in volume
eight of the first Cotta edition of Goethe's works. The title
was : " Faust, eine Tragodie." After the Prologue in Heaven
there was another title : " Der Tragodie Erster Teil." This
meant that the Prelude and the Prologue were to apply to both
parts of " Faust." Goethe thus clearly apprised the public
^ Athenaum, Vol. Ill, p. 174. Also, Braun, "Goethe und Schiller im
Urteile der Zeitgenossen." Berlin, 1884, Vol. II, p. 235. Schelling also
expressed a very favorable opinion of the " Fragment " in 1803. Cf.
Witkowski, " Faust," Kommentar, Introduction, p. 5.
•> Braun, Vol. II, p. 81.
' Minor, " Faust," Vol. II, pp. i and 9.
« Minor, "Faust," Vol. II, p. 16.
21
that his plan was by no means completed, and that a second
part was to follow.
We turn now to the reception of the " Fragment " and the
First Part in England. The literary conditions which obtained
there at that time were such as to favor their introduction.
In 1790, when the " Fragment " appeared, the interest in Ger-
man literature had just received a new impetus. The rise of
Romanticism, which reached its culmination in England in the
early years of the new century, would also seem to have
favored the introduction of a work like " Faust." The English
were quite generally familiar with the Faust-legend. The
chap-book, published in Germany in 1587, was translated into
English before February 28, 1859.^ Many editions of the same
appeared in the following centuries. The theme was further
kept alive by Marlowe's " Faustus " and by the numerous pan-
tomimes and puppet plays which flourished especially in the
first part of the eighteenth century.^^ Goethe was well-known
in England as the author of " Werther " and of " Gotz," and
it was to be expected that another work by him under the name
of " Faust " would attract general attention.
But notwithstanding these apparently favorable conditions,
the " Fragment " was barely mentioned in England, and when
Part First appeared in 1808, it was misconstrued and misun-
derstood. Naturally, the fact that the "Faust" of 1790 ap-
peared as a fragment was the chief obstacle to its appreciation
in England as well as in Germany. It lacked coherence and
had no catastrophe. Goethe had kept his full plan in abeyance,
and no one knew what the final outcome would be. The Faust-
saga which the people knew, led them to expect a tragedy of
sin and damnation such as Marlowe had written. What they
actually found in the " Fragment " was a discontented pro-
* Cf. Zarncke, Anglia, Vol. IX, p. 6io.
"On this subject the Quarterly Review said in 1814: "This personage,
who was a professor at Wittenberg, and is known to the learned as a
competitor for the honor of having first invented printing, is familiar to
the children of England as well as of Germany under the name of Dr.
Faustus ; and his alliance with the Devil was, in the time of our parents,
a conspicuous feature in almost every puppet show. Quarterly Revic-v
(1814), Vol. X, p. 390. See also, Diebler, " Faust und Wagner Panto-
mimen in England." Anglia, Vol. VII, p. 341-354.
22
fessor turning libertine, seducing a young girl and bringing
upon her ruin and disgrace. No punishment was meted out
to the offender, which made it all the more difficult to under-
stand Goethe. When the First Part appeared, in 1808, Goethe
indicated by the Prologue, as has been mentioned, that his
drama was by no means complete, and that the solution of the
moral problem was yet to come. But few people understood
or paid any attention to the Prologue and continued in their
erroneous preconceptions.
While the fragmentary character of the " Faust " of 1790
and the disregard of the Prologue of 1808, account in large
measure for the misinterpretation of Goethe's " Faust," there
are also other things to be taken into consideration in judging
the attitude of the English people. Among these are the views
of art which prevailed in England at that time. Esthetic edu-
cation was lacking, and it was the common practice to confuse
the province of ethics and esthetics. ^^ There was a strong
tendency to moralize in judging a work of art. English critics
sometimes disapproved of German literature as being immoral,
apparently thinking that moral truth and beauty could be vio-
lated in a thoroughly artistic production. To them the Ger-
mans appeared deficient in taste. " They proposed," as Carlyle
said, " to school the Germans in the Alphabet of taste who
were already busy with their accidence."^- While discussing
German literature the English seemingly lost sight of the fact,
that from their standpoint there would be much to criticize in
their own Shakespeare and Congreve, for example. This atti-
tude represents a tendency of the times in England which had
" Cf. Mrs. Sarah Austin, " Characteristics of Goethe," London, 1833,
p. xxiii.
^ " State of German Literature." " Essays," Vol. I, p. 60. The Edin-
burgh Review refers to this attitude of the English as follows : " It
happened rather whimsically that we now (at the beginning of the nine-
teenth century) began to throw out the same reproaches against other
nations which the French had directed against us in the beginning of the
eighteenth century. We were then charged by our polite neighbors with
the vulgarity and turbulence of rebellious upstarts, who held nothing
sacred in religion, or stable in government ; and whom no king could
govern or God could please, and whose coarse and barbarous literature
could excite only the ridicule of cultivated nations." Vol. XXII, p. 201.
23
crept into literary criticism." From the unlimited freedom
and the unshackled attitude toward questions of morals, char-
acteristic of the Restoration, opinion on this subject had swung
back to the other extreme in the latter part of the eighteenth
century, and now the English felt it their duty to school the
Germans in the matter of morality and taste in literature.
The theological tendencies of the day also affected the atti-
tude of the English critics toward " Faust." The chief ques-
tion at that time seems to have centered in the fate of man in
the w^orld to come. Nowadays interest is thrown largely upon
the altruistic activity of man in this world. While Goethe
belonged to the latter part of the eighteenth century, he antici-
pated in many respects the thought of the twentieth century.
In his " Faust," stress is laid upon the development of the
character of his hero in this life. Some of the English critics
devote much discussion to the question of the final disposition
of Goethe's hero. In reviewing Part First, where it is not
entirely clear from the last scene, if one disregards the Pro-
logue, what becomes of Faust, a great deal of speculation turns
upon the question as to whether Goethe meant to save his hero
or not; and in reviewing Part Second, the issue is raised
whether Faust should have been saved at all, without doing
penance in the orthodox way.
Another difficulty with the English was that they could not
fully understand and appreciate Goethe, the poet, the artist,
and the critic of life, as he is found in all of his works. That
is what Carlyle meant when he said in his " Hero Worship "
that in England the appreciation of Goethe would be left to
" Literary criticism stood on a low level in England at that time. Wil-
liam Ellery Channing spoke of this in 1823, saying: "In England there
is a great want of philosophy in the true sense of the word. If we examine
her reviews, in which much of the intellectual power of the nation is
expended, we meet perpetually a jargon of criticism, which shows a sin-
gular want of great and general principles in estimating works of art. '
"Works," Boston, 1853. Vol. I, p. 276. Madame de Stael depicts a char-
acter, Oswald, in her book, " Corinne ou L'ltalie," who represents the
national prejudices of England. He has no appreciation of art. He
judges it by standards of religion and morality. He is prone to be offended
and understands nothing. Cf. Brandes, "Main Currents in Nineteenth
Century Literature," Vol. I, p. 145. English translation, London, 1901.
24
future generations. That the greater number of English critics
have all along failed of a full understanding of Goethe, and
withheld part of the admiration that is justly due him, was
quite recently again brought out by a writer in the Quarterly
Review.^*
During the period under consideration the English had
received Goethe's works in part with favor. They were
strongly under the influence of his " Werther " ; they admired
the dramatic power of his " Gotz," and the classic beauty of
" Iphigenie," but in " Faust " there was presented to them a
work which was so distinctively German, and so unusual in
conception and execution, that they did not know what to make
of it. They were attracted by the undoubted beauty and sub-
limity of many of its scenes, and repelled when they dwelt on
its irregularities. They saw on one page the Miltonic har-
mony of the strains of Raphael and Gabriel, and on another the
jabber of fiends and sorcerers. It seemed to be a wanton mix-
ture of the grand and the grotesque. The simplest language of
everyday life was found side by side with the noblest strains
of lyric poetry. The English found it difficult to follow Goethe
in these poetic musings. Hence it was that only some of the
greater Englishmen, who were themselves artists and felt their
kinship with Goethe, appreciated the real merits of his greatest
work. For many years to come, " Faust " was to remain
" caviare to the general."
The " Fragment " was mentioned only once in England so
far as the writer has been able to ascertain.^^ The Monthly
Review referred to it apropos of a discussion of Goethe's
" Stella " in 1798, which had been translated that year. It
stated : " In his ' Faustus ' he has not feared to enter the pre-
cincts of the invisible world."^® It is impossible to judge from
this reference whether the reviewer had studied the " Frag-
ment " or not. It would seem to indicate, however, that he con-
siders his readers to be sufficiently familiar with it to under-
stand this general reference. It is to be remembered that a
^* Quarterly Review, April, 1907, p. 481.
" I mean before the appearance of the First Part.
^"Monthly Review (1798), Vol. XXVI, p. 580.
25
period of indifference toward German literature began with the
new centur)'. This will explain the absence of any further crit-
icism of the " Fragment."
The first extended notice of " Faust " was a discussion of
" Der Tragodie Erster Teil " in 1810 by the Monthly Review.^''
It is generally supposed to have been written by William Taylor
of Norwich. ^^ He called " Faust," " an uncouth though fan-
ciful mixture of farce and tragedy, of profaneness and moral-
ity, of vulgarity and beauty, of obscenity and feeling. . . .
Who can refrain from grief on receiving such trash from the
Goethe who in his " Iphigenie in Tauris " approached nearest
of all the moderns to becoming the rival of Sophocles?"^" The
reviewer referred to the Prologue, saying that it is an imita-
tion of the proem of the book of Job, but he failed to see its
significance with regard to Goethe's plan and purpose. It is to
be noted, however, that he did not, like later critics, call this
scene profane, on account of its representation of the Deity.
Taylor gave a brief outline of the drama and translated the
Cathedral Scene in prose. His analysis was not always cor-
rect. Thus, for example, he said that Faust is charged " with
obtaining jewelry under false pretenses, with swindling the
tavern keepers, and with cheating his guests at cards," etc. In
the end, according to the reviewer, both Faust and Margaret
are condemned to execution ; the Devil is not permitted to carry
into perdition the soul of Margaret, " but the spectator learns
that he hurries off with that of Faustus."-** Evidently, he had
"Monthly Review (1810), LXII, p. 491.
" Cf. R. G. Alford, " Goethe's Earliest Critics in England." " Transac-
tions of the English Goethe Society," 1891-1892. Also Herzfeld, "William
Taylor of Norwich," p. 46. Herzfeld, however, does not discuss Taylor's
" Faust " critique.
"Taylor translated "Iphigenie" in 1793.
^ The English were accustomed to use the form Faustus instead of Faust.
This, I think, is due to the fact that Marlowe called his hero Faustus.
Even some of the English translators used the form Faustus. Most notable
among these was Anster. Graf (p. 318) discusses the assertion of Anster
that Goethe was in the habit in conversation of calling his hero Faustus.
Graf thinks that if Goethe used this form, he did so only with Englishmen
in respect to their home custom. Goethe used the form Faustus at least
once in one of his Xenien. (Quoted by Pniower, " Faust," p. 290, and
Graf, p. 317.) The translators of Madame de Stael's " L'Allemagne " and
Schlegel's " Vorlesungen iiber dramatische Kunst und Literatur " also used
Faustus, while in both originals one finds Faust.
26
not read or did not understand Goethe, and was led to expect
the damnation of Faust by his knowledge of the saga.
However blind the reviewer was to the real merits of
" Faust " as a whole, he did not fail to see the poetic power of
some of the scenes. He was attracted especially by the Wal-
purgis-Night and the Dungeon Scene. Of the former he says :
" This scene of enchantment is described with a force of imagi-
nation and a truth of psychology which aspire to vie with
Shakespeare." In conclusion he summed up : " On the whole
the absurdities of the piece are so numerous, the obscenities
are so frequent, the profaneness is so gross, and the beauties
are so exclusively adapted to German relish, that we cannot
conscientiously recommend its importation and still less the
translation of it to our English students of German literature."
A more prejudiced review of any literary production can
hardly be imagined.-^ But the reviewer was not only biased,
he was also superficial. His analysis shows the shallowness of
his study and how little he entered into the spirit of Goethe's
poem. That it has beauties, he did not deny, but with the true
English provincialism of his day, he pronounced these beau-
ties " exclusively adapted for German relish." This scathing
review was sufficient to deter others from giving any attention
to " Faust " for years to come. The reviewer discouraged the
translation of it, and another decade elapsed before any attempt
was made in this direction. It is worth noting that Taylor did
not republish this review unmodified in his " Historic Survey
of German Poetry " in 1830.-^ " Faust " had then, to some
extent at least, gained a hold on the English people, and such a
review would have appeared ridiculous.
No further notice seems to have been taken of Goethe's
" Faust " until the appearance of Madame de Stael's " L'Alle-
magne" in 1813.-^ She gave a spirited account of "Faust"
which aroused new interest. She found much to admire in it,
but her admiration was not unconditional. As she was still an
^ Herzfeld thinks that Taylor had a grudge against Goethe because the
latter did not recognize the receipt of Taylor's translation of " Iphigenie."
" William Taylor of Norwich," p. 26.
^ Cf. " Historic Survey of German Poetry," Vol. Ill, p. 323.
^'Vol. II, Chapter 23.
27
adherent of the French classical school, the irregularities of
" Faust " did not please her. To her, " Egmont " was the greatest
of German dramas. In that she did not find the loose dramatic
structure which is so evident in " Faust." She said : " Goethe
has subjected himself to rules of no description whatever in
this composition ; it is neither tragedy nor romance. Its author
abjured every sober method of thinking and writing."
Aladame de Stael mistook Mephistopheles for the hero of
the drama. " The Devil," she said, " is the hero of this piece ;
the author has not conceived him like a hideous phantom, such
as he is usually represented to the children ; he has made him
the evil Being par excellence. . . . Goethe wished to display in
this character, at once real and fanciful, the bitterest pleasantry
that contempt can inspire, and at the same time an audacious
gayety that amuses. There is an infernal irony in the dis-
courses of Mephistopheles, which extends itself to the whole
creation, and criticizes the Universe like a bad book of which
the Devil has made himself the censor." She called the
Mephistopheles of Goethe a civilized devil, in comparison with
the devils of Milton and Dante.
Her characterization of Faust was not so favorable. Faust
appeared to her as weak, changeful, sentimental, and sated
with pleasure. He has recourse to sorcery because his ambi-
tion is greater than his strength. Her misapprehension of the
character of Faust, as well as the entire drama, is due in large
measure to the fact that she did not expect Faust to be saved.
She did not refer to the Prologue, and without doubt did not
understand its import. " The intention of the author," she
said, " doubtless is that Margaret should perish, and that God
should pardon her; that the life of Faustus should be pre-
served, but that his soul should be lost."
INIadame de Stael gave a resume of " Faust " which is inter-
spersed with a number of translated passages. The reader
does not always get a clear idea of the drift of the action from
her outline, as she did not give the passages she quoted in
consecutive order. When her book appeared in England in
1813, these fragments were naturally retranslated into English
and represent, if one excepts the Cathedral Scene of Taylor,
28
the first English translation of parts of " Faust." She suc-
ceeded best in rendering the Dungeon scene, which strongly
affected her.^*
Madame de Stael's portraiture of " Faust " did not bring the
English people nearer to an understanding and full apprecia-
tion of Goethe's poem. Her admiration was too reserved.
While she recognized the great genius of Goethe, she never-
theless said in conclusion : " It is to be wished that such pro-
ductions may not be multiplied." She emphasized the parts
that appealed to her most, but she did not have a thorough
understanding of " Faust " as a whole. This led Jean Paul, in
reviewing " L'Allemagne," to speak of Madame de Stael's " too
narrow ill-will against Goethe's '' Faust.' " And further : " The
whole ' Faust ' of Madame de Stael has all fire color bleached
out of it."-^ Her review was not objective. She read into
Goethe's poem things that were not there, and condemned
others as not in harmony with her taste.
But whatever defects may be ascribed to her review of
"Faust," it had the merit of stimulating the interest of the
English people. Her book was widely read, partly because it
had been forbidden in France. Her characterization of Goethe's
poem was attractive withal, and the English read it with
pleasure. " L'Allemagne " was regarded quite generally as
the chief source of the knowledge that the English possessed
of " Faust." As late as 1826 the Quarterly Revieiv remarked
in a discussion of a " Faust " translation : " As all the world is
acquainted with Madame de Stael's ' Germany ' and Schlegel's
' Lectures on the Literature of the Drama,' we may take it for
granted that anything in the shape of a regular analysis of
' Faust ' would be superfluous in this place."-*'
A. W. Schlegel reviewed " Faust " briefly in his lecture on
^ For an estimate of the French translation of Madame de Stael, cf.
Langkavel, " Die franzosischen Ubertragungen von Goethes Faust," Strass-
burg, 1902, pp. 2-7.
^ Heidelberger Jahrbiicher (1815). Translated by Carlyle, " Essays," Vol.
II, pp. 366 and 373. Originally published in Eraser's Magazine, Vol. I, p. 28.
^Quarterly Review (1826), Vol. XXXIV, p. 140. Concerning the pos-
sible share of A. W. Schlegel in " De L'Allemagne," cf. O. F. Walzel's
study in Forschungen sur neueren Literaturgeschichte. Fesfgabe fiir R.
Heinzel. Weimar, 1898, p. 275.
31
immorality is not involved." This criticism is very similar to
that of Madame de Stael. The reviewer then admitted that
there would be no danger in reading "Faust," saying: " lUit
'Faust' with all its horrors may be read without danger, though
not without a painful feeling. The seduction of Gretchen in-
spires a degree of pity for her, and abhorrence for her betrayer,
amounting almost to agony. The hatred and loathing which
Mephistopheles is made to inspire, deprive his characteristic
blasphemy of all power to harm ; and the feeble ambition, the
joyless vice, the tasteless success, and hopeless struggles of
Faustus, with whom, though we pity him, we never sympathize,
afford a splendid and awful moral of the blindness of human
desires."-"
In this instance the suggestion of an important magazine,
that there was no harm in reading " Faust," doubtless relieved a
number of souls who had been enjoying it and deriving benefit
from it. When the reviewer spoke of the " hopeless strug-
gles of Faustus," he had failed to grasp the significance of
that line of the Prologue where the Lord says :
So werd' ich ihn bald in die Klarheit fiihren.
In these criticisms made incidental to reviews of " L'Alle-
magne " and Schlegel's " Lectures," it is very probable that the
critics themselves had not read " Faust," but based their
remarks entirely upon the discussions of Madame de Stael and
Schlegel.
When Goethe's " Faust " was presented to the English, they
were naturally reminded of their own " Faustus " by Mar-
lowe, and made comparisons of the two dramas. ^^ While the
English at that time (about 1814) were not yet willing to con-
cede complete superiority to Goethe's drama, a critic in the
Monthly Reviezu did award the palm to Goethe so far as
genuine poetic power is concerned. He said : " Goethe's
' Faustus ' appears greatly to excel the play of old Marlowe in
the merits of invention and terrible interest. We are not now
speaking of the correctness of that taste which can delight
"Quarterly Review (1814), Vol. X, p. 390.
* Carlyle also compares Marlowe's drama with Goethe's. See infra, p. 54.
32
itself in such wild and revolting fictions; but the distorted
phraseology of the Teutonic drama must not pretend to com-
pare with the strength and purity of the Elizabethan period."^^
This notion of " Faust " as of the " tale of terror " type, a
revolting Teutonic fiction, seems to have been in the minds of a
number of Englishmen at this time.
In 1814 a London publisher, Murray, thought it might be
a good business venture to have " Faust " translated into
English, as it would now probably find a ready market after
having been brought before the public by Madame de Stael.
He negotiated with Coleridge, who, though he accepted the
offer, could not bring himself to do the labor, and so
the project was dropped. It is to be regretted that Cole-
ridge did not undertake the work. His version would have
forestalled many of the poorer translations of a later date.
For several years after Murray's unsuccessful negotiations
with Coleridge, no further attempt was made to bring " Faust "
before the English public. Only the few that knew German,
had an opportunity to become more closely acquainted with
Goethe's poem.
About 1820 the " Outlines to Goethe's Faust," published first
by Retzsch in 18 16, began to attract attention in England.
The edition of 1818 was imported by Bohte, a Covent Garden
bookseller, and found a ready sale.^^ The London Magazine
announced in 1820 that these " Outlines " were for sale in Lon-
don, and briefly described them. A list of the plates was given,
and the descriptions were connected by a short narrative to
show the relation they bear to each other. In the course of this
discussion the Prologue in Heaven is incidentally referred to.
Here for the first time an Englishman recorded his disapproval
of this scene of Goethe's " Faust." The writer said : " The
Germans have not yet resigned that freedom of manner which
may be considered as a proof of innocence or of impudence,
according as it is traced to simplicity of heart, or contempt for
things which most people consider sacred. In short, they take
liberties with attributes, names, and characters, in which it
^'^ Monthly Review (1814), Vol. LXXV, p. 2Z7.
^"Umrisse zu Goethes Faust in 26 Blattern." Tubingen, 1818.
33
would not be pardonable in us to follow them, because we have
in our country got far beyond the patriarchal stage. They do
not hesitate still to introduce the person of the Deity in com-
positions of a mixed nature. "^^
This notion of the English concerning the Prologue will be
discussed in treating a later period, during which the manifes-
tations of this prejudice became very widespread, and even
received countenance in the practice of men like John Stuart
Blackie. The reviewer in the London Magazine knew the
analogy of the Prologue to the proem of the book of Job. It
was with a feeling of self-conscious superiority that he rele-
gated such scenes in the literature of a people to the " patri-
archal stage."
The " Outlines " published in Germany were republished in
England in 1820, together with extracts from " Faust," by
George Soane, under the following title : " Extracts from
Goethe's Tragedy of Faustus, explanatory of the plates by
Retzsch, intended to illustrate that work." Translated by
George Soane.^* There are bound up with this work of Soane
the Retzsch outlines of 1816. The translator, as he called
himself, said he differed from the German analyst in his choice
of quotations. There are twenty-six plates, and each one of
them received a brief explanation in addition to the appropriate
quotation from the drama. In the preface the author stated:
" Goethe's tragedy of ' Faustus ' is the most singular and per-
haps the most original production of modern genius." The
great demand for these "Outlines" prompted another publisher
the same year to bring them before the public, also with an
explanatory analysis of the drama, under the title : " Retzsch's
Series of 26 Outline Illustrations of Goethe's Tragedy of
Faust, engraved from the Originals by Henry Moses. "^' The
plates are alone, and an analysis is bound up with them, having
a separate title : " An analysis of Goethe's Tragedy of Faust in
illustration of Retzsch's Series of Outlines." The text of the
analysis comprises sixty pages. The preface begins : " The
^London Magazine (1820), Vol. I, p. 137.
•* London, 1820, J. H. Bohte.
"London, 1820. Printed for Boosey & Sons.
4
34
* Faust ' of Goethe is perhaps the most original work of German
poesy."^" The rest of the introduction is a free adaptation of
the introduction to the German edition of 1816, mentioned
above. The plates were attractive and made the book popular.
The same year witnessed the first attempt to render selec-
tions of " Faust " in verse. They were published in Black-
wood's Edinburgh Magazine.^'' An analysis of the whole
First Part is given, interspersed with the translations in verse.
The credit for this attempt belongs to an Irish barrister, John
Anster, although the article is sometimes erroneously attributed
to Gillies.^^ It is evident from the references that Anster had
his attention directed to " Faust " by Madame de Stael, as he
mentioned her several times in the course of his remarks. His
translation of passages are open to criticism, and Shelley and
Hayward expressed their disapproval of them. Like the
writer in the London Magazine, Anster objected to the Pro-
logue. He said: "This (the Prologue) contains a great deal
that is written in a light and irreverent tone, and possesses, we
think, very little merit of any kind." Evidently he did not
consider the Prologue to be of much importance, and he utterly
failed to divine its meaning. He did not understand Goethe's
lines :
Ein guter Mensch in seinem dunklen Drange
1st sich des rechten Weges wolil bewusst.
Since he did not understand the Prologue, he had to explain
the moral issue of the drama in another way, and he did so to
his satisfaction by saying that Faust is not guilty, but is merely
a tool of Mephistopheles, and therefore his guilt must be trans-
ferred to the Devil. " Faustus," he said, " is represented as
being as unstable as water, with an active, impatient mind, with
a kindly and affectionate heart. We feel that he loves the poor
girl whom he destroys — we transfer the guilt to the Satanic
being by whom he is attended — ^we pity and forgive him. The
*° Goethe received these "Outlines." He wrote in 1820 that they were
making " viel Aufsehen " in England. Later, he said : " Die Kupfer zum
' Faust ' von Retzsch gezeichnet, erschienen im Nachstich zu London hochst
reinlich und genau." Graf, pp. 268, 269, and 315.
^ Vol. VII, pp. 235-258, HorcE Germaniccr, No. 5.
^ Thus, for example, by " Poole's Index."
36
moral sense is not wounded by an endeavor to justify his
crimes, for we regard him, not as a culprit, but as a sufferer
under the influence of an evil demon."*"*
While Anster did not understand " Faust " as a whole, he
still had a sympathetic mind for its beauties. The sublimity
of Goethe's conceptions, and the delicate rhythm of the verse
captivated him. Like others, Anster held that Coleridge, who
had, in his " Christabel," approached more nearly than any
other English poet to the versification of " Faust," would be
the translator to give Goethe's poem in musical English. He
said : " Goethe seems to us to have conveyed the most lofty
conceptions of the nature of man, and those beings with whom
we are connected for good or evil, in language rich, yet simple
— dignified, yet familiar — and in parts of the work, we almost
believe while we are listening, in the magical effects attributed
to sound. Nothing that we know in our language can give any
idea of the charm we allude to, but a few of the most inspired
passages of Coleridge."
Anster's sympathetic delineation of " Faust," with the trans-
lation of copious extracts, did not fail to influence the readers
of the magazine. There is on record an utterance of the poet,
Thomas Moore, who was signally affected by the reading of
these extracts. He wrote in his Journal, October i6, 1820: " I
sat up to read the account of ' Dr. Faustus ' in the Edinburgh
Magazine and, before I went to bed, experienced one of those
bursts of devotion which, perhaps, are worth all the church-
going forms in the world. Tears came fast from me as I knelt
down to adore the one only God whom I acknowledge, and
poured forth the aspirations of a soul deeply grateful for all
his goodness."*"
The year 1820 is important in the annals of " Faust " dis-
cussion in England. A second noteworthy criticism appeared
that year in another periodical. In July the London Magazine
announced that it had received a masterly paper on Goethe's
" Loc. cit., p. 236.
*" " Memoirs, Journal, and Correspondence of Thomas Moore." Edited
by the Right Hon. Lord John Russell, M. P. In 8 Volumes. London, 1853.
Vol. Ill, p. 157.
36
" Faust " which was to be published in the next number. Inci-
dentally the announcement said: ''The ' Faustus ' of Goethe
(generally considered his best production) is still but very
imperfectly known here (though it is now spoken of with much
interest) even in respect of its plan, and the peculiarities of its
execution. Translation it is said to defy — a bad or impotent
translation would be a great nuisance to England and a crying
injustice to Germany, from which we still hope to remain free,
but we have heard certain hints that make us tremble."*^
The paper itself was published in the next number, August,
1820. It is the best appreciation of Goethe's " Faust " that
had appeared in England up to this time. One would fain
know who the author was, but he can not be identified.
After a general appreciation of Goethe and his works, the
writer passed to a discussion of " Faust."*^ His methods were
scholarly. He began by giving the substance of the popular
tradition of Faust and its relations to Goethe's work. Then
Lessing's " Faust " fragment was treated, and a comparison of
Lessing's and Goethe's plans made. On this point he said in
substance : In Lessing's " Faust " the influence employed is
extrinsic — namely, infernal suggestion, which is successful in
perverting the mind of Faust. Goethe, on the other hand, is
not content to show the perversions of his hero, availing him-
self of the direct and straightforward agency of an evil spirit,
but he adventures on the more difficult task of deriving them
solely from the internal springs of his nature, acting according
to the laws of human thought and feeling.
A careful resume of " Faust " is then given. Of translation
there is little — only a part of the scene with the Earth Spirit.
It is a matter for surprise that the reviewer, in his excel-
lent account of Goethe's poem, made no reference to the Pro-
logue. He said that Goethe had originally intended to write
a trilogia, but that this First Part formed a whole by itself
and fully displayed the dominating idea which governed him
in the conception of the work. And yet the writer felt that
the drama as it stood was not complete, that the story of Faust
*^ London Magazine (1820), Vol. II, p. 6.
