THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION

OF AMERICA.

The seventeenth annual meeting of the MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA was held at Columbia University, New York, N. Y., December 27, 28, 29, 1899. All the sessions of the meeting were held in Schermerhorn Hall, Room 305.

FIRST SESSION, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 27.

President Seth Low, at whose invitation the Association met at Columbia University, opened the session by an address of welcome.

The Secretary of the Association, James W. Bright, submitted as his report the fourteenth volume of the Publications of the Association. This volume is dedicated to the memory of Mr. David Lewis Bartlett, of Baltimore, in recognition of his contribution of five hundred dollars to the cost of publishing the volume, and of his interest from the beginning in the work of the Association.

On motion of the Secretary the Association passed a vote to put upon record a unanimous expression of deep regret at the recent death of Mr. David Lewis Bartlett.

The Treasurer of the Association, Herbert E. Greene, submitted the following report:

Publication of Vol. XIV, No. 1, and Reprints, $ 371 56

The President of the Association, H. C. G. von Jagemann, appointed the following committees:

(1) To audit the Treasurer's report: Professors James M. Garnett and F. N. Scott.

(2) To nominate officers: Professors J. B. Henneman, Gustav Gruener, Morgan Callaway, W. E. Mead, and O. F. Emerson.

(3) To recommend place for the next Annual Meeting: Professors M. D. Learned, C. H. Grandgent, T. R. Price, H. E. Greene, and J. M. Hart.

The reading of papers was then begun.

1. "The first Paralipomenon of Goethe's Faust, when written? By Professor Eugene W. Manning, of Delaware College.

Among Goethe's papers an unfolded sheet, or perhaps better a torn-out leaf, about eight and a half by nine inches (my fac-simile is so framed that I cannot measure it exactly, and my measurements are not at hand) was found on which a short plan to his Faust was written, and which is now known as the First Paralipomenon. Several efforts have been made to determine the time at which the plan was written by Goethe, and the following is my second attempt to throw light on the subject-my first effort having been made in the Goethe-Jahrbuch for 1896, pp. 209-214. Others have suggested or contended for the years 1788, 1799, or even 1795, no one of which seems to me at all probable; my contention is for an earlier date. The following arguments can be fully understood only by having before one a fac-simile of the plan written by Goethe to represent Faust, Part II., as it was in his mind in 1775. A fac-simile of the plan (with the transliterated text and an English translation), together with a summary English version of the Faust plan, Part Second, of 1775, is herewith submitted. It will be noted that Second Part is twice mentioned in the plan of 1775. Incidentally may I ask if it is probable that Goethe would have used the words Second Part in an attempt to give an idea of the latter part of Faust as it was in his mind in 1775, if in 1775 he had not determined or expected to divide his drama into two parts?

Let me call attention to the relative length of the First Paralipomenon and the plan of 1775, and especially to the fact that while all of the longer plan refers to the Second Part of Faust, only the words of the shorter plan following the expression First Part refer to the Second Part of Faust.

If the longer plan belongs to 1775, the shorter one does not belong to a later period.

While the Second Part was once regarded as loosely joined to, and far inferior to, the First Part, such is not now the opinion of Faust scholars. Abundant evidence is at hand to show that Goethe did not look upon Part Second as an afterthought. With the mass of material indicated in the plan of 1775 floating even indefinitely before him it is not surprising that Goethe saw it would be wise to divide his poem. Furthermore, the Faust is essentially a life drama, beginning with the passion, ambition, struggle, restiveness of youth, continued in the saner, serener, if not contented, experiences of useful toil and development, and ending with the joy of beneficent old age. On the one hand, book-learning and passion; on the other, real culture and beneficence, that is Part First and Part Second.

The evident haste in writing, the apparent clearness of thought down to the scratched-out words Lebens Thaten Wesen, and the confusion and groping after that would seem to point to a time when, down to the word Schueler, Goethe's mind was clear; but after the Schueler scene there was a lack of clearness. To find a time when the Schueler scene was the last cleared up Faust scene in Goethe's mind, we must go back of 1775 when the Urfaust was taken to Weimar. Goethe wrote in 1773 "a beautiful, new plan to a great drama," which I believe was the First Paralipomenon. The fact that Wagner and Schueler are mentioned in the First Paralipomenon, but Mephistopheles and Gretchen and Helen are not mentioned, is significant. If the Wagner and Schueler scenes were then written out or even thought out, but not the Gretchen episode (the critics agree that the Gretchen episode must be left out, for the references do not fit it), and surely if the part of Mephistopheles was not sharply outlined we must go back to the early seventies to date the plan.

It has been thought that the phrase "on the way to hell" pointed to a late origin for the First Paralipomenon and that Goethe got this suggestion in the nineties from Milton. Since, however, it is known that Goethe published a poem in 1766 on "Christ's descent to Hell," the phrase would seem to point to an early date, especially in view of the fact that the idea itself was less appropriate to the mature poet and was in fact abandoned. The strongest argument against an early date for the First Paralipomenon has heretofore been found in the abstract character of the plan and the abstract words ('form,' 'formless,' 'content') used. Elsewhere I have shown that the same abstract subject was treated by Goethe with the same abstract words, and with a disgust that would seem to preclude his return to it. Goethe had a copy of Spinoza in 1773; he later called himself a disciple and worshiper of Spinoza. With these facts before one, can one fail to see that the abstract character and terms are arguments for an early date? It is the young man, the tyro in philosophy, who uses abstract words about abstract subjects.