Goethe’s Early Historical Dramas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This essay compares two early history plays by Goethe, Götz von Berlichingen and Egmont, maintaining that the differences between them are not sufficiently recognised and that thus Goethe’s development towards classicism is often understated. There are detailed  comparisons between the two plays and many good insights which are worthwhile. However, the conclusions need to be more firmly stated in general terms.

Rather than focus on character and aspects of dramatic form, the author needs to highlight changes in Goethe’s view of history and compare that with other attitudes to the history of the Netherlands and of the Holy Roman Empire in Goethe’s time.

Although the author has been very thorough with their comparisons and shows a good appreciation of Goethe’s dramas, there is too much information in proportion to the conclusions reached and the essay tends to ramble. The article needs to be shortened by about 20%. I have listed below some of the stylistic corrections that need to be made.

Abstract. The gist is clear but some rephrasing is necessary. Sentence 4 should presumably read:  ‘Goethe’s development is clearly reflected in…’; ‘instead’ should be omitted; protagonist should be possessive.

55 What is the Tischbein portrait of Goethe in the Roman Campagna doing here? It is not relevant.

74 Götz’s

84/85 because only…?

86 .//

91 main reason and

183 Goetz’s prudence

204 quas Discursus

237 maturity. Does this mean biological or political maturity?

256/7 the English translation needs attention here, esp. the second half of it. Ghent.

342 Dramaturgical Aspects

351 There it only says. Correct to: There we find only

355 discuss… change to: debate the theory of the State on the a high level (State should be capitalised passim when it refers to a government)

357 omit actually

358 suggest: devotion to anti-classical Shakespearean concepts of dramatic structure

362 suggest: Shakespeare’s Birthday and while still living in Frankfurt

362 only: restricted to

371 sentence not clear. drama-theoretical is a Germanism (dramentheoretisch); suggest: structural

383 omit right

391 oblivious to

395 relative clause: ‘who’ cannot refer to ‘act’. Suggest in brackets before the comma:  (he did indeed have Egmont executed)

407 omit respective

410 omit not only

430 (et passim) replace Götzen’s with Götz’s

473 Linguistic Aspects

492 (et passim) the brother Martin. Replace with Brother Martin 

503 omit of course

507 The choice is between friend or foe.

519 -521et passim. Then original German should be given for this and all other quotations.

532 omit beautiful

541 correct to:  ; he has other 'higher' things in mind such as the good of the State and in this drama private family relationships are either not mentioned or are so broken that they are reminiscent of the bourgeois tragedy of the period.

543 the relationship between Egmont and Klärchen is strikingly reminiscent of…

556 the Egmont that has been imprisoned

558 replace Egmont with he; the citizens will turn away

562 replace first ‘force’ with ‘compel’

565 omit first itself

565 replace In Egmont, who with Egmont

597 The Opponent; do not begin the following sentence with ‘But’

599 omit Certainly

635 use: issues of State are aired (state-theoretical is a Germanism)

667 omit So; who does ‘they’ refer to? Completely different motives but the difference is small? This is confusing.

675 poetic latecomer. This is not clear. poetic reworking?

681 omit completely; replace than with from.

687 et passim replace preclassic with preclassical. (preclassic as an adjective is a Germanism).

690 to more differentiated assessment.

660-690 The conclusion needs to be rewritten.

692ff. the font of the footnotes needs to normalised

Fn. 1 full dates needed here

696 f. fn. 2 Götz: the hero or the play? Style: ‘lets the topic fizzle out’ (wrong register)

721: Emil Staiger

727 Band

I have not made corrections to the footnotes. 

See my detailed notes above.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

please find attached my response to your review.

Kind regards and all the best

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper would be far more convincing if it renounced the numerous rhetorical questions and reformulated the same information as assertive statements. As justifiable and justified these questions are in the first part ("Preliminary considerations"), they become irritating abundant throughout the article. Only in the endnotes I could count up to 16 such rhetorical questions.  Because of them, the reader could get the impression that the paper is build upon a weak theory, since despite all differences between Götz and Egmont, as well documented as they are in your paper, a certain evolution in the style, the asthetics and the ideology of a writer is only natural and abuts to a truism.

Reformulated as assertions, these questions could supply your demonstration with factual arguments, thus rendering the whole paper more convincing. (Please also read the field "Comments on the Quality of English Language".)

As a general remark, nouns such as emperor, duke, bishop etc. should not be capitalized, unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. "Emperor Maximilian", "Duke Alba" etc.). The adverbs "really" & "actually" are used excessively. The genitive forms Götz's, Götzen's and Goetzen's should be unified throughout the paper.  

Line 204, in Macchiaveli's title the word "discursus" should only have one 's'. 

Line 289 the name Götz should be put in Italics, since the title is meant here, not the character. 

Line 492 "in the fourth act of the first act" should be the third scene in the first act, since this is the entrance of Bruder Martin the article refers to. By the way, "the brother Martin" should simply be called "Brother Martin".

Line 582, "the merciless execution of the death sentence" is slightly pleonastic, "the merciless execution" should be enough.

Note 50, please mind the third person "who... only want[s] to drink and murder"

Note 102, please mind the verb: "does not incorporates", "s" is superfluous here

Note 121, it seems to me that "demonia" is an unusual translation of German Dämonie, much better "demonic/ demonical possession"

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

please find attached my response to your review.

Thanks for taking the time and checking.

Kind regards and all the best

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf