Nathan the Wise, a dramatic poem

Front matter

*

% *<?, 4 #

* ^7

Act V 319 Notes by the Translator 367

Note by the Editor 387 r.

It would seem to be almost superfluous to write a Foreword to the present edition of Lessing’s immortal epic. It is so plainly a preachment, that its stirring emotional appeal should, in itself, suffice. However, living at a time when at least one half of the civilized world is engaged in a war of extermination against the other half, and when the lofty ideals which Lessing and Mendelssohn strove to inculcate are in imminent danger of being swept aside in this vortex of passion and race antagonism, it behooves us to call attention, at the outset, to the masterful plea for tolerance and brotherhood which the poet makes in this vivid and picturesque drama. It is essentially a human document, with a message as vital and purposeful in these latter days as then, when the great Reformer strove to throw off the shackles of race pride, prejudice and religious fanaticism. Indeed, it might have been written for those of us, in tha present day, who are still victims of stubborn sophistry and whose patriotism is largely a compound of arrogance and unreasoning egotism.

It is not for us to say who is responsible for this recrudescence of the savage instinct which has made itself felt for many decades and has flashed, like a flaming sword, dubiously guarding the gates to the 9 pathway of peace. But it is a significant fact that the Berlin Congress of 1878, from which Disraeli brought back “peace with honor” — after imposing his will upon all the delegates with regard to the political emancipation of the Jews in Roumania — was, after all, a fruitless victory in the cause of civilization. Treaty obligations then, as now, were either altogether ignored or adroitly avoided, and the fate of “the little people” held in bondage still hangs in the balance.

We have, to be sure, made great progress in the cause of human brotherhood: The establishment of the Hague Tribunal, with its gospel of arbitration, though perhaps more honored in the breach than in the observance, has brought us inevitably nearer to the ideal of universal brotherhood, preached by the prophets of Israel, and however calamitous for the human race the terrible ordeal may be through which the nations are passing, the struggle for mastery is so distinctly a test of the survival of what is best in our civilization, that it can not pass without leaving a blessing in its wake. Out of this holocaust must come a saner and sweeter humanity, and the realization that nation is linked to nation, not so much by ties of blood, a common tradition, a common language, and by other selfish considerations, but by the higher ideal of mutual responsibility and a sense of universal fellowship.

It is good to* read the powerful lay-sermon which Lessing, that intrepid regenerator of the German spirit, preached from his stage-pulpit, just one hundred thirty-seven years ago. Seldom has such an utterance been heard from a literary chancel. Nor was his a voice in the wilderness. His enlightened example was followed by no less a man than Joseph II, Emperor of Austria, who established the poll tax and the Jews’ Budget (1781), and issued a Patent of Tolerance (January 2, 1782), removing all restrictions from the Jews. This illustrious monarch is the author of the following sublime prayer, which one cannot read without a quickening of the pulse and a feeling of profound gratitude:

“Eternal, incomprehensible Being! Thou art perfect toleration and love. Thy sun shines for the Christian as well as for the atheist. Thy rain fructifies the field of the erring as that of the orthodox; and the germ of every virtue lies in the hearts of both heathen and heretic. Thou teachest me thus, Eternal Being! toleration and love — teachest me that diverse views do not deter Thee from being a beneficent Father to all people. And shall I, Thy creature, be less tolerant, not conceding that everyone of my subjects may worship Thee in his own manner ? Shall I persecute those who think differently from me, and convert the erring by the sword? No, Omnipotent! with Thy love, allembracing Being, I shall be far from doing so. I will resemble Thee as far as a creature can resemble Thee — will be tolerant as Thou art! Henceforth be all intolerance in my country removed. Where is a religion that doth not teach the love of virtue and the abhorrence of vice? Everybody shall, therefore, be tolerated by me. Let everyone worship Thee, incomprehensible Being ! in the manner which seemeth to him best. Do errors of mind deserve banishment from society? Is severity, indeed, the means of winning the people ; of converting the erring? Broken shall henceforth be the infamous fetters of intolerance! Instead of it, may the sweet bond of toleration and brotherly love unite forever ! Amen. ,,

