Aristocratic and bourgeois ideology in The Sorrows of Young Werther 1848 – Grun even suggests that the novel prepares the ground for the French Revolution. But as one of the most prominent sentimental figures in Western literature, Werther is difficult to view as a social critic without recognizing the barrier his affect represents to assuming such a role. Friedrich Engels even accused Grun of “confusing true social criticism with Werther's laments about the gap between bourgeois reality and his equally bourgeois illusion.” Werther, says Engels, is a 'schwarmerischer Tranensack' (dreaming tear sac)” (Duncan 76). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay Can we then denounce Werther's criticisms as inauthentic due to his bourgeois identification and selfish view of social order? Can we understand the grumbling of a “dreamy tear sac” as social commentary? Although Engel raises legitimate concerns about a critical reading of The Sorrows of Young Werther, we dilute the significance of a series of letters that Werther devotes to ridiculing his aristocratic company in the second half of the novel without engaging in critical analysis of the novel. His critique is particularly informed by his characterization of genius as torrential and transcendental. While Werther's views on class division and the romanticization of work seem to undermine his ability to criticize the social order, Goethe complicates the temptation to dismiss Werther's polemic against aristocratic society by distancing him from the bourgeoisie almost just as problematic at the end of the novel. Werther's hostility toward the aristocracy stems from a clash of ideologies: a barrier to class mobility, reinforced by privileging an individual's ancestry over strength of character, is utterly detestable for Werther because it demeans what makes him exceptional. In a letter dated May 26, Werther joked: “Oh, my friends! Do you wonder why the torrent of genius pours so rarely, floods so rarely, and thunders and overwhelms your astonished soul? – Because, dear friends, on each bank live calm and respectable gentlemen, whose summer residences, tulip beds and cabbage patches would all be washed away by the waters, and who are therefore very adept at removing in time future dangers, by building dams and digging. chains” (33). Werther explains the constraint imposed on the genius by his relationships with respectable gentlemen. Although Werther never explicitly states that the respectable gentleman is a figure of aristocracy and that the genius is a figure of himself, the similarity within these groups is striking. Genius is characterized by an image of complete abandonment, similar to Werther's disposition when writing the letter of May 10; the respectable gentleman is associated with intrigue and personal gain, two qualities that Werther criticizes in the nobility he encounters under the ambassador's leadership. Werther's criticism of the aristocracy is that this group values future gains over present pleasure. Shortly after working for the ambassador, Werther complains: “The boredom of these horrible people locked up here! and their greed for rank, and the way in which they are always careful and attentive to gain or precedence: the most miserable and abominable of passions” (75). His judgment becomes more and more explicitAs he continues his argument – he begins by emphasizing their “rank greed”, implying that they are unhappy with their current status. He then goes on to further denounce the aristocratic mentality that is consumed by rank, emphasizing that aristocrats are specifically "vigilant" and "attentive" to gain. Here it is more explicit: Werther is frustrated by the aristocratic focus on future progress rather than satisfaction in the present. It is particularly “miserable and abominable” for Werther, who tells Wilhelm: “I am so happy, dear friend, so absorbed in this feeling of peaceful existence” (26). Unlike the aristocracy who seek happiness in future gains, Werther believes that happiness must be "absorbed" in the present. For this reason, he asserts: “It is enough that the source of my misery resides in me, as once the source of all my joy” (98). By rejecting the aristocratic mentality of looking toward the future and focusing on the beautiful transience of existence, Werther gains autonomy: he is his own source of both pleasure and dissatisfaction. Although it is easy to broadly categorize Werther as a defender of the working class, it is important to note Werther's own problematic views. This task becomes important as this essay moves from examining Werther's criticism of the German aristocracy to Goethe's own criticism of society and its relationship to the type of person Werther represents. Werther romanticizes the work, stating: “It is good that my heart can feel the simple and innocent pleasure that a man knows when the cabbage he eats at the table is that which he himself has grown; the pleasure he takes. . . remembering the evenings he watered it and the pleasure he felt in its daily growth” (45). By depicting agriculture through an idyllic vignette, Werther creates the narrative that the farmer enjoys his work. This construction is destructive for two reasons. First, Werther praises the picturesque image of a man dependent on nature for his livelihood, but completely ignores the arduous nature of agrarian life and thus glorifies the image of the farmer without sympathizing with any of his struggles. Second, he imposes his own narrative on a group of people who he knows “are not equal and cannot be” (28). He doesn't know the experience of a farmer because he is not a farmer. By suggesting that the working class values their work, Werther perpetuates a narrative that the upper class uses to oppress their subordinates; in Werther's mind, the work of the working class is necessary for my social status and there is no moral cost to prospering on the backs of these simple people because they profit from it! Yet although Werther adheres to beliefs that harm the lower classes, Goethe continues to make clear through the metaphors of Christ and the juxtaposition of Albert and Werther that, even if fraught with hypocrisy, criticism is preferable to inaction. Albert serves to embody the upper classes. class ideals of wealth and respectability of the bourgeoisie, and thus serves as a foil to Werther. Even though he competes with Albert for Lotte's affections, Werther says: "I cannot help but esteem Albert. The coldness of his character contrasts sharply with the impetuosity of mine” (22). Beyond the well-mannered behavior that merits Werther's recognition, even the editor exalts Albert as a "man of pure heart", establishing that he is a man perceived positively by society. However, it was the pure-hearted Albert who gave Werther the gun to kill himself. A symbolic reading indicates that bourgeois society perceives characters who adhere to.