''^London Magazine (1820), Vol. II, pp. 125-142.
37
could not possibly be at an end. In a very sane way he de-
ferred the critcism which the unsolved moral problem called
forth, and hoped that Goethe would yet enlighten the public on
the fate of Faust. He said : " The interest we take in Margaret
is so strong as almost to destroy that which we ought to feel
in the fortunes of Faustus, the hero of the piece. This would
be a fault in the poem, were it completed : but as we have but
the First Part, and no one can tell how dextrously the poet
may be able to conduct us from an episode back to the original
story, criticism must be silent on this ix)int — and instead of
displaying its rules, content itself with hoping that the author
will yet give completion to his work."*^
While the reviewer felt the incompleteness of " Faust " and
saw its irregularities, he nevertheless appreciated its sublime
beauties. On this point he said :** " The numerous and tran-
scendental beauties do not consist either in the quality or con-
tinued importance of the actions of the personages; or in the
art with which these are interwoven together, or in the nature
of the plot or its progressive development. Its power and
brilliancy — and it has much of both — are rather constituted by
the truth and richness of the sentiments suggested by the char-
acters and the situations, expressed and illustrated by means
of new images, always evident — with wonderful ease as well
as variety of style, and a rhythmical harmony full of effect ;
in the frank boldness of the touch with which are depicted
the most secret phenomena of the mind ; in the keenness and
perspicacity of the moral views, which extending themselves
over creation convert it, as it were, into a vast satire."
Such an appreciation of " Faust " at this time in England
deserves to be noted. Ordinary critics dwelt chiefly upon the
moral aspects of Goethe's poem. They discussed whether
Goethe was culpable for portraying, in some instances, the
immoral, or whether he transgressed the bounds of propriety
in representing the Deity in the Prologue. Here was a critic
who saw the merits of " Faust " very much as moderns see
them. The reviewer, however, also pointed out what he con-
*^ Loc. cit., p. 141.
** Loc. cit., p. 135.
38
sidered a fault in the poem — the Walpurgis-Night. Like some
other critics since his time, he felt that it was not attuned to the
pathos of the situation, and that Goethe should have spared
his readers this inopportune revel on the Blocksberg. But if
one reads Witkowski's explanation of the dramatic function of
the Walpurgis-Night, one is convinced of its absolute necessity
in the economy of the drama. He shows that this appeal to
the basest passions of Faust must be made, that he must be
put to the final test of the most powerful attractions that
Mephistophelcs is able to offer. If Faust finds permanent
satisfaction in these materialistic pleasures, he is lost. But
Mephistophelcs does not succeed in fascinating and holding
him. When the vision of Margaret appears, he rouses him-
self to new activity, and this is the beginning of his progress
to higher and better things.*^
During the next year (1821) there appeared a revision and
enlargement of the Boosey publication. " Faustus : From the
German of Goethe. The greater part of Part One, trans-
lated in verse and connected by a prose narrative. With 27
Illustrations in Outline by Moritz Retzsch." The introduction
stated : " The slight analysis drawn up as an accompaniment
to Retzsch's Outlines being out of print, the publishers felt
desirous to supply its place with a more careful abstract of
' Faust,' which, while it served as a book of reference and
explanation for the use of the purchasers of the plates, might
also possess some claims to interest the general reader as an
independent publication."*^ There are twenty-seven plates, one
more than in the previous edition. The added plate is a front-
ispiece illustrative of the Prelude in the Theater, entitled:
"Zum Vorspiel." According to Oswald, it was copied from
Cornelius. This is the publication against which Carlyle raised
his voice in such an emphatic manner. It brought forth in
1822 his Essay on Goethe's " Faust," which is the next impor-
tant event in the history of " Faust " criticism in England. It
^Ci. Witkowski, " Faust,"- Kommentar, p. 115. See also, "Die Wal-
purgisnacht im ersten Teile von Goethes Faust." Leipzig, 1894.
" The abstract could also be purchased separately. It was a book of
86 pp.
39
will be again referred to in discussing Carlyle's attitude toward
" Faust." Suffice it to say here, that he characterized the
analysis of the Boosey publication as " interspersed with ex-
tracts of considerable length and feeble bits of translation."
He protested against a work of this kind because it was mis-
leading as to the real nature of Goethe's poem.^"
The magazines also took up the discussion of the Boosey
publication. The European Magazine and London Review
spoke more favorably of it than Carlyle. It said : " That which
has the most contributed to render ' Faust ' more popular in
England, is the series of beautiful Outlines by Retzsch, which
delighted all those who read the tragedy, and made those who
had not anxious to peruse it."** But this magazine took into
consideration only the plates. If the analysis of this work by
Boosey was reviewed, it could not be otherwise than unfavor-
ably, as it gave only a distorted view of Goethe's " Faust."
Thus the London Magazine inclined to Carlyle's opinion of
the inadequacy of this abstract. Its criticism is as follows:
" Boosey has published a very pleasing abstract of this laby-
rinthine poem with copious and sufficiently faithful versions in
blank verse, which can give the English reader no very satis-
factory idea of this drama, written in the most varied meters,
principally rimed, and which is essentially lyrical, both in con-
ception and execution."*''
The English found these outlines attractive, and when, in
i823,Gower's translation appeared, it became quite fashionable
to buy Retzsch's " Outlines to Faust " and Gower's transla-
tion. ^° In 1823 a German edition of " Faust " was brought
out by a London publisher for those who wished to read it in
the original. ^^ Shelley's fragments also appeared in the early
twenties,^^ the Walpurgis-Night in the Liberal in 1822, and the
Prologue in his " Posthumous Poems " in 1824. Gower's
translation was republished in a second edition in 1825.
" Cf. infra, p. 53 f.
«Vol. LXXX (1821), p. 362.
"Vol. IV (1821), p. 657.
"* Cf, infra, p. 99.
""Faust, eine Tragodie." London, 1823. J. H. Bohte.
" Cf. infra, p. 94.
40
In the numerous reviews of Shelley's and Gower's transla-
tions, an opinion was now and then ventured on the character
and merits of " Faust," although the reviewers dwelt chiefly
on the qualities of the translations as such. The Quarterly
Review regretted the omission of the Prologue by Gower, since
it was all but fatal to the understanding of the drama as a
whole. The discussion continued : " ' Faust,' never concluded
by Goethe and thus deprived of its commencement by his
translator, can no more be expected to produce its just effect
on the mind of the reader, than the book of Job without its
first and last chapters."^^ The reviewer touched on the moral
aspect of " Faust," saying : " No one who weighs well the last
scene of the poem can doubt that if the author had ever com-
pleted it, the repentance of the seducer would have come forth,
and been rewarded as fully as that of his victim Margaret."
The importance of the Prologue for an understanding of
' Faust ' as a whole, was here for the first time emphatically
set forth. The speculation as to the exact nature of Goethe's
plan with respect to his hero was rather hazardous, especially
as the reviewer based his guess on the last scene. All that
Goethe chose to tell in advance of the eventual fate of Faust
is given in the Prologue. What he says, is that Faust shall be
led into the light. How that was to be done was left unsolved.
We only hear later that he is to see both the " little world " and
the " great world."^*
The London Magazine, usually sane in its " Faust " criti-
cism, called attention to the futility of such prognostications
as to the future fate of Goethe's hero. In reviewing Gower's
translation it expressed itself as follows on this point : " An
examination of the plot and moral of the piece would be beside
our present purpose. We shall not dive into the poet's mind
and canvass his intentions. We shall not adopt the antithetical
arrangement of Madame de Stael who insists that the author's
meaning is, that as Margaret suffered for her crime, and was
pardoned by heaven, so Faust's life is to be saved but his soul
damned; nor the more human disposition of the Quarterly
^^ Quarterly Review (1826), XXXIV, p. 138.
" Cf. 1. 2052.
41
reviewer, that if the author had ever completed the poem, the
repentance of the seducer would have come forth, and been
rewarded as fully as that of his victim Margaret. We abstain
from all such speculations, for the simple reason that as the
author has been contented to leave the matter unsettled, we
deem it superfluous to settle it for liim."°°
The Edinburgh Rcviczv, however, did not hesitate to enter
into a discussion of the moral aspects of " Faust."'" It said,
in substance, that notwithstanding the omission of sundry
objectionable passages by Lord Gower, the immoral tendency
of the design and incidents was so ground into the whole sub-
stance of the work, that the book would surely be outlawed at
once by Lord Eldon. It saw in " Faust " only the " story of
the adventures of a German student, who having overread
himself into weariness and disappointment, quits his books for
life and nature, by turning debauchee and seducing a servant-
maid." Judging by this criticism, one might suppose that the
reviewer was acquainted only with the "Fragment" of 1790,
and based his opinion on that, rather than on Part First as a
whole. But the more reasonable assumption is, that he did not
read " Faust " in the original at all, and that his misconceptions
are to be traced to the mutilated translation of Gower. This
critique was one of the first fruits of that wretched version
which was in large measure to blame for the continued misin-
terpretation of Goethe's poem.
While this reviewer found much that was objectionable in
" Faust," he was nevertheless willing to concede the power and
genius displayed in Goethe's drama. He called it, " a sort of
monster in literature, redeemed only as a work of art, by the
prodigious hardihood displayed in its invention, and by the
marvellous ease of its execution." Like some other critics, he
found it decidedly German in its nature, and as such, far
removed from English sympathies. " ' Faust ' appears to us,
both in its matter and manner, the extreme compound of
German genius and German extravagance. . . . The poetry of
course is the chief compensation which will support an English
^''London Magazine (1826), Vol. XVI, p. 165.
^Edinburgh Review (1830), Vol. LII, p. 252.
42
reader and carry him through these chambers of incongruous
imagery."
The early years of the fourth decade^^ exhibit a renewed
activity in the criticism and translation of Goethe's " Faust."
The death of the Sage of Weimar in 1832 was keenly felt even
in England. The love and respect evinced by the Germans on
this occasion for Goethe, could not help but increase his pres-
tige and influence abroad. Then, the publication of the Second
Part of " Faust " in his " Posthumous Works " also gave a
new impetus to the study of his masterpiece.
In 1833 appeared Hayward's translation of Part First. For
ten years Gower alone had held the field, but his rendering
of " Faust " had not proved satisfactory, and the need of an
adequate version was felt very strongly. In Hayward's trans-
lation the English were for the first time made familiar with
the exact contents of Part First in their own language. In
connection with the review of Hayward's " Faust " and the
other translations which appeared during this decade,^^ there
is now and then some comment on the character and merits of
Goethe's drama.
To begin with those reviews that take into consideration
only Part First, the Dublin University Magazine discussed
"Faust" and the minor poems of Goethe in 1836. No refer-
ence was made to the Second Part. According to this reviewer,
the history of the calamities and struggles of " Faust " is a
satire on the constitution of society, and his destruction another
on Divine Providence. He continued : " We can find nothing
in the poem to justify us in the belief that Goethe intended to
leave us in the supposition that he (Faust) was ultimately
saved, and we can not attach much weight to the speculations
of those who choose to invent a termination of their own for
the drama. In the work of Goethe we believe that Faustus
â– " The chronology has not been followed exactly here, in order to introduce
the previous belated review (1830) of Gower's "Faust" in its proper con-
nection. It is to be noted that the year 1828 witnessed the publication of
Carlyle's "Helena" in the Foreign Reviezv. Cf. "Essays," Vol. I, p. 171.
Goethe's " Helena " had appeared in Goethe's works, " Ausgabe letzter
Hand." Stuttgart and Tubingen, 1828, Vol. IV. Cf. infra, p. 56.
"The principal ones were Blackie and Syme (1834), and Anster (1835).
43
is destroyed; and his destruction is, we repeat it, a libel on
Divine Providence.""" The reviewer did not find any hint in
the drama as to the disposition Goethe intended to make of
his hero. He evidently based his conclusion upon the last
scene of Part First. He admired the Chants of the Archangels,
and quoted it in several English translations, but he did not
refer to the last part of the Prologue in Heaven where he
would have found the explanation of his difficulties. The
reviewer was a wanderer in the dark, and was no doubt en-
lightened when he stumbled upon the Second Part which had
been published for three years. "^^ Since Faust was not to be
saved, in the opinion of the reviewer, the drama was not to
be regarded as teaching a moral lesson, but as a specimen of
pure power. He regarded it as the " boldest and most vivid
manifestation of power that, as a poem, the whole world per-
haps is capable of exhibiting." He saw in it, " fervor of senti-
ment — force of delineation — fidelity of character — grace, and
occasionally gorgeousness of diction." The reviewer showed
that he was not prejudiced, in spite of the fact that he did not
understand the moral significance of the drama. He did not,
like so many of his compatriots, on this account condemn the
whole drama as worthless and dangerous.
With the year 1833 the reviews of the Second Part began to
appear. One naturally looks forward to these discussions
with interest, expecting that most of the difficulties which the
English had in understanding and appreciating Goethe's mas-
terpiece would now be removed. Goethe's entire plan was
then revealed and the moral problem of " Faust " had been
solved. But one is compelled to turn away from most of
these reviews in disappointment. The misinterpretation of
the Second Part in England is a long story. The beginning
was made by Hay ward in the Foreign Quarterly Revieiv in
1833.®^ Other critics like Lewes (1855), Blackie (1886), Sime
(1888), and Seely (1893), were all blind to the meaning and
merits of the Second Part.
""Vol. VII, p. 278.
*" He used the " Ausgabe letzter Hand," where " Faust " appeared in Vol.
XII, in 1829.
*^ Foreign Quarterly Review (1833), Vol. XII, p. 81.
44
Hayward had devoted much time to the study of " Faust,"
Part First, and he, of all Englishmen, ought to have been best
prepared for an appreciation of the Second Part, but he failed
to understand it. The object of his review was a discussion
of Goethe's " Posthumous Works," but he dwelt chiefly on the
Second Part of " Faust," giving a resume and translating
extracts in prose. He said that there had been so much specu-
lation as to the real meaning and tendency of " Faust," that
the English public would be glad to know the conclusion of
the plot. He thought, however, that no further disquisition
on the philosophical object of the poem would be tolerated, and
so he intended to avoid all attempts of this sort. According
to Hayward, if one compares the problem proposed at the
outset of the poem with what must now be termed the solution
of it, one cannot help suspecting that the author had no definite
object at all ; that he began his drama in a happy state of reck-
lessness and left the ending to take care of itself. Comparing
the two parts of the drama, Hayward said : " The Second Part
presents few of those fine trains of philosophical thinking, or
those exquisite touches of natural pathos, which form the great
attraction of the First. The principal charm of the present
work will be found to consist in the idiomatic ease of the lan-
guage, the spirit with which the lighter measures are struck
off; and above all the unrivalled beauty of the descriptive pas-
sages; a department of art in which Goethe appears to have
maintained his supremacy to the last."^^
While Hayward was willing to admit the beauties of the
entire Second Part, he was utterly unable to comprehend the
final solution of the problem of the drama. On this subject
he expressed himself as follows : " We are wholly at a loss to
conceive how the pleasure of draining bogs, or even of con-
tending eternally for existence with the sea, could be of so
exalted a nature as to make the bare anticipation of it suffi-
cient to content a man who had run the whole round of sub-
lunary enjoyment — indeed Faust had only to be born a Dutch-
man to enjoy this last pleasure from the first. Still less can
^ Loc. cit., p. 84.
45
we understand why the Devil is cheated out of his due; for
not one virtuous action, and scarcely one ennobling thought in
addition to those which he started with, is anywhere attributed
to Faust. His soul appears to have made little, if any progress
toward fitting it for that higher region it is wafted to, nor, to
say truth, in his adventures to inform or purify the mind or
heart of any man.""^
One sees that the reviewer was hemmed in too much by his
prejudices to be able to appreciate the solution of the moral
problem as proposed by Goethe. Naturally he wished Faust
to be punished for his misdeeds, according to the saga, as he
had it in mind. But Goethe had planned to save his hero,
though he does not make use of punishment and penance in
the orthodox way. Still, in a measure, Faust does atone for
his sins by his intense suffering in the last scenes of Part First.
He is undergoing excruciating agony from the time when,
during the orgies of the Walpurgis-Night, the apparition of
Margaret strikes him like a dart, until he is compelled in the
dungeon to witness the heartrending despair of the woman he
loves. What suffering is portrayed when Faust exclaims:
" Der Alenschheit ganzer Jammer f asst mich an ! " or again :
" Werd' ich den Jammer iiberstehn ! " and : " O war' ich nie
geboren ! "*** The reader's sympathy in this scene is given to
a great extent to the innocent and unfortunate Margaret, but
Faust's sufferings are none the less real and intense.
It may be said, of course, that Faust has caused all this
misery and then given himself up to wild revels without any
thought of Margaret. But it must not be forgotten that Faust
is represented as under evil guidance, and in spite of the expe-
riences that he has had, his heart is still sound and his con-
science still unseared.®' His whole nature responds when he
becomes aware of the fate of Margaret. Therefore Goethe
could solve the problem as he did. He could cure his hero of
the pangs of remorse in refreshing sleep under Lethean dews,
and have him lifted to a higher level by the glorious vision of
"Loc. cit., p. 105.
"Lines 4406, 4441, and 4596.
°* Cf. Calvin Thomas, " Faust," Part II, p. xxxi.
46
an Alpine sunrise. Then he could use the experiences of the
" great world " to bring Faust to a final realization of the
supreme moment in the anticipation of an extensive work to
be done in the interest of humanity.
As to the eventual employment of Faust in draining bogs by
which Hayward is disturbed, that is important only as a con-
crete expression of the underlying principle of altruistic activ-
ity. Other expressions of the same idea might have been
used by Goethe. But to him the thought of reclaiming large
tracts of land from the sea and making them habitable for
future generations, had a peculiar fascination. It was closely
connected with his ideas of colonization as expressed in the
" Wanderjahre." The question of subduing the sea was a live
one at that time, and the subject of much popular discussion.^^
To Goethe it represented the best possible opportunity for the
full and free activity of his hero in working out his salvation.
Still he does not permit Faust to gain heaven on account of these
plans for wide altruistic activity, but for the reason that a soul
that strives is fit for further development in the world to come.
After such a review as that just discussed it is not surprising
to find a remark in one of the magazines like the following:
" We make no allusion to the wretched Second Part of ' Faust '
which recently appeared among Goethe's ' Posthumous Works.'
The editor who sanctioned its publication has done his utmost
to degrade his author's reputation."®^
It is with pleasure that one turns from such benightedness
to the very favorable and appreciative review in the Dublin
University Magazine of the year 1833.^^ Here was at least
one reviewer who was able to value " Faust " as a whole as
early as the first year after the publication of the Second Part.
To begin with, the reviewer quoted the following lines of
" Faust " :
Daran erkenn' ich den gelehrten Herrn !
Was ihr nicht tastet, steht euch meilenfern.**
°'Cf. Goethe-Jahrbuch, Vol. XVII, p. 221.
*' Quarterly Review (1834), Vol. LII, p. 21, footnote.
** Vol. II, p. 361. Discussion of Goethe's "Posthumous Works," No. I,
" Faust."
*° Lines 4917-18.
47
He then spoke of the recognized standing of " Faust " and of
its critics, saying: "None but such as Mephistophelcs alludes
to in this motto, none but such as ridiculed Shakespeare and
IMilton, in short none but the curs that bark at the moon, ever
have attempted seriously to oppose the general opinion of those
whose opinion is worth regard. The First Part, however, left
the work in an unfinished state; not only the Prologue in
Heaven, but the whole tendency and close of that volume made
all its admirers look forward to its continuation and final
accomplishment. . . . We received it only a few days ago, but
after perusing it carefully, our admiration of the author has,
if possible, still increased, and we feel bound to exclaim, 'a
master! aye, and every inch a master.' The traces of old age
are by no means visible in this new production of this veteran
poet."
The reviewer then gave a resume of Part First, saying that
it was necessary to an understanding of the Second Part. He
quoted part of the Prologue in Shelley's translation:
And stand ashamed when failure teaches thee
That a good man, even in his darkest longings.
Is well aware of the right way.
" From these lines," he said, " it is quite evident that the poet
from the beginning contemplated to send Faust ultimately to
heaven, and we really wonder how it could ever have been
supposed in Germany as well as in this country, that the drama
was concluded with the First Part and that Faust was to be
triumphantly carried to Hell by the successful tempter."
This criticism speaks for itself. It is to be regretted that
the reviewer did not complete his discussion of the entire
Second Part. For some reason he stopped abruptly after
giving a resume with translated extracts of the first act of Part
Second. His views on the entire " Faust " problem would no
doubt have proved to be of much interest and significance. If
the entire English and German world could have viewed the
plan of " Faust " with his eyes, much of the misinterpretation
of later days might have been averted.
A similar appreciative discussion appeared in the Foreign
48
Quarterly Review in 1840.'^° The writer said that he beheved
he had the key to solve the enigma that is supposed to be
involved in Goethe's " Faust." He emphasized that " Faust "
is to be studied as a whole, that both parts are to be considered
as one. Further he said in substance : Goethe intended to teach
no lesson by this poem; he did not wish to point out a new
way to salvation or invent theological or metaphysical dogmas.
Goethe aimed at being a poetic artist, and not a revealer. Men
and their interests served him as the materials to be combined
in a work of art. In such a poem, having man for its subject,
the most heterogeneous subjects mingle, but if one does not
discover in this immense variety beauty and completeness, the
work has not been studied sufficiently.
This appreciation is quite modern in spirit. In fact it agrees
with the latest utterances of the best " Faust " scholars. The
enjoyment of "Faust" as a work of art — the consideration
of the underlying idea of the poem as secondary to its artistic
merits — the unity of plan and purposes of both parts — are all
principles of modern " Faust " scholarship. The reviewer
thought that Goethe did not intend his work for the public at
large. He said the critic must therefore not condemn produc-
tions like " Faust " on account of their unpopularity. Of
course " Faust " is above the ordinary populace. Goethe has
always exercised his strongest influence on the few and not
on the many.
But not all critics thought as favorably of Goethe's poem in
its entirety as the last two writers mentioned. The same year
the Dublin Review published an article entitled : " The sacred
Poetry of ' Faust,' " in which a number of translations were
discussed and the meaning of " Faust " as a whole was con-
sidered.''^ The reviewer said in substance: The Second Part
of " Faust," if regarded as a completion of the First, com-
pletely overthrows the theory that " Faust " is a grand moral
or religious allegory, designed to illustrate the insufficiency
of earthly pleasures, whether of mind or of sense, for the hap-
'" Vol. XXV, p. 50, American edition. The pagination of the English
edition differs from this.
''^Dublin Review (1840), Vol. IX, p. 477.
49
piness of man. Had Faust been prepared like Caldcron's
Cyprian by repentance and martyrdom or even by protracted
trial, one might see in his ultimate deliverance some moral
lesson. But the strange and incongruous close of the mystery
in which the magician unpurified, and as far as meets the eye,
almost unrepentant, is at once transferred to the heaven which
he had insulted, is utterly at variance with any rational theory
of religion and morals.
The reviewer preferred to regard the First Part as an inde-
pendent, though unfinished poem, and to consider its object
and scope without reference to the strange and incongruous
lights thrown upon it by the Second. He discussed what he
called the sacred poetry of the First Part, dwelling upon the
Chants of the Archangels, the Easter songs, the Mater Dolorosa,
and the Cathedral Scene. He conceded the beauty and sub-
limity of these scenes. These parts of " Faust " he was willing
to accept, but he had no appreciation of the poem as a whole.
Like Hayward his difficulty lay mainly in the conclusion to the
Second Part. He was also a child of his age in looking first
of all for the moral the poem was supposed to teach.
During the fifth decade the English did not pay much atten-
tion to " Faust." The first wave of interest in the Second
Part had now subsided. It is also to be noted, as an expla-
nation for this temporary lack of interest, that the literary
conditions in Germany at that time were not favorable to the
extension of the influence of Goethe and his " Faust." The
battle concerning the relative greatness of Goethe and Schiller
had been going on there for some time, and its influence was
beginning to be felt in England. jMenzel's " History of Ger-
man Literature,"^^ with its diatribes on Goethe, which had been
published in Germany in 1828, was translated into English in
1840. The English received Menzel's work with favor. The
important magazines reviewed it."^ In some instances they
were not quite ready to gulp down all that jMenzel had to say
""German Literature, translated from the German of Menzel, with
Notes," by T. Gordon, 4 vols, Oxford, 1840,
''^Edinburgh Review (1836), Vol, LXIII, p. 442, Blackivood's Magazine
(1841), Vol. L, p. 143, and Foreign Quarterly Review (1835), Vol, XVI,
pp. 1-26.
5
50
about Goethe, yet most English critics agreed with him that
Schiller ought to be placed above Goethe. In the wake of such
an influence it is possible to find such scurrilous articles as the
one in Blackwood's Magazine in 1839 entitled: "Goethe and
the Germans."^*
The various theories concerning " Faust," expounded by
some of the German critics, who considered Goethe's poem as
an enigma to be solved, had also found their way to England.
The English themselves had also looked first of all to the moral
that " Faust " was expected to teach, but the excess to which
some of the Germans carried this allegorical interpretation
caused comment even among them. The Edinburgh Review
adverted to this tendency in Germany as early as 1833, stating
that the Germans tried to find in " Faust " hidden meanings
and occult wisdom for men in all walks of life. The absurd is
reached when it reported that a professor of medicine in
Wiirzburg proposed a course of lectures in which he would
treat especially of medicine and the most favorable method to
be followed for its study according to Goethe's " Faust."'^^
Renewed interest in Goethe's works dates from the appear-
ance of Lewes's biography of Goethe in 1855.'^*' Lewes was a
critic of recognized standing in England. He tried to make
Goethe and his works palatable to the English. To the present
student of Goethe his biography has too much of an apologetic
character. Lewes, in his criticism of " Faust," says that he
troubles himself little with " considerations on the idea " of
Goethe's poem, because artists have quite other objects in view
than the developing of an idea.'^'^ So far his views of " Faust "
are acceptable. The English, as could be observed in the criti-
cisms that were quoted, were most intent on finding what the
philosophical teaching of " Faust " was. This tendency char-
acterized the entire " Faust " criticism of England during the
period covered by this study. There were, as was pointed out,
some exceptions, where reviewers emphasized that " Faust "
^*Vol. XLV, p. 247.
^'Vol. LVII, p. 138.
'* " Life and Works of Goethe," by G. H. Lewes. In 2 vols. London, 1855.
"Vol. 11, p. 283.
51
was a literary work of art and was to be enjoyed as such,
without any special consideration of its " idea." But upon the
whole, the study of " Faust " was centered chiefly upon its
moral problem. In this respect, therefore, Lewes deserves
commendation for calling the attention of the English to the
necessity of an artistic appreciation of Goethe's poem.
But it is not so much to Lewes's credit that he is entirely
blind to the merits of the Second Part of " Faust." He con-
siders it a failure and an elaborate mistake. To him it is
inferior to Part First, and requires a key to its understanding
on account of its allegory.'^^ In this, of course, Lewes is quite
in accord with the views current in England at his time. The
misinterpretation of the Second Part of " Faust " continued
even several decades longer. There were always a few who
understood and appreciated the whole of Goethe's master-
piece, but it was not until Coupland's " The Spirit of Goethe's
Faust," appeared in 1885, that the interdependence of both
parts was insisted upon. He took his cue from Herman
Grimm and proclaimed emphatically the unity of both the First
and the Second Parts. "'^
During the second half of the century the study of Goethe's
poem in England received many favorable impulses from Ger-
many, and was carried on in a more scholarly way than before.
The philological and historical interpretation of " Faust " by
Scherer and his school exerted a strong influence on the
methods of English " Faust " criticism.
The newer spirit of German " Faust " scholarship, while by
no means disdaining philological investigation, aims by the aid
of esthetic criticism to further the appreciation and enjoyment
of Goethe's poem as an artistic whole. How wide the influence
of this method — as defined by Erich Schmidt at the ]\Iiinchener
Versammlung deutscher Philologen in 1891,^** and admirably
exemplified by the recent work of Witkowski on " Faust "^^ —
will become in England, remains yet to be seen.
"Vol. II, p. 423.
"W. C. Coupland. London, 1885.
'" Beilage zur Miinchener Allgemeinen Zeitung (1891), No. 143.
