No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
In the discussion of the genesis of the characters in Lessing's ‘Nathan’ there are four elements to be considered, of which we must form a correct estimate before we can obtain a clear conception of the way in which these characters received their present form. First in importance is the plot, or action, of the drama. When Lessing first conceived the idea of making the story of the three rings in Boccaccio the central scene of a drama, he must have outlined in connection with the main features of its plot the leading characters in the play; and he must have given his conceptions of these characters such personal characteristics that the action would logically proceed from them. To this factor, then, we may ascribe the creation of most of the characters, and the salient and important personal traits of all. The first rough draught of the play, (the date of which is unknown but which must have been jotted down some years before it was worked up into the drama as it now is),∗ shows in the main what is to be attributed to the influence of this element. So much for the present, as this point will be taken up again later at greater length.
page 75 note 1 Giornato 1. Nov, iii, Melchisedech Guideo.
page 75 note 2 ‘Lessing's Werk’ vol. xi, pp. 773ff. (Berlin, Hempel).
page 75 note 3 Wm. Scherer: “G. E. Lessing.” Deutsche Rundschau. Feb. 1881. Zacher: Arckiv für Litteraturgeschichte. vii, 29. Caro: ‘Lessing und Swift.’ (Jena, 1869.) P. 22.
page 75 note ∗ Cf. also Erich Schmidt: Lessing, (Berlin, 1892). Vol. ii, Bk. iii, chap. 3, for this and other points. As this greatest and most recent authority appeared after the presentation of the paper, it could not be consulted in its preparation.
page 76 note 4 Zeitschrift für Deutsche Philologie, vi, 304.
page 76 note 5 Cf. Hempcl, xi 2 824ff.
page 76 note 6 Zsft. f. Deut. Phil., v, 433. Caro: ‘Lessing und Swift,’ pp. 32ff.
page 76 note 7 Scheror: Deutsche Rundschau, Feb., 81.
page 76 note 8 Richard Mayr: ‘Beiträge zur Beurteilung G. E. Lessings'. (Wien, 1880). Pp. 102ff.
page 76 note 9 Namely, Swift's “Tale of a Tub.” Caro, ibid., pp. 71ff. Cf. also Mayr, ibid., 101.
page 77 note 10 “Letter to Herzog Karl,” July 11, 1778. Hempel. xx1, 745.
page 77 note 11 Ducal order of July 6, 1778. Hempel xx1. 742. Note 2.
page 77 note 12 “Letters to Herzog Karl,” July 11, 20; Aug. 8,. 1771. Hempel, xx1, 742, 747, 754.
page 77 note 13 “Letters from Herzog Karl,” July 13; Aug. 3; Aug. 19, 1778. Hempel, xx2, 933, 94.
page 77 note 14 “Letter to Elise Reimarus.” Sep. 6, 1778. Hempel, xx1, 759.
page 77 note 15 “Letter to Kart Lessing” Aug. 11, 1778. Hempel, xx1, 757.
page 78 note 16 “Letter to Karl Lessing” Oct, 1778. Hempel, xx1,762.
page 78 note 17 Hempel, xx1, 797.
page 78 note 18 Letter Staatsrath von Gebler. Aug. 13, 1779. Hempel, xx1, 796.
page 78 note 19 “Letter to Karl Lessing,” Nov. 7, 1778. Hempel xx1. 764. Compare also Introduction a. Hempel xi1, 784.
page 78 note 20 Cf. Zsft. für Deutsche Philol., vi, 319.
page 78 note 21 Hempel, xx2, 826
page 79 note 22 Cf. Hempel, xi2, 78, 814, 816, Scenes i 5, ix 1 and 2. The scene bearing upon this question is ix 2. Der Patriarch u. Curd. Der Patriarch will Gefälligkeit um Gefälligkeit erzeigt wissen. Er verspricht ihm das Mädchen u. Verspricht ihm die Absolution seines Gelübdes vom Papsts zu verschaffen, wenn er sich ganz dem Dienst der Kreuzfahrer wieder widmen will Curd sieht, dass es auf völlige Verrätherei hinauslauft, wird unwillig u. beschlist, sich an den Saladin selbst zu wenden.
page 79 note 23 Compare vv. 2478ff.; 251off.; 3522ff.; 2574ff.; 2583ff. Boxbcrger's Notes to these verses in Kürschner's Edition, ‘Deutsche National Litteratur: Lessing's Werke,' iii.
page 79 note 24 Gleim to Lessing, July 22, 1779. Hempel, xx2, 985. Heyne to Lessing, June 19, 1779. Hempel, xx2, 982.
page 79 note 25 G. R. Rope, ‘Johan Melchoir Goeze. Eine Rettung’. (Hamburg, 1860). Page 261. “Die Schauspieler, welche diese Rolle gaben, pflegten eine möglichst ahnliche Karrikatur Goezes auf die Bühne zu bringen.”
page 80 note 26 ‘G. E. Lessing, als Reformator der deutschen Litteratur, dargestellt von Kuno Fischer’. Stuttgart bei Kotta. 1881. Zweiter Theil, pp. 88ff.
page 81 note 27 Ibid., p. 87.
page 82 note 28 Cf. also Act ii, Sc 5, v. 1321.
page 83 note 29 Ibid., p, 120.
page 83 note 30 Letter from Karl Lessing, Aug. 17, 1778. (Hempel, xx 2, 946).
page 84 note 31 Letter to Karl Lessing, Nov, 7, 1778, (Hempel, xx 2, 768.)
page 84 note 32 Hempel, xi 2, 786.
page 84 note 33 Hamburger Dramaturgie', Sotes Stück.
page 85 note 34 Cf. Richard Mayer, ‘Beiträge, etc.,’ pp. 108ff.
page 86 note 35 Letter from Gleim, July 22, 1778 (Hempel. xx 2, 985).
page 86 note 36 Cf. Danzel und Guhrauer: ‘Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Sein Leben und Seine Werke Zweite Auflage.’ (Berlin, 1881). Pp. 478ff.
page 86 note 37 Anti-Goeze, 8 (Hempel, xvi, 188).
page 87 note 38 Vv. 3066-67.
page 87 note 39 Cf. Pp. 166ff.
page 88 note 40 Hempel xvi 15, “Das Testament Johannis.”