Essay / Aristocratic and bourgeois ideology in The Sorrows of Young Werther 1848 – Grun even suggests that the novel prepares the ground for the French Revolution. But as one of the most prominent sentimental figures in Western literature, Werther is difficult to view as a social critic without recognizing the barrier his affect represents to assuming such a role. Friedrich Engels even accused Grun of “confusing true social criticism with Werther's laments about the gap between bourgeois reality and his equally bourgeois illusion.” Werther, says Engels, is a 'schwarmerischer Tranensack' (dreaming tear sac)” (Duncan 76). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay Can we then denounce Werther's criticisms as inauthentic due to his bourgeois identification and selfish view of social order? Can we understand the grumbling of a “dreamy tear sac” as social commentary? Although Engel raises legitimate concerns about a critical reading of The Sorrows of Young Werther, we dilute the significance of a series of letters that Werther devotes to ridiculing his aristocratic company in the second half of the novel without engaging in critical analysis of the novel. His critique is particularly informed by his characterization of genius as torrential and transcendental. While Werther's views on class division and the romanticization of work seem to undermine his ability to criticize the social order, Goethe complicates the temptation to dismiss Werther's polemic against aristocratic society by distancing him from the bourgeoisie almost just as problematic at the end of the novel. Werther's hostility toward the aristocracy stems from a clash of ideologies: a barrier to class mobility, reinforced by privileging an individual's ancestry over strength of character, is utterly detestable for Werther because it demeans what makes him exceptional. In a letter dated May 26, Werther joked: “Oh, my friends! Do you wonder why the torrent of genius pours so rarely, floods so rarely, and thunders and overwhelms your astonished soul? – Because, dear friends, on each bank live calm and respectable gentlemen, whose summer residences, tulip beds and cabbage patches would all be washed away by the waters, and who are therefore very adept at removing in time future dangers, by building dams and digging. chains” (33). Werther explains the constraint imposed on the genius by his relationships with respectable gentlemen. Although Werther never explicitly states that the respectable gentleman is a figure of aristocracy and that the genius is a figure of himself, the similarity within these groups is striking. Genius is characterized by an image of complete abandonment, similar to Werther's disposition when writing the letter of May 10; the respectable gentleman is associated with intrigue and personal gain, two qualities that Werther criticizes in the nobility he encounters under the ambassador's leadership. Werther's criticism of the aristocracy is that this group values future gains over present pleasure. Shortly after working for the ambassador, Werther complains: “The boredom of these horrible people locked up here! and their greed for rank, and the way in which they are always careful and attentive to gain or precedence: the most miserable and abominable of passions” (75). His judgment becomes more and more explicitAs he continues his argument – he begins by emphasizing their “rank greed”, implying that they are unhappy with their current status. He then goes on to further denounce the aristocratic mentality that is consumed by rank, emphasizing that aristocrats are specifically "vigilant" and "attentive" to gain. Here it is more explicit: Werther is frustrated by the aristocratic focus on future progress rather than satisfaction in the present. It is particularly “miserable and abominable” for Werther, who tells Wilhelm: “I am so happy, dear friend, so absorbed in this feeling of peaceful existence” (26). Unlike the aristocracy who seek happiness in future gains, Werther believes that happiness must be "absorbed" in the present. For this reason, he asserts: “It is enough that the source of my misery resides in me, as once the source of all my joy” (98). By rejecting the aristocratic mentality of looking toward the future and focusing on the beautiful transience of existence, Werther gains autonomy: he is his own source of both pleasure and dissatisfaction. Although it is easy to broadly categorize Werther as a defender of the working class, it is important to note Werther's own problematic views. This task becomes important as this essay moves from examining Werther's criticism of the German aristocracy to Goethe's own criticism of society and its relationship to the type of person Werther represents. Werther romanticizes the work, stating: “It is good that my heart can feel the simple and innocent pleasure that a man knows when the cabbage he eats at the table is that which he himself has grown; the pleasure he takes. . . remembering the evenings he watered it and the pleasure he felt in its daily growth” (45). By depicting agriculture through an idyllic vignette, Werther creates the narrative that the farmer enjoys his work. This construction is destructive for two reasons. First, Werther praises the picturesque image of a man dependent on nature for his livelihood, but completely ignores the arduous nature of agrarian life and thus glorifies the image of the farmer without sympathizing with any of his struggles. Second, he imposes his own narrative on a group of people who he knows “are not equal and cannot be” (28). He doesn't know the experience of a farmer because he is not a farmer. By suggesting that the working class values their work, Werther perpetuates a narrative that the upper class uses to oppress their subordinates; in Werther's mind, the work of the working class is necessary for my social status and there is no moral cost to prospering on the backs of these simple people because they profit from it! Yet although Werther adheres to beliefs that harm the lower classes, Goethe continues to make clear through the metaphors of Christ and the juxtaposition of Albert and Werther that, even if fraught with hypocrisy, criticism is preferable to inaction. Albert serves to embody the upper classes. class ideals of wealth and respectability of the bourgeoisie, and thus serves as a foil to Werther. Even though he competes with Albert for Lotte's affections, Werther says: "I cannot help but esteem Albert. The coldness of his character contrasts sharply with the impetuosity of mine” (22). Beyond the well-mannered behavior that merits Werther's recognition, even the editor exalts Albert as a "man of pure heart", establishing that he is a man perceived positively by society. However, it was the pure-hearted Albert who gave Werther the gun to kill himself. A symbolic reading indicates that bourgeois society perceives characters who adhere to.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch