2. Cuttings
—
box 38/2
108
THE GERMAN OUARTERLY
very happy comparison of these two works. Nor does the state¬
ment (p. xiii, lines 22, 23) that Das Vermächtnis“ is a drama for
parents-in-law'' seem particularly apt for a play whose theme is
that of the unmarried mother. It is not very clear why Berta
Garlan in comparison with Frau Beate should be characterized as
#frivolous'’ (p. xvili, l. 25). On p. xix (lines 3, 4) we are quite
seriously told that" In Doktor Gräsler, Badearzt .. we have
what may be reasonably called either an experiment or a joke.'
It is much to be doubted,'' Dr. Porterfield predicts (p. xxvili,
lines 3-8),“whether he himself fie, Schnitzler) could throw
the light that never fails on the question of his sources; nor
is it at all probable that he will ever write his autobiography, for
he has given a number of intimidating hints that his private life
is his private affair.?' One does not like to share this doubt.
Failure to purvey biographie details to others is no reason for such
a positive assumption. To comment on Schnitzler's“lyrie inabil¬
ity'’ (p.xxvii, l. 16) needs further definition. Schnitzler never at
any time plumed himself as a writer of lyric poems; but that there
are lyrie elements in his works there can, however, surely be no
doubt.
The potes as a whole leave much to be desired. Many of them
are entirely too obvions or far-fetched, or are given to the elucida¬
tion of analogies of doubtful pedagogie value. (The type of
student reading the book can hardly be expected to be acquainted
with the works of Goethe, Herder, Tieck, Hebbel, Dehmel, etc.)
They are quite contraryto Schnitzler's express wishes as stated on
page iii, lines 26-28, ##that the selections be allowed to speak for
themselves, and that the annotations be confined to matters of
syntax.'' One can easily imagine Schnitzler as being“erschüt¬
tert'’ (a word quoted by Dr. Porterfield from a letter from the
Austrian author, translated as “agitated,'’ p. 216, l. 26, and as
“convulsed, paralyzed,'’ p. 257), if he knew to what extent his
express desire was violated. The editor’s estimate of the Ameri¬
can student’s mental capacity is entirely too low, if he thinks him
so very dependent on editorial rumination. The average student
rather resents that.
For lack of space we shall confine ourselves to a sampling of
the notes:
P. 11, l. 6 (note, p. 204): In his zeal to check up Dr. Schnitzler
(evidenced in numerous notes), the editor here allows himself a
personal slip. It is quite immaterial whether or not a character
repeats another’s words verbatim, after a lapse of time, if the sense
is retained. One might say that such slight inaccuracies are the
rule in everyday conversation. The passage in question, p. 9, l. 23,
is misquoted: in this note the nur has been omitted. Compare also
p. xii, l. 23:“ Nur um mick bei euch nicht als feig zu gelten.?
P. 24, lines 7-11 (note, p. 207): Carlo while trying to steal the#
—
box 38/2
108
THE GERMAN OUARTERLY
very happy comparison of these two works. Nor does the state¬
ment (p. xiii, lines 22, 23) that Das Vermächtnis“ is a drama for
parents-in-law'' seem particularly apt for a play whose theme is
that of the unmarried mother. It is not very clear why Berta
Garlan in comparison with Frau Beate should be characterized as
#frivolous'’ (p. xvili, l. 25). On p. xix (lines 3, 4) we are quite
seriously told that" In Doktor Gräsler, Badearzt .. we have
what may be reasonably called either an experiment or a joke.'
It is much to be doubted,'' Dr. Porterfield predicts (p. xxvili,
lines 3-8),“whether he himself fie, Schnitzler) could throw
the light that never fails on the question of his sources; nor
is it at all probable that he will ever write his autobiography, for
he has given a number of intimidating hints that his private life
is his private affair.?' One does not like to share this doubt.
Failure to purvey biographie details to others is no reason for such
a positive assumption. To comment on Schnitzler's“lyrie inabil¬
ity'’ (p.xxvii, l. 16) needs further definition. Schnitzler never at
any time plumed himself as a writer of lyric poems; but that there
are lyrie elements in his works there can, however, surely be no
doubt.
The potes as a whole leave much to be desired. Many of them
are entirely too obvions or far-fetched, or are given to the elucida¬
tion of analogies of doubtful pedagogie value. (The type of
student reading the book can hardly be expected to be acquainted
with the works of Goethe, Herder, Tieck, Hebbel, Dehmel, etc.)
They are quite contraryto Schnitzler's express wishes as stated on
page iii, lines 26-28, ##that the selections be allowed to speak for
themselves, and that the annotations be confined to matters of
syntax.'' One can easily imagine Schnitzler as being“erschüt¬
tert'’ (a word quoted by Dr. Porterfield from a letter from the
Austrian author, translated as “agitated,'’ p. 216, l. 26, and as
“convulsed, paralyzed,'’ p. 257), if he knew to what extent his
express desire was violated. The editor’s estimate of the Ameri¬
can student’s mental capacity is entirely too low, if he thinks him
so very dependent on editorial rumination. The average student
rather resents that.
For lack of space we shall confine ourselves to a sampling of
the notes:
P. 11, l. 6 (note, p. 204): In his zeal to check up Dr. Schnitzler
(evidenced in numerous notes), the editor here allows himself a
personal slip. It is quite immaterial whether or not a character
repeats another’s words verbatim, after a lapse of time, if the sense
is retained. One might say that such slight inaccuracies are the
rule in everyday conversation. The passage in question, p. 9, l. 23,
is misquoted: in this note the nur has been omitted. Compare also
p. xii, l. 23:“ Nur um mick bei euch nicht als feig zu gelten.?
P. 24, lines 7-11 (note, p. 207): Carlo while trying to steal the#