A FAUST I'ROI'.LKM. I5I 



whose observations we will quote next, also alludes to Mephisto's 

 " frankness " ; he differs, as we shall see, from Mr. Taylor inas- 

 much as, according to the latter's view, Mephisto is frank and 

 speaks the truth, himself believing icJiat he says, whilst, according, 

 to Boyesen, Mephisto does not believe in his own statement. 



Before quoting Boyesen's comments, allow me to call your 

 attention to the startling remark of Mr. Taylor that in the line 

 " I am the Spirit that Denies "' Mephisto clearly describes the 

 part which he plays. 



Let us now hear what Mr. Boyesen has to say of our pas- 

 sage. 



The self-characterization of Mephisto, which now follows, is per- 

 haps the most difficult, as surely it is one of the profoundest passages in 

 the whole drama. 



At first sight the extreme frankness of Mephisto's self-definition has 

 an air almost of naivete; but, more closely considered, it argues rather 

 the most refined subtlety. In the first place, would it not be very singular 

 to represent the devil as so humbly convinced of the futility of all his 

 destructive work, nay, of his very existence? The question then lies 

 near. Does he himself believe in the correctness of his definition? Surely 

 he does not. The positive truth, in this instance, is the result of two 

 negatives: it is a devil (a negative existence) who speaks, and he speaks- 

 what he does not believe. He manifestly adapts his tactics with much 

 shrewdness to Faust's state, representing himself as on the whole harm- 

 less, and at the same time giving his answer an appearance of fearless, 

 decisive logic which must be very refreshing to the scholar who has sO' 

 long been grappling in vain with these misty problems. 



So far Mr. Boyesen. I notice with pleasure that he points 

 out how " very singular " it would be " to represent the devil 

 as so humbly convinced of the futility of all his destructive 

 work," but must confess that I am startled by the idea that 

 Mephisto says what he himself does not believe, and, I cannot 

 help adding that I am unable to find any meaning in Boyesen's 

 sentence: "The positive truth, in this instance, is the result 

 of two negatives: it is a devil (a negative existence) who speaks 

 what he does not believe." That two negatives make an affirma- 

 tive, or some statement to that effect, I have often heard, but that 

 two negatives results in a positive truth is quite " another story."' 

 Besides, wbat is a " negative existence " ? and what is the mean- 

 ing of the theory bere enunciated ? I can scarcely think that my 

 interpretation of Mr. Boyesen's words is the one he intends, but 

 the only meaning I can find for them is the ctirious notion that 

 a statement must be necessarily true if we can but imagine that 

 a devil utters it without believing it. 



Let us now listen to a few of the most authoritative among 

 Cierman commentators. 



Diintzer. in his notes to the edition of " Faust " published 

 in the well-known series Deutsche National Literatur (vol. 

 xciii.), does not seem to think much explanation is needed. All 

 he says is : 