As nobleness enkindles nobleness, it is but natural to find the same exalted sentiment voiced on behalf of Israel by a humble parish priest in Germany, who, in 1804, included this soulful plea in his “Prayer Book for Enlightened Catholic Christians”: —

“Almighty, Everlasting God ! I entreat Thee on behalf of a dispersed nation that has had to suffer much oppression and humiliation in days of yore. Ah ! the misery of these unhappy people seemed to many to be a triumph of the teachings of Jesus, and in order to make this victory more luminous, they magnified their misery and destroyed every vestige of civic and domestic happiness in this industrious race.

“The religion of Jesus became hateful to them, because not a few professors of the same were their perpetual and almost sworn enemies. Never shall such an unworthy and inimical pride of creed beguile and corrupt me!

“Since, O my God, I have learned from Jesus that all men are brothers, I shall respect the human rights and privileges which they hold in common with me. Their very wretchedness and civic degradation shall imbue me, at all times, with the most lively desire to comfort them, to mitigate their sorrows, and to uplift them from the stupefying blow of their erstwhile destruction by the sympathy which I cherish for their destiny. Amen.”

How fortunate for the human race that God never leaves Himself without a witness and that, in moments of great stress, some high-minded leader is found to champion the cause of righteousness !

Is it too much to hope that the blood which is now so generously spilt on the battlefields of Europe will wash away the guilt of race-pride and prejudice; obliterate the dark memories of German anti-semitism; of the Dreyfus scandal, and of the nameless horrors of the Russian pogroms, which are still a blot on the escutcheon of our common humanity?

The version of “Nathan the Wise” here printed, follows the text of Major-General Patrick Maxwell, published in The Scott Library series by Walter Scott, in London. It is esteemed to be the most accurate of all existing English translations, although perhaps not quite so graceful and elastic in style as Miss Ellen Frothingham’s rendering (New York, 1867 ; reprinted in G. A. Kohut’s “Hebrew Anthology,” Cincinnati, 1913, Volume II). Like many of Lessing’s dramas and comedies, it has been translated into Hebrew and Judaeo-German, proving that his popularity with the Jews is on a par with that of Schiller.

The illustrations in the volume include excellent portraits of Lessing and Mendelssohn; a likeness of the celebrated Austrian actor, Adolph von Sonnenthal, in his character of Nathan, which has made him worldfamous; and a reproduction from an old drawing, showing Lessing and Lavater at chess with their mutual friend, the celebrated Jewish philosopher, Moses Mendelssohn.

The facsimile of the original title page, as well as of a leaf of the author’s first draught of the poem, in possession of a member of the Mendelssohn family in Berlin, should prove of considerable interest to the book-lover and antiquarian.

GEORGE ALEXANDER KOHUT.

New York, November 8, 1916.

GOTTHOLD EPHRAIM LESSING was born January 22, 1729, at Camenz, in Upper Lusatia, and died at Brunswick, February 15, 1781.

He comes of a line of learned ancestors. For many generations, his family had been one of jurists, curates and burgo-masters. His father was a clergyman and his mother a pastor’s daughter. His earliest known progenitor, likewise a curate, was one of the signers of the formula concordiae, published in 1580, which was designed to harmonize certain doctrinal dissensions. It is significant that he derived his liberal views by heredity, for we find that his grandfather had written a doctoral dissertation on the “Tolerance of Religions.” His brothers followed academic pursuits, and to one of them we owe not only valuable comments on his published works, but an adequate and brilliant biography of this greatest regenerator of German literature.

When he was scarcely thirteen, Lessing was sent to the celebrated grammar school at Meissen, where he finished the prescribed course of study earlier than the average student. The dean, in answer to his father’s inquiry concerning the boy’s progress, replied : “He is a horse that needs double fodder. The lessons which are hard for others are nothing for 15 him. We can not use him much longer.” In September, 1746, he entered the University of Leipsic as a theological student. After a few years at Wittenberg and Berlin, he took the degree of Master of Arts, on April 29, 1752.