"^ " Goethes Faust," published by Georg Witkowski, Leipzig, 1906.
CHAPTER III
The Attitude of Eminent Literary Men Toward
Goethe's " Faust "
Under this head Carlyle, Coleridge, Byron, Scott, and Lamb
will be treated. Shelley, having rendered fragments of " Faust,"
is listed with the translators. Investigations of the attitude
of Wordsworth,^ Southey, and De Ouincey^ to German litera-
ture have produced nothing of special interest bearing on
" Faust." Macaulay^ seems to have studiously avoided ex-
pressing an opinion on Goethe.
I. Thomas Carlyle
The relation of Thomas Carlyle to German literature has
been treated by Streuli^ (1895) and by Kraeger^ (1899).
More recently Carlyle's relation to Goethe has been discussed
by Baumgarten,^ but rather from a politico-social and ethical,
than from a literary standpoint. Kraeger divides Carlyle's life
into three periods. The first, his youth, extends to the year
1819. The second period, during which he was strongly under
the influence of German literature, extends to about 1840.
During the third period he occupied himself chiefly with his-
tory and social questions. This study falls within the scope
of the second period.
Carlyle began the study of German in 1819. On February
15, he wrote to Mr. Mitchell that he was receiving instruction
^ On the relation of Wordsworth and Southey to German literature, cf.
Studien sur vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte, Vol. I, pp. 273-305.
^ Dun, W. A. " Thomas De Quincey's Relation to German Literature and
Philosophy," Diss. Strassburg, 1901.
^ Macaulay's unfavorable view of Goethe may be gathered from the
"Memoirs of Thomas Moore," London, 1856, Vol. VII, p. 280.
* " Thomas Carlyle als Vermittler deutscher Literatur und deutschen
Geistes," by W. Streuli, Ziirich, 1895.
" " Carlyles Stellung zur deutschen Sprache und Literatur," Anglia, Vol.
XXII, pp. 145-342.
° " Carlyle und Goethe," by Otto Baumgarten, Tubingen, 1906.
52
53
in German from one Robert Jardine of Gottingen in return
for instruction in French.' In March he said that he was able
to read books with a dictionary and was reading a stupid play
of Kotzebue's. As early as 1820 he undertook the reading of
" Faust." Goethe's poem was then attracting much attention
and Carlyle was no doubt curious to know its contents. He
was at once powerfully affected, as may be seen from his first
letter to Goethe, June 24, 1824. Carlyle wrote : " Four years
ago when I read your ' Faust ' among the mountains of my
native Scotland, I could not but fancy I might one day see you,
and pour out before you as before a Father, the woes and wan-
derings of a heart whose mysteries you seemed so thoroughly
to comprehend and could so beautifully represent."^
In 1822 he was at work upon a criticism of " Faust" which
appeared in the Nezv Edinburgh Review, April, 1822.® The
essay for some reason was not printed in Carlyle's complete
works, but there can be no doubt that it was written by him.
He wrote to Alexander Churchill January 12, 1822: "After
returning, I set to on a criticism of ' Faust,' which the Review
people were wanting"; and to John Carlyle, April 7, 1822:
" I am going to enclose the critique on ' Faust.' You may show
it to Ben, if he cares for it; and then let them have it at
home.""
This essay on " Faust " was prompted by the analysis of
Goethe's drama which had appeared in connection with
Retzsch's " Outlines." Carlyle's criticism was directed espe-
cially against the publication^^ of Boosey and Sons in 1821.
After referring to this analysis as worthless and misleading as
to the real nature of Goethe's poem, he gave a careful resume.
He hoped to show the English people the real contents of
" Faust," believing that in this way erroneous ideas in regard
'"Early Letters," Norton, London, 1886. Vol. L PP. 209 and 227.
* " Correspondence between Goethe and Carlyle," Norton, London,
1887, p. 2.
' Kraeger is in error when he says (p. 149) that the "Essay on Faust"
appeared in 1821. The A'^^it' Edinburgh Review is not to be confounded
with the Edinburgh Review.
>» " Early Letters," Vol. II, pp. 25 and 55-
" Cf. supra, p. 38.
54
to its nature could be removed, and an appreciation of the
poem stimulated. His motive in writing the essay, he himself
best expressed when he said : " We have felt mortified at
seeing the bright aerial creations of Goethe metamorphosed
into such a stagnant, vapid caput mortuum." This excellent
analysis is the principal merit of Carlyle's essay. The English
were here for the first time made familiar with the exact con-
tents of " Faust." While Carlyle was filled with admiration
for Goethe's drama, he nevertheless pointed out what he con-
sidered its main weakness — its loose dramatic structure. He
emphasized, however, that he was not referring to the unities
of Aristotle or of the French school, but to the lack of unity
in the general plan of the work. Still, he was willing to
pardon this, since " Faust " is not constructed on common dra-
matic principles and is not adapted for theatrical representation.
Its occasional extravagances and heterogeneous composition,
he thought, have therefore a subordinate propriety.
Like some other English critics, Carlyle compared Goethe's
" Faust " with the " Faustus " of Marlowe. On this point he
said in substance : Marlowe has done little more than cast into
dramatic form the story of the devil and Dr. Faustus, while
Goethe's conception both of Faust and Mephistopheles is much
more in harmony with a refined and intellectual age and far
more ingenious and poetical. The introduction of magic merely
serves as a means of illustrating certain feelings, and unfolding
certain propensities which exist in the mind independently of
magic; and the belief we are required to give it, is of the most
loose and transient nature. As to the conclusion of Part First,
he was under the impression that Goethe permits his hero to
be lost. " It is not without reluctance, that in the play before
us, we behold the inferior principle triumphant in the end.
Faust's crimes are many, but his will seems to have had little
share in them ; even after his connection with the fiend, he
feels virtuously even nobly." Carlyle seems to have had an
instinctive feeling that Faust as Goethe portrayed him ought
to have been saved. But that he interpreted Goethe as per-
mitting his hero to go to perdition, one can also gather from
his comparison of Goethe's and Marlowe's dramas. He called
55
attention to the similarity (so it appeared to him) of the ending
of the two dramas, saying, that the conchiding Hnes of Mar-
lowe might also be applied to Faust's conduct and history.
Carlyle did not get any light from the Prologue in the dis-
cussion of his problem. No mention is made in the resume
either of the Prelude or the Prologue. Very likely he counted
them among the " incoherent scenes " of which he spoke. He
was interested especially in the character and fate of Goethe's
hero. The titanic struggles of Faust appealed to him very
strongly, as one may judge from his letter to Goethe quoted
above. For him, therefore, the real drama began with Faust's
monologue. In this criticism Carlyle also mentioned the neces-
sity of an adequate translation of " Faust." He said that the
sight of this performance by Boosey had renewed his wish to
see " Faust " in an English dress. On this point he said
further in substance : A suitable version of " Faust " would be
a rich addition to our literature, but the difficulties which stand
in the way of such an undertaking amount almost to an abso-
lute veto. The extracts from Boosey were translated in blank
verse. A prose translation would have been less unjust to the
original, as it would have enabled the author to express the
sense of the original with equal gracefulness and far more
precision.
This statement may have influenced Hay\vard later to make
his translation in prose. Carlyle himself translated the Curse
in prose in this essay. Later this was changed to verse and
sent to Goethe who had it printed in the Chaos in Weimar. It
also appeared in the Athenaeum in 1832.^^
This essay by Carlyle on " Faust " is of much interest to the
retrospective student of to-day. It represents the beginning
of his work for German literature in England. It was " Faust "
that first attracted Carlyle to Goethe and the German muse in
general. Naturally, his criticism is not as mature as it would
have been if written at a later period of his German studies,
"This translation of Faust's Curse is printed in Archiv (1904). CXII,
388. Signed, Edinburgh, 1823. Printed first in Ottilies Chaos, Wochen-
blatt, Manuskript fiir Freunde in Weimar. Republished with several omis-
sions in the Athenaeum 1832, p. 5. Chaos was printed only for private
circulation.
56
13
but it does represent a distinct epoch in his development
Ahhough he did not comprehend Goethe in all particulars, he
showed a keen insight into the nature of the problem involved
in " Faust." As evidence of this one can mention the fact
that he almost read from the character of Faust what Goethe
intended to make clear by the Prologue — namely, that Faust
is to be saved. Since Carlyle did not understand the ending
of Part First, his criticism was that the conclusion was not
in harmony with Faust's character, Carlyle's general appre-
ciation of Goethe's masterpiece is indicated when he said in
prophetic mood : " Goethe is likely to figure in after ages as
one of the most remarkable characters of his time; and pos-
terity will derive from this tragedy their most lively impres-
sions, both of his peculiar excellences and defects."
During the next few years of Carlyle's activity there is only
an occasional reference to " Faust." In 1827 he published his
essay on the " State of German Literature " in the Edinburgh
Review. He took an interest in " Helena " immediately after
its publication in 1827, and the following year he published an
article on " Helena " in the Foreign Reviezv}^ He considered
" Helena " difficult reading, requiring careful study for its
understanding and appreciation. He gave a careful resume,
interspersed with copious translations, chiefly in blank verse.
The article is preceded by an introduction in which he expressed
emphatically his dissatisfaction with the translations and criti-
cisms of " Faust " that had appeared in England. The muti-
lated translations and the performance at London, in a form
deviating very much from the original, irritated him and
prompted the statement that " Faust " was by no means known
in England.
It is interesting to note how Carlyle had now arrived at a
better understanding of the character of Faust and of the
drama as a whole. In his first essay on " Faust " he had
expressed the belief that, according to his understanding of
'* This essay should have been included in the " Goetheportraet " recently
published by Saenger. See, " Thomas Carlyles Goetheportraet, nachge-
zeichnet von Samuel Saenger," Berlin, 1907.
^* Foreign Revieiv and Continental Miscellany (1828), Vol. I, p. 429,
"Essays," Vol. I, p. 171.
57
the drama, Goethe did not intend to save his hero, but he was
not satisfied with the ending. He now knew that Goethe's
plan was by no means complete. His previous attitude is clear
from the following quotation from his essay on " Helena " :
" We question whether it ever occurred to any English reader
of ' Faust,' that the work needed a continuation or even ad-
mitted one."^° This was the feeling that possessed Carlyle
and other Englishmen after reading " Faust" without any ref-
erence to the Prologue. Now that he has got a glimpse of
the continuation of " Faust " as it lay in Goethe's mind, there
open to him broader vistas of the poetical possibilities of the
theme, and the solution of the moral problem. He now knew
that it could not be a drama of sin and damnation. One
quotation will suffice to show this clearer understanding :
" A high problem ; and of which the solution is yet far from
completed ; nay perhaps, in a poetical sense, is not, strictly
speaking, capable of completion. For it is to be remarked that,
in this contract with the Prince of Darkness, little or no men-
tion or allusion is made to a future hfe; whereby it might
seem as if the action was not intended in the manner of the
old legend, to terminate in Faust's perdition ; but rather as if
an altogether dififerent end must be provided for him. Faust,
indeed, wild and walful as he is, cannot be regarded as a
wicked, much less as an utterly reprobate man: w^e do not
reckon him ill-intentioned, but misguided and miserable ; he
falls into crime, not by purpose, but by accident and blindness.
To send him to the Pit of Woe, to render such a character the
eternal slave of JNIephistopheles, w^ould look like making dark-
ness triumphant over light, blind force over erring reason ; or
at best were cutting the Gordian Knot, not loosing it. li we
mistake not, Goethe's ' Faust ' will have a finer moral than
the old nursery tale, or the other plays and tales that have been
founded on it. Our seared and blighted, yet still noble Faust
will not end in the madness of horror, but in Peace grounded
on better knowledge. . . . ' Faust ' as it yet stands, is, indeed,
only a stating of the difficulty."^** What the final outcome
"Loc. CI/., p. 191.
^'^Loc. cit., p. 188.
58
would be he left to the future. He refrained from discussing
the relation of "Helena" to the whole "Faust," because
Goethe was engaged in writing the Second Part, and its com-
pletion had to be awaited.
What " Faust " was to Carlyle as an expression of his inner-
most thoughts and feelings, one can glean from the following
passage of the essay on " Helena," which reminds one strongly
of the first letter he wrote to Goethe in which he referred to
" Faust " : " For how many living hearts, ever now imprisoned
in the perplexities of doubt, do these wild piercing tones of
Faust, his withering agonies and fiery desperation, speak the
word they have long been waiting to hear. A nameless pain
had long brooded over the soul : here by some light touch, it
starts into form and voice ; we see it and know it, and see that
another also knew it. This ' Faust ' is a mystic oracle for the
mind ; a Dodona grove, where the oaks and fountains prophesy
to us of our destiny, and murmur unearthly secrets."
Goethe was highly pleased with Carlyle's treatment of
"Helena," and in a letter to Carlyle of June 15, 1828,^^ he
expressed his appreciation. As " Helena " had at the same
time been reviewed in France and Russia, Goethe expressed
himself in regard to the three reviews as follows : " The Scot
seeks to penetrate the work, the Frenchman to understand it,
and the Russian to appropriate it. These three have thus,
without preconcerted intention, represented all the categories
of interest that may be taken in a work of art."^^
Carlyle's success with " Helena " prompted Goethe, through
his secretary Eckermann, to encourage him to undertake a
complete translation of " Faust." Eckermann wrote to Car-
lyle, June 15, 1828: "I hope you have translated the whole
' Helena ' and will proceed to do the like with the remainder
of the new ' Faust.' The old part, too, which you so well
understand, can, I am sure, find no better translator than
yourself."^^
" " Correspondence," p. 99.
'* These articles on "Helena" appeared in the Foreign Review (1828),
No. 2, p. 430, Le Globe, Vol. VI, p. 209, and Der Moskowitische Bote, No.
21, p. 79. See " Goethes Werke, Jubilaums-Ausgabe," Vol. XXXVIII,
p. 176.
""Correspondence," p. 109.
59
Carlyle, as has been mentioned, was indignant at the British
versions of " Faust " by Gower, and also repeatedly expressed
his wrath in his correspondence with Goethe. In a letter to
Goethe November 15, 1830, he denounced Gower's translation
and said : " I myself am sometimes meditating a translation of
' Faust ' for which the English world is getting more and more
prepared."^" Eckermann replied to this letter Deceml>er 6,
1830, telling Carlyle of the high hopes he entertained for the
completion of the Second Part of " Faust " : " It is no longer
to be counted among the impossibilities." He again urged
Carlyle to undertake a translation of "Faust," saying: "It is
not indeed for me to offer advice, but if I were in your place,
I should certainly undertake something for which my country
would be grateful, by employing for some years my best leisure
hours on a faithful translation of ' Faust.' The specimens of
your ' Helena ' have sufficiently shown, that you not only com-
pletely understand the German original, but have also your
own language sufficiently at command to express in it the senti-
ment and meaning with grace and spirit."^^
That Carlyle seriously considered the carrying out of this
plan to translate " Faust," one can see from several of his
letters. In writing to Goethe January 22, 1831, he said : " Pray
tell him (Eckermann) also that his counsel and admonition
about an English version of ' Faust ' came in the right season ;
that I have already long been meditating such an enterprise,
and had well-nigh determined before much time elapsed, on
attempting it. The British world is daily getting readier for
a true copy of ' Faust ' ; already we understand everywhere
that ' Faust ' is no theatrical spectacle, but a poem."-- He also
wrote to Dr. Carlyle-^ in London, February 10, 1831 : " I have
undertaken at some future day to translate ' Faust.' "
Carlyle could not do the work at once on account of another
project — the preparation of a history of German literature.
In this work he also received encouragement and guidance
^ " Correspondence," p. 240.
" " Correspondence," p. 250.
^ " Correspondence," p. 254.
""Letters, 1 826-1 836." Norton, Vol. I, p. 262.
60
from Goethe. In a letter to Goethe dated May 23, 1830, he
gave the outHne to this history of German literature in detail.^*
Strange as it may seem, Carlyle was unable to find a publisher
for his manuscript. Boyd, who had published his translation
of " Wilhelm Meister," refused the work. It is probable that
he did not realize enough financially from "Wilhelm Meister."^''
One can get an idea of Carlyle's troubles in this matter from
his correspondence. He wrote to his mother, September 28,
1830: "Jeffrey insisted on taking my unfortunate MS. (of
German literary history) with him to Edinburgh, that he might
read it and see whether he could find a publisher for it. I
expect to hear some tidings about this very soon, but hardly
that he will be successful; indeed, now that I have made up
my mind, I care next to nothing whether or not."-^
He was not to be successful with the manuscript, as may be
seen from a letter to Dr. Carlyle of February 10, 1827,-^ and
that was the chief obstacle which prevented him from under-
taking a translation of " Faust." 'At any rate nothing more is
heard of the plan, and later, when Hayward, Blackie and others
published their translations of " Faust," it was abandoned.
The death of Goethe intervened soon after, and the source of
Carlyle's personal inspiration was cut off. After this, there
was a gradual diminution of his interest in German literature.
He felt that his work in this direction had been accomplished
and then he turned his attention to other matters. On May
6, 1834, he wrote to Eckermann : " As to my own England, my
mission, in so far as it can be called my mission, may be
regarded as fulfilled ; as witness merely this, that we have had
within the last twelve months no fewer than three new transla-
tions of ' Faust,' of which two appeared in Edinburgh on one
and the same day. In truth, the fire is kindled, and we have
^"Correspondence," p. 187, and Streuli, p. 56.
^ Carlyle's translation of " Wilhelm Meister " was seriously injured by
the very unfavorable review of De Quincey in the London Magazine of
1824. Carlyle called it a "very vulgar and British review." De Quincey
modified the article considerably before publishing it in his works.
=» " Letters," Vol. I, p. 233.
^^ " Letters," Vol. I, p. 261. Cf. also, "Correspondence with Goethe,"
#,' pp. 207 and 208.
61
enough smoke, and more than enough — there is here and there
even a Httle flame,"'^* etc.
It remains to consider Carlyle's attitude toward the com-
pleted " Faust." He was interested in the progress of Part
Second, for he wrote to Goethe, January 17, 1828: " Of 'Faust'
I am taught to expect with confidence not only a continuation
but a completion, and share in the general curiosity of Europe
to see what it is."-^ The final fate of Goethe's hero is a matter
of great importance to him. He expressed this in a letter to
Goethe, August 20, 1827, apropos of a reference to "Helena,"
saying : " Could mere human prayers prevail against an esthetic
necessity, Faust were surely made triumphant both over the
fiend and himself, and this by the readiest means; the one
would go to heaven, and the other back to his native pit: for
there is no tragic hero whom one pities more deeply than
Faust."^'*
When the Second Part appeared, Carlyle no doubt read it
with avidity. One can get a glimpse of his feeling on this
occasion from a letter he wrote to Mrs. Sarah Austin, January
13, 1833:^^ " The Faust, Second Part, I read with such interest
as you may fancy. ... I consider the whole play, as now com-
pleted, as a thing wide, wide before me, and deep ; into which
I have not seen half-way. . . . Happily the plan, the noble
Idea, can be deciphered there, not feeble or old, but young
forever."
His interest in the Second Part increased, and later he
placed it above Part First. Blackie had sent a copy of his
translation to Carlyle and received a letter of thanks, April
28, 1834. In this letter, Carlyle took occasion to dissent from
Blackie in his views of the Second Part of " Faust." He also
expressed himself further in regard to Goethe's poem, saying:
" Could you but have as much tolerance for me in this new
heresy, which I, alas ! feel growing upon me of late years, that
' Faust ' is intrinsically but a small poem, perhaps the smallest
^ " Correspondence," p. 340.
" " Correspondence," p. 67.
'"' " Correspondence," p. 33.
""Memoirs of Mrs. Sarah Austin." London, 1893, P- i03-
62
of Goethe's main works; recommending itself to the sorrow-
struck skeptical feeling of these times, but for Time at large
of very limited value ! Such, I profess not without reluctance,
is the sentiment that has long breathed in me; moreover, of
the two I find considerably more meaning in the Second Part !
Favete Unguis. At the same time I can well enter into your
enthusiasm, and again read ' Faust ' along with you like a new
apocalypse, for in that way I read it once already."^-
Thus Carlyle, one year after its publication, took more
interest in the Second Part of " Faust," because it had
"more meaning" for him. He was fascinated by the wealth
of ideas of the great poet in the full development of his
years. Like Carlyle, many other eminent men have come
to relish Part Second far more than the tragedy of sin and
suffering portrayed in Part First. What Carlyle said of
" Faust " in general, must represent only a temporary mood,
which he is pleased to call a " heresy." For " Faust " inter-
ested him many years after, although he was in later life busied
more with historical and sociological projects. As late as 1873
he was occupying himself with " Faust," and this time more
particularly with the Second Part. He wrote to Dr. Carlyle,
September 20, 1873 : " I have also got a number of books, all
the critical pamphlets about Goethe's ' Faust ' that are in the
library, and have sent for the others, while diligently reading
those on hand. . . . But I feel not yet to have done with Part
Second, nor probably shall have for some little while. "^^ In
this way Carlyle is found fifty years after he first read Part
First, employed in the study of the Second Part of Goethe's
poem, with the prospect of much enjoyment to be received
from it during the reminder of his days.
The strong influence that Goethe's " Faust " exerted on Car-
lyle's works has been well set forth by Kraeger in his essay.
He shows this in detail by citing a number of parallel passages,
which indicate direct influence of thought and language. The
instances referring to " Faust " are given on pages 259-264.
^^"John Stuart Blackie. A Biography," by Anna Stoddart. Edinburgh
and London, 1895, Vol. I, p. 147.
=''"New Letters," edited by Alex. Carlyle, London, 1894, Vol. II, p. 299.
Cf. also, " Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Thomas Carlyle," by R.
H. Shepherd, London, 1881, Vol. II, p. 301.
63
2. Samuel Taylor Coleridge
One need hardly refer here to the familiarity of Coleridge
with the German language and German life. He spent about
nine months in Germany in the years 1798-9. According to
his own statement his " chief efforts were directed towards a
grounded knowledge of the German language and literature."^*
He was also strongly influenced by German philosophy, its
traces being perceptible throughout his works. While in Ger-
many he made collections for a history of German belles-lettres
before the time of Lessing, and also extensive preparations for
a biography of Lessing himself. Neither of these projects was
later executed, but Coleridge's stay in Germany was none the
less fruitful of good results. He came so strongly under the
spell of German philosophy and literature that his friend,
Henry Crabb Robinson, said of him : " There is no doubt that
Coleridge's mind is much more German than English. "^^
Being thus equipped with an excellent knowledge of German,
he was eminently qualified to bring the literature of Germany
to the attention of his countrymen. He was in reality much
better prepared than Carlyle to act as an apostle of German
literature and culture, and he could have interested the English
people twenty years earlier than Carlyle. If he had done so,
much of the misapprehension concerning German literature
that prevailed in England for many years, might have been
averted. But Coleridge's lukewarm reception of many of the
productions of the German muse, especially those of Goethe,
was a great obstacle to their appreciation by his countrymen.
His aloofness was to them proof positive that there was little
of genuine merit in German literature.
Coleridge's position is explained by his dislike of Goethe.
Schiller was rated far higher than Goethe by Coleridge, or
rather, as Robinson expressed^" it, he set Goethe far below
Schiller. He granted Goethe " exquisite taste " only, but
" " Samuel Taylor Coleridge." By Jas. Dykes Campbell. London,
1896, p. 97.
""Diary of H. C. Robinson," Vol. I, p. 226.
*•" Diary," Boston, 1870, Vol. II, pp. 7 and 480. See, also, the last
part of the "Table Talk" of February 16, 1833.
64
denied him " principle and religion." In Schiller, he therefore
took more active interest. He was strongly affected by the
" Robbers," and regarded " Wallenstein," which he translated
in 1800, as Schiller's best play.
Since Coleridge was prejudiced against Goethe, a full appre-
ciation of " Faust " cannot be expected of him. He always
assumed a somewhat passive attitude toward Goethe's poem.
His earliest utterances on " Faust " are found in the Diary of
H. C. Robinson of the year 1812.^'' Robinson says: "I read
to him (Coleridge) a number of scenes out of the new ' Faust.'
He had before read the earlier edition. He now acknowledged
the genius of Goethe as he had never before acknowledged it.
At the same time the want of religion and enthusiasm in Goethe
is in Coleridge's estimation an irreparable defect. The begin-
ning of ' Faust ' did not please Coleridge. Nor does he think
Mephistopheles a character. He had, however, nothing satis-
factory to oppose to my remark that Mephistopheles ought to
be a mere abstraction, and no character. I read to Coleridge
the Zueignung, and he seemed to admire it greatly. . . . The
Prologue to ' Faust ' did not offend Coleridge as I thought it
would from its being a parody on Job." A week later the
conversation with Coleridge on " Faust " is continued : " More
talk with Coleridge about ' Faust.' The additions in the last
edition he thinks the finest parts. He objects that the char-
acter of ' Faust ' is not motivirt. He would have it explained
how he is thrown into a state of mind which led to the catas-
trophe. . . . C. talks of writing a new ' Faust.' ""^
Robinson's statement that Coleridge had read the " earlier
edition," seems to prove that he possessed and read the " Frag-
ment." It has been a question whether the meter of " Christa-
bel," written in 1797 and 1800, could be attributed to " Faust"
influence.^® If Coleridge was interested in the " Fragment "
and read it before he wrote " Christabel," that might be the
case. But it cannot be ascertained whether Coleridge saw the
""Diary," Vol. I, p. 254. August 13 and 20.
^*This was " Michael Scott." Cf. "Table Talk" of February 16, 1833.
^' Cf. Haney, " German Influence on S. T. Coleridge," Philadelphia,
1892, p. 24. Also Edinburgh Review (1835), Vol. LXI, p. 146.
65
" Fragment " before he went to Germany. When Coleridge
expressed his dishke of the beginning of " Faust," he no doubt
referred to the Prologue (in spite of the fact that Robinson
did not get this impression). Robinson had expected that
Coleridge would be offended by the Prologue, and he probably
was, although he did not wish to express it bluntly to Robinson,
who was very enthusiastic about " Faust." What he terms the
" want of religion " in " Faust " is intimately connected with
this. That Coleridge had an unfavorable opinion of the Pro-
logue, is borne out by a later reference to " Faust " in which
he said that some of the language was " blasphemous."
In speaking of the character of Faust as not motivirt, Cole-
ridge wished to indicate the desirability of informing the reader
how Faust arrived at the state of mind in which we find him
in the first monologue. The preliminary experiences which
led up to this condition, he thought, should form a part of the
drama. Why did Faust take to magic? Coleridge expressed
the same thought later in his " Table Talk "*"' when he called
Faust a ''ready-made conjurer from the beginning." Goethe
has indicated briefly in the opening monologue what Coleridge
felt lacking in the drama. The experiences of " zehen Jahr "
are here compressed into very few lines, and yet it is done with
such vividness that one gets a good picture of the nature of
Faust's academic life, immediately preceding the time when he
seeks to find relief in magic.
In 1814 Murray, a London publisher, tried to induce Cole-
ridge to translate " Faust." It is probable that Robinson sug-
gested him to Murray as the best man to render " Faust " in
English. At any rate, the offer came to Coleridge by way of
Robinson and Lamb.^^ Coleridge thereupon wrote to Murray
in regard to the proposition. After dwelling upon the difficul-
ties of a translation and his inability to overcome them, he
finally stated that he was willing to undertake the translation
and asked for Murray's terms. Incidentally he said in this
letter that the " Luise " of Voss and the " Faust " of Goethe
are the two German poems, if not the only ones, " that are
""Table Talk" of February 16, 1833.
" Lucas, " Works of Lamb," Vol. VI, p. 440. ,
6
66
emphatically original in their conception, and characteristic of
a new and peculiar sort of thinking and imagining. ... If
you were to ask me as a friend whether I think it would suit
the general taste (i. e., a translation of ' Faust ') I should reply
that I can not calculate on caprice and accident (for instance,
some fashionable man or review happening to take it up favor-
ably) but that otherwise my fears would be stronger than my
hopes. Men of genius will admire it of necessity. Those
must who think deepest and most imaginatively."*-
To this letter Murray replied August 29, 1814/^ saying that
he was desirous of making the experiment of putting a "Faust"
translation on the market, even though its effects upon the public
mind would be doubtful. He offered Coleridge iioo for the
translation and a preliminary analysis. Coleridge had told
Murray in his letter that a translation without a good intro-
duction would be useless. Murray also offered to send the
works of Goethe to assist Coleridge in the translation and com-
mentary. He advised Coleridge, however, not to undertake
the translation unless he felt disposed to execute the labor per-
fectly con amore, and in a style of versification equal to
"Remorse." Coleridge replied August 31, 1814, that he was
willing to do the work, but called the terms " humiliatingly
low " if one would consider the necessary labor, and the risk
of character on the part of the translator, who has to answer
for any disappointment of the readers. He also referred to
the questionable nature of the original work, both as to its
claims for fame, and as to its chance for reputation as an
accidental result of local and temporary fame.
Murray's reply to this letter of Coleridge has not been pre-
served. It cannot be ascertained whether a bargain was made.
At any rate nothing came of the whole project. Coleridge
never translated " Faust." The half-hearted way in which he
accepted Murray's terms, and the objections he made, did not
augur well for a successful translation. For this reason Mur-
*^" Letters of S. T. Coleridge," edited by E. H. Coleridge, London, 1895,
Vol. II, p. 624.
*^ " Memoirs of the late John Murray," by Samuel Smiles, London,
1891, Vol. I, p. 297. Cf. also, AthencEum, April 18, 1891, p. 505.
67
ray probably did not care to go on with tlie plans. The
reasons can partly be gleaned from Coleridge's own utterances.
He was convinced that men of genius must admire " Faust,"
but he feared the verdict of the public. He even suspected
that the character of the translator might sufifer by rendering
" Faust." In these misgivings Coleridge was under the influ-
ence of Lamb, who advised him not to translate** " Faust."
As Coleridge thought a great deal of Lamb's judgment, this
naturally acted as a deterrent upon him. Besides, Coleridge
was only too familiar with the exigencies of the book-trade in
England. He had in mind, too, the financial failure of his
" Wallenstein," to which he reverted in his letters. He wrote
to Sotheby, September lo, 1802, that Longman had lost £250
on " Wallenstein," £50 of which had been paid him for the
translation. " I am sure," he said, " that Longman never
thinks of me but ' Wallenstein ' and the ghosts of his departed
guineas dance an ugly waltz around my idea."*^
The only further utterance of Coleridge on " Faust " is the
well-known passage in his " Table talk " of February 16, 1833.
He reasserts there that he himself at one time had a Faust-
drama in mind to be called " ]\Iichael Scott."**' He was to be
a much better character than Faust, and was not to love
knowledge for itself, but in order to be powerful. He was
to take to witchcraft and call the devil. That character was
to be much like Goethe's — a universal humorist. The outline
of the drama was to be as follows: Michael becomes miserable
and throws himself into sensual excesses. He meets Agatha
(Coleridge's Margaret) and attempts to seduce her. The
devil facilitates their meetings and while Agatha loves Alichael
she remains firm. Tearful conflicts between Michael and the
devil ensue, after which, as Coleridge says, " I made him tri-
umphant, and poured peace into his soul in the conviction of
a salvation for sinners through God's grace."
This shows that Coleridge was not satisfied with the conclu-
sion to Part First of Goethe's drama. It is probable that he
" Cf. infra, p. 76.
""Letters," Vol. I, p. 403.
** Cf. supra, p. 64.
68
had not yet read Part Second when he made his criticism of
" Faust." Since he had taken no special interest in Goethe
for years, he did not look forward to the publication of the
Second Part. There is nothing on record to show his opinion
of the completed " Faust." When he described the conclusion
to his " Michael Scott," he voiced the feelings of a large num-
ber of the Englishmen of his time as to what the conclusion of
a drama like " Faust " should be.
It will not be necessary to quote in its entirety the criticism
of Coleridge in his " Table Talk," since it is easily accessible
everywhere. The principal part of the remainder of his ad-
verse views may be grouped under two heads : The loose
dramatic structure of " Faust," and the change in the character
of Goethe's hero, or as Coleridge expressed it, that " the sen-
suality and the thirst for knowledge are not connected with
each other." Both of these criticisms have some justification.
In regard to the first point, " Faust " is by no means perfect
in dramatic structure. Coleridge said : " The scenes are mere
magic-lantern pictures." The partial lack of coherence to
which Coleridge referred, is due in great measure to the manner
in which " Faust " was composed. It is the product of many
varied periods and moods of Goethe's life. But if one views
the completed poem of 1832, this incoherence is only apparent.
If Coleridge had been familiar with both parts of " Faust," he
probably would not have said : " There is no whole in the
poem." As to the second point, the change in the character
of Faust, this is a common criticism of Coleridge and Lamb,
and will be referred to in the treatment of Lamb's views.
But Coleridge's criticism is not entirely unfavorable. While
Faust seems to him " dull and meaningless," he thought
Mephistopheles excellent. The songs in the poem appealed to
him especially, and the language used by Goethe he called
"very pure and fine." Of the various scenes, the Walpurgis-
Night and Auerbach's Cellar attracted him most. In conclud-
ing this criticism of " Faust," Coleridge told how he was
pressed many years back to translate " Faust." He gave as
his reasons for refusing to do so, that he wanted to write a
work much along the same line — " Michael Scott," and second.
69
that he was in doubt whether it became his moral character
to translate " Faust," in which much of the language was in
his opinion vulgar, licentious, and blasphemous. The objec-
tions to the language of " Faust " refer without doubt chiefly
to the Prologue. At first thought it seems strange that Cole-
ridge could lend his approval to the idiotic objections that were
raised to this part of " Faust," especially since he had enjoyed
the liberalizing influence of German university study and was
familiar with the spirit of German works. But in spite of
this, he was bound up to a great extent in the ecclesiastical
orthodoxy of his day, and that accounts in large measure for
his adverse views.
3. Lord Byron
Byron's knowledge of the German language was very lim-
ited. ]\Iaychrazk states in his essay on " Lord Byron als
Ubersetzer,"*^ that he made an attempt to learn German, prob-
ably while at Harrow, reading Gessner's " Abel " with his
German teacher, but his studies did not progress far enough
to give him a reading knowledge of the language. In his
"Conversations with Medwin," Byron referred to this, saying:
" When I was a boy I studied German, which I have now
entirely forgotten. It was very little I ever knew of it."*^
He again mentioned his ignorance of the German language in
his diary, January 12, 1821, deploring the fact that he could
read German authors only in translations. Byron said : " I
must premise, however, that I have read nothing of Adolph
IMiillner's (the author of 'Guilt') and much less of Goethe,
Schiller, and Wieland than I could wish. I only know them
through the medium of English, French, and Italian transla-
tions. Of the real language I know absolutely nothing — ex-
cept oaths, learned from postilions and officers in a squabble,'*"
etc."
That Byron admired Goethe greatly is a well-known fact,
and Goethe also had a very high opinion of Byron's genius.
" " Lord Byron als Ubersetzer." Leipzig, 1896. Reprinted from,
Englische Studien, Vols. XXI and XXIL
**" Medwin, Conversations," London, 1824, p. 185.
""Letters and Journals," London, 1898, etc.. Vol. V, p. 171.
70
Byron voices his regard for Goethe in his " Conversations " :
" I mean," said he, " to dedicate ' Werner ' to Goethe. I look
upon him as the greatest genius the age has produced." He
again paid a similar tribute to Goethe in a letter to the Weimar
poet written from Leghorn, July 24, 1823,^° in which he said
that Goethe had for fifty years been the " undisputed sovereign
of European literature."
Goethe's " Faust " exerted a strong influence on Byron. To
trace this influence in his writings would be aside from the
purpose of this study. The object is to give here Byron's
opinion of " Faust," to trace how he gained a knowledge of
it and how, in a general way, it affected him. Since Byron
could not read German, his knowledge of " Faust " came to
him at second hand. Monk Lewis first translated it for him
viva voce in 18 16. The next year, April 4, Byron wrote from
Venice to Samuel Rogers : " I forgot to tell you that last
autumn I furnished Lewis with bread and salt for some days
at Diodati, in reward for which (besides his conversations) he
translated Goethe's ' Faust ' to me by word of mouth."^^
Byron's genius drank in the poetic richness of Goethe's poem.
The underlying ideas became part and parcel of his being, to
be later incorporated in his own works. ^-
He felt that he was missing much by not being able to read
Goethe's works in the original. In his conversations at Pisa,
(1820-21) he exclaimed: "I would give the world to read
' Faust ' in the original. I have been urging Shelley to trans-
late it ; but he said that the translator of ' Wallenstein ' was
the only person living who could venture to attempt it ; for a
man to translate it, he must think as he does."^^ Byron also
said in the same letter that he would give iioo to any person
who would translate " Dichtung und Wahrheit " for his own
reading. His continued interest in " Faust " is shown in a
letter to Murray from Pisa, December, 1821, where he said:^*
'*"" Letters and Journals," Vol. V, p. 518.
" " Letters and Journals," Vol. IV, p. 97.
^^ Knobbe, A. " Die Faustidee in Lord Byrons Dichtungen," Programm,
Stralsund, 1906. Reviewed, Englische Studien (1907), Vol. XXXVIII, p. 98.
°* " Conversations at Pisa," Medwin, London, 1824, p. 413.
" " Letters and Journals," Vol. V, p. 488.
71
" Are tlicre not designs from ' Faust ' ? Send me some and a
translation of it — if such there is. Also of Goethe's Life if
such there be; if not the original German."
All these expressions show his desire for a more intimate
knowledge of Goethe's poem. He had imbibed much from the
verbal translation of Monk Lewis, but that did not fully satisfy
him. He felt his poetic kinship with Goethe and thoroughly
understood the storms that raged in the soul of Faust. He
loved to compare himself with Goethe. In his conversations
he said : " I have a great curiosity about everything relating to
Goethe, and please myself with thinking there is some analogy
between our characters and writings. "^^
The work of Byron in which the influence of Goethe's
" Faust " is most evident is " Manfred," which was published
in 1817. Goethe read the poem the same year. It was brought
to him by a young American,^" October 11, 1817. The numer-
ous references in Goethe's diary^^ show the great interest he
took in the poem. On the thirteenth of October, Goethe ex-
pressed his opinion on the relation of " Manfred " to " Faust "
in a letter to Knebel.^^ This statement corresponds with the
review of "IManfred" published in " Kunst und Altertum"
in 1820. In the English translation of Moore, the principle
part of this review reads as follows: "Byron's tragedy, ' Man-
fred,' was to me a wonderful phenomenon, and one that closely
touched me. This singular intellectual poet has taken my
* Faustus ' to himself, and extracted from it the strongest nour-
ishment for his hypochondriac humor."
The relation of Byron to Goethe, with special reference to
" Manfred " and " Faust," has been treated by Alois Brandl.'^''
The extent to which Goethe was correct in speaking of Byron's
obligations to " Faust " is there well brought out, in the light
of the material that the opening of the Goethe-Schiller Archiv
disclosed. Brandl shows that the parallel of plot and character
in "Faust" and "^Manfred" is limited to the introductory
"" Medwin, loc. cit., p. 413.
"This was Mr. Lyman of Boston. Graf, p. 244.
" Graf, p. 245.
""Werke, W. A." Part 4, Vol. XXVIII, p. 277.
^* Goethe-Jahrbuch, Vol. XX, pp. z-Z7-
72
scene of " Faust " †” the imitation extending to the disappear-
ance of the Earth Spirit. Goethe, according to Brandl, is right,
however, in the main — that in " Manfred " for the first time
after "Faust" the subject of a skeptical soul in its insatiable
desire to attain its superhuman object of love, is treated. And
that was most important in Goethe's mind — the borrowing of
this thought, and not verbal parallelism. What may be added
to Brandl's treatment is a brief discussion of the English point
of view in this matter. To them it was a real " Faust-
Manfred " controversy. They took Goethe too literally in his
statements. Some defended Byron from what they deemed
an unjust accusation of plagiarism. Others, who did not fancy
some of Byron's productions, took this opportunity to vilify
him. News of what Goethe had written to Knebel in regard
to " Manfred " and " Faust " reached Byron's ears soon after,
for he mentioned it in a letter from Venice, to John Murray,
October 2^, 1817. He also spoke there of the accusation
made against him in England, that his " Manfred " was copied
after Marlowe's " Faustus." Byron said in this letter : " It
is odd that they should say that it was taken from Marlowe's
' Faustus,' which I never read nor saw. An American who
came the other day from Germany told Mr. Hobhouse that
* Manfred ' was taken from Goethe's ' Faust.' The devil may
take both Faustuses, German and English, — I have taken
neither."^"
In 1820, when Goethe published his critique of "Manfred"
in " Kunst und Altertum," Byron again spoke of it in his cor-
respondence. He wrote to Murray that he would enclose an
opinion on his " IManfred " by the greatest man of Germany — •
perhaps of Europe.*'^ Further he said: "The opinions of such
a man like Goethe, whether favorable or not, are always inter-
esting — and this is more so, as favorable. His ' Faust ' I
never read, for I don't know German; but Matthew Monk
Lewis, in 18 16, at Coligny, translated most of it to me viva
voce, and I was naturally much struck with it; but it was the
Staubbach and the Jungfrau, and something else, much more
»»" Letters and Journals," Vol. IV, p. 177. V
'^ Letters and Journals," Vol, V, p. 36. '
73
than Fanstus, that made me write Manfred." Byron, it seems,
was not wrouglit up over Goethe's utterance concerning " Man-
fred " Hke most of his Enghsh friends. He apparently under-
stood Goethe better than they did. To him Goethe's remarks
were " favorable." He denied having taken anything directly
from " Faust." All that he was willing to admit he expressed
in the conclusion to his letter when he said : " The first scene,
however, and that of Faiistus are very similar." And this,
according to Brandl, is all the similarity in plot that can be
proven.
Later in his conversations with Medwin he again disclaimed
that his "Manfred" had any vital connection with "Faust."
He said there that he knew " Faust " only from a sorry French
translation,"^ from the readings of Monk Lewis, and from the
Harz jMountain scene which Shelley versified. He continued :
" Nothing I envy him (Shelley) so much as to be able to read
that astonishing production in the original. As to originality,
Goethe has too much sense to pretend that he is not under
obligation to authors, ancient and modern ; who is not ? "''^
This remark was made by Byron in response to English criti-
cism rather than to Goethe.
Most of the English critics discussed the question in a sane
way. Blackzvood's Magazine thought Goethe correct in what
he said about " J\Ianf red.""* It went on : " We cannot indeed
avoid assenting to Goethe's supposition that ' Faustus ' suggested
Lord Byron's wonderful drama, ' Manfred.' " Beyond this it
was not willing to admit any influence of " Faust." The Lon-
don Magazine came to Byron's rescue and defended him from
his accusers, saying: "We are far from joining some of the
traducers of Lord Byron in calling his work a mere copy.
Such an accusation, the offspring of envy and malignity,
scarcely stands in need of refutation; not to mention many of
the reasons against it, we may observe, that the combination
made by the English poet of two moral phenomena — viz., the
power of remorse, and self-contempt for experiencing it — is one
'' Madame de Stael's extracts.
""'Letters and Journals," Vol. V, p. 510.
"* Blackii'ood's Maga::iiie (1820), Vol. VII, p. 239.
74
perfectly new, the honor of which is solely due to Lord Byron.
. . . whatever may have been the effect of the German drama
on the mind of Lord Byron, ' Manfred ' may justly claim the
title of a grand and independent conception."''^
Carlyle, in his essay on " Faust," mentioned in conclusion
the " Faust-Manfred " controversy. He was inclined to take
Goethe's remarks too literally. He said in substance, that
Goethe's charge of plagiarism had given him pain ; that it was
unworthy of Goethe because it showed too much of the author
and too little of the man. Goethe, great poet that he was, need
not higgle with Byron in regard to " Manfred." " Faust " and
" Manfred " are related to each other, and if " Faust " had not
seen the light, neither in all probability would " Manfred."
" Faust " does not appear as a parent, but as a forerunner to
" Manfred." Man's connection with the invisible world is the
same in both, but there is a difference in the characters of Faust
and Manfred. Manfred is more potent and less tragical, less
impetuous and passionate than Faust, and the feeling of re-
morse is added to that of the uncertainty of human knowledge.
This represents the real connection that exists between the
two poems. Carlyle did not understand Goethe, however, if
he took Goethe's remarks as an accusation of plagiarism on the
part of Byron. What Goethe meant — that the underlying idea
of " Faust " suggested " Manfred " — Carlyle stated himself
when he defined the relation between the two productions.
That Goethe did not wish to be understood as having accused
Byron of literary theft, is clear from a remark that he made in
later years in conversation with Fiirst von Piickler^*^ in which
he emphatically denied that " Manfred " is a direct imitation
of " Faust."
4. Walter Scott
The circumstances that surrounded the beginning of Scott's
interest in the German language and literature have been
touched upon in the introductory chapter. He himself tells in
his " Essay on the Imitations of the ancient Ballad " how the
lecture of Mackenzie on the German drama before the Royal
^London Magazine (1820), Vol. II, p. 141.
°' Biedermann, " Gesprache," Vol. V, p. 308.
75
Society of Edinburgh brought German htcrature to his atten-
tion and prompted him to begin the difficult task of learning
German. He never attained a complete understanding of that
tongue, however, as is shown by his translations from the
German, among which " Gotz von Berlichingen " is the most
important."^ He was quite willing to acknowledge that he
was deficient in German, and in later life showed a tendency
to smile at some of his errors.
During his early life Scott was strongly under the spell of
German influence. It is a well-known fact that he derived
much inspiration and many suggestions from Goethe's early
works. Traces of this influence are evident in a number of
Scott's productions. But his early enthusiasm did not continue
throughout his literary career. He was always on friendly
terms with Goethe, however, and in later life was very proud
to exchange several letters with him. Since he did not take
much interest in the later works of Goethe, he was out of touch
with Goethe's development, and naturally did not understand
him as well as his countryman, Carlyle. It is no cause for
surprise, therefore, that he did not happen to see the First
Part of " Faust " until 1818. He borrowed a copy of " Faust "
from Lx)ckhart and in reporting this incident, Lockhart gives
the only utterance of Scott on Goethe's poem that we possess.
It reads as follows: " He (Scott) had observed a volume of a
new edition of Goethe on my table — would I lend it to him
for a little? He carried off the volume accordingly, and
retreated with it to his den. It contained the ' Faust,' and I
believe, in a more complete shape than he had before seen that
masterpiece of his old favorite. When we met at breakfast, a
couple of hours after, he was full of the poem — dwelt with
enthusiasm on the airy beauties of its lyrics, the terrible
pathos of the scene before the Mater Dolorosa, and the deep
skill shown in the various subtle shadings of character between
" Cf. Blumenhagen, " Sir Walter Scott als Ubersetzer." Diss. Rostock,
1900. Better than this essay for accurate information is the review by
Hohlfeld, in Studien cur vcrgleicheudcn Literaturgcschichte , Vol. Ill, pp.
498-508. See also, M. Bernays, " Beziehungen Walter Scotts zu Goethe."
in " Schriften zur Kritik und Literaturgcschichte." Stuttgart, 1895, pp.
31-96.
76
Mephistopheles and Margaret. He remarked, however, of the
introduction (which I suspect was new to him) that blood
would out — that, consummate artist as he was, Goethe was a
German, and nobody but a German would ever have provoked
a comparison with the book of Job, the grandest poem that was
ever written. He added, that he suspected the end of the story-
had been left in ohscuro, from despair to match the closing
scene of our own Marlowe's " Dr. Faustus."^*
We see that Scott did not understand the importance of
" Faust " as a world-poem. As he did not grasp the purpose
of the Prologue, he was at a loss to explain the conclusion to
the First Part of " Faust," and imagined a rivalry between
Goethe and Marlowe in his " Faustus," a play that Goethe
knew nothing about.
5. Charles Lamb
Lamb always affected a contempt for Goethe. He did not
know any German, and received his limited knowledge of Ger-
man works from translations. What he knew of " Faust " he
owed to Madame de Stael's review and to Gower's English
version. When Murray was negotiating with Coleridge in
regard to a translation of " Faust," Lamb wrote to Coleridge,
August 24, 1814: " I have been reading Madame de Stael on
' Germany.' An impudent clever woman. But if ' Faust ' be
no better than in her abstract of it, I counsel thee to let it
alone. How canst thou translate the language of cat-monkeys ?
Fie on such fantasies."''®
Lamb had an aversion to the Faust-theme as such, quite
independently of Goethe's drama. In his " Dramatic Speci-
mens "^" he gives a portion of Marlowe's " Faustus," and
expresses the opinion in a note that a subject like " Faustus "
must have been delectable food for such an atheist as Marlowe
was reported to be. He thinks that Barrabas, the Jew, and
"»" Memoirs of Sir Walter Scott," by J. G. Lockhart, London, 1900, Vol,
III, p. 222.
«»" Works of Lamb," Lucas, Vol. VI, p. 441.
"> " Works," Lucas, Vol. IV, pp. 27-34.
77
" Faustus " are off-springs of a mind that deliglitcd to dally
with interdicted subjects.
In 1823 Lamb read Gower's translation of "Faust" which
appeared in that year. On December 9, 1823, he wrote to
Harrison Ainsworth, as follows, in regard to the impressions
that he had received :^^ "I read your magazines with satisfac-
tion. I thoroughly agree with you as to the German ' Faust '
as far as I can do justice to it from an English translation.
'Tis a disagreeable canting tale of seduction, which has nothing
to do with the spirit of Faustus — Curiosity. Was the dark
secret to be explored to the end in the seducing of a weak girl,
which might have been accomplished by earthly agency?
When Marlowe gives Jiis Faustus a mistress, he flies him at
Helen, flower of Greece, to be sure, and not a Miss Betsy, or
Miss Sally Thoughtless."
These criticisms by Lamb illustrate the perverted ideas that
were disseminated by Gower's mutilated translation and
Madame de Stael's review. It was impossible for Lamb to
gain from these a correct idea of " Faust," and the one redeem-
ing feature in his criticism is, " as far as I can do justice to it
from an English translation." One of the criticisms of Lamb :
What has the tale of seduction to do with the spirit of the
drama — Faust's curiosity? has some justification, and this
change in the character of Faust also troubled Coleridge. '- Why
does Faust, after having been engaged in the titanic struggle to
satisfy his insatiable curiosity, change to a Don Juan ? Goethe
has motivated this change in the character of Faust by the
scene, the Witch's Kitchen, and still it must be admitted that
the unity and consistency of the character have thereby been
to some extent endangered.
Lamb's attitude toward Goethe and his " Faust " remained
unchanged. When Hayward's translation appeared in 1833,
Lamb received a copy through the hands of Edward Moxon,
the publisher, as may be seen from a letter written to Moxon
the same year. Lamb said : " Dear M, — ]\Iany thanks for
""Works," Lucas, Vol. VII, p. 631.
" Cf. supra, p. 68.
78
the books ; the ' Faust ' I will acknowledge to the author."^^
Lamb wrote a letter to the translator that has not been pre-
served, in which he again probably expressed his opinion of
" Faust." Lucas, the editor of Lamb's works, says in a note :
" Lamb's letter of thanks was said by the late Edmund Yates
to be a very odd one. I have not seen it."
" " Works," Vol. VII, p. 904.
CHAPTER IV
Theory of Translation
I. Gc)icral Considerations
Before turning to the discussion of the various English ver-
sions of " Faust " it will be in order to consider the problem
of literary translation. The difificulties of translation are either
general, as applying to any piece of literature whatever, or
specific, with reference to the special work in hand. It is
but to reiterate a familiar statement to say that all translat-
ing is difificult. The genius of the various languages differs.
The words of one language frequently have no exact equiva-
lent in another, and it is, therefore, at times, well-nigh impos-
sible to reproduce fine shades of meaning. Then, if the pro-
duction be a poem, the matter of form also presents special
difficulties. As a result the translator is unable to give exactly
in a foreign language what he finds in the original. An approx-
imation can only be his goal. A compromise between the
peculiarities of the two languages must be effected. The
severe, exacting critic, of course, will say that all translation
is inadequate, and will protest against any attempt to repro-
duce his favorite poem or other literary masterpiece in another
tongue. But this is to ignore the purpose of a literary trans-
lation — to bring the literature of a language within the reach
of foreigners who do not understand that tongue. Goethe
defends translation from this standpoint in his correspondence
with Carlyle, when he says^ : " Denn was man auch von der
Unzulanglichkeit des Ubersetzens sagen mag, so ist und bleibt
es doch eins der wichtigsten Gcschafte in dem allgemeinen
Weltwesen. Und so ist jeder Ubersetzer anzusehen, dass er
sich als Vermittler dieses allgemeinen geistigen Handels be-
miiht, und den Wechseltausch zu befordern zum Geschaft
macht."
*" Correspondence between Goethe and Carlyle," p. i8.
79
80
The translator is accordingly to be viewed as a mediator
between the author and the foreign reader. How to bring
these two together, is the problem he has to solve. Goethe
stated in his " Nachruf an Wieland "^ that there are two
maxims of translation : the one demands that the foreign
author be brought to the position of the reader, so that the
reader may view him as his own; the second demands of the
reader that he approach the position and point of view of the
foreign author. Schleiermacher, in his essay on translating,^
also mentions these two maxims, but says that they do not
afford any guidance for the translator, as in its absolute mean-
ing the first would be impracticable, and the second, if taken
literally, does not belong to the province of translation. For
to bring the author to meet the foreign reader, means, in its
extreme sense, to get the poet to speak in a foreign tongue, as
he would have done, if he had used that particular language.
If the poet, for example, be a German and the reader English,
he must be made to speak as an Englishman to the English.
This is impracticable advice, because there is no one who is
able to tell how a given poet would have spoken in a foreign
language to foreign peoples. On the other hand, in order
to bring the foreign reader to the position of the author, it
would be necessary, in the ultimate meaning of this rule, that
he master the language of the author. This would not be a
question of translation, but of the acquirement of a foreign
language by the reader.
Schleiermacher and others have pointed out that the more
practical rule for the translator is, that both the reader and
the foreign author must be transported to a common point of
meeting, to a position apart from that which either one occu-
pies by nature, and that will be the position of the translator.
He is to bring them together in this translation. He will then
indeed be a mediator who finds the common ground of the
author and the foreign reader.
2 " Werke, Jubilaums-Ausgabe," Vol. XXXVII, p. 22.
^ " Werke," Part 3, Vol. II, pp. 207-245. He does not refer to Goethe,
however, Wieland died in 181 3, and since Schleiermacher wrote his essay
the same year, it is probable that neither knew of the statement ot the
other.
81
The translator, according to this view, must aim to give his
reader such a picture and such an appreciation of the foreign
masterpiece as that person enjoys who has completely mastered
the foreign tongue. This thought was also expressed bv
IMatthew Arnold when he said that a translation of Homer
ought to have the same effect on the reader that a reading of
the original has upon a Greek scholar like Professor Jowett,
for example.^
In rendering literary masterpieces the question of the form
the translation is to assume is important. This is especially
true in the case of a poem, where form means so much. If
substance only is desired, a poem may be rendered in prose,
but that is not a real translation, as the peculiar excellences of
great poems consist in their form as well as in their substance.
Then it may be questioned whether a prose rendition of a poem
is a translation at all. A. W. Schlegel denies this, and calls
a prose translation of poetry, " poetischer Totschlag."'^ As
to the possibility of accuracy in a poetical translation, Schlegel
says : '' Ich wage zu behaupten, dass eine solche Ubersetzung
in gewissem Sinne noch treuer als die treueste prosaische sein
konnte."^ On the other hand it has also been said that, while
much is lost in a prose translation of poetry, nothing that is
lost can be enjoyed without studying the language in which
tlie poetry was written.'^ This argument is based on the
assumption that the form of a poem is so intimately bound up
with the language that it is impossible to reproduce any of the
melody of its versification in another tongue. If this is taken
as absolute truth, then metrical translations of poetry should
be discouraged. Still, there are excellent examples of metrical
translations to refute this.
An absolute adherence to the form of the original would of
course be impracticable, and possible only in rare cases in
shorter poems. Humboldt, who was a successful translator
of Greek masterpieces, says that fidelity to the original is to
*" Works of Matthew Arnold." London, 1903, Vol. V, p. 156.
° Haym, " Die Romantische Schule," zweite Auflage, Berlin, 1906, p. 167.
• "Werke," Vol. VII, p. 62.
' The Examiner, March 24, 1833, p. 180.
7
82
be demanded of the translator, that is, fidelity to the true
character of the literary production, and not sla\-ish adherence
to the details of its form. He emphasizes, however, that too
much attention can not be given to tlie metrical part of a poem.^
Among the successful translators in the modem languages who
have followed this rule, the name of Freiligrath may be men-
tioned.® He translated a number of English and French
poems into German with fidelity to the spirit of the original,
and imitated their form as consistently as the genius of the
respective languages would admit.
In this connection the question of the qualifications of an
ideal translator may be brought up. It goes without saying
that he should have a thorough knowledge of the language he
is to render. A deep and true poetic feeling, and a subtle
sense for the nice distinctions in language and thought are
also indispensable prerequisites. It has at times been argued
that none but a genuine poet could translate a great poem.^"
But experience has proven that very few great poets have
made careful translations. They are tempted to embroider
the tlioughts of other writers with their own poetical fancies.
Their own inspiration prevents that subordination of self
which is necessar}- in a faithful translation. On the other
hand, to have no poetic insight results in a much more lament-
able failure.
The merits of the translations by great geniuses consist in
their poetic power. They are certainly not to be spurned,
although they do not do full justice to tlie autlior of tlie
original. It is admitted, for example, tliat Coleridge did not
follow Schiller closely in his '"AVallenstein." He used what is
sometimes termed the " compensatory method of translation,"
that is, he added to the text occasionally, or changed it to
suit his own fancy. And it is for this reason that some have
^ Cf. Introduction to his Translation of " Agamemnon," Works, Berlin,
1843, Vol. Ill, pp. 1-32.
' Cf. Dr. Kurt Richter. " Freiligrath als Ubersetzer," Muncker. " For-
schungen zur neueren Literaturgeschichte." Xo. 11, Berlin, 1890.
^^ A. \V. Schlegel, whose ideals of the art of translating were very high,
speaks of a poetical translation as the writing of original poetry, as a new
creation. Haym, " Die Romantische Schule," p. 785.
83
made bold to say that Coleridge's translation is superior to the
origfinal.^^ It is usually the case that men of moderate poetic
genius are more apt to produce translations that have the true
p)oetic ring, and yet do justice to the spirit of the original.
An excellent translation is not accomplished without pains-
taking labor, and a great poet finds it difficult to suppress the
inspiration of the moment and assiduously devote himself to
this necessan.- drudger}-.
2. Difficulties of Translating "Faust '
Turning now to the specific difficulties that are encountered
in translating " Faust," the question of the nature of the two
languages imder consideration at once presents itself. Is
translation from German to English fraught with special
difficulties ?
German and English are sister languages, and still, on ac-
count of their entirely separate development, and the imusually
strong foreign influence on English, they represent a dissimi-
larity- in structure which makes translation from one language
to the other much harder than one upon first thought imagines.
English affords the translator great wealth of vocabular}- and
phraseolog}% but being almost entirely stripped of its inflec-
tional endings, and deprived of the facilit>- to form new word-
compounds, it suffers from an overabundance of short words.
It is saved from becoming monosyllabic only by its long
foreign words, especially those of Latin origin. In this proc-
ess of simplification the English language has gained much in
force, but it has lost correspondingly in elegance.^- It is there-
fore much more inflexible than German, with its abundance of
inflectional endings and its abilit}" to form new word-
compounds.
In translating from German, one of the problems that con-
fronts the translator is, how to deal with the feminine rimes. To
" Walter Scott, for example, was of the opinion that Coleridge " made
' Wallenstein ' far finer than he found it." Cf. " Samuel Taylor Coleridge,"
by James Dykes Campbell, London, 1894, p. 112, note.
" Cf. Jespersen, " Growth and Structure of the English Language." Leip-
zig. 1905, p. 6.
84
render a German poem in English blank verse would be com-
paratively easy, because the blank verse is indigenous to Eng-
land. But rimed German poetry with its feminine endings is
more difficult. In German these rimes are made up largely
of the inflectional endings. English, as was mentioned, has
practically done away with inflections and possesses, moreover,
very few words that naturally form feminine rimes like " ever,"
"never," etc. If the translator from German to English wishes
to imitate these rimes, he must have recourse to other methods
in accomplishing his end.
If one scans the work of such a translator,^^ it will be seen
that his chief source for the double rimes in English is the
present participle with its ending in " ing." Then the follow-
ing come in order : the past tense and past participle of regular
verbs with their ending " ed " ; nouns ending in " ion " ; combi-
nations of words which give the effect of the feminine rime,
like " know it," " show it." Then follow in order of usage
the small quota of words in English which naturally form
double rimes like " reason," " season," etc., that do not have
the awkward effect of the continued repetition of rimes in
" ing," " ed," and " ion," or of the word combinations.
To attempt a consistent imitation of the feminine rimes
which are so natural to the German, is to do violence to the
English language. The effect it produces upon the English
ear is that of awkwardness and stiffness in the verse, instead
of the smoothness of the original German. The person who
has an ear for German rimes will not be deluded by the English
substitute. The word-combinations to which such translators
frequently have recourse to eke out the feminine rimes are
especially awkward. It may be said by way of excuse for
these translators, that the word-combinations in imitation of
feminine rimes are used by Byron and the Brownings.^* But
nevertheless, their use in translating can not be defended on this
ground. They are not a usual characteristic of good English
poetry, and no one will claim special elegance for them, even
" For example, the American translations of " Faust," by Brooks and
Bayard Taylor.
" Byron in " Don Juan."
85
where they are used by great English poets. In a French or
Italian translation the case is different. There the imitation of
the feminine rimes would be in order, because they are natural
to those languages.
Another difficulty that the "Faust" translator has to contend
with is the great variety of its meters. Even if only Part First
is taken into consideration, one finds there rimed iambic
tetrameter, rimed iambic pentameter, blank verse, and a sprink-
ling of alexandrines.^^ The latter occur most frequently in
Faust's monologue in the Easter scene. Then, there is one
scene in prose and the Dedication is written in the ottava-rima.
Many of the lyrical passages also have their own peculiar
meter, some with dactyls and anapests. If " Faust " is com-
pared in this respect with other long poems like the " Iliad " or
the " Divine Comedy," it shows many irregularities in form.
These poems written in but one meter, present from the stand-
point of form, a much more simple task for the translator.
He is obliged to accustom himself to but one meter, while the
translator of " Faust " must contend with many varieties, if
he attempts to reproduce the form of the poem. Hence Mat-
thew Arnold pronounced for a prose translation of " Faust,"
because in his opinion, it is composed of parts so disparate,
that one translator is not likely to have the requisite gifts for
poetically rendering all of them. But Homer's " Iliad " is
written in one manner and as such it may find, as he says, a
poetical translator so gifted and so trained as to be able to
learn that one manner and reproduce it.^^
But the linguistic difficulties of a " Faust " translation are
not all summed up in the great variety of its meters. The lan-
guage of *' Faust " in its simplicity and directness, with its
rhythm and music, is hard to reproduce. For above all,
" Faust " is a poem as well as a play. A writer in Blackwood's
Magazine'^'' finds in "Faust" "an exact transcript in the highest
'5 See lines 674, 675 and 746, 747. These four lines are alexandrines, and
between these two places there are seven others. For other instances, see
Schroer, "Faust" Part First, p. 12, footnote.
""Works," London, 1903, Vol. V, p. 256.
"Blackwood's Magazine (1840), Vol. XLVII, p. 223.
86
poetr>' of the language really used by men." The rhythm can-
not be divorced from the meaning of the words in a poem like
" Faust." Andrews, a writer in the Atlantic Monthly,^^ refers
in his discussion of Goethe's " Faust " to Wagner's elaborate
theory of the marriage of music and meaning. He says that
Wagner's theory of a musical atmosphere, enveloping and sug-
gesting the characters is worked out in practice in Goethe's
poem.
With all these difficulties confronting the translator, it is
not to be wondered at that some of the men best qualified for
the task, shrank from it, and others, like Hayward, decided
that literal prose would be best for a translation of " Faust."
This is reverting to the point already touched on — the advisa-
bility of prose translations of poetry. Goethe is sometimes
quoted in favor of this method. He says in " Dichtung und
Wahrheit " : "I honor both rhythm and rime, by which poetry
first becomes poetr}'; but the properly deep and radically
effective — the truly developing and quickening is what remains
of the poet when he is translated into prose. The inward sub-
stance then remains in its purity and fulness : which when it is
absent, a dazzling exterior often deludes with the semblance
of, and, when it is present, conceals."^^ It is not to be for-
gotten, however, that Goethe in the " Notes to the W^est-
Easterly Divan" speaks of other methods of translating than
the prosaic, and awards the palm, not to the prose translation,
nor to the paraphrase, which are mentioned there also, but to
a third method which he would call " the highest and last,
where one strives to make the translation identical with the
original, so that one is not instead of the other but in place of
the other.''^^**
And this highest method is the ideal that the literary trans-
lator should keep before himself. Great poets like Goethe
draw nourishment from the substance of genuine poetry to
enrich their imagination, and the matter of form is not so
^Atlantic Monthly (1890), Vol. LXVI, p. 733.
" Translation by Hayward. Cf. " Werke, Jubilaums-Ausgabe," Vol.
XXIV, p. 56.
* " Werke, Jubilaums-Ausgabe," Vol. V, pp. 303-306.
87
important with them. Thus Byron found food in the viva
voce translation of " Faust " by Monk Lewis. But the ideal
reader that the translator should have in mind, is not a poet,
and he needs the attractiveness of the form of the poem to
captivate and hold his attention. And this is particularly true
of a poem like " Faust " whose peculiar excellences consist in
great part in the rhythm and harmony of its versification.
Even with such a high aim in view, many feel called to trans-
late Goethe's " Faust " in poetical form who do not possess the
requisite qualifications in imaginative talent and linguistic
scholarship. Their w'ork will be worthless or mediocre, both
from the standpoint of verse and interpretation. A translation
in mediocre verse does not do justice to the original. Literal
prose is to be preferred, as there will then be no deception in
regard to the form of the poem. There is an agreement by
mutual consent between a prose translator and his readers that
the form of the poem is to be ignored, while in an inferior
verse translation, or in any other version, that by omission or
otherwise is not true to the spirit of the original, a spurious
article is offered which deceives the reader. Translation in its
highest sense is a matter of morality in which reverence for
the original work of art is to be the guide.
The question whether Matthew Arnold was right in saying
that it would be impossible for any one person to render
acceptably all the varied meters and versification of '* Faust,"
is open to argument. The ideal translation of Homer which
Arnold described was to be realized in the future. In the
same way one may set up the ideal of a poetical translation of
"Faust" in English which is to follow the meter of the original
as closely as is consistent with the nature and genius of the
English language. That the translator should not fetter him-
self by trying to imitate the feminine rimes throughout the
poem, w'as shown above, and that every detail of the verse,
like the small number of alexandrines, should be reproduced,
no one will be pedantic enough to demand. In other respects,
however, the form of the poem should be held sacred. A
little more labor will be necessar}' than if the whole poem were
written in one manner, but there is no good reason to assume
88
that it cannot be accomplished by a translator of poetic insight.
The varied meters of " Faust " are found in English poetry.
The most of Part First was written in rimed tetrameter and
rimed iambic pentameter. The first was used by Coleridge in
" Christabel,"^^ and the second occurs as heroic verse in the
dramas of Dryden, in the didactic poetry of Pope, and in the
English epic.
3. Theories on the Art of Translating in England
It will be well to glance at the theories on the art of trans-
lating which were current in England in the early part of the
nineteenth century. If the translators gave any attention to
the formulation of a method of work, they were naturally
guided by the prevailing theories. There is, to be sure, very
little evidence which goes to show a careful consideration of
this subject by the early translators of " Faust." And yet, it
may be assumed that even those who gave the matter little
thought, were unconsciously influenced by the principles that
were laid down by their predecessors.
The authors that had written on this subject in England,
discussed solely translation from the ancient languages. Not
enough prestige had been gained for German literature in
England, to make translating from the German a live question.
Some of the English people felt that they were behind the
Germans in the art of translating. Mrs. Sarah Austin said in
her work on Goethe of the year 1833 : " The morality of trans-
lating has, unfortunately, been understood and practiced by no
people but the Germans, and it is time that the conscientious
endeavor to understand and render an author should not be all
on one side." A writer in Blackzvood's Magazine said in 1841 :
" One may trust to a German translator 99 times out of a hun-
dred ; to an English translator, in every hundred only one. The
Germans make a business of translating. They study it as
an art. They are honest and conscientious in the matter."--
^^ Bateson, H. D., " An Introduction to the study of English Rhythms,
with an Essay on the Meter of Coleridge's Christabel." Reprinted from
the Manchester Quarterly, 1896.
^ " Characteristics of Goethe," by Mrs. Sarah Austin, Vol. I, p. 273, and
Blackwood's Magazine (1841), Vol. L, p. 152.
89
Of the more important writers on the art of translation, who
influenced the thought on this subject at the beginning of the
nineteenth century, John Dryden is to be mentioned first. He
reduced translating to three kinds, which in substance are :*^
1. Metaphrase, or turning an author word by word and line
by line, from one language into another.
2. Paraphrase, or translation with latitude, where the author's
words are not so strictly followed as his sense; and this, too,
may be amplified but not altered.
3. Imitation, where the translator (if he now has not lost
that name) assumes the liberty to forsake both words and
sense as he sees occasion.
Imitation and verbal version are the two extremes Dryden
would have the translator avoid, and he proposes the mean
between the two. This would be his second method — para-
phrase. His followers imitated him in his free and easy
methods of translation. Fidelity to the original was lost sight
of, and translation was, for a while at least, synonymous with
paraphrase.
Pope, in his translation of Homer, amplified and embellished .
by his own imagery. He used metaphorical expressions which
are foreign to Homer, whose language is strength united with
simplicity. This artificiality in the translations of Pope was
but a tendency of the times in which he lived.
In 1791 there appeared an elaborate treatise on the "Prin-
ciples of Translation," by Alexander Fraser Tytler, professor
of history in the University of Edinburgh.-* He emphasizes
the importance of translating and laments the fact that no more
has been done to investigate its laws or unfold its principles.
He describes a good translation to be : " That in which the
merit of the original work is so completely transferred into
another language, as to be distinctly apprehended, and as
^ Preface to the Translation of Ovid's " Epistles," Works, Scott and
Saintsbury, Edinburgh, 1885, Vol. XII, pp. 7 and 281.
" " Essay on the Principles of Translation." By Alexander Fraser
Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, Edinburgh, 1791, 1797, and 181 3. My ac-
count is based on the edition of 1813.
90
strongly felt, by a native of the country to which that language
belongs, as it is by those who speak the language of the original
work. If this description is a just one, then three laws of
translation will follow : "
1. "That the translation should give a complete transcript
of the ideas of the original work."
2. " That the style and manner of writing should be the
same character with that of the original."
3. " That the translation should have all the ease of original
composition."
In his concluding chapter Tytler states in substance that the
genius of the translator should be akin to that of the original
author, and that the best translators have been those who have
composed original works of the same species as those which
they have translated.
All these rules by Tytler refer to ancient language transla-
tions. German and the other modern languages are not men-
tioned. His book is, upon the whole, opposed to the free and
easy methods of translation practiced by Dryden and his fol-
lowers and it emphasizes as against Pope, the wrong done an
author by introducing elements not found in the original.
Later, when the translations of " Faust " begin to appear,
there is incidentally some consideration of the art of transla-
tion in connection with the review of them. A lengthy treat-
ment of the history and principles of translation is begun by
the Edinburgh Review in discussing Hayward's " Faust."
The article brings out nothing further than the fact that clas-
sical nations never studied the principles of translation — and
that modern nations have not yet arrived at a "just conception
of what is implied in language, as significant of the national
character, to have yet been able to apply the test of philosoph-
ical criticism to the exigencies of translation." It refers to
modern languages as " living mongrel dialects " as opposed to
the classical languages, and states that the harmony of modern
verse stands at an immense interval from the power and sweet-
ness combined in the classical tongues. To rescue the har-
91
mony or melody of modern verse in a translation would afford
but poor remuneration. For this reason it justifies the experi-
ment of Mr. Hayward in translating " Faust " into prose.-''
How the early translators of " Faust " approached their task
will be the subject of the following pages.
â– '^Edinburgh Review (1833), Vol. LVII, p. 107.
CHAPTER V
Translations of the First Part of " Faust " up to 1850
I. George Soane
A metrical translation of " Faust " was begun by George
Soane in 1822. He was interrupted after completing the first
576 lines, and never finished the undertaking. Boileau, a native
German living in London, mentions this fragment in his review
of Hayward's " Faust," saying : " Mr. George Soane had been
invited by the German bookseller, Bohte, to attempt a poetical
translation of Goethe's ' Faust,' the first sheets of which were
sent to Goethe, who greatly approved of the translation, and
Mr. Soane had done nearly one-third of the work when the
death of bookseller Bohte, and unpleasant family affairs which
deprived Mr. Soane of the serenity of mind necessar>^ for such
a task, made him relinquish an undertaking which would have
exhibited alike his poetical powers and his perfect knowledge
of the language of Germany."^
The part that Soane translated was printed in advance sheets.
They must have been known to a number of persons at that
time, as they are also referred to by a writer in the London
Magazine, who says that he has thirty-two pages of Soane's
translation in print. " No doubt," he continues, " the vener-
able John Wolfgang's inspection of his manuscript has been
of material utility, and will give his undertaking consequence
in the eyes of the public."^
The publisher Bohte took the advance sheets with him to
Weimar in June 1822, and sent them to Goethe, who was in
Jena at that time.^ The translation was printed side by side
with the original. After reading it, Goethe wrote to Reinhard,
^ Boileau, D. " A few Remarks on Mr. Hayward's English Prose Trans-
lation of Goethe's ' Faust,' with additional observations on the difficulty
of translating German works in general." London, 1834, p. 19.
^London Magazine (1821), Vol. IV, p. 657.
'Graf, p. 285, and Pniower, p. 136.
92
93
June lo, 1822: "In Enj^land hat cin ITerr Soanc mcinen
' Faust ' bewunderungswiirdig verstandcn und dessen Eigcn-
tiimlichkeitcn mit dcr Eigentiimlichkeit seiner Sprache und den
Forderungen seiner Nation in Ilarmonie zu bringen gewusst ;
icli besitze die ersten Bogen mit neben gedrucktem Original."
The next year Goethe printed the four stanzas of the Dedica-
tion as translated by Soane in " Kunst und Altertum."*
In spite of the fact that this fragment was well-known in
England, no copy of it seems to have been preserved there,
and it was entirely unknown, until a few years ago when
Goethe's copy was discovered in his Nachlass. It was pub-
lished bv Leonard L. Mackall.^
Special interest attaches to this translation on account of the
praise that Goethe bestowed upon it. Naturally, one must
allow for the special pleasure that Goethe felt in seeing this
first attempt to make " Faust " known in England by a poetic
translation. Goethe emphasized that the translator thoroughly
understood the original and that his work was done with due
consideration for the peculiarities of the English language.
So far as the meter is concerned, Soane might have followed
the original more closely. He converted the ottava-rima of
the Dedication into Spenserian stanzas. Most of his transla-
tion is in blank verse, including, among other parts, the Pre-
lude and the Prologue, with the exception of the Archangels'
Chants, which are rimed. He succeeded best in the rimed
iambic tetrameter of the monologue of Faust, of which the
following is a specimen:
Oh thou full moon whose waxing light
I oft have watched in middle night.
Oh, that thy beams were shining now
The last time on my troubled brow !
Then mournful friend thy round full-grown,
Upon my books and papers shone.
Ah, could I on thy mountain height
But wander in thy lovely light,
*" Kunst und Altertum " (1823), Vol. IV, No. 2, pp. 77-78, and Graf,
p. 285.
° Published in Archiv (1904), Vol. CXII, pp. 280-293. A reprint has
also been published by Westermann, Braunschweig, 1904.
94
In mountain caves with spirits creep,
O'er meadows in thy twiHght sweep,
And, free from learning's sickly pain
Bathe in thy dews to health again !
Here he has followed the meter closely without any attempt
to imitate the feminine rimes. Some of the difficulties of
rendering the highly idiomatic and poetic language of Goethe
are here at once evident. " Herangewacht " is well-nigh
untranslatable. Soane attempted to give it by, " whose waxing
light, I oft have watched." He tried to get at the meaning as
near as possible in all cases, and no serious errors of interpre-
tation can be charged against him. H one takes into considera-
tion that this was the first attempt to translate " Faust " into
English verse and that no previous work was in existence by
which it could be measured, it is deserving of commendation.
2. Percy Bysshe Shelley
Shelley's interest in Goethe's " Faust " began early in life.
With a nature somewhat akin to that of Faust, he found food
here for his soul. Of all the works that he read, Schiller's
" Robbers " and Goethe's " Faust " were, according to Dowden,^
those which took the deepest root in Shelley's mind and had
the strongest influence in the formation of his character.
During a six-weeks stay in Germany in 1814, he made his
first efforts to learn the German language. In 181 5, he con-
tinued his attempts to master German by translating literally
a part of the beginning of Goethe's " Faust." Three short
specimens are given in his complete works. '^ He translated
word for word, retaining even the German word order. Sev-
eral examples will show the nature of these attempts.
496 f. Bist du es der von meinem Hauch umwittert.
In alien Lebenstiefen zittert.
Art thou he ? who by my breath round-thundered.
In all thy life's depth shook.
'Dowden, "Life of Shelley," London, 1886, Vol. I, p. 472.
Torman, "Prose Works of Shelley," Vol. Ill, pp. 319-325.
95
828 f. Blitz, wie die wackern Dirnen schreitcn !
Herr Bruder, komni ! wir iiuisscn sic bcgleitcn.
Lightning-like the vigorous maidens stride !
Mr. Brother, come ! we must them accompany.
Shelley's interest in " Faust " continued, and when the plates
by Retzsch appeared, he was much delighted with them. Rut
he criticized the translation of extracts that accompanied them
as " weak and incompetent to represent ' Faust.' "^ He was
prompted to translate the Walpurgis-Nig^ht and the Prologue
himself, because they had been omitted from the publication of
Boosey. At first Shelley hesitated to attempt the work as he
considered himself incompetent for the task. He was of the
opinion that Coleridge was best qualified to render " Faust."
As early as January 1822, he wrote to Gisborne^ calling the
translation of Boosey^" and the fragments in Blackzvood's
Magazine "miserable," and exclaiming: "Ask Coleridge if
their stupid misintelligence of the deep w'isdom and harmony
of tlie author does not spur him to action."
But Coleridge was apparently not to be moved. Byron, who
was anxious to have " Faust " in an English version, urged
Shelley to undertake a translation. Shelley thereupon trans-
lated the Walpurgis-Night for the Liberal, a magazine to be
published by Leigh Hunt, Shelley, Byron, and others.^^
Shelley wrote to Gisborne, April 10, 1822 : " I have — imagine
my presumption — translated several scenes from both (' Faust'
and Calderon's 'II Magico Prodigioso') as the basis of a
paper for our journal." The Prologue was translated later, and
first published in the " Posthumous Poems " by Mrs. Shelley.^-
Both are given in the works as edited by Forman and Rosetti."
* Letter to John Gisborne, " Prose Works," Vol. IV, p. 262.
"Forman, "Prose Works," Vol. IV, p. 251.
" Refers to the anonymous translation, which was published by Boosey
in 1821.
" The Liberal, Verse and Prose from the South, Vol. I, pp. 121-139.
'^ Erich Schmidt is in error when he says in his " Faust " commentary
that the Prologue, as translated by Shelley, appeared in the Liberal in 1822.
Cf. " Goethes siimtliche Werke, Jubilaums-Ausgabe," Vol. XIII, p. 2-j2.
" Forman, " Poetical Works," Vol. IV, pp. 284-309 ; Rosetti, Vol. Ill,
pp. 320-336.
96
Shelley translated his fragments in blank verse. He used
rime, however, in rendering the Chants of the Archangels, and
the Chorus of Faust, Mephistopheles, and the Ignis Fatuus
(3871-3912), and the Witch's Chorus (3956-4015).
Shelley took delight in rendering the Walpurgis-Night and
revelled in the throng of Goethe's wild images. He translated
with simplicity and force as the following passage will show :
3871 f. The limits of the sphere of dream,
The bounds of true and false are passed.
Leads us on, thou wandering gleam.
Lead us onward far and fast.
To the wide the desert waste.
But see how swift advance and shift
Trees behind trees, row by row, —
How clift by clift, rocks bend and lift
Their frowning foreheads as we go.
The giant-snouted crags, ho ! ho !
How they snort and how they blow !
Through the mossy sods and stones.
Stream and streamlet hurry down —
A rushing throng ! a sound of song
Beneath the vault of heaven is blown !
Sweet notes of love, the speaking tones
Of this bright day, sent down to say
That Paradise on earth is known,
Resound around beneath above.
All we hope and all we love
Finds a voice in this blithe strain.
Which wakens hill and wood and rill.
And vibrates far o'er field and vale,
And which Echo, like the tale
Of old times, repeats again.
Shelley gives wing to his poetic fancy occasionally and ampli-
fies upon Goethe's text.
3950-53. Und durch die iibertriimmerten Kliifte
Zischen und heulen die Liifte.
Horst du Stimmen in der Hohe?
In der Feme in der Nahe?
97
Shelley renders :
And through the ruins of the shaken mountain
The airs hiss and howl —
It is not the voice of the fountain,
Nor the wolf in his midnight prowl.
Dost thou not hear?
Strange accents are ringing
Aloft, afar, anear:
His knowledge of German fails hini now and then as is shown
by the following passages :
3926-27. Und hier in der gedrangten Ecke
Vereinzelt sie sich auf einmal.
And now once more within that narrow corner
Masses itself into intenscst splendor.
3936-37. Wie rast die Windsbraut durch die Luft !
Mit welchen Schlagen trifft sie meinen Nacken !
The children of the wind rage in the air I
With what fierce strokes they fall upon my neck !
4050. Ich hore was von Instrumenten tonen !
I hear them tune their instruments —
4161. Wir sind so klug und dennoch spukt's in Tegel.
Are we so wise and is the pond" still haunted?
Some of the gross allusions Shelley avoids or gives them a
humorous turn. He is probably uncertain as to their meaning.^^
" I am inclined to believe, however, that this is not Shelley's translation.
It is stated by Miss Blind {Westminster Revietv (1870), XXXVIII, 82)
that in the Boscombe MS. the passage for " Tegel " is left blank, and
that the person who published it in the Liberal probably inserted the word
" pond " to fill out the gap. Forman (" Poetical Works of Shelley " IV,
306) believes there is not sufficient evidence for this assumption. But if
one sees that Shelley also left the place for the word "Prater" (4211)
blank, another word, which like " Tegel " could not possibly be understood
by Shelley, one must agree with Miss Blind. Cf. also, Zupitza, " Zu einer
Stelle in Shelleys Uberstetzung von ' Faust,' " Archiv, XCIV, 267. It
is here also shown that very probably the MS. did not go through without
changes.
" For a closer textual comparison of Shelley's translation, see : Zeiger,
" Shelleys Stellung zur deutschen Literatur," Studicn cur verglcichenden
Literaturgeschichte, Vol. I, p. 312.
8
98
3977- The child in the cradle he's strangled at home.
And the mother is clapping her hands. —
3961. 'Twixt witches and incubi what shall be done?
Tell it who dare ! Tell it who dare !
The Prologue in Heaven which was written later and pub-
lished for the first time with the " Posthumous Poems " was,
upon the whole, translated more correctly. Shelley had then
advanced in his knowledge of German. He was attracted by
the Miltonic grandeur of the Archangels' Chants, and caught
the spirit of mocking irreverence of Mephistopheles. He
rendered Raphael's song as follows :
The sun makes music as of old
Amid the rival spheres of heaven,
On its predestined circle rolled
With thunder-speed : the angels even
Draw strength from gazing on its glance,
Though none its meaning fathom may : —
The world's unwithered countenance
Is bright as at creation's day.
Along with this translation of the Archangels' Chants, Shelley
gave what he called, " a literal translation " of the three stanzas,
which are given by Forman in a footnote. Raphael's Chant he
interpreted :
The sun sounds, according to ancient custom.
In the song of emulation of his brother spheres.
And its forewritten circle
Fulfills with a step of thunder.
Its countenance gives the angels strength
Tho none can fathom it.
The incredible high works
Are excellent as at the first day.
In regard to this supplementary translation Shelley said:
" Such is a literal translation of this astonishing chorus ; it is
impossible to represent in another language the melody of the
versification ; even the volatile strength and delicacy of the
99
ideas escape in the crucible of translation, and the reader is
surprised to find a caput mortuum.'"^'^
Shelley's translation received a great deal of favorable com-
ment. Hayward said of it: "Of the power manifested in the
unfinished fragments of Shelley, few think or speak more
highly than myself." Goethe, however, did not record his
opinion of the translation, although he saw it in 1826 in
Shelley's ** Posthumous Works. "^^
In spite of the fact that Shelley's knowledge of German was
not perfect, and of his inclination to embroider Goethe's text
with his own fancies, he produced in these fragments a trans-
lation of poetic beauty and forceful simplicity which can be
read with pleasure. One can only regret that he did not trans-
late the entire First Part.
3. Lord Francis Leveson Gower
The next translation was published in 1823 by Lord Gower,
who later in life went by the title. Lord Egerton, Earl of Elles-
mere.^® He possessed some talent for versification, but his
knowledge of German was entirely inadequate for a good trans-
lation of " Faust." It is even said that he did the work as an
exercise in the German language. But it was read much in
England in spite of its defects. When it appeared, interest in
Goethe's poem had been aroused, which made Gower's trans-
lation popular. A second edition was printed in 1825.
For ten years Gower's " Faust " was the only complete Eng-
lish translation extant — that is, it was supposed to be com-
plete, but in reality it was only a mutilated version, as Gower
omitted parts of Goethe's text wherever he pleased. In his
introduction he stated that he left sundry passages unattempted
where he was convinced of his own inability to transfer their
spirit to a translation. " Considerations of decency " had also
""Poetical Works," Forman, Vol. IV, p. 286.
"Graf, p. 342. July 19, 1826 (Nachmittags). Shelleys Ubersetzung aus
"Faust." See also, Pniower, No. 461.
'' Hence, the interchange of names by Engel in his " Zusammenstellungen."
Nos. 803, 805 and 854. In reality 854 is the same translation mentioned
in 803 and 805.
100
in a few instances prevented him from proceeding. His argu-
ment was that the passages in question were not indispensable
for the understanding of the story. Of the Prolog he gave
only the Archangels' Chants, omitting the rest of the scene, and
appending a note in which he briefly gave the contents of the
dialogue between the Lord and Mephistopheles, stating that
he omitted it in the translation, because the " tone of famil-
iarity on both sides is revolting in a sacred subject."
In addition to this part of the Prologue, he omitted: The
Shepherd's Song, 949-980; Song of the Invisible Spirits,
1607-1634; part of Auerbach's Cellar, 2092-2157; the Flower
Scene, 3 174-3 194; the interlude on the Blocksberg, 3956-
4182.
He mutilated the poem by these omissions, but his faults in
this respect are even less grave than his mistakes of commis-
sion. A few examples will suffice to show his insufficient
knowledge of the German language. He erred frequently in
the use of the personal pronoun. So in the translation of:
1772-5. High as yourself to mount and dive as low;
Upon myself to heap your weal and woe;
Wide as your range my circle to extend.
And like yourself be blasted in the end.
A few of the other glaring errors may be noted. In the first
edition he translated line 1 141 :
Und lispeln Englisch wenn sie liigen.
And lisp in English when they lie.
If Gower was afraid of offending the English people by parts
of " Faust," he ought to have left this out by all means.
1292-3. Keines der Viere
Steckt in dem Tiere.
None of the four.
Stand in the door.
2617-18. Wie sie kurz angebunden war,
Das ist nun zum Entziicken gar !
101
And when to earth her glance she threw,
She pierced my easy bosom too.
As with her gown held up she fled,
That well-turned ankle well might turn one's head.
But with all his ignorance of German, Gower was a good
versifier, and when he understood the meaning, he often pro-
duced a very good translation. For example, take Faust's
Curse :
1 583-1606. What though remembered music's powers
One instant o'er my senses stole,
And with the forms of earlier hours.
From frenzy's grasp recalled my soul !
Still shall my curse invoke confusion
O'er flattery's web and falsehood's spell —
On all that with its cold illusion
Confines us to this earthly hell!
And first I curse the loftier dreaming.
With which the soul itself deceives;
Cursed be the dazzle and the seeming,
In which the easy sense believes.
Cursed be ambition's vain impression —
Fame's specious life beyond the grave !
Cursed all that flatters with possession.
As wife and child and house and slave !
Cursed be mammon when his treasures
As lures to active deeds are spread !
Cursed when he smoothes for slothful pleasures,
The pillows of the sluggard's bed.
Cursed be the vine's balsamic potion,
And cursed be love's delicious thrall !
And cursed be hope and faith's devotion,
And cursed be patience more than all.
It wall be noticed that Gower here imitated the feminine
rimes of the German, but he did not do so consistently through
the poem.
The translation of Gower received much attention from the
leading magazines, as will be seen by referring to the bibli-
ography. Most of the comment was unfavorable, but some of
102
the reviewers were willing to admit that it had portions of
considerable merit. The brunt of the adverse criticism was
directed against the omission of parts of Goethe's poem. It
was pointed out that these portions were absolutely necessary
to the appreciation of " Faust " as a whole. Gower's work
received its severest censure at the hands of Hayward, who
took Gower to task in his prose version of 1833, for what he
termed " sins of omission and commission." He pointed out
in detail the faults of Gower, and held them up to ridicule. ^°
Mrs. Sarah Austin, in her book on Goethe,-*' devoted several
pages to Gower's translation. She discussed especially the
translation of lines 3432-3458, the answer of Faust to Mar-
garet's inquiries into the state of his religious belief. She
corrected Gower's rendering of the passage, gave her own
translation of it, and concluded : " I regret the deficiencies of
the passage the more, because there is much to admire in
Gower's translation. The ease and grace of the versification
are often remarkable, and some passages are very happily
rendered."
There is also on record an utterance of August Wilhelm
Schlegel concerning this translation. He said: "Of several of
our original poetical works, able and felicitous translations have
appeared, among which that of ' Faust,' by Lord F. L. Gower,
displays distinguished talent in a most difficult undertaking."-^
It is probable that he did not examine the work in detail.
Carlyle expressed his disapproval of Gower's translation in
a very emphatic way. January 10, 1831, he wrote: "I greatly
approve of Empson's (editor of Edinburgh Reviciv) acknowl-
edgment that ' Faust ' is a wonderful poem and Lord Leveson
Gower a windbag; only he led him far too gently over the
coals ; he should have roasted him there, and made him not
Leveson, but a cinder. It is positively the nearest approach we
can make to sacrilege in these days, for a vain young man,
not knowing his right hand from his left, to take an inspired
" See Introduction to Hayward's Translation. Edition of 1833.
^ " Characteristics of Goethe," Vol. I, pp. 265-273.
" Cf. " Introduction to Bohte's Catalog," London, 1825. Also, " Kritische
Schriften," Part First, Berlin, 1828, p. 9.
103
work, like this of Goethe's, and mangle it into such an unspeak-
able hash. Let it either be overlooked, or punished auto-
da-fcr--
It only remains to mention here the opinion of Goethe him-
self, who received a copy of tlie translation from the author.
Goethe expressed himself as follows : " Lord Gowers Uber-
setzung its eigcntlich eine vollige Umbildung, vom Original
blieb fast gar nichts iibrig, deshalb er audi so viel auslassen
musste, woruber er nach seiner Weise nicht Herr werden
konnte."-^ We are also informed of Goethe's displeasure at
this translation from several other sources. Henry Crabb
Robinson reported in his diary of his second visit to Goethe
in 1829: " He (Goethe) was alive to his reputation in England,
and apparently mortified at the poor account I gave of Lord
F. L. Gower's translation of ' Faust,' though I did not choose
to tell him that his noble translator, as an apology, said he did
it as an exercise while learning the German language. On
my mentioning that Gower had not ventured to translate the
Prologue in Heaven, he seemed surprised. ' How so, that is
quite unobjectionable, the idea is in Job.' He did not perceive
that that was the aggravation and not the excuse."-*
A. B. Granville, an English physician who visited Goethe in
1829, also has a similar report. Goethe is made to express
himself as follows : " Whole sentences of the original have been
omitted, and chasms left in the translation, where the most
affecting passages should have been inserted to complete the
picture. There were probably difficulties in the original which
the noble translator might not be able to overcome ; few
foreigners indeed, can boast of such a mastery of our prodigal
idiom as to be able to convey its meaning with equal richness
^ Shepherd, " Memoirs of the Life and Works of Thomas Carlyle,"
London, 1881. Vol. I, p. 79. In his letters to Goethe the translation
was also denounced by Carlyle. See letters to Goethe of Nov. 15, 1830,
and Jan. 22, 1831.
^"11. Mai, 1825." " Sendung aus London von Gower. Ubersetzung
von 'Faust.' In derselben gelesen." Graf, p. 316, 320, and Pniower, No.
395. It should be noted that Gower failed to mention in his second edition
that he omitted parts of " Faust," and that this was the edition Goethe saw.
=*H. C. Robinson, "Diary," Vol. II, p. 106.
104
of expression, and strength of conception, in their own native
language ; but in case of the translation to which I allude, that
excuse for imperfection does not exist in many of the parts
which Francis Gower has thought proper to omit. No doubt
the choice of expressions in the English translation, the versi-
fication, and talent displayed in what is original composition of
his lordship's own well-gifted mind, may be deserving of his
countrymen's applause ; but it is as the author of ' Faustus '
travesti, and not as the translator of Goethe's ' Faustus ' that
the popular applause has been obtained."-^
Evidently Goethe was greatly vexed-^ at Gower's attempt to
translate " Faust," and justly so, for whatever method a trans-
lator may adopt, he at least owes deference to his author and
has no right to mutilate the original. Gower injured the cause
of Goethe in England by putting such a miserable translation
upon the market. The Quarterly Review said on this point:
" We have little doubt that the English critics who have con-
demned ' Faust ' as an immoral work, have permitted them-
selves to judge poor mutilated translations."^'^ While Gower's
version has passages of individual merit, as a whole it must
be condemned.
4. Abraham Hay ward
Hayward's prose version appeared in 1833. It was first cir-
culated among his friends and acquaintances for their opinion
and suggestions. When it was favorably commented upon, he
brought it before the public under a pseudonym.^^ In 1834
the second edition was published with corrections and emenda-
tions. Since then it has gone through ten editions, an abun-
^ " St, Petersburg, A Journal of Travels to and from the Capital." By
A. B. Granville, M.D. Second edition, London, 1829, Vol. II, p. 265.
-° It has not been recorded whether Goethe expressed his opinion of the
translation when he saw Gower, who visited him July 21, 1826, and was
one of the fifteen English friends who sent the seal on Goethe's last
birthday. Cf. Graf, p. 342.
'"Quarterly Review (1826), Vol. XXXIV, p. 138.
^ " Faust, a Dramatic Poem by Goethe." Translated into English prose,
with remarks on former translations and notes. By the translator of
Savigny's " Of the Vocation of our Age for Legislation and Jurisprudence."
London, 1833.
105
dant testimony to its great popularity. In 1892 it was once
more republished in revised form by C. A. Ruchheim.
As to the reasons for making his translation in prose, Hay-
ward said that the idea was first suggested to him by a remark
made by Charles Lamb to H. F. Cary, an honored friend of
Ha}^vard's, that he had derived more pleasure from the
meager Latin versions of the Greek tragedians, than from any
other version he was acquainted with. Hayward was then
confirmed in his determination to translate " Faust " in prose,
by the remark of Goethe that the Germans had the great advan-
tage of having Shakespeare translated in an easy and clear
manner by Wieland and Eschenburg. Hayward felt that a
prose version of "Faust" was not the ideal version, but he
came to the conclusion that it was the best plan at that time to
make an exact literal translation. He was aware that no
writer would lose so much by a prose version as Goethe, but
that, on the other hand, no writer could afford to lose so much.
Goethe would still be powerful after being submitted to the
crucible of prose. Hayward had serious thoughts at one time
of calling his work: "Aids to the Understanding of Faust," a
title modelled after the German commentaries, but eventually
he decided to make a complete translation.
When he submitted the first impression to the various Ger-
man scholars among his friends, he frequently received as
many as three or four different interpretations for the same
passage, from as many different persons, each ready to do
battle for his or her opinion. He ransacked all the various
commentaries which had at that time been published, and
deserves much credit for the scholarly methods he pursued.
Erich Schmidt has called attention to the fact that Hayward
made a suggestion at the time of his translation which antici-
pated Herman Grimm, who hit upon the same thing many
years later. He showed the analogy between the scene where
Faust is in Margaret's chamber and " La Nouvelle Heloise,"
I, No. 54.^='
Hayward had travelled in Germany before he translated
^"Urfaust. 6. Abdruck." Weimar, 1905. Introduction, p. 48.
106
" Faust," and before revising it for the second edition in the
autumn of 1833, he again went to Germany to consult with
some of the more prominent Germans of the day. He was
flatteringly received by Tieck, Chamisso, Franz Horn, Fouque,
Dr. Hitzig, Retzsch, Frau von Goethe, and others. The result
was much new material for the notes to his new edition of
" Faust." He also wrote letters of inquiry to Schlegel and
Grimm,^° and was aided by suggestions of Thomas Carlyle and
Mrs. Sarah Austin.'"^
In his first edition he placed the Prelude and the Dedication
in the appendix, giving as his reason, that they were added
long after the first appearance of the poem, and had no neces-
sary connection with it. In the later edition he put them in
their proper place, and added in the appendix, " An abstract
of the Second Part of ' Faust,' and some account of the
circumstances under which it appeared."
Before beginning his translation he felt it incumbent upon
him to show wherein previous translators had erred. He
reviewed the version of Gower and the fragments of Shelley
and Anster. The French translators, Stapfer, St. Aulaire,
Gerard, and Aladame de Stael also received notice. Gower
was discussed at length and his sins of " omission and com-
mission " were pointed out.
There were several reviews of Hayward's translation, which
should be taken into consideration here. One of them was by
Boileau^^ and the other by Koller,^^ Germans, resident in Lon-
don. Boileau discussed the first edition and Koller the second.
Buchheim's edition of Hayward's translation also contains cor-
rections and emendations of the original text. This editor
was strongly influenced in the changes that he made, by Bayard
Taylor.
*'"' Festschrift zur Begriissung des 5. allgemeinen Neuphilologentags."
Berlin, 1892, p. 77. The letters are there published by Erich Schmidt.
*^ " A Selection of the Correspondence of Abraham Hayward. With an
Account of his early Life." Edited by H. G. Carlisle. London, 1886, p. 16.
^ Boileau, D. " A few Remarks on Mr. Hayward's English Prose Trans-
lation of Faust, with additional Observations on the Difficulty of Trans-
lating German Works in general." London, 1834.
^^ Koller, Dr. H. W. " Faust Papers, containing critical and Historical
Remarks on Faust and its Translation, with some Observations upon
Goethe." London, 1835.
107
Hayward gave ''a sort of rhythmical arrangement to the
lyrical parts," in order to convey some notion of the variety
of the versification of " Faust." Take, for example, the Sol-
dier's Song:
Towns with lofty
Walls and battlements,
Maidens with proud
Scornful thoughts,
I fain would win.
Bold the adventure,
Noble the reward, etc.
But he did not do this consistently throughout the poem. The
Archangels' Chants and many other lyrical passages are given
in plain prose.
Hayward may be criticized in some instances for using lan-
guage that is out of harmony with his characters and the cir-
cumstances under which they speak. Thus, plain ^Margaret is
made to use words like " complacency," " repulsive visage,"
and " unaccountable horror " :
3075. Travellers are wont to put up with things out of complacency.
3475. Nothing in the course of my whole life has given my heart
such a pang, as the repulsive visage of that man.
3480. I have an unaccountable horror of that man.
Expressions of this sort are not justifiable in a translation
that is made avowedly in plain, literal prose. One also feels
this occasionally in the speeches of other characters. Mephis-
topheles' statement,
2963. Wenn ich nur halb ein Kenner bin.
Hayward renders: If I am but half a connoisseur.
A number of the more difficult lines will now be brought up
in order to show how Hayward and some of the other trans-
lators and commentators wrestled with them.
79. Die Gegenwart von einem braven Knaben.
108
Hayward renders " Gegenwart " by " presence." He retains
this reading in 11,^"' but says in a note: "An excellent German
scholar^^ proposes, " The present time," Blackie gets it cor-
rect in both editions, "present." Even Bayard Taylor and
Latham (1902) have "presence."
122. Was macht ein voiles Haus euch froh?
Hayward I and H : What is it that makes a full house merry?
Blackie I and H : A crowded house forsooth gives you delight.
Boileau suggests that " was " is to be translated " how."
" The pronoun interrogative * was,' " he says, " is sometimes
employed instead of the adverb interrogative ' wie.' " Goethe
says elsewhere : " Was der Junge doch f ahrt ! How well the
lad drives."
346. " Das Werdende " is an especial crux which cannot be
well rendered in English. Hayward uses in I and H, " crea-
tive essence." He says that one friend suggested, " creation's
energy." Carlyle wrote to Hayward : " There is clearly no
translating of these lines, especially on the spur of the moment;
yet it seems to me the meaning is pretty distinct — Das Wer-
dende, the thing that is a being (is o-being), means no less
than the universe (the visible universe) itself; and I para-
phrase it by, ' Existence which is everywhere a birth into
higher existence ' (or in some such way) and make a com-
fortable enough kind of sense out of that quatrain."
Blackie translates : " The self-evolving energy divine."
Swanwick uses, " Creative power " in I. In H and HI she
changes to " The ever-growing."
339. The various attempts to put Goethe's " Schalk " into
English are interesting. Hayward has, " scoffer." Blackie H,
" clever rogue." Boileau suggests, " waggish rogue." Buch-
heim corrects Hayward to read, "waggish scoffer."
490. " Ubermenschen " is also difficult to reproduce. Hay-
ward has " demigod." Blackie evades the difficulty, and Swan-
wick also has " demigod."
** I, II, etc., refer to the various editions of the translations.
^ This was Thomas Carlyle. Cf. " John Stuart Blackie, a Biography,"
by Anna M. Stoddart, Vol. I, p. 147.
109
521. " Der trockne Schleicher" likewise troubles the trans-
lator. Hayvvard calls Wagner, " the unidca'd groveller." Swan-
wick, " the soulless groveller," and Blackie, " the pedant-slave."
554-55. Ja cure Reden die so blinkend sind,
In denen ihr der Menschheit Schnitzel krauselt,
This is a difficult passage, and critics are not agreed as to its
meaning. Hayward quotes letters from Grimm and Schlegel,
who take " der Menschheit " to be in the genitive case. He
takes his cue from them and translates in I : Your speeches, I
say, which are so highly polished, in which ye crisp the shavings
of humanity, etc.
In II he substitutes " shreds " for " shavings." Swanwick
has:
Your fine harangues so polished in their kind,
Wherein the shreds of human thought ye twist.
Blackie renders, " the shavings of mankind."
1034. Mein Vater war ein dunkler Ehrenmann.
Hayward has : My father was a worthy, sombre man.
Buchheim changes the word " sombre " to " obscure."
Koller says the passage ought to be rendered: My father
w-as a worthy man, but most abstruse in his notions, fantastic.
Blackie has : My father was a stern old gentleman.
Swanwick translates: My sire of good repute and sombre
mood.
1698. Top ! Und Schlag auf Schlag !
Hayward : " Done ! And my hand upon it ! " This line
would not be considered but for the fact that both Germans,
Boileau and Koller, differ from Hayward and give a novel
explanation of the passage.
Boileau says: "Und Schlag auf Schlag" is by no means,
" and my hand upon it," but instantly, w^ithout delay, in quick
succession, meaning " let my death be instant." Koller agrees
with Boileau and gives his reason as follows : " Hayward's
translation would refer the 'Schlag auf Schlag' to the pre-
110
ceding symbolical act which is incorrect. Such a repetition of
shaking hands as a solemn concluding act of making a contract
is certainly against the German custom and our various idio-
matic expressions and law proverbs, relating to it. . , . The
expression which may be translated, ' at a blow,' is as Mr.
Boileau says, a metaphor, taken from a thunderstorm and
means, ' when to the moment I shall say,' etc., meaning with
the same rapidity as a stroke of thunder peals, he, the unhappy
being, will deliver his soul to the Devil." The other trans-
lators follow Hayward in their interpretation.
2120. Ihr Herrn gesteht ich weiss zu leben;
Hayward : You gentlemen must allow me to know something
of life.
Boileau comes nearer to the meaning when he says: You
must allow that I know manners. He then refers to a similar
passage in " Minna von Barnhelm " where the foot-man says :
Meine Herrschaft weiss zu leben, und ich soil desfalls um
Verzeihung bitten.
3187. Mich tjiberlauft's ! This exclamation of Margaret gives
vent to the emotions that are overpowering her. So much is
expressed in these two words that translators have found it
difficult to give them in another language. Hayward has : " I
tremble all over." Swanwick: "I tremble so." Blackie: "I
scarce can speak for joy." Bayard Taylor: "I'm all a-trem-
ble." Latham (1902): "A thrill runs through me." The
latter is quoted because it gives the meaning better than the
other translations.
3364-65. Mag ihr Geschick auf mich zusammensturzen
Und sie mit mir zu Grunde gehn.
Hayward has : Let her fate fall crushing upon me, and both
of us perish together.
Koller objects to this rendering very strongly and gives his
own translation as follows : Goethe has not made him say,
" Let her be damned with me ! " but Faust says, completely
absorbed in his agonies and in reference to his fate : " Shorten
Ill
them. Wliat must be done, let it be quickly done ! Should
even her fate fall crushing upon me; should even she (which
may heaven prevent) perish along with me (for I can endure
it no longer)."
4406. Dor Menschheit ganzer Jammer fasst mich an.
This has been called, " the quintessence of the love-tragedy."
Hayward gives : The concentrated misery of mankind fastens
on me.
Swanwick : IVIan's concentrated woe o'er-whelms me here.
Blackie I : All the collected wretchedness of time.
Blackie II : The up-heaped wretchedness of time. What
laborious expressions the translators use in their attempts to
reproduce Goethe's simple, " Der Menschheit ganzer Jammer ! "
These examples indicate how difficult it is to render in
another language, even in prose, some of the passages of
" Faust." Incidentally they also show the interest taken by
Hayward's friends in his work, and how later translators were
influenced by him. His " Faust " was favorably received by
the English public in general. Southey, Wordsworth, Hallam,
and others wrote to congratulate him on his success.^" Cole-
ridge, though opposed to prose translations of poetry, thought
this was well done.^^ The amateurs of German literature
regarded the work as a great achievement in the cause they all
had at heart — of making German literature, and especially
" Faust," better understood. In Germany the translation was
also well received. Hayw^ard's inquiries of German scholars
in regard to difficult passages caused them to become inter-
ested. He was made an honorary member of the Literary
Society of Berlin.
The magazines reviewed the translation extensively. While
regretting, in some instances, that the translation was in prose,
they were practically unanimous as to the scholarly merits of
the work. Fraser's Magazine expressed its satisfaction that
the meaning of " Faust " was now intelligibly given, and pro-
'° " Selections from the Correspondence of Hayward," p. 18.
'"'Table Talk," February 16, 1833.
112
posed that some one transfer the harmonies of the original
verse to EngHsh numbers.^^ If some one had arisen at that
time who was able to give a classic impress to Goethe's master-
piece on the basis of Hayward's version, some of the poor
translations that followed might have been discouraged.
Hayward was careful about interpreting " Faust " for the
English. While the work has some inaccuracies, especially in
the first edition, one is after all surprised at the philological
accuracy with which he wrought. Many references that had
puzzled readers, like " Tegel," " Lilith," " Proktophantasmist "
were explained by Hayward on the basis of information that
he received from German scholars. Passages like " Zeig mir
die Frucht, etc.," which are easy enough to render word for
word, he recognized as being exceedingly difficult to explain.
While a prose translation of " Faust " is not the ideal ver-
sion, it served a good purpose in its day, like the Wieland and
Eschenburg versions of Shakespeare in Germany. Several
poor attempts in verse like Gower's had been made. Shelley's
fragments, while spirited and poetic, lacked accuracy. Under
those conditions about the best thing that could happen for the
furtherance of " Faust " appreciation in England, was an exact
literal version like Hayward's. Matthew Arnold looked with
much favor upon this work. He said : " The First Part of
* Faust ' is, however, undoubtedly Goethe's best work. And it
is so for the plain reason that, except his ' Gedichte,' it is the
most straightforward work in poetry. Mr. Hayward's is the
best of the translations of ' Faust ' for the same reason — be-
cause it is the most straightforward. To be simple and
straightforward is as Milton saw and said, of the essence of
first rate poetry."^^
5. Anonymous Translation of 1834
The next two decades produced a number of translations,
mostly of little value, which do not deserve extended treat-
ment. The authors of these owed much to Hayward, although
^^ Eraser's Magazine (1833), Vol. VII, p. 532.
89 "Works of Matthew Arnold," London, 1903, Vol. X, p. 293.
113
they did not always admit it. They could not go far astray
in regard to verbal accuracy, as the difficult parts had been
interpreted l)y their predecessor. Besides, none of them did
themselves much credit in the matter of form and versifica-
tion. They usually excused their attempts by charging them
to the favorable comment of their friends, who saw the first
portions of their work in manuscript ; others to their acquaint-
ance with Goethe. Very few of the translators were of suffi-
cient eminence to be mentioned in the " Dictionary of National
Biography."
The anonymous translator of 1834 states in his introduction
that it had been a matter of regret and astonishment to him
that no complete English version of *' Faust " should exist
forty years after its original publication. *** He claims to have
translated the whole tragedy, and to have been on the point
of revising it, when Hayward's work appeared. He would
have thrown his manuscript aside, but was deterred from so
doing by the reflection that a prose translation of a poet, how-
ever well executed, is scarcely quite satisfactory to the great
mass of readers. He acknowledges his obligations to Hay-
ward, as having " afforded him the greatest assistance in pas-
sages of doubt and obscurity."
The translator has confined himself to blank verse, except in
the lyrical parts " as best adapted to give a true conception of
the author." The following specimen will suffice to give an
idea of his work:
Oh radiant moon ! would that thy gentle beams
Now took their last farewell of those sad griefs
Which heavily oppress me ; thou whom I
So many a time at midnight hour have watched
Beside this desk ! Then as I sat immersed
Midst books and papers, melancholy friend.
Didst thou thy welcome visits pay to me !
Oh ! could I range in thy beloved light
O'er loftiest mountain summits, and, conjoined
With spirits, hang light hovering round the mouths
** He probably has the "Fragment" of 1790 in mind.
9
114
Of rocky caves, across the meadows flit
In thy pale heavens, and freed from learning's fumes,
Refreshed, revived, immerse me in thy dew !
The translation does not justify its existence from the stand-
point of form, and it must also be condemned as having muti-
lated the poem. The Prologue is omitted because " its tone
is repugnant to English feelings." The Prelude and the Inter-
mezzo are also omitted as having no necessary connection with
the piece, and not possessing any particular interest for the
reader.
6. David Syme
In the same year appeared a translation by David Syme. It
received much more attention than the preceding one, but most
of the reviews were very unfavorable, especially the one in
Fraser's Magazine .'^'^ Syme gives Goethe's statements on trans-
lating, and says:*- "Of the two modes of translating, I cer-
tainly prefer that which in the words of Goethe " requires that
the author of a foreign nation be brought to us in such a
manner that we may regard him as our own " — to that other —
" which on the contrary, demands of us that we transport our-
selves over to him, and adopt his situation, his modes of speak-
ing, his peculiarities." Apparently this served him as a license
to take over as much of " Faust " as he wished, and to throw
the rest aside as useless. He makes bold to omit, as he says,
" a few words and lines at different places, and for a few
expressions, chiefly in the lyrical parts there may be no author-
ity in the strict letter of the text." The Prelude and the Inter-
mezzo are omitted in their entirety. The Prologue he fears to
omit in spite of the fact that it is " strange and startling," since
its omission had been considered fatal to the understanding of
the drama.*^ A translator that treats his original with so little
deference from the outset, deserves all the censure that Syme
has received.
" Vol. X, p. 88.
" Quoted by Syme from " Characteristics of Goethe," by Mrs. Sarah
Austin, Vol. II, p. 215.
*^ He probably means the statement made by the Quarterly Review, Vol.
XXXIV, p. 138.
115
He translates lines 336 f. of the Prologue:
Go!
And when you please return. I do not hate
People of your description; for of all
The spirits that fell, I never had the least
Objection to the frank and open scoffers :
Human activity is apt to sleep,
For man loves unconditional repose ;
Wherefore I give him that he may be stirred,
And kept alive, the Devil for a comrade,
To bellow in his ear, work ! work !
