4 results
A Study of Goethe's Printed Text: Hermann und Dorothea
- W. T. Hewett
-
- Journal:
- PMLA / Publications of the Modern Language Association of America / Volume 14 / Issue 1 / 1899
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 December 2020, pp. 108-136
- Print publication:
- 1899
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The standard Weimar edition of Goethe's works is based upon the final edition of his collected works, Ausgabe letzter Hand, which was published 1827-30, and contained his latest revisions. Forty volumes appeared during his life. As regards the form and appearance of the edition, the editors state that their purpose is to adhere strictly to whatever is known to have had Goethe's personal authorization. “The Ausgabe letzter Hand is his legacy, and he himself regarded it as the conclusion of his life work. With great circumspection, and with a care such as had been employed in the case of no other edition of his writings, he exerted himself for the purity and perfection of this edition. The evidence of his active participation is shown in his correspondence with K. Göttling, to whom he entrusted the examination and correction of his manuscript, and with Reichel, the foreman of the Cotta press. We can follow his coöperation, first, in the single volumes of the Taschenausgabe (Ć), and, similarly, later in the octavo edition (C), which was based on a revision of the previous edition, and constitutes his final survey of the text.” “No departures were to be made from the readings of C except for imperative reasons. Changes based upon the manuscripts or earlier editions, or upon independent criticism must be shown to be necessary.” As regards changes, however, which Göttling admitted in various places, silently or without Goethe's express authority, fuller liberty was granted to the editors to amend, where a criticism of the text was based on the poet's use of words. In case of necessity a return to the former reading was allowed. The octavo edition was made authoritative for orthography and punctuation. A slavish adherence to this text was not contemplated so that the new edition should be a mere reprint of the old. Defects, inconsistent usages, and lack of uniformity in printing were to be banished, so far as was practicable, while everything that was necessary to illustrate the sound and the pronunciation, especially in foreign words, was to be retained. In cases of doubt regarding readings, the general usage of the poet was to be considered, and where no clear and unequivocal usage was evident, preference was to be given to modern forms. No other basis for a standard edition can be conceived than that it should rest primarily upon that form which presents the author's final revision. To make an earlier edition the foundation of the text would be to ignore the apparent wish of the writer, and not to follow his final judgment as regards literary form. At the same time, in the absence of the original autographs, or of the revised text which was submitted to the printer, it is impossible to determine accurately how far Goethe actually participated in the revision of any given work, how far changes received his approval, or occurred in the progress of a volume through the press. Goethe was not indifferent to the purity of his text, but, on the contrary, insisted on the greatest fidelity to the original. He wrote to Cotta, relative to the first edition of his works, saying that he desired that it should present an attractive appearance, “ but correctness is of far more importance to me, and for this I most urgently entreat. You see that the copy has been gone over and corrected with the greatest care, and I should be in despair if it should again appear disfigured. Have the kindness to entrust the proof-reading to a careful man, and I enjoin expressly that the volume which I send should be accurately followed, that nothing in the orthography, punctuation or aught else be changed, and that even if an error should remain, it be printed with the rest. In short, I desire and require nothing save the most accurate copy of the original which I transmit.” With a manifest desire for accuracy, Goethe entrusted the revision of his works largely to others, and he often failed to take the most obvious measures for securing the purity of his text. In publishing the Schriften, he took, as Professor Bernays has pointed out, the corrupt Himburg reprint as the basis for a portion of his text. From this reprint, numerous errors passed into the edition of his Schriften in eight volumes. Similarly, the edition of the Schriften in four volumes with its numerous errors became, in part, the foundation of the corresponding sections of the Werke (A). Certain works he subjected to careful, personal revision; others he entrusted mainly to his literary assistants, Riemer, Eckermann, Göttling and others, or to his amanuenses. Detailed work of this nature was irksome to him, and a long habit of dictation and working through others caused him to place an unjustifiable reliance upon men whose training and literary judgment were unequal to the task. He himself had no fondness for strife about verbal questions, and could detect “no grammatical vein in himself.” In many cases it must remain unsettled what amendments were actually authorized by the poet. Where an autograph revision is not preserved, the various editions often show changes due to accident or to the caprice of compositors. Goethe did not always have his own printed works at hand. He was often also without copies of his separate works, and on several occasions sought to buy or borrow a copy of Hermann und Dorothea. In a letter to Sömmering of August 21, 1797, he stated that he had not had a complete copy of his writings in his house for years, and desired him to purchase at auction in Frankfurt the ten volumes of his Schriften, even prescribing the price which should be paid. His own writings were like emancipated children which would not abide with him.
Matthias de Vries and His Contributions to Netherland Philology
- W. T. Hewett, B. J. Vos, F. de Haan
-
- Journal:
- PMLA / Publications of the Modern Language Association of America / Volume 10 / Issue S1 / 1895
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 December 2020, pp. vii-xix
- Print publication:
- 1895
-
- Article
- Export citation
The Present Condition of Instruction in the Modern Languages in American Colleges
- W. T. Hewett
-
- Journal:
- Proceedings - Modern Language Association of America / Volume 2 / 1886
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 05 April 2021, pp. vi-lxi
- Print publication:
- 1886
-
- Article
- Export citation
The Aims and Methods of Collegiate Instruction in Modern Languages
- W. T. Hewett
-
- Journal:
- Transactions of the Modern Language Association of America / Volume 1 / 1885
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 11 February 2021, pp. 25-36
- Print publication:
- 1885
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
It is evident that the study of the modern languages is to occupy a larger place in education in this country than ever before. The intercourse of people with people, political, social and literary is becoming constantly more intimate and we may anticipate in the future a more cosmopolitan spirit in the relation of nations. The arbitration of differences, arid friendly consultation in questions of disputed rights bring into a union of sympathy and genial interest states which have hitherto stood apart. Science has brought nations into immediate and personal connection, making the intellectual progress of one the possession of the other, while commerce and the facility of an interchange of citizenship unite them by mutual interests. These tendencies are separate from any questions touching the usefulness of the study of modern languages as a method of discipline and the culture which is to be obtained from contemporary literatures. They indicate indisputably certain new demands on education which must be met: they are facts patent to the observer as well as the scholar. Instruction in our colleges must take, if not a new, at least a changed direction from the enlarged intercourse of nations. We are brought to ask the question, not what has the past to give us, but what contribution has the living thought of each nation to make to its neighbor, what results of study, what intellectual discoveries, what special gifts from national tendencies and traits has each to impart. The very nearness and sympathy of nations politically causes each to present problems which every student of contemporary thought must investigate. These facts carry their own weight apart from any literary considerations. The question of a cosmopolitan spirit in literature, or of a world-literature is not involved in these views of the growing importance of the study of modern languages. We might urge with great imperativeness the necessity to every scholar, to every educated man, of a knowledge of the literature of Europe of the present day, no literature now stands alone but affects every other literature, and the subtle thought of one nation colors the intellectual life of every other. Without then touching upon the relative value or the proportionate time which should be devoted to the classics and modern languages, we are met by these facts which emphasize the position which modern languages must assume in every carefully adjusted college curriculum. Conceding then the importance of linguistic study, the question arises, what considerations are of force in determining the order and methods of linguistic study in our schools and colleges.