Already in these early years, he showed a marked talent for dramatic composition. The first fruit of his literary labors was a comedy, entitled “The Young Scholar.” It was a study from life, based largely upon his own experiences. It was produced with considerable success in Leipsic and gave him the first impetus to a literary career. While at grammar school, he had written several fugitive pieces, and, upon becoming acquainted with an interesting philosophic coterie at Leipsic, notably the young journalist Mylius, who exerted a marked influence over him, he wrote poetic burlesques of scientific subjects. His relations with Madame Neuber, whose troupe presented his first production, brought him into contact with the people of the stage. This displeased his parents, who feared that the kind of life he was leading would inevitably jeopardize his future. His letters home were full of filial piety and devotion, yet they showed an independence of spirit and a maturity of thought which gave indication of great promise. Characteristic is the following passage from one of these letters:

“The Christian religion is not a thing that ought to be received on trust from one's parents. The great mass of mankind, it is true, inherit it as they do their property, but their conduct shozvs what Christians they are.”

It is significant that these letters were written by a young man scarcely twenty years old.

In Berlin, Lessing devoted himself to translations from foreign languages and, in conjunction with Mylius, founded a periodical devoted to the dramatic arts. He soon parted company with his friend, however, owing to a disagreement on literary subjects and became a contributor to Voss’s Gazette. It was not long before he became well-known, through the individuality of his utterances. He maintained that there were no established canons of art and that every new genius modifies principles already recognized. He turned the searchlight of philosophy on literary criticism and blazed a new path for German letters. He denounced the pedantry and sentimentality which prevailed in high circles and inveighed against the dominance of the French classic drama, which was the model in Germany at the time. In consequence of his efforts, the German language and literature were emancipated, once and for all, from foreign influence. It must be remembered that Frederick the Great and his court had succumbed to the spell of Voltaire to such an extent that the great monarch was actually incapable of writing good idiomatic German. It was Lessing and, through him, his friend, Moses Mendelssohn, who gave to German style that tone and dignity which make the literature of the time so rich and distinctive. Permeated by English culture, Lessing endeavored to prove that the soul of man, and not his environment, represents all that is great and noble in dramatic poetry. To vindicate his point of view, he wrote, in

1753-55, a tragedy in prose, entitled “Miss Sara Sampson,” which proved a complete success and liberated the German playwrights from their traditional limitations. This tragedy was first presented at Frankforton-the-Oder, July 10, 1755, and it is said that the spectators “sat for hours like statues and wept and wept”. Although it was considered a theatrical tri umph and had the distinction of being translated into French and English, its importance now is chiefly historical. After all, Lessing’s fame rests upon his maturer contributions to dramatic literature, of which at least three, “Minna von Barnhelm”, “Emilia Galotti” and “Nathan the Wise”, representing, respectively, comedy, tragedy and didactic drama, have an intrinsic and permanent value.

The salient feature of “Minna von Barnhelm,” published in 1767, is its national character. The chief personages in the love story are made to symbolize the natural ties of race which should bind together the different members of the German family, then alienated and antagonized by dynastic jealousies and interests. Goethe recalls the tremendous impression the comedy made upon the young people of his day and speaks of it with reminiscent enthusiasm.

Although the scene in “Emilia Galotti” is laid in Italy and gives a vivid picture of the old Roman Republic, the plot is wholly German in spirit and was designed to depict the tyrannical princelings of Lessing’s own time and nation. The characters are admirably portrayed. The dialogue is simple and the plot and dramatic movement remarkably direct and rapid. It was first presented at Brunswick, March i, 1772, and has retained its popularity with German theatre-goers to this day.

Regarding “Nathan the Wise”, the scene of which is laid in Jerusalem, during the Third Crusade, in the latter half of the 12th Century, more will be said in the subjoined introduction to the poem. It is a dialogue in iambics, illustrating Lessing’s own views of religious toleration and is generally recognized as one of the greatest masterpieces of German literature. It was published in 1779 and presented in Berlin, on April 4, 1783. From that day to this, it has delighted vast audiences, wherever produced, and the character of Nathan has made the fame of at least one distinguished actor — Adolf von Sonnenthal, who played the title role for almost two generations and was finally knighted by the Austrian emperor.

