Art. Dialectic of Creation and Escape in Werther

7/21/2019 Art. Dialectic of Creation and Escape in Werther

1/18

Flight from the Given World and Return to the New: The Dialectic of Creation and Escape inGoethe's Die Leiden des jungen WertherAuthor(s): Stuart Walker StricklandSource: The German Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 2, Focus: 16th to 18th Centuries (Spring, 1991),pp. 190-206Published by: Wileyon behalf of the American Association of Teachers of GermanStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/407078.

Accessed: 08/09/2014 08:39

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

WileyandAmerican Association of Teachers of Germanare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to The German Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.12 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:39:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatghttp://www.jstor.org/stable/407078?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/407078?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatghttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/18

STUARTWALKER

STRICKLAND

Harvard

University

Flight from the Given Worldand Return to the New:

The

Dialectic

of

Creation

and

Escape

in

Goethe's

Die Leiden des

jungen

Werther

Jedes

Bediirfnis,

essen

wirkliche

efriedi-

gung

ersagt

st,

n6tigt

um

Glauben.

Die

Wahlverwandtschaften'

Formidable

bstacles

hreaten o

frustrate

any

effort to

develop

a

compelling llegori-

cal

reading

of

a

novel. As

Fredric

ameson's

term

"master

narrative"

eveals,

the

project

of

looking eyond

he

story

ostensibly

old

by

a

novel

and

seeking

out

other,

more

deeply

embedded stories

involves two

potentially

contradictory

ssumptions.2

n

allegorical

n-

terpretation

t

least

gives

the

impression

f

tellinghewhole tory,ofdiscoveringmaster

code,

of

giving

he most

fundamental

ccount

of

what

s

really

t

stake

n

a

novel.

The

density

and

complexity

f

even

a

relatively

hort

novel

such

as

Goethe'sWerther

uts

a

tremendous

burden on

attempts

to

construct

anything

even

approaching

uch a

completereading.

Undermining

he

closure

of

a

definitive

n-

terpretation

s our

awareness hat

he

allegory

itself

must

be cast in

the

form of a

narra-

tive,

potentially

as

complex

as

the

text

it

claimsto

explain.

Although

he critic's ask

may

well

remain

ne of

making xplicit

story

that s

only

mplicit

n

the

novel,

the

resulting

criticsm

remains

opaque

n

its

resistance

o

efforts o

state

it in

the form

of a

proposition.

It

has

become

itself

a

story

whose sense is

in

its

telling

nd

subject

o

multiple

nterpreta-

tions.

The

allegorical

eading

may

seek

to

avoid

he

violenceof

reducing

text to

formal

or

thematic

nalyses

f

isolated

moments,

but

the narrative t produces nvariablymplies

a

closure

that,

ironically,

xcludes

the text

itself.

The

tensionbetween

a

complete

and

a

narrative

eading

cannot

be resolved

easily.

Nevertheless,

t

may

be rendered

easier

to

bear

by

making

he

allegorical

nterpretation

both

moremodest

andmore

explicit.Although

this must

be

understood

s a tentative

and

preliminary

ormulation,

tseemsworth

rying

to state

the

allegory

n the

formof

a

thesis.

Werther's

tory

appears

orecreate

he

prob-

lem of the possibility fart,orperhapsmore

narrowly

f fictional

reation,

n an

emergent

bourgeois

ociety

whose

primary--perhaps

exclusive--interest

lies

in the factual

world

andwhose constituents

re valued

or

their

usefulness.

Werther's

esistance,

his

aloof

posture,

his

negotiations,

ndhis ultimate

e-

struction

eflect

the dilemmas

f

the

artwork

in

a

society

thatvalues

t

only

or

ts

marginal

function

of

escape

from

the

pain

of

socially

necessary

deprivation.

Can

art

maintain

n

autonomousndcritical

erspective

na

soci-

ety

that

recognizes

t

only

asa form

of

escape?

My

reading

f

Werther

s

haunted

y

this

ques-

tion

and

by

the

expectation

hat

Werther's

suicide

may

yield

a

positive

answer.On

one

level Werther

s

certainly

cathartic

xpres-

sionof

Goethe's

rustration

n

love. But

Wer-

ther

also dies so

that

Goethe'svision

of art

may

survive.

And,

on

this

reading,

Werther's

characterization

f himself

as

a

sacrificial

ig-

uremaybe morethanmeredelusion.

The

totalizing

claims

implicit

n

the

allegor-

ical

approach

mustbe

tempered

y

the

recog-

The

German

Quarterly

64.2

(1991)

190

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.12 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 08:39:42 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/18

STRICKLAND:

Goethe's

Werther

191

nition

hat

one

reading

oes

not

exclude

ther

possible interpretations.

n

particular,

will

haveoccasion

o draw n the

insights

f critics

whohaveadopted sychoanalytic,xistential,

social, historical,

and formal

approaches

o

Werther.

omeof these

readings

willundoubt-

edly

seem more

or

less

compatible

ith

and

convincing

rom the

perspective

developed

here.

But

the

only

view

I

explicitly

xclude

is that whichwould succumb o the ethical

temptation

o

see

Werther s a

human

eing

rather

hana

literary

haracter nd

o

attempt

to

use

him

as a

positive

r

negative

olemodel.

I

am

interestedneither

in

diagnosing

Wer-

ther's

allegedlypathological

ondition or in

seeing

himas

the

spokesperson

or

any

sort

of

explicit

ultural r social

critique.

The case

for such

readings

has often

been

argued,

but

this

approach

heds ittle

ight

onthe

dynamics

of

Werther's

evelopment,

is

position

within

a

complex

extual

nvironment,

r

the

dialec-

tical relation of art and

society

of which

Werthers an

expression.4

This

paper

arries

he

twin

responsibilities

of both elling he storyof anallegoricalead-

ing

and

presenting rguments

n

its favor. n

lieuof a

total

reading

f the text or a marshal-

ling

of all the

arguments

hat

might

be made

to

support

his

reading,

havechosen o look

closely

at a

single

moment n the

text that

I

believe

illuminates

undamentallements of

the

underlying llegorical

tructureof

the

novel.

I

had

hoped

o follow he course

of

the

allegory

hroughout

he rest of the text

by

considering

he

dynamic

f

Werther'selation-

ship

withothercharacters

nd

he

forces

hey

represent.

Sucha

task, however,

ppears

o

be

too

great

or

an articleof this

ength.

Even

with

the benefit of this initial

elf-restraint,

my reading

would

risk

becoming

diffuse

f

it

were

not focused

by

the additionalens of

a

central

hematic oncern.The

triangular

en-

sionof

flight,

restriction,

ndreturn s

essen-

tial o

my

understanding

f

the novel.If

under-

stood both

as an

escape

from

restriction nd

as a necessary preparation or a return, for

an

acceptance

of

restriction,

Werther's

flight

runs

parallel

to the

ambivalent

relationship

between the artwork

and

society.

I

Werther rameshimself

within

a

language

of escape. Fromhis first declarationf free-

dom

("Wie

rohbin

ich,

daB ch

weg

bin "

4

May

1771

[7])

to his finalfarewell

"Lotte,

lebe

wohl

lebe

wohl "

[123]),

Werther's

rhetoric

s that of

flight,

departure,

nd es-

cape.

These are

not

dlewords.Wertherlees

the

company

f Wilhelm n the wake of

an

unhappy

ove

affair,

he

bourgeois ociety

of

Albert

and

Lotte,

the aristocratic

ociety

of

the

Count;

he flees

from

ennui

and

nactivity,

andfrom he

busy

workof

the

legation.

Ulti-

mately

he flees from ife tself.The

prevalence

of this

theme,

both in

Werther'swords and

in

his

actions,

would

eem

to

justify

he

critical

characterization

f

Werther

s a

novel

of

es-

capism.

Hans

Reiss advocates uch an

inter-

pretation

n his

analysis

f

Werther's

light

as

a

solipsistic

withdrawalnto he self:"Werther

refusesto

accept

he

external

world

nd oses

himself

n

the

apparent

ullness

of his

inner

life.""

Criticssuch as

James

Wilson,

whose

worksuggests ess of a stake n thedemands

of the externalworld

and a

greater affinity

for

art,

see Werther's

light

as an

escape

rom

the

constraints f a

finite,

corporeal,

mortal

world nto an

infinite, deal,

immortal

world

of artistic

expression.6

While he

former

ap-

praisal tigmatizes

scape

as

a withdrawalnto

a

pre-existing

elf,

the latter

significantly

n-

derscores the

fact that

whateverWerther

flees

from,

his

destinationmust be

actively

created. Whetheror not we acceptWilson's

radical

ichotomy

etween

he mmortal

orld

of art

and the mortal

worldof life

(and

the

abstract ather

handeterminate

elation hat

it

implies

s

a

point

with

whichwe will

have

to

contend),

the

associationbetween

Wer-

ther's

flight

and

artisticcreationwill

remain

an

important

ne.

If we

step

back o

emphasize

he

origin

of

Werther's

light

rather han

ts

goal,

we

may

find

ourselves

n

partial greement

with

Peter

Salm'sclaim hat Werther'ssuicide is "arebel-

lion

against

his

Einschriinkung,

his

incarcera-

tion behindthick walls

of illusion which he is

vainly

struggling

to break

down."'

There are




4/18

192

THE GERMAN

QUARTERLY

Spring

991

certainly

moments

in

Wertherhat

support

the

sharp opposition

between

flight

and restric-

tion.

In book

II,

for

instance,

after

Frdiulein

von B. shareswith Wertherher interpretation

of

his

dismissal

from

the

Count's

party,

Wer-

ther's reaction

seems to

confirm

Salm's

argu-

ment:

Ach,

ch hab'hundertmal

in

Messer

er-

griffen,

um

diesem

gedraingten

erzen

Luft

zu machen.

Man

erzahlt

von

einer

edlen

Art

Pferde,

die,

wenn

sie

schreck-

lich

erhitztund

aufgejagt

ind,

sichselbst

aus

Instinkt

ineAder

aufbeil3en,

m

sich

zumAtem

zu helfen.So

ist mir's

oft,

ich

m6chte

mireine Ader

6ffnen,

die mirdie

ewige

Freiheit chaffte. 16March1772

[70 f.])

As

striking

as such

moments

are,

they

should not lead

us to

overlook

a fundamental

ambivalence

in

Werther's

expression

of con-

straint and

flight. Particularly

n

book

I,

and

more

specifically

n

Werther's

patriarchal

an-

tasies,

restriction

(Einschrdnkung)

is

given

many

positive

connotations. It

is,

for

example,

associated with a kind of shelter:

Dukennst

on

altersher

meine

Art,

mich

anzubauen,

mir

rgend

n

einem

vertrau-

lichen

Orte

ein

Hiittchen ufzuschlagen

undda

mit

aller

Einschrinkung

u

herber-

gen.

Auch

hier

habe

ch

wieder

in

Plitz-

chen

angetroffen,

das mich

angezogen

hat.

(26

May

1771

14])

The

ambivalence

n

Werther's

ense

of

restric-

tion is

echoed

in

his

frequent

repetition

of

variations on the

word

"ringsherum"

and

in

his images of comfortablevalleys surrounded

and

protected by

hills,

images

that

we

will

have an

opportunity

to examine

in

greater

detail

shortly.

Restriction

appears

to

function

not

only

as an obstacle but

also

as a

refuge.

Werther's further identificationwith the lim-

ited

perspectives

of

the

young

girl

whose

suicide

he

and

Albert discuss

(12

August

1771

[45

ff.]),

with the

naivete

of

children

(espe-

cially

in

the letter of

6

July

1771

[35

ff.

]),

and

with

the

delusions of Heinrich

(30

November

1772[88ff.]) suggest that thisambivalent iew

of restrictionhas

deeper

implications

warrant-

ing

our

closer attention.

As

we

delve

deeper

into

the text

I

will maintain that

these

two

views

of

flight

are

neither isolated nor

con-

tradictory

but stand

in a determinate relation.

The

oppressive

connotations

of

restriction

are

never wholly absent from Werther'spositive

sense

of

restriction

as a

familiar aven

n

which

he would

willingly

mmerse

himself.

Werther's

flight

is

further

complicated

by

an

equally prevalent

theme

of return and

homecoming.

In his

patriarchal

fantasies,

Werther evokes

images

of

a return

to an

epic

past

(especially

21

June

1771

[28

ff.]);

in

his

pilgrimage

to his

birthplace,

he

attempts

to

satisfy

the

longing

for

return

expressed

in

his

identificationwith childrenand with

childhood

innocence

(9

May

1772

[72

ff.]).

It

is

not dif-

ficult to see Werther's

departure

from

Wahl-

heim and from Lotte at the end of book

I

as

a

necessary prelude

to his return

in

book

II.

Even

his

suicide,

while

it resonates

with

a

sense

of

escape,

is

also described

by

Werther

as a kind of

homecoming:

Und

wiirde in

Mensch,

in

Vater

irnen

kinnen,

dem sein unvermutet

rtickkeh-

renderSohnumden Hals iele und

riefe:

"Ichbin wiederda, meinVater Zurne

nicht,

daB ch die Wanderschaft

bbre-

che,

die ich nach

deinem

Willen

linger

aushalten

sollte."

(30

November1772

[91])

Eric Blackall

reads

this

passage

as

Werther's

hubristic

attempt

to

suggest

an

identification

of his own situation

with the return of

the

prodigal

on.8

But,

as

Blackall

orrectly points

out,

the

prodigal

son

neither

asks for nor

ex-

pects forgiveness. Thisobservationoverlooks

a

more

important

difference: Werther

is

not

prodigal.

He does not ask

forgiveness

for

hav-

ing strayed

but

for

having

returned,

for

having

renounced

the father's command that

he

explore

the world

and

returnedto the

comfort

of his

home.

The

Biblical

model

carries

with

it an

ethic

of linear

or

progressive

develop-

ment before

which Werther balks.

The

opposing

paradigm

or

the recurrent

theme

of

homecoming

and

for the

circular

structureit

imparts

on the novelis, of course,

the

Odysseus

story.

If

literature

provides

an

escape

for

Werther,

something

to soothe his

heart,

it

is

significant

that the

only

book he




5/18

STRICKLAND: Goethe's Werther

193

needs

is Homer

(13

May

1771

[10])

and

that,

although

he

owns both the Illiad

and

the

Odyssey,

we never find him

reading

or

quoting

fromthe Illiad. Werther's lightis thus always

a

homecoming,

a return with

Odysseus

to

Penelope.

