156 A " FAUST " PROBLEM. 



he is now going to say (sic!) by his fourth and last declaration, which 

 stands in the same relationship to the third as the second to the first, 

 i-e-, mutually destructive ! " 



I wish here, as it were in parenthesis, to guard myself against 

 misconception. I feel the need of reminding my hearers that 

 the tone of mockery and of disrespect which I have felt justi- 

 fied in adopting when discussing this extraordinary comment on 

 Goethe's masterpiece, or rather on that small part which we are 

 here studying, does not in the least characterise correctly my 

 opinion of Fischer's writings about Goethe in general, nor even 

 of all the rest of his Faust commentary in particular. No one 

 who will study what Fischer wrote on these subjects can pos- 

 sibly fail to learn much and to realise that he is listening to a 

 master. It is. however, in this partictdar instance so evident, 

 I think, that this master is caught napping, that it startles a 

 reader by the very contrast with the other work. The nearer 

 anyone stands to Homerus. the apter he is to raise a smile qitando 

 doniiifof. 



We might (|Uote and refute still others of the many com- 

 mentaries, but. it seems to me, enough has been said to prove (a) 

 that authorities differ; (b) that the difficulty exists, is not 

 imaginary; and (r) that in those comments that we have quoted 

 the solution has not yet been found. 



Allow me a few moments in which to suggest to you where 

 that solution may lie. 



First and foremost, it may have struck you that not one of 

 the commentators clearly establishes the logical connection be- 

 tween the two utterances of Mephisto — nay, that one (Fischer) 

 goes so far as to emphatically deny that such a connection exists ; 

 he says the one is the very contradiction of the other ! 



And yet, surely, if an intellect like Faust, in reply to one so 

 sharp and witty as Mephisto, asks, "What do you mean?" it is 

 clear (a) that the first saying is not so simple and clear that no 

 especial thought, reflection or enquiry on our part is needed to 

 grasp its meaning, and that such meaning does not lie on the 

 surface. If to some commentators the words seem not to need 

 explanation, Faust thinks otherwise, (b) Xtiat the answer to 

 the request for explanation must contain that explanation or 

 part of it ; that the answer is. as it were, a commentary on the 

 words to be explained. Now, a commentary, if it is a good one. 

 must be easier to understand than the passage which it elucidates. 

 Ergo, if we want to study both sayings of Mephisto, we shall 

 do well to begin with his second utterance, and when we have 

 fully investigated its sense, inquire what light this sheds on the 

 saying which, in consequence of its intentionally paradoxical 

 form, was so obscure. 



Whatever may be thought of the explanation I have to offer. 

 I am firmly convinced that none is admissible which makes Goethe 

 commit a serious artistic blunder, and that none can be accepted 

 W'hich does not clearly show how the second saying explains the 