Syme's versification is crude and his language commonplace.
He had no talent whatever for his work. In some places he
is so diflfuse that the original is hardly to be recognized. Thus,
for example, in the Chorus of Angels, in lines 757 f. The Dublin
University Magazine is correct when it observes, that " the
version of Syme is obviously inferior to every one of the
others.""
7. John Stuart Blackie
The translation of John Stuart Blackie appeared in 1834
and was republished in revised form in 1880. Blackie spent
two years in study in Gottingen and Berlin, and while there
had his interest awakened in Goethe and German literature in
general. Before undertaking the translation of " Faust," he
spent some time in the Advocates' Library in Edinburgh, con-
sulting old books on the magic art and making notes for the
elucidation of his text.*'^
Blackie claims to have made his translation independently of
any of his predecessors. He holds it to be wrong to trumpet
forth the value of one's own production by declaiming against
the merits of those w^ho have gone before. This thrust was
meant for Hayward, who had severely criticized the trans-
lators that preceded him. In several instances, however,
Blackie does refer to Hayward and gives him credit for an
"Vol. VII, p. 282.
*' Anna M. Stoddart, " John Stuart Blackie, A Biography." Edinburgh
and London, 1895. Vol. I, p. 144.
116
interpretation. So, for example, in the case of " Tegel." The
completed translations which he saw before doing his work,
were those of Hayward, Gower, and Syme.
His principle of translation, as he states it, should be, not
a mere transposing, but a recasting of the original, his chief
endeavor being to make his translation spirited; to seize, if pos-
sible, the soul and living power of the German, rather than to
give a careful and anxious transcription of every individual
line. The translation is preceded by a dedication, "An
Goethe," which is of interest :
Versuch ich's mich so kiihnlich hoch zu heben
Zu den Gefilden reiner Lebensstrahlen?
Und wag ich's frech mit schwacher Hand zu malen, ,
Was dir nur ziemt, das buntbewegte Leben ?
Wie soil der Kinderzunge lallend Streben
Aussprechen was des Manneskraf t gestingen ?
Wie soil des Menschenstimme wiedergeben,
Was aus der tiefen Gotterbrust entsprungen?
O ! wenn der Liebe ungestitmer Drang
Mich trieb, dass ich das Heiligste entweihe,
Und zu berauschter frecher Siinde zwang;
So schaue Du aus der Verklarten Reihe,
Aus Hinimelsharfen liebevollem Klang,
Und wenn Du mich nicht loben kannst, verzeihe.
Blackie has serious objections to the Prologue in Heaven,
and gives it as a postscript in emasculated form. He says that
he had translated it in its entirety, but was dissuaded by friends
from publishing it in full through motives of propriety and
prudence. He gives as his reason, " the tone of careless
familiarity with which things divine are here spoken of." The
fault he calls " a human weakness in this divinest of poems."
From the modern point of view it is difficult to understand
this feeling of the English. The objections to the Prologue
now seem to be utterly absurd. The introduction of the
Deity as a dramatic character was not unknown in English
literary history, as it had occurred frequently in the Morality
and Mystery plays. The source from which Goethe took the
117
idea is well-known. When Henry Crabb Robinson told Goethe
that the English objected to the Prologue/" he was surprised
and said that the same incident occurred in the Book of Job,
believing that he need give no excuse for presenting the Deity
in the same situation as the Bible narrative. But it was not
only the representation of the Deity as a dramatic character
that the English did not approve of; it was especially what
they termed " the wanton irreverence " of IMephistopheles in
the presence of the Lord that seemed to them wrong. Yet
Mephistopheles is represented as true to his character. Any
other portrayal of his nature and characteristics, even in the
presence of the Most High, would have been out of harmony
with dramatic principles. This prejudice of the English would
not have developed to such strength if it had not been fostered
by Gower's translation. By omitting the Prologue altogether,
and avowedly on account of his respect for English feelings,
he lent his countenance to the worst prejudices that already
existed. Thus when Blackie, ten years later, not to mention
other translators, published his " Faust," he also felt con-
strained, in deference to public opinion, to leave the Prologue
out. But as the years went by, English opinion was modified,
and when Blackie published his second edition in 1880, he
printed the Prologue in its proper place.
Blackie also mentions the Second Part of " Faust." He has
a poor opinion of this part of Goethe's drama. He calls it an
incongruous afterthought, destroying the effect produced by
the First Part, which he considers complete in itself. Faust,
he thinks, ought not to have been saved without doing penance
for his misdeeds. In power of versification and of language,
he thinks it excels the First Part, but being a mere bundling
together of masquerades, it produces a most unsatisfactory
impression on the mind as a sequel to the First Part. In this
respect Blackie was as blind as many other critics, both Eng-
lish and German.*^
He introduces his translation with a discussion of the Faust-
** Cf. supra, p. 103.
" For Blackie's own defense of his views of the Second Part of " Faust,"
see the Nineteenth Century (1886), Vol. XIX, p. 528.
118
legend. He shows how Goethe molded this material and appro-
priated it to his own use. In this respect he went farther
than Hayward, who was careful about explaining all refer-
ences in his notes, but gave little attention to the Faust-legend
as such. It is generally admitted that Blackie tried to follow
his text closely and make an exact version, but lacked poetical
power, and talent for rhythm and rime. At the time of publi-
cation his translation was usually compared with Gower's, as
it was one of the first metrical versions made after Gower.
Blackie was given credit for having tried to translate literally,
while Gower was commended for his versification.
Blackie's second edition is not an improvement upon the
first. He made numerous changes, but the general character
of the two translations is about the same. The following
specimens will show the nature of the revision :
I. Oh ! shon'st thou now thou full moon bright
For the last time my woes upon.
Thou whom so many a sad midnight
Beside this desk I've watched alone ;
Then over books and papers shone
On me thy soft and friendly light !
Oh that beneath thy lovely ray,
On peaky summit I might stray.
Round mountain caves with spirits hover,
And flit the shadowy meadows over,
From all the qualms of knowledge free.
Bathe me to health within thy dewy sea !
II. O might thou shine thou full moon bright,
For the last time upon my woes.
Thou whom by this brown desk alone ;
So oft my wakeful eyne have known.
Then over books and papers rose
O'er me thy sad familiar light !
Oh, that beneath thy friendly ray,
On peaky summit I might stray,
Round mountain caves with spirits hover.
And flit the glimmering meadows over,
And from all fevered fumes of thinking free,
Bathe me to health within thy dewy sea.
119
This is an average passage, by no means the worst that he
has, and still it is very weak when compared with the original.
All the poetry seems to have evaporated. " Then over books
and papers shone, On me thy soft and friendly light," does not
correspond to : " Dann iiber Biichern iind Papier, Triibsel'ger
Freund erschienst du mir." " Trubsel'ger Freund " is not
much improved by " Sad familiar light " in the second edition.
Blackie does not hesitate to add words like, "brown desk " to
fill the meter. In other cases he sometimes interpolates a
number of lines. So, for example, in one of the songs of the
Angels he rambles off like this :
757. Christ is arisen !
Praised be his name !
His love shared our prison
Of sin and of shame.
He has borne the hard trial
Of self-denial,
And victorious ascends to the skies whence he came.
Only the first line has any resemblance to the original. Goethe's
text says nothing of an ascension. In his first edition he
misinterprets the word "Schopf." He translates 225 f:
What is not done to-day, tomorrow hopes in vain;
You should not lose a single day,
But let the present purpose lay
Hold of your fleeting fancies by the cue;
Once caught they are not apt to run away.
Till they have done what they were meant to do.
Blackie frequently uses obsolete expressions. For ex-
ample : " And IMicrocosmus he is hight." " Master y-clept and
Doctor too." "Tis y-clept in Chemistry." "My wakeful
eyne have known." These archaic expressions were prob-
ably used to add dignity to the language, but in other places
very careless phrases are used. So in line 1409:
Doch warum gehst du nicht durchs Fenster?
There is the window, — 'twere no mighty matter
For one like you adown the wall to clatter.
120
422. Erkenncst dann der Sterne Lauf.
Then dost thou know the secret tether
Which binds the planet orbs together.
In II, it is changed but hardly improved:
Thy raptured eyes
Shall then behold what force compels
The tuneful spheres to chime together.
These are instances which the reviewer in St. James Magazine
probably had in mind when he said that Blackie's translation,
though on the whole fairly accurate, was open to the charge of
excessive expansion and loose and often grotesque paraphrase.**
828-29. Blitz, wie die wackern Dirnen schreiten !
Herr Bruder, komm ! wir miissen sie begleiten.
is translated :
Donner and Blitz ! how the stout wenches stride !
Come brother, come ! we must be at their side.
In II, it is equally ludicrous :
Blitz, how the buxom wenches do their paces !
Come, let us make acquaintance with their faces.
2501-02 is rendered:
And I as modern dandies do must use
A stuffing for my boots and shoes.
In II, he has made an attempt to correct the error :*^
Therefore like many a smart prig of nobility
In false calves to trick out my gentility.
By frequent expressions of this sort Blackie has made the
character of Mephistopheles different from what it is in
*^Vol. XL, p. 88.
" Eraser's Magazine, Vol. X, p, 88, counts up a number of the errors
that Blackie has made.
121
Goethe's poem. He has added comical and grotesque elements.
The Dub/in Rcviezv calls his Mephistopheles a buffoon.""
This translation received its most favorable comment from
George H. Lewes, author of the " Life of Goethe." All the
quotations from " Faust " in his biography are taken from
Blackie's English version. Lewes says that of the poetical
translations, Blackie's is the best and closest he has seen, and
that it has valuable notes.^^ Lewes was regarded as a com-
petent critic in England, and his opinions were respected.
This, added to the fact that Blackie occupied an important
and distinguished position as Professor of Greek at Edin-
burgh, made his translation well known, and as a consequence
it received much attention and was ranked much higher than
it really deserves. Carlyle wrote a letter to Blackie April 28,
1834,^- in which he thanked him for the copy of the transla-
tion of " Faust " that had been sent him. He praised the Pre-
face and Notes to the same, but dissented from Blackie in his
opinion of the Second Part of " Faust."
8. Jolui Anster
John Anster was an Irish barrister, who later in life was Pro-
fessor of Civil Law at Dublin. His completed translation of
the First Part of " Faust" appeared in 1835.^^ Parts of it had
been published in Blackwood's Magazine in 1820.^* He, there-
fore, has the credit of being the first Briton to translate a part
of Goethe's " Faust " into English, his fragment being earlier
than that of Soane. He published a version of the Zueignung
as early as 1819.
He translates the Prologue in Heaven, but considers it neces-
sary to justify himself at length in his Preface by bringing
all possible arguments for its retention, in spite of the "pre-
""Vol. IX, p. 48s.
""Life of Goethe," by George H. Lewes, London, 1855, Vol. II, p.
319, footnote.
" This letter is quoted by Anna M. Stoddart in her " Biography of
Blackie," Vol. I, p. 147.
â– " Graf is in error when he says that Anster's translation first appeared
in 1828. Cf. Griif, p. 318.
°* Vol. VII, p. 236. Cf. supra, p. 34.
122
sumptuous and scornful bearing of Mephistopheles, which
violently shocks and wounds the feelings." His method of
translating he explains as follows : " To verbal fidelity, I can, of
course, make no claim ; yet I have not wilfully deviated from it.
I have not sought to represent my author's thought by " equiva-
lents," ^^ as they are called; but if I may venture to describe
what after all has been rather the result of accident than of any
fixed purpose, I should say that I always have given a perfectly
accurate translation of the very words, now and then expanding
the thought by the addition of a clause, which does little more
than express something more fully implied in the German than
in such English phrases as occurred to me."
This does not express fully the license he has taken with the
author in his translation, or paraphrase, as it is better called.
For whatever merits his work may have, Anster's version is
not Goethe, but a paraphrase of Goethe. His work has some-
times been spoken of as an original poem.
The following passage is very much admired by a writer in
Blackwood's Magazine.^^ It is supposed to be a rendering of
447 f. Wie alles sich zum Ganzen webt, etc.
Oh how the spell before my sight
Brings nature's hidden ways to light:
See ! all things with each other blending —
Each to all its being lending —
All on each in turn depending —
Heavenly ministers descending —
And again to heaven up-tending —
Floating, mingling, interweaving —
Rising, sinking, and receiving
Each from each, while each is giving
On to each and each relieving
Each the pails of gold, the living
Current through the air is heaving;
Breathing blessings, see them bending,
Balanced worlds from change defending,
While everywhere diffused is harmony unending !
^ Anster probably refers to the method of Dryden. Cf. supra, p. 89.
""Vol. XLVII, p. 240.
123
This is but one of the examples of the diffuseness that pre-
vails throughout the greater part of the poem. In manv in-
stances one-half of the lines are interpolated. So much is
added that the total length of Goethe's poem is about doubled."'
The Curse is seven lines longer than in the original.
Anster translated the greater part of the drama in blank
verse thus evading the really difficult features of a good trans-
lation. Parts of this blank verse are no better than prose.
For example line 596 f.
How willingly would I sit up forever,
Gathering instruction from your learned works !
Tomorrow, as a boon on Easter-Day,
You must permit me a few questions more :
I have been diligent in all my studies;
Given my whole heart and time to the pursuit;
And I know much but would learn everything.
These examples show the general nature of the translation.
It received considerable attention in the magazines soon after
its appearance. The Dublin publications reviewed the work
of their countryman very favorably, yet they were not blind to
its defects. The Dublin Review thought that Anster was too
much of a poet to be a close translator.^^ Anster's " Faust "
was quite popular with the public. That it was bought and
read, may be seen from the large number of editions through
which it passed. It has been frequently republished up to
recent times.
But a translation that attracts and satisfies the general pub-
lic is not necessarily an ideal one. If Anster had been imbued
with a proper respect for the original, he might, by virtue of
his poetic talent, have produced an excellent translation. One
can not help admiring the ease, grace, and fluency of his verses
in some instances, but the person who knows " Faust " is not
deluded. He wants an impress of the original, and this Anster
" Latham, in the introduction to his translation of " Faust," says :
" There are in Anster's translation some 6,000 lines. Of these 4,600 are
Goethe's, the remainder Anster's."
~ Vol. IX, p. 477.
124
has failed to give. Lewes called this translation " a brilliant
paraphrase."^® Bayard Taylor referred to Anster's transla-
tion as "an almost incredible dilution of the original."^"
9. Robert Talbot
There appeared another translation in 1835 by the Hon.
Robert Talbot, who resided at Hampton Court. He had spent
some time in Germany and therefore considered himself a suf-
ficient master of German to render " Faust " in English verse.
A second edition of this translation was published in revised
form in 1839. There he printed the German text page by page
with the English, as had been suggested by the Gentleman's
Magazine.^'^ This second edition of his work was dedicated
to Thomas Carlyle.
When his translation first appeared, Talbot sent a copy to
A. W. Schlegel and made some inquiries of him in regard to
troublesome passages. His letter was found in the Nachlass of
Schlegel at Dresden.^- He asked about the meaning of the
following lines :
1. 79. Die Gegenwart von einem braven Knaben. Whether
the word " Gegenwart " means " presence " or " the present
time."
2. Nur was der Augenblick erschafft, das kann er nutzen.
3. Whether, as had been suggested to him, the words : " Har-
monisch all' das All " should be, " All das All."
4. 3793. Mit ahnungsvoller Gegenwart.
5. The expression " Werdelust " of line 789.
Talbot followed Hayward's prose closely in the preparation
of his translation. Later, when revising his work, he found
fault with Hayward, but in so doing exposed his own errors
and slavish dependence in the first edition. For example :
Line 3488. I : Among the birch-trees spring begins to weave.
H : Among the birch-trees spring is now astir.
Footnote of Talbot : " Mr. Hayward again mistakes the mean-
«» Lewes, "Life of Goethe" (1855), Vol. II, p. 319.
«° Bayard Taylor, " Translation of Faust," p. 357.
^^Gentleman's Magazine (1835), Part I, p. 512.
°- It has been published by Stanger in Archiv (1901), Vol. CVI, p. 355-
125
ing of the word ' webcn.' 1 Icre it does not mean 'to weave'
but ' to move.' "
As to his theory of translating, Talbot declares himself in
favor of the " compensatory method." But he has neverthe-
less followed his text very closely. He has attempted to be as
faithful in reproducing the text as Hay ward, and at the same
time to present his work in rime. The result is a translation
that is clumsy and lacks inspiration. One may admire his
industry and perseverance, but cannot pronounce his work a
satisfactory translation of Goethe's " Faust." It received some
attention from the magazines partly, perhaps, on account of the
gentle birth of the translator. The Athenaeum called it "rea-
sonably good though weak in its lyrical portions."
10. Anonymous Translation of i8^8
In 1838 an anonymous translation of both parts of " Faust "
appeared. It was the first time Part Second was translated
into English. The work is of little value, and one cannot
concur in what Heinemann says : " Unsres Erachtens ist dies
eines der schonsten englischen Bearbcitungen und was dichter-
ische Diktion betrifft, ist sie wohl uniibcrtrofifen."*'^ This
judgment must be based upon only a cursory examination of
the work.
The translation contains an introduction of twenty-four
pages in verse which is mere doggerel. Not much more can
be said for the translation itself as the following will show :
33-40. Well, here we are in Germany.
I claim of you two, who have oft before
Aided me at a nonplus, now to try
Your best to make our new spec, quite secure.
I like to please the multitude and why?
Because it lives and lets live to be sure.
The poles and screens are fixt, and boards to seat.
And everybody's ready for a treat.
As to his method of translating, the author says in his
introduction :
" Heinemann, " Goethes Faust in England und Amerika," p. 9.
126
And though I own their fascinating power,
Rimes are real fetters, although formed of flowers.
Accordingly, the work, with the exception of some of the
lyrical passages, is in blank verse.
The translation was not reviewed by the leading magazines.
Only fifty copies of it were printed, and so it enjoyed only a
limited circulation. If it had been brought to the notice of the
press, it could not have received any but adverse criticism.
The author doubtless feared this, and so wisely cloaked himself
under an " anonymous."
II. Jonathan Birch
The work of Jonathan Birch deserves some consideration, if
for no other reason than its pretentiousness. It is a large
volume of 276 pages, embellished with twenty-nine steel en-
gravings according to Moritz Retzsch, and is dedicated to
Frederick William, Crown Prince of Prussia (afterwards
King Frederick William the Fourth). Birch considered him-
self quite competent for the task, his only fear being, " lest I
should be charged with presumption or affectation in so closely
imitating Goethe."
Concerning his method of translating he says : " Relative to
this translation I have proposed to myself to give the meaning
of my author fully, neither slipping over nor avowedly leaving
out any part; but studiously masking such passages as might
be considered objectionable to delicacy — to give it in poetry
line for line, and literally where the genius of the two languages
admitted of such closeness; for if too verbally given, Goethe
becomes increasingly obscure, and his beauties remain unde-
veloped."
Mr. Jonathan Birch had no ear for rime and was by no
means equal to the task he so confidently expected to fulfill.
On his first page he rimes " fancy " with " clutch ye." The
first lines of the Dedication will suffice for quotation:
Again ye come ! vague fluttering forms of Fancy
As erst, in glimpses on my sickly sight:
Shall I this time assay with force to clutch ye?
Inclines my heart for such delusive flight?
127
The translation received some notice in tlic magazines, but
the reviews were altogether unfavorable. The Dublin Review
says of it : " It is incomparably the worst that has yet been
attempted. As a translation it is bad, as a poetical translation
it is worse, but as a translation of ' Faust ' it is worst of all.""*
Birch sent a copy of his translation of Part First to A. W.
Schlegel for his opinion.*" When Frederick William came to
the throne in 1840, he sent Birch the "great gold medal of
homage," presumably on account of his literary laljors, and
in 1846 he offered him a choice of apartments in three of his
palaces.*'*' In 1841 Birch was elected foreign honorary member
of the Literary Society of Berlin, one of the few foreigners
thus honored. But the royal favors in which Birch basked,
and the honors he received, were not due him on account of the
merits of his " Faust " translation.
12. John Hills
The translation of Hills does not sink to the depths of Birch.
It is a performance of medium value not quite on a level with
that of Talbot. The Prologue is omitted by Hills on account
of its " irreverence and profanity." He calls it an " after-
thought and afterproduction."
The introduction of Hills is of some interest, as he devotes
several pages to his theory of translating. He maintains that
prose cannot give even the exact meaning of a metrical com-
position, for, " as the look, the manner, the emphasis, and
intonation of the voice, do, even in our common speech, infi-
nitely modify, and oftentimes completely change, the mere
grammatical sense of our words, so is the meaning of a poem
indissolubly bound up with the rhythmic law of its being."
On the ground of having attempted a combination of rhythm
and verbal accuracy, he claims the right to bring his translation
before the public. But he does not reach the goal he sets
himself in his introduction. Like nearly all translators follow-
ing Hayward, he has committed no grievous errors, but in
** Dublin Review (1840), Vol. IX, p. 477.
" Cf. Stanger, in Archiv (1901), Vol. CVI, p. 357.
** " Dictionary on National Biography," Vol. V, p. 65.
128
spite of his well-founded argument for rhythm in the transla-
tion of a poem like Goethe's '' Faust," his verses frequently
lack this very essential. This may be illustrated by the follow-
ing passage which the Foreign Quarterly Review*^'' calls " bald " :
The mass you can subdue with mass alone ;
Each picks out what he feels for him was meant;
Who much brings, brings a portion for each one,
And in the end all leave the house content.
Give you a piece? Then give it piecemeal too,
You cannot but succeed with such
As easily dished up too as invented !
What needs it a great whole to have presented;
That we would pull to pieces straight for you.
The translation was given some consideration by the maga-
zines. The Cornhill Magasine^^ placed it among the four best
versions, while the criticism of the Foreign Quarterly Review
was very unfavorable.''''
13. Lezvis Film ore
In 1841 there appeared in " Smith's Standard Library " a
volume of " Faust " translated by Lewis Filmore. The author
is quite modest, and says that he does not hope to outclass the
work of preceding translators, the reputation of the versions
of Gower and Anster being fully established. His excuse for
undertaking a new translation is, that all previous editions had
been published at a very high price, and none of them were
available for a popular volume in " Smith's Library." Hence
a new translation was imperative. Filmore briefly mentions
Lenau's " Faust " in the Appendix and gives a summary of
the contents of Marlowe's " Faustus."
He allows himself liberties with his author in extending and
embellishing the original. An idea of the manner in which he
"Vol. XXV, p. 90.
"^Vol. XXVI, p. 279.
®' Vol. XXV, p. 92. Bunsen took an interest in Hill's translation and
wrote him a letter concerning it. Cf. " Christian Carl Josias Freiherr von
Bunsen," Aus seinen Brief en geschildert von seiner Witwe, Leipzig, 1869,
Vol. II, p. 76.
12'J
handles Goethe's text can be obtained by examining the Dedi-
cation. Out of these four stanzas in the ottava-rima he makes
in two instances fourteen, in one eleven, and in another seven-
teen lines. The Soldier's Song is also given an entirely different
mold by Filmore :
Towns begirt with walls and moats,
Maids of proud and lofty thoughts —
Strong without and strong within —
These are what I love to win !
Bold is the attempt and hard,
But as noble the reward.
Summoned by the trumpet's breath
We go to rapture or to death ;
For 'tis among the battle's strife
Thrills the rush — the life of life!
Maiden's heart, and city's wall,
Were made to yield were made to fall;
Bold is the attempt and hard,
But as noble the reward ;
When we've held them each their day,
Soldier-like, we march away.
The Cornhill Magazine says that Filmore had some idea of
translating on correct principles, but as soon as a difficulty
arose, he threw aside both the meter and the rime of the origi-
nal. It says that his work may perhaps be read with languid
interest by those who do not know the original German.''^
14. Sir George Lefevre
A translation was published in St. Petersburg in 1842 by Sir
George Lefevre, Physician to the British Embassy at the Rus-
sian capital. It is comparatively worthless and need be men-
tioned only in passing. Of the Prologue Lefevre translated
only the Archangels' Chants. He divided the First Part of
" Faust " into two acts. The first extended through the
Cathedral scene to the Walpurgis-Night. The scenes are
"Vol. XXVI, p. 282.
10
130
counted through both acts, and number 24. Lefevre stated
in his introduction that he was not able to resist the temptation
of trying " to make an old colleague better understood." A
correct translation of " Faust " he thought still a desideratum.
The first edition of his work was distributed among his friends
at St. Petersburg. A second edition was published in Frank-
furt a/M. in 1842. The work seems to have been little known.
The " Dictionary of National Biography,"'^ in giving the story
of Lefevre's life, does not mention that he translated " Faust."
The work is mentioned by the Athencuum''^ with very strong
disapproval. " Of the many versions of the First ' Faust ' we
recollect, this seems to us the most vulgar." These are rather
strong terms of condemnation, and yet if one reads passages
like the following, the judgment will seem correct:
2038-39. Grey is the hair of theory;
My friend, I'll tell you what I've seen,
The golden tree of life is green.
Or:
Pshaw ! physic and philosophy,
And jurisprudence too,
Nay worse than both, theology.
All have I studied through
With pains, and am, poor silly man.
As wise as when I first began.
They call me Doctor, Master, — well,
Of ten long years I've had a spell,
Leading my scholars by the snout.
Above below and roundabout.
And see, just after all, I trow.
That we, alas ! can nothing know.
15. Captain Knox
Captain Knox, whose translation appeared in 1847, could
boast of a personal acquaintance with Goethe. He resided in
Weimar for some time while Goethe was still living. He states
" Vol. XXXII, p. 399.
''- AthencBum, June, 1842, p. 501.
131
in his introduction that Goethe's attention was attracted to him
by a contribution that he made to Chaos while in Weimar,
Goethe thereupon did Knox the honor of having his (Knox's)
portrait taken for his private collection. An anxiety to justify
this preference, Knox considers a sufficient apology for his
attempt to translate " Faust."
He likens translation to the transposing of a beautiful piece
of music from one key to another. He employs notes freely
to illustrate his text, quotations being given from Bacon,
Milton, Shelley, etc. His verse lacks smoothness. Frequently
he substitutes other measures for the iambic. The following
quotation will give an idea of his work:
Thou radiant moon, oh ! might thy last
Gleam be upon my sorrow cast.
For whom so oft my vigil deep,
In to the night I've loved to keep.
Then over books and papers, thou
Friend of my sorrows, gladdest my sight:
Oh would that on the mountain's brow
I wandered in thy much loved light
With spirits might float through the caverns beneath;
In thy silvery glimmer thy meadows might rove,
And far from Philosophy's pestilent breath,
Might bathe me to health in the dew of thy love.
It is difficult to see how Knox could persuade himself that, in
view of the hosts of versions that had appeared, such a trans-
lation had claim to public attention. The Athencuum, which
discusses Knox's translation, takes a better view of it. It
claims that he has been more faithful to the spirit of the origi-
nal than Anster or Hayward.
i6. Miss Anna Szvanzvick
Miss Swanwick, after having made several minor attempts
to translate from the German, was asked by her publisher,
Bohn, to undertake a translation of the First Part of " Faust."
She agreed to the plan and her work was published for the first
time in 1850. In 1879 it was revised and republished together
with her translation of the Second Part.
132
Miss Swanwick was a woman of independent means, of
classical and linguistic training, who devoted herself to litera-
ture because she loved it. Her chief literary work consisted
of translations. In addition to her versions of the German
classics, she also had a reputation as a translator from the
Greek. She spent some time in Germany and thus perfected
her knowledge of the German language.'^^
When her translation of " Faust " appeared in 1850, it at first
did not receive much notice. One reason probably was that
the English had become sated with so-called metrical versions
of " Faust," and ceased to look for anything good along this
line. The translation was also not published in convenient
form. It was bound up with " Iphigenie," " Tasso," and
" Egmont," making a somewhat bulky and expensive volume.
Hence it did not have a very large circulation when it first
came out.
She states in the introduction to the first edition that she
recognizes " the moral truth embodied in the poem, but deeply
regrets its blemishes." She would fain omit or modify parts
of the poem, but holds it to be the imperative duty of the trans-
lator to render faithfully even the defects of the original. It
is evident that the criticism which Gower and Blackie had
received for omitting parts of Goethe's poem, had had its effect
upon the literary public.
Miss Swanwick possessed talent for versification and an ear
for rhythm. She says in her introduction that a poet in
describing the pleasure attending the exercise of the creative
faculty exclaims : " Oh, to create within the soul is bliss ! " and
adds : " A faint echo of this emotion accompanies the endeavor
to body forth the conceptions of the inspired master, and hence
it is that passages of the highest beauty are those which least
tax the energies of the translator." In general the rhythm of
her translation is equal to that of any other complete version,
but she has not wrought with the love of accuracy that inspired
Hayward and Bayard Taylor.
In her second edition of 1879 she gives a sympathetic account
" Cf. Mary L. Bruce, " Anna Swanwick, a Memoir and Recollections,"
London, 1903.
133
of the genesis of " Faust " in Goethe's mind, as well as some
remarks upon the development of the Faust-legend before
Goethe. This is based chiefly on Kuno Fischer.
After Bayard Taylor's version with the double rimes became
popular, she thought it was necessary to revise her translation
and introduce the feminine rimes so far as possible. This was
done, much to the detriment of some of the passages. For
example, in the first and second editions she rendered the Song
of Raphael as follows:
Still quiring as in ancient time
With brother spheres in rival song.
The sun with thunder-march sublime
Moves his predestined course along.
Angels are strengthened by his sight
Though fathom him no angel may ;
Resplendent are the orbs of light,
As on creation's primal day.
In the third edition, which was published in 1893, she has:
The sun in ancient guise competing
With brother spheres in rival song,
W^ith thunder-march his orb completing.
Moves his predestined course along;
His aspect to the powers supernal
Gives strength, tho fathom him none may ;
Transcending thought, the works eternal
Are fair as on the primal day.
The use of the feminine rimes has necessitated inversions
and the introduction of a number of words that take away the
simplicity and force of the original. While the first transla-
tion contains words like " quiring " and " primal," which are
out of harmony with the original, it is still superior to the
rendering with the imitation of the double rimes. Upon the
whole, Miss Swanwick's translation of 1850 is the best one of
her editions, in spite of the fact that she made numerous
changes later. Many of the changes do not seem to have been
made for the sake of correctness, but more as a matter of
134
caprice, or of influence by other translators. She was easily
swayed in her views as to the proper interpretation of a difficult
passage. One also notices a lack of force in the speeches of
some of the characters. In spite of her high ideal as to the
duties of a translator, she now and then modifies Goethe's
language, robbing it of its original vigor of expression. This
is especially noticeable in the Valentine scene and the scene
At the Well. Often she has her characters use formal English
with many Latinized expressions in place of the simple and
direct language of the original. This makes their speech stilted
and takes away its naturalness and simplicity. Inversions are
also frequently resorted to under the trammels of the verse.
They have the same effect in making the characters artificial.
Take, for example, line 3418 f. of Faust's and Margaret's talk
on religion:
*&'
Forbear my child ! Thou feelest thee I love ;
My heart, my blood Fd give my love to prove,
And none would of their faith and church bereave.
Like Blackie, Miss Swanwick uses archaic expressions. Old
inflectional endings occur now and then, as well as many
obsolete words like "trow," "wis," "ween," etc.
The following is one of the best passages in her translation.
It has remained unchanged throughout the three editions :
How all things live and work and ever blending,
Weave one vast whole from Being's ample range !
How powers celestial rising and descending.
Their golden buckets ceaseless interchange !
Their flight on rapture-breathing pinions winging,
From heaven to earth their genial influence bringing.
Through the wide whole their chimes melodious ringing.
Miss Swanwick also succeeded in rendering the pregnant
language of Goethe in the blank verse of the monologue,
Forest and Cavern:
135
And when roars
The howling stormblast through the groaning wood,
Wrenching the giant pine, which in its fall
Crashing swce])s down its neighbor trunks and boughs
While hollow thunder from the hill resounds;
Then thou dost lead me to some sheltered cave,
Dost there reveal me to myself, and show
Of my own bosom the mysterious depths.
And when with soothing beams the moon's pale orb
Full in my view climbs up the pathless sky,
From crag and dewy grove, the silvery forms
Of by-gone ages hover, and assuage
The joy austere of contemplative thought.
As was mentioned before. Miss Swanwick's translation
received little attention from the magazines when first pub-
lished. Gradually, however, the public recognized its merits
and her version of " Faust " became deservedly popular. It
is always read with pleasure in spite of the fact that it is not
as scholarly as the versions of Bayard Taylor and Hayward.
It has recently been republished in the " York Library," with
an introduction and bibliography by Karl Breul, London, 1905.
CHAPTER VI
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. Trarulations of the First Part of "Faust"
1810. Taylor, William, of Norwich. Review of Der Tragodie
erster Teil. Tubingen, 1808. A brief analysis with
a translation of the Cathedral scene. Monthly Re-
view, LXII, 491-495.
1813. De Stael, Madame. Baronness von Holstein. Germany.
Translated from the French. In three volumes.
London. Contains the following extracts from Faust :
1. Faust's Dialogue with the Earth spirit, 501-513.
2. Part of Faust's second monologue, 602-736.
3. 73^784.
4. Monologue, Forest and Cavern, 3217-3250.
5. Talk of the lovers on religion, 3414-3458.
6. Dungeon scene, 4423-4612.
181 5. Shelley, Percy Bysshe. Translation in prose of passages
of Faust. Prose works, edited by Forman III, 319-
325-
1820. Soane, George. Extracts from Goethe's Tragedy of
Faustus, explanatory of the plates by Retzsch, in-
tended to illustrate the work. London, J. H. Bohte.
1820. Anster, John. Translation of extracts from Goethe's
Faust. Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, VII, 235-
258.
1820. Anonymous. Retzsch's Series of 26 Outlines, illustrative
of Goethe's Tragedy of Faust, engraved from the
originals by Henry Moses, and an analysis of the
Tragedy. London. Printed for Boosey and Sons.
1 82 1. Anonymous. Faustus, from the German of Goethe.
The greater part of Part I. translated in verse and
connected by a prose narrative. With 27 Illustrations
in Outline, by Moritz Retzsch.
136
137
Reviewed: i. Carlyle's Essay on Faust, p. ii.
2. European Magazine and London Review,
LXXX, 362.
3. London Magazine (1821). IV, 657.
1822. Shelley, Percy Bysshe. Translation of the May-day-
Night of the Tragedy of Faust. Volume I of the
Liberal. London. The Liberal was a half-yearlv
publication by Leigh Hunt, Byron, Shelley, and others.
1822. Soane, George. Translation of Lines 1-576 of Faust.
Printed in Archiv fiir das Studium der Neueren
Sprachen, CXII, 280-293. Reprinted by Westennan,
Braunschweig, 1904.
1823. Carlyle, Thomas. Translation of Faust's Curse. Printed
first in Weimar in Ottilie's Chaos, Wochenblatt,
]\Ianuskript fiir Freunde. Republished with several
omissions in Athenaeum 1832, p. 5. Cf. Mackall, in
Archiv, CXII, 388.
1823. Gower, Lord Francis Leveson. Faust: a drama in
verse, by Goethe, and Schiller's Song of the Bell.
London, J. Murray.
Gower's Translation is reviewed : London Maga-
zine (1826), XVI, 164. Blackwood's Magazine
(1823), XIV, 35. Quarterly Review (1826),
XXXIV, 136. Blackwood's Magazine (1840),
XLVII, 223. Edinburgh Review (1830), LII, 231.
Cornhill Magazine (1872), XXVI, 279. Eraser's
IMagazine (1831), II, 641. Dublin University
Magazine (1836), VII, 278. British Critic (1823),
XX, 156. Mrs. Sarah Austin, Characteristics of
Goethe, I, 265-273.
1824. Shelley, Percy Bysshe, Posthumous Poems, published
by Mary W. Shelley. London. Contains both Faust
fragments, pp. 393-415. This was the first publica-
tion of Shelley's Prologue in Heaven. Both Faust
fragments are given in Shelley's works as follows:
Forman's edition, IV, 284-309. Rosetti, III, 320-336.
138
On Shelley's translation, see : London Magazine
(1826), XVI, 170. Quarterly Review (1826),
XXXIV, 136. Blackwood's Magazine (1840),
XLVII,223. Westminster Review (1870), XXXVIII,
82. Hazlitt, Edinburgh Review (1824), XL, 509.
1824. Gait, John. The Bachelor's Wife, a Selection of curious
and interesting extracts with cursory observations.
Edinburgh. Under the head : German Genius, pp.
255-285, Faust is discussed. Long extracts of
Gower's translation are given, interspersed with a
brief outline of the contents of Faust.
1825. Gower, Lord Francis Leveson. Faust, a drama by
Goethe, with other translations from the German.
Second Edition. 2 volumes. London.
1828. Page, Frederic. Three Specimens of Goethe's Faust.
Published in Employment, a little pamphlet of poems.
Bath. Contains 11. 550-587 of Faust.
1830. Taylor, William, of Norwich. Historic Survey of Ger-
man Poetry. In three volumes. London. Volume
III, 323-335, has Shelley's translation of the May-
day-Night^ and Taylor's own version of the Cathedral
scene, where his famous translation of line 3834 is
found: Nachbarin! Euer Flaschchen. Neighbor,
your dram bottle.
1832. Robinson, Henry Crabb. Article on Faust. Transla-
tion of prose extracts from the Student scene, and the
dialogue of Faust and Margaret on religion. Monthly
Repository (1832), VI, 742-756.
1832. Shelley, Percy Bysshe. Faustus from the German of
Goethe. The greater part of Part I translated into
verse and connected by a prose narrative. Embel-
lished by Retzsch's series of 27 Outlines engraved
by H. Moses. New edition with portrait of author,
and an appendix by P. B. Shelley. London, E.
Lumley.
^ Oswald, in his bibliography fails to state that this translation of the
May-day-Night is by Shelley. Mackall (Arcliiv, CXII, 297) also erro-
neously attributes it to Taylor.
139
1 833- Anonymous. Faust, Part T. a dramatic poem trans-
lated into English prose, with remarks on former
translations and notes, by the translator of Savigny's:
Of the Vocation of our age for Legislation and
Jurisprudence. London, Moxon. This was the first
edition of Hayward's translation.
1833. Austin, Mrs. Sarah. Characteristics of Goethe, I, 265.
Translation of Faust's answer to Margaret in regard
to his faith. 3431-3458.
1834. Hayward, Abraham. Faust, Part I translated into Eng-
lish prose by A. Hayward. Second edition. London.
Third edition, 1838. Fourth edition, 1847. Sixth
edition, 1855. Ninth edition, 1874. Tenth edition,
1880. First American edition, 1840. Second Ameri-
can edition 1854.
On Hayward's translation, see: Athenseum (1833), p.
260; and (1834), p. 500. Edinburgh Review (1833),
LVn, 107. Eraser's Magazine (1833), VH. 532.
The Examiner (1833), March 24, p. 180. Foreign
Quarterly Review (1840), XXV, 90. London and
Westminster Review (1836), XXV, 366. Monthly
Review (1833), I, 698. Revue Encyclopedique, LIX,
198. Erich Schmidt, Festschrift zur Begriissung des
5. allgemeinen Philologentags. Berlin, 1892, p. 'j'j f.
1834. Syme, David. Faust, Part I translated from the Ger-
man. Edinburgh.
On Syme's translation, see: Athenaeum (1834), p.
500. Eraser's IMagazine (1834), X, 88. Foreign
Quarterly Review (1840), XXV, 90. Dublin Review
(1840), IX, 477. Blackwood's Magazine (1840),
XLVH, 220.
1834. Blackie, John Stuart. Faust, Part I, translated into
English verse with notes and preliminary remarks.
Edinburgh and London.
On Blackie's translation, see: Eraser's Magazine
( 1834) , X, 88. Blackwood's Magazine ( 1840) , XLVII,
223. St. James Magazine (1881), XL, 98. London
140
and Westminster Review (1836), XXV, 366. For-
eign Quarterly Review (1840), XXV, 90. Dublin
University Magazine (1836), VII, 278. Athenaeum
(1834), p. 500. Dublin Review (1840), IX, 477.
Monthly Review (1834), I, 564.
1834. Anonymous. Faustus, Part I. Translated from the
German. London. Reviewed: Blackwood's Maga-
zine (1840), XLVII, 223.
1835. Fliigel, J. G. Flowers of German Poetry. Selected.
Contains a translation of the Dedication.
1835. Anster, John. Faustus, Part I, the Bride of Corinth,
and the First Walpurgis-Night, translated from the
German. London.
On Anster's translation, see: Dublin University
Magazine (1835), VI, 96. London and Westminster
Review (1836), XXV, 366. Edinburgh Review
(1835), LXII, 36. Blackwood's Magazine (1840),
XLVII, 223. Foreign Quarterly Review (1840),
XXV, 90. Dublin University Magazine (1835), VI,
96, and (1836), VII, 278. Dublin Review (1840),
IX, 477-
1835. Talbot, Robert. The Faust of Goethe, Part I, attempted
in English rime. London.
On Talbot's translation, see : Gentleman's Magazine
(1835), Part I, p. 512, and (1836), Part II, p. 477.
London and Westminster Review (1836), XXV, 366.
Foreign Quarterly Review (1840), XXV, 90. Black-
wood's Magazine (1840), XLVII, 223. Dublin Re-
view (1840), IX, 477.
1836. Hodges, C. Scenes from Faust. In Original Poems,
etc. Munich.
1836. Anonymous. Translation of the Archangels' Chants
and the monologue of Margaret at the spinning wheel.
Dublin University Magazine, VII, 278-302.
1838. Anonymous. Faust, a Tragedy in two parts, rendered
into English verse. 2 volumes, London. Only fifty
copies printed. The first complete translation of
Part II.
141
i839- Talbot, Hon. Robert Goethe's Faust, Part I. Mit gegen-
ubcrstehender enj^Hscher Ubcrsetzunj:^ und erklaren-
den Xotcn versehen. J. Wacey, London. This is
the second edition of Talbot's translation.
1839. Naylor, S. Passages translated from the Faust of
Goethe. IMaidenhead.
1839. Birch, Jonathan. Faust, Part I and II. Translated
into English verse. Embellished with engravings on
steel by J. Brain after Aloritz Retzsch. London,
I 839- I 843.
On Birch's Translation see: Athenaeum (1839), p.
887. Dublin Review (1840), IX, 477. Foreign
Quarterly Review (1840), XXV, 90. Blackwood's
Magazine (1840), XLVII, 223. Cornhill Magazine
(1872), XXVI, 283.
1840. Hills, J. Faust, Part I, translated into English verse.
London. On Hills' translation see : Foreign Quar-
terly Review (1840), XXV, 90. Cornhill Magazine
(1872), XXVI, 279.
1840. Reade, John Edmund, Esq. The Drama of Life and
Poems and Translations from Goethe. London. He
translated :
1. The Archangels' Chants, 243-270.
2. Monologue, Forest and Cavern, 3217-3250.
3. Master Dolorosa, 3587-3619.
4. The Walpurgis-Xight, 3835-4222.
1840. Bernays, L. J. Goethe's Faust, Part I and II, trans-
lated partly in the meters of the original, and partly
in prose. With other poems. Carlsruhe.
1841. Lefevre, Sir G. Faust, Part I. Translation. London.
See: Athenaeum (1842), p. 501.
1841. Filmore, L. Faust, Part I. Translation. London. Form-
ing a part of the collection entitled : Smith's Standard
Library. On Filmore's translation see : Cornhill Mag-
azine (1872), XXVI, 282.
1843. Lefevre, Sir G. Goethe's Faust, Part I, translated into
English verse. Second edition, Frankfurt a/M.
142
1 843- Retzsch's Outline to Goethe's Tragedy of Faust. En-
graved from the originals by Henry Moses, with an
ilhistrative analysis of the Tragedy. London.
1845. Duckett, G. F. Goethe's Faust, being the Preface or
opening to that poem, and the Prologue in Heaven.
The literal translation of these selections. London.
1847. Knox, Captain. Faust, Part I, translated. London.
Cf. Athenaeum, 1847, P- 88, and Cornhill Magazine
(1872), XXVI, 283.
1850. Tiark, Dr. Faust, Part I, a drama with glossary and
notes. London.
1850. Swanwick, Anna. Dramatic Works of Goethe, com-
prising Faust, Part I, Iphigenie, Tasso, and Egmont.
Translation. London. Henry G. Bohn.
2. Stage Plays and Other Publications that Show an Interest
in Goethe's " Faust " and the Faust-Theme
1815. Black, John. Translation of A. W. Schlegel's book, A
Course of Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature.
In 2 Vols. London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, 181 5.
Discussion of Faust, p. 431.
1820. Anonymous. Discussion of Goethe and his Faustus.
London Magazine, II, 125-142.
1820. Anonymous. Review of Retzsch, Umrisse zu Goethe's
Faust in 25 Blattern, Tubingen, 1818. London Mag-
azine, I, 136-140.
1821. Dibdin, C. Faustus, the Magician of Prague. European
Magazine, LXXIX, 114, 208, 315, and 407. This is
a poem of four cantos in which the author takes part
of the story as given by Goethe and Marlowe and
adapts it to his own purposes.
1822. Carlyle, Thomas. Essay on Goethe's Faust. New Edin-
burgh Review, April, 1822. Reprinted (1885) by R.
Garnett. Publications of the English Goethe Society,
IV, 85. Also by Schroeder, in Archiv, XCVI, Heft
3 and 4. A reprint was also published the same year.
This essay is not published in Carlyle's complete
works.
143
1823. Faust, eine Tragodie, London, J. H. Bolite. A German
edition published in England.
1825. Soane, George. Faustus: A romantic drama in three
acts (and in verse) 59 pp. London.
1825. Soane, George. Faustus: A romantic drama in three
acts. Cumberland's British Theater, \'ol. XXXIIL
Differs slightly from the preceding.
1825. Anonymous. Discussion of Retzsch, Outlines to Faust.
Monthly Review (1825), CVII, 522.
1830. Richardson, T. The Remarkable Life of Dr. Faustus.
With a colored frontispiece. 24 pp. Derby.
1830. Anonymous. Faustus, a Poem with notes. London. A
poem of loi stanzas, supposed to be a satire on
Goethe's Faust.
1833. Horn, F. C. Goethe's Faust in England. A review of
Hayward's translation. A pamphlet of five pages,
with a pretentious title, but of no importance.
1834. King, B. B. Faust, a serio-comic poem, with twelve
outline illustrations by A. Crowquill. (Alfred For-
rester.) A travesty of Goethe's Faust. 32 pp. The
illustrations are parodies on Retzsch's Outlines. Cf.
Athenaeum (1834), p. 874.
1834. Boileau,D. A few Remarks on Mr. Hayward's English
Prose Translation of Goethe's Faust, with additional
observations on the difficulty of translating German
works in general. London. Cf. New Monthly Mag-
azine (1834), LIV, 249.
1835. Roller, Dr. H. W. Faust Papers, containing critical
and historical remarks on Faust and its translation,
with some observations on Goethe. London.
1836. Anonymous. Review of Retzsch's Outlines to Goethe's
Faust. Foreign Quarterly Review, XVHI, 63.
1839. Bailey, Philipp James. Festus, a Poem. London. This
is a lengthy poem modelled upon Faust. It is said to
have passed through eleven editions in England and
thirty in America. Cf. A. H. Mills, The Poets and
the Poetry of the Century. See also, Blackwood's
J^Iagazine (1850), LXVH, 415.
144
1841. Rede, Leman. The Devil and Dr. Faustus, a drama in
three acts. Cumberland British Theater, Vol. XLV.
1842. Grattan, H. P. Faust, or the Demon of Drachenfels.
A romantic drama in two acts. London.
1842. Bernard. Faust: A romantic Opera, in German and
English. (The libretto only.) London.
1847. Drakeford, D. J. P. Faust, a Phantasia; edited by C.
Simrock. A translation of the puppet play of Faust.
94 pp. Cf. Athenaeum (1847), P- 617.
1850. Anonymous. History of Dr. Faustus. Glasgow. Chap-
book. 24 pp.
3. Translations and Criticisms of the Second Part of
" Faust "
1828. Carlyle, Thomas. Discussion of Helena, published in
the Ausgabe letzter Hand, with the translation of
numerous passages. Foreign Review and Continental
Miscellany, I, 429. Reprinted in Essays, I, 183-247.
1833. Hay ward, A. Discussion of Faust, Part H, with the
translation of passages in prose. Foreign Quarterly
Review, XH, 81-109. A reprint of this article was
also published in London the same year.
1833. Anonymous. Review of Goethe's Faust, Part H. Dublin
University Magazine H, 361.
1833. Hayward, A. Appendix No. I of his translation of the
First Part of Goethe's Faust gives: An abstract of
the Second Part of Faust and some account of the
circumstances under which it was composed.
1834. Blackie, John Stuart. He gives his views of the Second
Part of Faust in the introduction to his translation
of Part I, published this year.
1836. Retzsch, M. Goethe's Faust, Part H, illustrated with
outline illustrations. London.
1838, Anonymous. Faust, a Tragedy in two parts, by Goethe.
Rendered into English verse. London. The first com-
plete translation of Part Second.
1838. Bell, John Macdonald. Faust, a Tragedy. By J. W.
145
Goethe. Part Second as completed in 1831, trans-
lated into English verse. London.
1839. Bernays, L. C. Goethe's Faust, Part II. Translated
from the German, partly in the meters of the original,
and partly in prose. With other poems. London.
Also, Carlsruhe, 1840.
1840. Anonymous. Discussion of the translations of the
Second Part of Faust. Foreign Quarterly Review,
XXV, 90.
1842. Gurney, Archer. Faust, a Tragedy, Part Second. Ren-
dered from the German of Goethe. London. Cf.
Athenaeum, July, 1843, P- 629.
1842. Bell, John Macdonald. Faust, a Tragedy by J. W.
Goethe. Part II as completed in 1831. Translated
into English verse. Second edition. London.
1843. Birch, Jonathan. Faust, a Tragedy in Two Parts, by
Goethe. The Second Part translated into English
verse by Jonathan Birch, embellished with engravings
on steel by John Brain after Retzsch.
4. General Bibliography
Courtney, W. P. A Register of National Bibliography, with a
Selection of the chief Bibliographical Books and Arti-
cles printed in other countries. London, 1905.
Baldensperger, Ferdinand. Goethe en France. Paris, 1904.
Baumann, Lina. Die Englischen Ubersetzungen von Goethes
Faust. Halle, 1907. Studien zur englischen Phi-
lologie, herausgegeben von Lorenz ^Morsbach.
Betz, L. P. La Litteraturc Comparee. Essai Bibliographique.
Deuxieme Edition augmentee, publiee par Ferdinand
Baldensperger. Strassbourg, 1904. Goethe et la lit-
terature anglaise, pp. 13S-142.
Engel, Karl. Zusammenstellung der Faustschriften vom 16.
Jahrhundert bis Mitte 1884. Der Bibliotheca Faus-
tiana vom Jahre 1874 zweite Auflage. Oldenburg,
1885. English translations of Faust, Nos. 799-931-
146
Graf, Dr. Hans Gerhard. Goethe iiber seine Dichtungen.
Faust, zweiter Teil, zweiter Band, pp. 1-608.
Heinemann, Wm. A BibHographical List of the EngHsh
Translations and Annotated Editions of Goethe's
Faust. Reprinted from the BibHographer, Vol. II,
pp. 79, 100, and 182. London, 1882.
Heinemann, Wm. Goethes Faust in England und Amerika.
Bibliographische Zusammenstellung. Berlin, 1886.
Cf. Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Literaturgeschichte,
Vol. I, p. 87.
Langkavel, Dr. Martha. Die Franzosischen Ubertragungen
von Goethes Faust. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
franzosischen Ubersetzungskunst. Strassburg, 1902.
Cf. Siipfle, Beilage zur Miinchener Allgemeinen Zei-
tung, No. 76, pp. 28-30. Studien zur vergleichenden
Literaturgeschichte, IV, 485. R. M. Meyer, Deutsche
Literaturzeitung, 1903, No. i, p. 28. F. Balden-
sperger, Revue Critique, LIV, 297.
Minor, Jakob. Goethes Faust. 2 Volumes. Stuttgart, 1901.
Oswald, Eugen. Goethe in England and America. Bibliog-
raphy. Publications of the English Goethe Society,
No. 8. Reprinted from Die Neueren Sprachen, VII,
336. London, 1899.
Pniower, Otto. Goethes Faust. Zeugnisse und Excurse zu
seiner Entstehungsgeschichte. Berlin, 1899.
Thomas, Calvin. Goethe's Faust. 2 Volumes. Boston, 1892-
1897.
Witkowski, Georg. Goethes Faust. 2 Volumes. Leipzig,
1906.
INDEX OF PROPER NAMES.
Anster, J., 34, 35, 106, 121-124,
128
Arnold, Matthew, 81, 85, 87, 112
Ash, E., 10, II
Austin, Mrs. Sarah, 6, 8, 61, 88,
102, 114.
Birch, Jonathan, 126, 127
Blackie, J. S., 4, 60, 61, 108-111,
115-121, 134
Boileati, D., 106, 108, 109, no
Bouhours, Pere, 3
Brooks, Chas. T., 84
Burger, G., 12
Byron, Lord, 7, I7, 52, 69, 70, 71,
72,, 74, 84, 87
Calderon, 49, 95
Carlyle, 6, 22, 23, 38, 39. 52-62, 74,
75, 79, 102, 108, 121, 124
Chamisso, A. v., 106
Coleridge, S. T., 12, 17, 32, 35,
52, 63-^, 82, 83
Congreve, 22
Coupland, W. C, 51
De Quincey, 52, 60
Dryden, 89, 90, 122
Eckermann, 58, 59, 60
Eldon, Lord, 41
Eschenburg, 112
Filmore, Lewis, 128-129
Fouque, 106
Freiligrath, 82
Gessner, 2
Gillies, R. P., 6, 8, 34
Gochhausen, Fraulein v., 18
Gower, Lord Francis Leveson, 39,
40, 41, 59, 99-104, 106, 116, 118,
128
Granville, A. B. 103
Hallam, in
Hayward, Abraham, 6, 34, 42, 44,
46, 49, 55, 60, 77, 91, 92, 104-
112, 113, 115, 116, 118, 127, 132,
13s
Hills, Jno. 127-128
Humboldt, W. v., 81
Iffland, II
Knox, Captain, 130-131
Koller, H. W., 106, 109, no
Kotzebue, 7, n, 12, 13, 14
Lamb, 52, 65, 76, 77, 78, 105
Lefevre, Sir George, 129-130
Lessing, 3, 9, 36, 63
Lewes, G. H. 50, 51, 121
Lewis, M. G., 6, 7, 11, 70, 71, 73,
87
Lockhart, 75
Macaulay, 3, 8, 52
Mackenzie, Henry, 9, 10, n
Marlowe, 21, 31, 54, 72, 76, 128
Menzel, Wolfgang, 49
Moore, Thomas, 35
Milliner, Adolf, 6g
Preston, Wm., 14
Pope, 89
Rctzsch, Moritz, 32, 33, 38, 39,
95, 106, 126
Richter, Jean Paul, 16, 28
147
148
Robinson, H. C, 6, 7, 8, 11, 62, 64,
65, 103, 117
Schiller, 3, 9, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20,
63, 69, 82, 94
Schlegel, A. W., 5, 15, 19, 28, 30,
31, 81, 102, 124, 127
Schlegel, F., 19
Schleiermacher, 80
Scott, W., 7, 9, 74, 75
Shakespeare, 22
Shelley, 7, 34, 39, 40, 70, 73, 94-
99, 106
Soane, Geo., 33, 92, 93
Southey, 52, iii
Stael, De, Madame, 15, 16, 23, 26-
32, 34, 40, 76, 77, 106
Stapfer, 106
St. Aulaire, 106
Swanwick, Miss, 108-111, 131-
135
Syme, David, 114, 115, 116
Talbot, Robert, 124-125, 127
Taylor, Bayard, 84, 106, no, 132,
133, 135
Taylor, Wm. of Norwich, 6, 11,
12, 25, 27
Thomson, 2
Tieck, 106
Tytler, A. F., 11, 89, 90
Voss, J. H., 65
Wagner, R., 86
Wieland, i, 2, 15, 69, 80, 105, 112
Wordsworth, 52, in
,11
DO NOT REMOVE
CHARGE SLIP FROM THIS POCKET
IF SLIP IS LOST PLEASE RETURN BOOK
DIRECTLY TO A CIRCULATION STAFF MEMBER
oinco