But how

closely

does Werther's case

re-

semble

that of

Odysseus?

Can the dominant

theme

of

return

in

Werther

really

be

charac-

terized as a

homecoming?

Is the

world to

which

Werther would

return the

same world

from which

he fled?

Or is it

something

else

entirely?

Robert Ellis

Dye's

interpretation

of

the

religious

issues raised

in

Werther uels

such doubts: "Wertherexhibits clear

signs

of

alienation,

onging

without real

hope

to

regain

that which is

lost."'

Dye's

observations would

lead

us

to

pursue

a closer look at the world

to which

Werther

hopes

to return. Werther's

return exists

in

the

present

less

as a

plan

for

his

future action

than as a

recollection. When

its moment of realization

arrives,

when Wer-

ther

visits his

birthplace

and returns to Wahl-

heim,

the

impossibility

of

return

is

exposed

and the illusiondisintegrates. Werther'sfaith

in

the

possibility

of return-a

faith

whose

precarious

nature is

mirrored

n

his

alternate

glorification

of childlike

naivete

and derision

of childishness-breaks

down

in

book

II.10

t

is

not Lotte's

marriage

that blocks the realiza-

tion of Werther's

return;

the stress of its

own

internal

tensions shatters

Werther's

world.

The

home to which

Werther would return

is one

that

he

himself has

created. It is

not given but must be created, as suggested

by

its name:

"Wahlheim"

literally,

"chosen

home")."

The

active

role

Werthermust take in

facilitating

is

homecoming

s made

even more

explicit

in

his

appeal

to

a

created

world,

a

world

set off from the

worldas it is

immediate-

ly given.

The

world around

him

("das

Leben

des

Menschen")

he sees

as a

dream,

a

world

of

restriction

(again,

Einschrdinkung)

n

which

the search

for

knowledge

results not

in

libera-

tion but

in

so

manypaintings

on

prison

walls:

Das

alles,

Wilhelm,

machtmich

stumm.

Ichkehre

n mich elbst

uriick,

undfinde

eine

Welt Wiedermehr n

Ahnung

und

dunkler

Begier

als

in

Darstellung

nd e-

bendiger

Kraft.Und da schwimmt

lles

vor

meinen

Sinnen,

und ch

lachle

dann

so traumend eiter

n die Welt.

22

May

1771

13;

emphasis

dded])

Here Werther

finds

a

world

within

himself,

a

kindof

refuge

from the restrictionof the

given

world,

a

prison

within a

prison.

The

apparent

passivity

of this

formulation-

the

second

world s

found

rather

thanfounded-

together

with the admission that he turns

inwardmore

out of

a

sense of

foreboding

than

out

of

any

creative

impulse

end

support

to

the

view that

Werther's

light

s

merely

solipsisticescapism.

But this

turn

inward,

this

discovery

of a sec-

ond

world,

makes

possible

a transition

from

silence to

expression.

The

given

worldmakes

Werther

mute,

but

in

turning

nwardhe finds

the

ability

at

least to smile. The

discovery

of

this

second

world is

perhaps

a

prerequisite

for artistic

expression.

Another

important

transition also takes

place

in this

passage.

The

given

world was first

described as

a

dream

world,

but

by

the end Werther

charac-

terizes himself as one who

is

in a

dream. The

majordifferenceseems to be thatthe unreality

of

the

given

world

s

externally mposed,

while

the

unreality

of the

second

world,

the

world

that

allows

the

transition from

silence

to ex-

pression,

is

voluntarily

accepted.

Werther

expands

on this

image

later

in

this

same letter.

While the

second world remains

a

response

to

the

constriction of

the

given

world,

Werther now

allows himself both a

more

active role

in

the

creation of this world

and a more ominousimage of escape:

Wer

aber n

seiner

Demut

erkennt,

wo

das

alles

hinausliuft,

wer

da

sieht,

wie

artig eder

Biirger,

em

es

wohl

st,

sein

Gdirtchen um

Paradiese

zuzustutzen

weif3,

ndwie

unverdrossen

uchder

Un-

glackliche

nter

der

Biirde

seinen

Weg

fortkeucht und

alle

gleich

interessiert

sind,

das Licht

dieser

Sonnenoch

eine

Minute

linger

zu

sehn-ja,

der

ist still

und

bildet uch

seine Welt

us sich

selbst

und

stauch

gliicklich,

eiler

ein

Mensch

ist. Unddann,so eingeschrlinktr ist,

halt

er doch mmerm

Herzendas

stille

Geffihl

der

Freiheit,

und

da3

er

diesen

Kerker erlassen

kann,

wann r will.

(22

May

1771

14;

emphasis

dded])




6/18

194

THE GERMAN

QUARTERLY Spring991

No

longer

does

Werther

imply

indthe

sec-

ond world within he

self,

but he insists

it

mustbe

builtout

of

the

self;

the self furnishes

the materialsor the construction f the sec-

ond world.The word"still" aises

again

he

question

f

silence,

but it evokesan

image

of

calm,

n

marked

ontrast

with he

cynical

ver-

tones of the

"dreaming esignation"

"trau-

mende

Resignation"

13])

associatedearlier

with

adaptation

o the

given

world.The

allu-

sion to suicide as a

possible

escape

from

prisonopens

the

possibility

hat the

created

world

may

be a

flight

fromthe

given

world,

a

simplerejection

f it.

But suicide

s not the

object

of the

created

world;

uicide tselfdoes

not

provide

he

sweet

feeling

of

freedom.

Rather,

t

is the

realizationhat

suicide s

pos-

sible

which,

Werther eems to

intimate,

al-

lows him

to

cope

with the

restriction f

the

given

world.As

long

as

Werther's

ecognition

of the

unreality

f

the

given

world

allows

him

the freedom

to create a

world

of

his

own,

however

qually

nreal,

uicide tself

remains

an

unnecessary scape.

The tension between flight, restriction,

and

eturn

eflects

a

fundamental

mbivalence

in

Werther's

ejection

f

society.

Peter

Salm,

who

uses the

letterwe have

ust

examinedo

support

is

comparison

f

Goethe

and

Camus,

writes:"For

Camus he

creative

ctivity

f the

artist s

tantamount

o the

making

f

'counter-

universes,'

n

archetypal,

opeless

rebellion

in

the

face

of

an absurd

world."12

wouldas-

sert,

however,

hat t is

only

Werther's mbi-

valentviewoftheabsurdityfthegivenworld

that

ultimately

xposes

his

rebellion

s

hope-

less.

Werther

emains f

two

minds bout

he

valuesof the

world

rom

whichhe

turns. Al-

though

Werther

lees from

society,

he

values

and seeks

the

recognition

f

its

representa-

tives:

Albert,

Lotte,

the

Count,

and

Wilhelm.

Even

in

his

apparently

most

solipsistic

mo-

ments,

one of

which

we will

examine

n

detail,

Werther's

nwardurn

s

occupied y

fantasies

of

a

communal

ife,

by

a

desire

or

acknowledg-

ment

from

and

integration

into

the

given

world.

As we

turn

to

a

closer

treatment of the

text

and

away

rom our

preliminary

heoretical

concerns,

the

ambiguity

f Werther's

light

should

provide path

oward

he

deeperprob-

lem of Werther's

pparently

illful

elf-decep-

tion, his creation, throughhis letters to

Wilhelm,

of

a kind of

mythic

world

set

off

against

he demands

f the actualworld

ur-

rounding

im

but

nevertheless

ultimately

e-

quiring

ts

acknowledgment

nd

validation.

Werther's

nability

o maintain

he

validity

f

his created

world,

ogether

with

his

unwilling-

ness

to

abandon

t,

ultimately

ull

him

apart.

To

understand

he course

and

dynamic

f

this

trajectory

s to

begin

o

approach

he

problem

of the

autonomy

nd

marginalization

f

fiction

in

a worldof fact.

II

First,

however,

we must

give

our

attention

to one final

heoretical oncern.

have

drawn

a

distinction

etween he

given

worldand

he

created world

n

Werther,

distinction

hat

requires

some

justification

nd clarification.

As an initial

ntuitive

ormulation,

e

may

say

that the givenworld s all thatWertherper-

ceives

around

im;

t is

the established

rder

of

things.

The created

worldwould hen

be

that whichhas

its source n

Werther:

is

fan-

tasies,

his

drawings,

is

writing.

f

we assume

that there

is a substantial

ap

between

hese

two

worlds

an

assumptionmany

ritics

have

made

n

their

diagnoses

f

Werther's

ondition

as

pathological),

henan

obvious

roblem

on-

fronts

us.

The

epistolary

orm of

the novel

makesWerther uronlysourceforthe con-

tent of both

he

given

and

created

worlds.

We

can

glimpse

the

given

world

only

through

the

filter

of

Werther's

topian

desires. Eric

Blackall

has

argued--I

believe

convincingly

-

that

even

the

third-person

arrator

who

takes over in

the final

pages

is not a

spokes-

person

orthe

given

worldbut

nstead

erves

to

throw

nto

doubtall

attempts

o

identify

n

objective

perspective

on the

events

of the

novel.13

Even

f

one

rejects

suchan

nterpreta-

tion,

Werther

remains our

only

source for

many

events about which

the narrator

s com-

pletely

silent.

Benjamin

Bennett

takes

up

the

challenge

confronting

the

reader who would




7/18

STRICKLAND:

oethe's Werther

195

try

somehow to

get

behind

Werther's

presen-

tation

in

order

to

perceive

the features of

an

actual world. He

concludes

optimistically

hat

the text furnishes sufficientevidence for the

reader to overcome

successfully

"Werther's

obvious failure to

perceive any

sort of

objec-

tive

clarity

..

."

and

to

come to "an

objective

idea

of how

things

are."'4

More

modestly,

we

might say

that it

is

possible

to

read across

the

grain

of

Werther's

presentations

and

to

see that the situations

Wertherdescribes

are

subject to interpretations

other than

those

Werther

gives

to them.

Werther himself

seems to

recognize

a

gap

when he

distinguishes

between

his historical

mode of

presentation-

of which Wilhelm

evi-

dently

approves-

and

his more

lyricalexpres-

sions

(17

May

1771

[11,

for

instance]).

Many

critics have

taken this

distinctionas a cue

for

interpreting

he

dichotomy

as one

between an

objective

and

a

subjective

perspective.

Ben-

nett,

for

example,

sees

in

Werther

wo

oppos-

ing

points

of

view,

which

he

identifies alterna-

tively

as

"the

ego" against

"the

necessary

progress of the whole,""ourconfusedpercep-

tion of

our own

situation"

against

an

"objective

orderliness

in

history,"

and

an

"ego-oriented"

against

a

"causality-oriented"

perspective.15

But

to draw this

line between

subject

and

object

is

to

suggest

a

conflation of

the

given

social and

the

given

natural

orders. It is

also

to

obscure the

similarity

between

the

created

world

and the

given

social

world,

a resem-

blance

that arises

from the

fact that

they

are

both humanconstructions. The given social

worldderives a

large

measure of its

legitimacy

from its

association

with the

natural

order and

from

the

perception

that it is

radically

different

from

the

created

worlds of

individuals. If

Werther

s at

least

in

part

a

critique

of this

process

and

if

Werther's

attempts

to

create

a

second world are to

be

taken

seriously

as

a

challenge

to the

given

world's

claims

to

stand

for

nature

and

reason,

then

the

critic

should

attempt

to

drawout this

challenge

rather

than

cut it shortwith a

vocabulary

hat

tacitly

sides

against

Werther

and with

the

given

world.

Some

light

may

be

shed on this

issue

by

recalling

Lukics's

use of

the term

"second

nature"

to describe

the world of convention

and of

human-madestructure- what I have

here called

the

"given

social world."

His

de-

scriptionof the world of second nature may

help

to

distinguish

it both from the

natural

world and

from the

created

world:

Sie

bildendie Weltder Konvention:ine

Welt,

deren

Allgewalt

ur

das

Innerste

der

Seele

entzogen

ist;

die in

untiber-

sichtlicher

Mannigfaltigkeit

iberall

ge-

genwirtig

st;

deren

strenge

Gesetzlich-

keit,

sowohl

m Werden

wie im

Sein,

ffir

das erkennende

ubjekt

notwendig

vi-

dent

wird,

die

aber bei all dieser

Ge-

setzmdi8igkeit

ich

wederals Sinn

ffir

das

zielsuchende

ubjekt

nochin sinnlicher

Unmittelbarkeitls

Stoff

ffir

dashandeln-

de darbietet.

In

Lukics's

view

lyric poetry expresses

an

opposing

force that

we

maycompare

with

Wer-

ther's

created

world:

Die

Lyrik

kanndas

Phdinomenalwerden

der ersten Natur

ignorieren

und

aus

der

konstitutiven

Kraftdieses

Ignorie-

rens

heraus

eine

proteische

Mythologie

der substantiellenSubjektivitit chaf-

fen....7

Insofar as

Werther's turn

inward

reveals,

on

the

one

hand,

the

conventionality

and

contin-

gency

and,

on the other

hand,

the

static-or

rather,

goalless

-nature of the

given

world,

it

may

stand as a

critique

of

reification. But

Lukics's

declaration of

the

happy

ignorance

of

lyric

hides a

dilemma

from which

Werther

cannot

escape

so

easily.

Lyric's gnorance

is

necessary because it too is a formof second

nature.

Although

Werther's

created

world

pre-

sents itself in

opposition

to

the

given

social

world,

it is

equally

artificial.

Its

disadvan-

tage

lies,

ironically,

n

its

inwardness,

that

is,

in

its

self-consciousness of

the fact

that it is

a

created

rather than

a

natural

world. The

question

Werther

aises,

then,

is

whether

any

ideology

honest

and

self-conscious

enough

to

recognize

itself

as

ideology

can

sustain

it-

self

long

enough

to

mount

a

critique

of

ideol-

ogy.

The

ignorance

Lukics

attributesto

lyric

must be a

cultivated

ignoranceand,

as

such,

it is far

more

precarious

than

Lukics will

admit.




8/18

196

THE GERMAN

QUARTERLY

Spring

991

III

What

does Werther

find when he

turns

inwardto create a second world?His letter

of

21

June

1771

may provide

a basis forunder-

standing

Werther's

relationship

both with

the

given

world

and

with the

world

of his creation.

Ostensibly

it

is

a

letter of

reconciliation,

a

happy

coincidence

of Werther's

utopian

vi-

sions and

his

new life

in

Wahlheim.

Here Wer-

ther

is

"fully

established"

("v6llig

etabliert").

He

appears

to

enjoy

a

reprieve

from the tor-

ments that will

occupy

so much

of his attention

in

the months

ahead:

Ich

ebe so

gliickliche

age,

wie sie Gott

seinen

Heiligenausspart;

und mit mir

mag

werden

was

will,

so darf ch

nicht

sagen,

dab

ch die

Freuden,

die

reinsten

Freudendes Lebens

nicht

genossen

ha-

be.

(21

June

1771

28])

Wahlheim

s near to heaven because

it

is near

the

home of Werther's

new

love,

Lotte.

He

celebrates the virtues of

voluntarily ending

his travels and

settling

down

in

his

chosen

home. And he describes his life as resembling

scenes from the

Odyssey

(29).

Wahlheim

ap-

pears

to

be

a successful

attempt

to create

a

world

in

which Werther can live.

But

a closer

reading

reveals internal ten-

sions

in

this

utopian

reconciliation,

tensions

that

in

turn

expose

issues central

to our al-

legorical interpretation.

Werther describes

himself

as

having

chosen between

a

search

for new discoveries and

a

world

of limited

horizons in terms that convey a sense both

of submission and renunciation:

Lieber

Wilhelm,

ch habe

allerlei

achge-

dacht,

uiber

die

Begier

im

Menschen,

sich

auszubreiten,

eue

Entdeckungen

zu

machen, erumzuschweifen;

nd

dann

wieder

fiber

den inneren

Trieb,

sich

der

Einschrinkung illig

u

ergeben,

n dem

Gleise

der

Gewohnheit o hinzufahren

und

ich

weder

um

Rechtsnoch

um

Links

zu bektimmern.

28

f.)

Werther s not

explicit

here

about

his

choice,

but the context indicates that he has

opted

for the latter narrowroute andrenounced the

former. This would

certainly

be consonant

with his

description

of

Wahlheim

as the seat

of

his

newly

discovered

happiness,

with

a

pa-

triarchal

lifestyle

that

satisfies

his Homeric

nostalgia,

and with

the

parable

he

gives

of

the

vagabondwho returns from his journeys to

find

happiness

only

in his fatherland:

So sehnt sich

der

unruhigste

Vagabund

zuletzt wieder

nach

seinem Vaterlande

und

indet

n

seiner

Hiitte,

an der

Brust

seiner

Gattin,

n

dem

Kreiseseiner

Kin-

der,

n

denGeschiften u

hrer

Erhaltung

die

Wonne,

ie

er

in

derweitenWelt

er-

gebens

suchte.

(29)

Werther

clearly

identifies himself

with this

homecoming

vagabond

when

he

writes:

"Ich

eilte

hin

und kehrte

zurtick und hatte nicht

gefunden,

was ich

hoffte."

But

there

is cause

for uneasiness

in

this

comparison.

While the

vagabond

returns to

his

fatherland,

Werther

has chosen a new

home,

and

thus

his home-

coming

cannot

yet

be described

as a return.

More

disturbing

perhaps

s the realization hat

when Werther turns

backward,

he

does not

find

the breast of his wife and a circle of chil-

dren; instead,

he continues to miss what he

hadhopedfor.There is anunhappy ymmetry

in

Werther's

forward

and backward

glances.

It is

true

that the

image

of a chain of hills

surrounding

Werther's

small house

in

a fa-

miliar

valley

resembles the

image

of

the

vaga-

bond's

homecoming

and even invites

compari-

son

("Die

in

einander

geketteten

Hiigel

und

vertraulichen

Tiler ").

But Werther's condi-

tion is still one

of

longing,

and his

descriptions

are

in

the

subjunctive

mode that

conveys

a

sense ofneardesperation("Ok6nnte ich mich

in

ihnen

verlieren ").

If

we

pursue

the

com-

parison

further,

we find

that

although

Werther

begins by describing

his somewhat

contrived

homecoming

to

Wahlheim

as a

joyful

submis-

sion to

limitation,

he ends with a rather more

pessimistic

view

of restriction:

Undach wennwir

hinzueilen,

enn

das

Dort

nun

Hier

wird,

st allesvor

wie

nach,

und

wir stehen

n

unserer

Armut,

n un-

serer

Eingeschrlinktheit,

nd unserer

Seele lechztnach ntschlipftem absale.

(29)

Is

this

passage

meant to

apply

to the

disap-

pointment

of travel

to a new destination

(this




9/18

STRICKLAND:oethe's

Werther

197

seems to be its

explicit

reference)

or to

the

disappointment

of

homecoming?

This

ambi-

guity only

exacerbates

the tension

associated

with the fact that Werther'shomecoming,his

actual

return,

lies

not in

the

present

but

in

the future.

There is

also room for

uncertainty

in

the

resemblance

between Werther's account

of

his situation and the text of

the

Odyssey.18

At

one level

Werther s the

Odysseus figure

who,

like

the

vagabond,

returns

to his

wife,

presum-

ably

Lotte. This

reading

leaves no room

for

Albert,

unless we are to

associate him with

Penelope's

suitors. But

Werther

also com-

pares

himself

with

the

suitors,

whom

he de-

scribes

as wanton

in

their

consumption

of

what

rightfully

belonged

to

Odysseus

("da

ffihl'

ch so

lebhaft,

wie die

fibermfitigen

Freier

der

Penelope

Ochsen und

Schweine

schlach-

ten,

zerlegen

und

braten").

He

does

not,

how-

ever,

seem

able to

acknowledgefully

the illicit

implications

of

his role

in

this

image,

for

there

is no

allusion

either to an

association

of

Albert

with

Odysseus

or of

Lotte with

Penelope.

Instead, Werther ndirectlycompareshimself

with

Penelope

when

he

remarks that

he is

fortunate

to be able

to weave

the

patriarchal

life

into his

own

without

affectation

("Es

ist

nichts,

das

mich so mit

einer

stillen,

wahren

Empfindung

ausfiillte

als

die

Ziige patriarcha-

lischen

Lebens,

die

ich,

Gott

sei

Dank,

ohne

Affektation

in

meine

Lebensart

verweben

kann"

[29]).

Penelope

weaves

and

unweaves

her

tapestry

to

postpone

her

admission that

Odysseus will not return, deceivingher suit-

ors and

possibly

also

deceiving

herself.

Wer-

ther

likewise

exposes

his

-perhaps

uncon-

scious-

suspicions

that

although

he

would

like to

believe that

he

has

successfully

re-

turned

to

the world

of the

epic,

his

fantasy

is

in

fact total

affectation.

The

tension

upon

which

Werther

dwells

here,

that

between

discovery

and

familiarity,

indicates

a

fundamental

difference

between

the

Homeric

world

as

it

is

evoked

in

Werther

and its

original

context. A conflict between

familiarity

and

discovery

would

indeed be

wholly

out of

place

in

the worldthat

originally

gave

rise

to

the

epic.

Werther's

epic

is

not

the

epic

of

a

wide-open

world,

a world

that

is both a

comfortablehome

and the source of

new

discoveries,

but instead an

epic fantasy

of enclosure and isolation. Lukaics's bserva-

tions

on the historical

conditions

that

pro-

duced Homeric

literature

show a

profound

n-

compatibility

between

the

spirit

of the

epic

and the

spirit

of

Werther:

Selig

sinddie

Zeiten,

iir

die der

Sternen-

himmel

ie Landkarte

er

gangbaren

nd

zu

gehenden

Wege

st und deren

Wege

das

Lichtder

Sterneerhellt.Alles st

neu

ffir

sie unddennoch

ertraut,

benteuer-

lichunddennochBesitz.

DieWeltst

weit

unddochwie daseigeneHaus,denndas

Feuer,

das

in der

Seele

brennt,

st

von

derselben

Wesensart

wie

die

Sterne;

sie

scheiden

sich

scharf,

die

Weltund

das

Ich,

dasLicht

unddas

Feuer,

und

werden

doch

niemals inander

iir mmer

remd;

denn Feuer

ist

die Seele eines

jeden

Lichtsund

n

Licht

kleidet ich

ein

jedes

Feuer.

So

wird lles un

derSeele

sinnvoll

undrund n

dieser

Zweiheit:

ollendetn

dem

Sinn

und vollendet

ffir

die

Sinne;

rund,

weildie

Seele

in

sich

ruht

wihrend

des

Handelns;

und,

weil

ihre Tat

sich

von ihr

abl6st

und

selbstgeworden

inen

eigenen

Mittelpunkt

indetundeinen

ge-

schlossenen

Umkreis m

sichzieht.

"Phi-

losophie

st

eigentlich

Heimweh,"

agt

Novalis,

"der

Trieb,

iberall

u

Hausezu

sein."19

What, then,

is the

significance

of the

evocation

of

an

epic image

in the context

of a world

that

can no

longer

support

its

expectations

of

har-

mony

between

the

individual

and

the world?

Werther's preoccupationwith the Homeric

worldand

his strained

attempts

to

reconstruct

such a world

in

Wahlheim

demonstrate his

perception

of

something

lacking

n

the

given

world.It

is the

absence of

epic harmony

rom

the

given

world

that

leads

Werther

to turn

away

and to

try

to

create it

in

Wahlheim.

Are

we

not

reading

oo much

into

the

inter-

nal

conflicts of

Werther's

epic

fantasies?

Fred-

ric

Jameson,

in

his

discussion

of

Allesandro

Manzoni's

Promessi

Sposi,

argues

that such

conflicts

are

endemicto

the novel's

subsump-

tion

of

disparate

literary

forms. "The

novel,"

he

writes,

"is

then not

so much an

organic

unity

as a

symbolic

act that must

reunite

and




10/18

198

THE GERMAN

QUARTERLY Spring

991

harmonize

heterogeneous

narrative

para-

digms

which

have

heirown

specific

and

con-

tradictory

deological eaning.z20

hespecific

historicalcircumstances hat produced he

epic

may

have

vanished,

and

yet

"the

failure

of

a

particulareneric

tructure,

uchas

epic,

to

reproduce

tself

not

only

encourages

a

search

or

those

substitute extual ormations

that

appear

n its

wake,

but more

particularly

alerts us

to

the

historical

ground,

now

no

longer

xistent,

n

which

he

original

tructure

was

meaningful."''

he

discontinuitiesesult-

ing

from

he

juxtaposition

f an

epic

solution

to

a

problem

within

narrative

hat

prohibits

such

an

easy

reconciliation

nd,

n

fact,

trans-

forms

t into

an

act

of

renunciation

ay

reveal

the

"social and

ideological

contradiction

aroundwhich he novel will

turn."22

erhaps

more

honestly

han

Werther's vert

criticism

of

the

given

world,

his

epic

fantasies

xpose

conflicts n

the worldfrom

which

he would

flee.

The

tensions that

threatento

topple

Werther's

reation

of

a

second

world-par-

ticularly

is

self-consciousnesshat t is

a sec-

ond, createdor artificialworld- reveal ust

those contradictionsor

whichhis

creation s

an

attempted

esolution:he

lackof

unity

be-

tween

the

individual

nd the

world

and the

relatedabsence of

any

basis for

communica-

tion

and

mutual

understanding

mong

he

in-

habitants f

the

given

world.

In

the

Homeric

world

nature-or

rather

a

mythic

conception

f

nature

served

as a

mediator

etween

human

eings.

It

provided

a common eferencepointfor mutualunder-

standing.

Goethe

wasnot alone n

giving

oice

to

the

perception

hat

n

the

wakeof

the

En-

lightenment

uch

mediation ad

broken

own.

Friedrich

chlegel's

hilosophy

f

history

and

literature

marked

number

f

ages

in

which

this had

not been the

case. In

addition

o

the

mythic

ohesionof

the

Homeric

world,

Schle-

gel

also

pointed

o the

role

Catholicism

ad

playedby

serving

as

a focal

point

or

a

period

of

literary

and

artistic

expression

n

general.

In

his

"Rede

fiber die

Mythologie,"

Schlegel

called

for

a new

mythology,

a

self-conscious

creation of

an

ideology

capable

of

providing

the basis for

uniting

expression

and

communi-

cation,

ust

as the ancient

myths

had

provided

the

ground

orHomeric

pic.23

Werther's

urn

to Homer

ocuses ourattentionon

the fact

thathelives na world hat acks ucha mediat-

ing

base.Theworld

e constructs

n

Wahlheim

is an

attempt

o

bridge

a

gap

between

himself

and

a

larger

ocial

world.

The

depth

of

Werther's

oncern

about

he

gap

that

separates

individuals

n the

given

world

s

apparent

rom

he extentof

its

recur-

rence

as a theme. The

problem

of

genuine

communication

etween individuals

n the

worldoutside

he novel

s

implied

n the

edi-

tor's

prefatory

nstructions

o the

reader

("Und

du

gute

Seele,

die

du ebenden

Drang

fiihlst

wie

er,

sch6pfe

Trost

aus seinem

Lei-

den,

und

lab

das Bfichlein

einen

Freund

ein,

wenn

du aus Geschick

oder

eigener

Schuld

keinen nfihern

inden

kannst"

7]).

Before

Werther

becomes involved

with

Lotte,

the

search

or

community

eems to be his

primary

preoccupation.

n his first

letter

Werther

e-

ports

to Wilhelm

hat

he has struck

up

a

rela-

tionship

with a local

gardener

4

May

1771

[8]), but this apparentlyomes to nothing,

since Werther

never mentions

he

gardener

again.

A distancebetween

Werther

nd

his

new

neighbors

s

evident

n

the

letters

that

follow.

Although

Werther laims

hat

they

are

fond of

him,

he

describes

them in

a

conde-

scending

one

("Die

geringen

Leute

des

Orts

kennenmich

schon

und lieben

mich,

beson-

ders die

Kinder,"

5

May

1771

10]).

Werther

minimizes

he

importance

f

class

differences,

but his awarenessof them is acute("Leute

von

einigem

Standewerden

sich

immer

in

kalter

Entfernung

om

gemeinen

Volkehal-

ten,

als

glaubten

ie durch

Anndiherung

u

verlieren

..

."15

May

1771).

Even as

Werther

denies his

own

tendency

o

distance

himself

from

ordinarypeople,

his

language

empha-

sizes

the

gap

between him

and

the

towns-

people

and

indicates

hat he has

not

yet

re-

solved

o

throwhis own

ot in

with

heirs

"Ich

weiB

wohl,

daBwir

nicht

gleich

ind,

noch

ein

kinnen..

."

15

May

1771

[11]).

Shortly

there-

after

Werther

admitsthat

he has been

unsuc-

cessful in

his

search for

companionship

"Ich

habe

allerlei

Bekanntschaft

gemacht,

Gesell-




11/18

STRICKLAND:

Goethe's Werther

199

schaft habe

ich noch keine

gefunden,"

17

May

1771

[11]).

Although

he

encounters

many

people,

soon their

paths

all

diverge.

In a world in which communionseems so

difficult

o

establish,

nature and

literature

ap-

pear

as

potential grounds

for

understanding.

Between Werther

and a

gardener

nature

seems to serve as the basis for a

degree

of

understanding:

Der Garten st

einfach,

und man

flihlt

gleich

bei dem

Eintritte,

daf3

nicht

ein

wissenschaftlicher

dirtner,

ondern

in

flihlendes

HerzdenPlan

gezeichnet,

das

seinerselbsthier

genief3en

ollte.

4

May

1771 8])

Because the

gardener-

the deceased

Count

von M. -did

not

rely

on

scientific methods

but instead

arranged

his

garden

out of the

fullness of his

heart,

the

garden

itself

may

be

an external

ground

n

which

Werther

magines

their hearts

mingling.

But this

hope

is cut off

by

a

phrase

that seems to

suggest

that outside

of

science there is room

only

for

personal

indulgence.

Wertheralso shares a

knowledge

of Greekwitha youngmanto whom he refers

only

as

"jungen

V."

(17

May

1771

[12]).

But

for some

reason-

perhaps

because,

as Wer-

ther

hints,

the

young

man is too

academic-

this

relationship

also

comes to

naught.

Thus

neither

nature nor

literature

provide

a

ready-

made

ground

for the

communion

Werther

seeks.

IV

Although,

as we

have

seen,

nature and

lit-

erature

converge

for

Werther in

Homer and

in

the

patriarchal

deal he

associates with

the

epic,

Werther

always

reads

his Homer in

iso-

lation.

And

although

he invokes

images

of

other

people

in his

patriarchal

antasies,

they

always

remain at

a

distance

from

him,

as

something

he

describes

rather

than

engages

in. A

return

to

the

life

of

the

epic

would

nvolve

a

renunciationof

the

modern

world. But

even

a more modest integration nto the quaintso-

ciety

Werther

describes in the

countryside

surrounding

Wahlheim

would

require

a renun-

ciation of

both his class

andhis level of

educa-

tion. He can

momentarily ndulge

n

fantasies

about

a

simple

life,

but Wertherremains

aware

of the values

of the

given

world

and

these

continue to exert a force; they pullhimback

and

prevent

his

complete

immersion.

Werther's settlement

in

Wahlheim

may

ap-

pear

to

be a

flight

fromthe town and

a

return

to

nature. Hans Reiss has

read

it as a

serene

abandonment.24

But such a

reading

should

arouse

suspicion,

for

it

minimizes

both

Wer-

ther's ambivalence

owardnatureandthe com-

plex relationship

between

flight,

restriction,

and return.

The letter

of 21

June

1771

certainly

con-

tains

praise

and admirationor

the natural

en-

vironmentaround

Wahlheim.And at one level

Wertherdoes

seem to

escape

from

the

de-

mands

of

society

in

favor of

a

simpler

life

and

a

more

harmoniousrelation

with the

land.

As

Arnold Hirsch

points

out,

this

respect

for life

on the land

ndicates some

similarity

between

the

position

Goethe attributes to

Werther

and

Rousseau's ideal of

nature,

particularly

s ex-

pressed

in

Emile.

Although

Hirsch

recognizes

importantdifferences between Goethe's and

Rousseau's

conceptions

of

nature,

he

does

insist

that

in

Werther's

criticism of

society

and in his

desire

"to lose

himself

in

the

inex-

pressible

beauty

of

nature"

Werther reveals

himself as a

student of

Rousseau.25

However,

Werther's

attitude

toward

nature

is

by

no

means as

positive

as

Rousseau's.

For

Werther

nature is not a

reliable

alternativeto

the evils and

artifice of

society.

This

is not

necessarily because Goethe differed with

Rousseau on

the need for

social

change

but

instead

speaks

more to

his

perception

of a

close

connection

between a

wholly

positive

view

of nature

and

Leibnizian

heodicy.

Robert

Ellis

Dye's

suggestion

that

Werther's

critique

of

theodicy

was

partially

responsible

for

the

shock with

which the

book

was

received

in

many

circles

offers

one

possible

explanation

for

Werther's

ambivalent

conception

of

na-

ture:

Natural

vil

is exemplified

n the

flood

which"vom

Wahlheim

erunter ll

mein

liebes

Thal tiberschwemmt"

nd re-

flected

n

Werther's

orror

t the

general




12/18

200

THE GERMAN

QUARTERLY

Spring

991

transitoriness

of

things

and the

char-

acteristic

destructiveness

f

nature,

of

which uch

calamities

sfloods

and arth-

quakes

re

only

extraordinary

anifesta-

tions.(18August

771)26

The

images

of unreliable

nature

give

even

Werther's

positive

descriptions

of

nature

adis-

trustful

undertone.

If

we

acknowledge

this

ambivalenceand

yet

recognize

that,

following

Rousseau,

Wertherdoes

compare

society

un-

favorably

with

nature,

we

might

be able

to

see

Werther

as

having

adopted

Rousseau's

critical

understanding

without

being

able

to

accept

his

utopian

resolution.

Werther

seems

aware

that

his

critique

of

the

given

social

world

cannot

rely

on an

appeal

to the

given

naturalworld

but must create

its

own

grounds.

Goethe

was not

alone in

having

Werther

voice reservations

about

the

possibil-

ity

of

a

return

to nature.

Schiller

expressed

similar concerns

in his elaboration

of a view

of nature

that

retained

Rousseau's critical

spirit

without

denying

the

human source

of

his values:

Der

Charakter

erZeit

muB

ichalsovon

seiner

tiefen

Entwiirdigung

rst aufrich-

ten,

dort der

blindenGewalt

der Natur

sich

entziehen,

undhierzu

ihrer

Einfalt,

Wahrheit

nd

Fuille urnickkehren;

ine

Aufgabe

urmehrals

ein

Jahrhundert.17

The return

to the

simplicity,

truth,

and

full-

ness

of

nature

must

be

accompanied

by

the

realization hat

nature,

no

less than

the

second

nature described

by

Lukaics,

s directionless

and blind. Schiller's return to nature is a

forward-looking

ather

than

a

backward-look-

ing

return.

Schiller s

fundamentally

more

op-

timistic than

Werther,

or-paradoxically-

myopic,

in that

he does

not

insist

on

the limited

perspective,

the

blindness,

and self-delusion

that

always accompany

Werther's reflections

on his

desire for

return.

The

idea

of

return

is a

problematic mage

within the Western

tradition

generally,

con-

tradicting

the most

deeply

rooted

notions

of

progressive

historical

change.

Werther's

re-

nunciation

of

the demands of late

eighteenth-

century

life,

his disinterest in a

world

of new

discoveriesand-

perhaps

even more disturb-

ing-

his refusal

to

explore

the

world em-

pirically

all

go

far

deeper

than Rousseau's

re-

versal

of the

traditionally

Christian

represen-

tation of human nature as evil and societal

restrictionas

good.

Werther's

eturn

to

nature

appears

to be

a reversal

of

history.

The

signifi-

cance

of this

particular

kind

of

return

is the

concern

of Theodor

Adorno's

and

Max Hork-

heimer's

treatment

of

the

dialectic

of

progress

and

regression:

Rein

natiirliche

Existenz,

animalische

und

vegetative,

bildete

der Zivilisation

die

absolute

Gefahr.

Mimetische,

mythi-

sche,

metaphysische

Verhaltensweisen

galten nacheinanderls uiberwundene

Weltalter,

ufdie

hinabzusinken

it dem

Schrecken

ehaftet

war,

daf3 as Selbst

in

jene

blof3e

Natur

zurijckverwandelt

werde,

der es sich

mit

unsiglicher

An-

strengung

ntfremdet

atte,

und

die hm

eben darum

nsigliches

Grauen

einfl6b3-

te.

Die

lebendige

Erinnerung

n

die Vor-

zeit,

schon

an

die

nomadischen,

m

wie

viel

mehran

die

eigentlich

ripatriarcha-

lischen

Stufen,

war

mit

den urchtbarsten

Strafen

n allen

Jahrtausenden

us dem

BewuBtsein er Menschenausgebrannt

worden.

In

Werther's

ormulationRousseau's reversal

of the relation between nature

and civiliza-

tion realizes an historicaldimension. Adorno's

and Horkheimer's observations cast serious

doubts

on the

kind

of return

to nature we

may

attribute

to

Werther.

Even

though

he

appears

-

at

least

implicitly-

to renounce a

progres-

sive view

of

history,

in

effect

to

turn his

back

on the present, Werther's renunciation s a

threat

to the

present.

The resolutionWerther

attempts

in

Wahlheim

lies somewhere

be-

tween a

nostalgic

and

a

utopian

resolution

of

the contradictionsof the

given

world. He can-

not

fully

embrace

a

nostalgic

return. Yet his

utopian

longings

are

modeled

on

such

a

re-

turn.

The ambivalence of Werther's

view

of

na-

ture

necessarily

colors his

flight

from

society

and

from

the modern world. His

flight

itself

is

ambivalent. Werther confronts

a

frag-

mented world.

In

his

flight

from this

fragmen-

tation he

paradoxically

becomes

ever more

isolatedand must invokean

image

of the

com-




13/18

STRICKLAND:

oethe's Werther

201

munity

rom

whichhe

fled

in

order to reconcile

himself with his

escape.

Thus,

though

Wer-

ther

experiences

his

epic

fantasies

alone,

he

imagines scenes such as the return of the

vagabond.

Not

only

is a social

vignette

invoked

within Werther's

flight

from the

given

world,

but this

story

is itself one of return.

It is the

image

of a man who has either traveled or

fled,

searched and been

disappointed,

only

to

return to the comfort of his

family.

The

possi-

bility

of such a return is

dim outside of

Werther's fantasies.

In

the returns

he

de-

scribes as

actually having

taken

place,

there

are

no

happy

embraces.

Considerthe

husband

who

returns

from an inheritance

ourney

with

a fever

and

no

money only

to find that his

youngest

son has died

(4

August

1772

[76]);

Werther's

disappointing pilgrimage

to his

birthplace

(9

May

1772

[72

ff.]);

and his final

return to

Wahlheim,

where

everything ap-

pears

to have

changed

for the worse

(94 ff.).

The

weight

of these frustratedreturns as well

as the enormous

gap

between them and the

image

of the

returning vagabond finally

lead

Wertherto abandon the hope of return and

to

resign

himself to

escape.

In

his short letter

of 16

June

1772,

Werther

admits

his

defeat:

"Ja

wohl

bin ich nur

ein

Wandrer,

ein Waller

auf der

Erde Seid

ihr

denn mehr?"

(75).

But even at this

dark moment Werther's

flight

remains

rooted

in

the

given

world

through

his

correspondence

with

Wilhelm.

Looking

back at the

letter of

21

June

1771,

we can

see that there too

Werther

confirms

his connection, understanding,and communi-

cation with Wilhelm

by

asserting

that

Wilhelm

"knowshis

Wahlheim"

"Du

kennst mein

Wahl-

heim"

[28]).

And he even

inserts Wilhelm

nto

the letter

and thus

into

Wahlheim

by

describ-

ing

the

village

from

Wilhelm's

perspective

("Ach

k6nntest

du

dich

in

seine

Schatten

mi-

schen "

[29]).

One further

indicationof

the

unsuccessful

link

Wilhelm

represents

be-

tween the

created and

given

worlds is that

"Wilhelm"

nd

"Wahlheim" re

almost-but

not

quite- anagrams

for one another.

Wer-

ther

is

in

flight,

but

he continues

to insist

upon

communicationwith

the

world

from

which

he flees and

continues to describe the

created world

in terms that

Wilhelm,

as

a

representative

of the

given

world,

can

ap-

preciate,

understand,

or

perhaps

even

ap-

prove.

V

How

might

Werther's ambivalent

attitude

toward naturebe related

to his sense of

alie-

nation from the

given

social

world?

How

far

can we follow Lukaicsn his assertion

that the

longing

for a reunion with nature

expresses

an alienation rom nature?Does

this alienation

result from the

perception

that the

human-

made

environment,

the

given

social

world,

is

not withinhuman

control,

that it exists not to

meet

human

needs but as

something

dead

or-

to

use

the

Hegelian

term-

positive?

Die Fremdheit er

Natur,

der erstenNa-

tur

gegenfiber,

asmoderne entimenta-

lische

Naturgeffihl

st

nurdie

Projektion

des

Erlebnisses,

aB

ie

selbstgeschaffe-

ne

Umwelt

ffir

denMenschen einVater-

haus mehr

st,

sondern

in

Kerker.29

Wertherdoes indeedperceivethe givenworld

as a

prison.

But the situation seems

to be

still more

complicated

than

Lukics's

formula-

tion

would

suggest;

for

here,

again

in

the

let-

ter of

21

June,

Werther's

escape

itself is

characterized

n

terms that

imply

a

voluntary

imprisonment.

The

given

world is

described

as a

prison

only indirectly

and

in

such

a

way

as to focus

our

attention on the

fact that

Wertherhimself

seeks

out a kind of

imprison-

ment. Besides the passages we havealready

considered,

we

may

addWerther's

description

of

Lotte's

father's

house as

locking

up

or en-

closing

all his

wishes.

This

image

of

confine-

ment is

placed

in

sharp

relief

by

its

juxta-

position

with

Werther's

description

of

his own

wide

wanderings

("Wie

oft

habe ich

das

Jagd-

haus,

das

nun

alle

meine

Wuinsche

inschlieJ3t,

auf

meinen weiten

Wanderungen,

bald vom

Berge,

bald von

der Ebne

iuber

den

FluB

ge-

sehn "

[28; emphasis

added]).

While Wer-

ther's view

from the

mountaintop

ndicates a

privileged

perspective

from outside the

prison,

it

equally suggests

a

great

distance

between himself

andthe

Art. Dialectic of Creation and Escape in Werther

Documents

Transcript of Art. Dialectic of Creation and Escape in Werther