Struggling against poverty and forced into significant positions, in order to maintain himself, yet conscientiously providing for his family, who did not scruple to draw heavily upon his meager resources, it is astonishing that he should have been able to produce works of transcending merit, in his early manhood. Among these may be mentioned his “Fables”, to which he subsequently added a Critical Commentary; his “Dramaturgic”, a series of dramatic essays, as epoch-making in this field as the Laokoon is in the realm of art; the “Wolfenbuttel Fragments”, which led to the famous controversy with Goze, the pastor in Hamburg, resulting in a series of learned and satirical papers, which are unique in polemic literature;

and numerous other works on ethical, philosophical and literary subjects, which round out a life of great achievement. A special interest attaches to his “Five Conversations for Freemasons” and his “Education of the Human Race”, which express his ideas of government and society and embody his views of religious development.

When Lessing was about forty years old and his poverty became irksome, the post of Librarian at Wolfenbiittel was tendered him by the Duke of Brunswick, who, though a literary snob, was anxious to plume himself by attaching the now-celebrated author to his court. The six years he spent there proved anything but congenial. Routine work palled upon him and his finances were still so uncertain that he could not afford to marry, after having faithfully waited for his friend Konig’s widow for years, during which time the strain of a romantic correspondence with her told upon his buoyant temperament. The “letters are full of the most beautiful sincerity, unselfishness and common-sense, regarding all matters of the intellect and emotions”. It was not until 1776 that he finally married Eva Konig, only to lose her within a year. The days which followed were full of loneliness, though not from lack of friends or privation. He had again gone into debt to secure his wife’s property to her children. In this, as in all other concerns of his life, he showed himself truly heroic, chivalrous, gentle and sympathetic. It has been well said that the dominant passion in his heart was not criticism but sympathy, and, while he was forced into controversy, he contrived to retain his splendid bravado, poise and noble courage, which made him a formidable antagonist. He fought for a principle and never degraded his literary warfare to the level of calumny. He was a brave champion of human rights and exemplified in himself the traits which adorn his noblest character in fiction — “Nathan the Wise”.

In 1775, Lessing accompanied the Crown Prince of Brunswick to Italy and met with an enthusiastic ovation wherever he went. In Vienna, the Empress Maria Theresa sent for him and consulted him with regard to the intellectual development of the Empire. He was presented to the Pope, and the honors accorded to him on that occasion form a marked contrast to his treatment at the hands of eminent persons, at home.

He enjoyed, however, the confidence, esteem and affection of a group of noted literati. The greatest minds of his day bowed before him, and it was especially his intimate relations with Moses Mendelssohn which afforded him much pleasure and satisfaction. The two men reciprocally influenced each other, and it is not too much to say that each owes to the other the impetus which has made them both noble in character and great in achievement.

It is interesting to record Lessing’s own estimate of himself, which gives striking evidence of his sincerity and modesty:

“I am neither an actor nor a poet. People have honored me occasionally with the latter title, but it is because they have misunderstood me. The few dramatic attempts which I have ventured upon do not justify this generosity. Not every one who takes a brush in his hand and dabbles in colors is a painter. The earliest of these attempts of mine were dashed off in those years when desire and dexterity are easily mistaken for genius. If there is anything tolerable in those of a later date, I am conscious that I owe it all to criticism alone. I do not feel in myself that living fountain that rises by its own strength, and by its own force shoots up in jets so rich, so fresh, so pure! I am obliged to press it all up out of myself with forcing-pump and pipes. I should be so poor, so cold, and so short-sighted if I had not learned in some measure modestly to borrow foreign treasures, to warm myself at another’s fire, and to strengthen my sight with the lenses of art. I have therefore always been ashamed and vexed when I have read or heard anything derogatory to criticism. Criticism, it is said, stifles genius; whereas I flatter myself I have received from it something very nearly akin to genius. I am a lame man, who cannot be edified by a lampoon against crutches.”

In reviewing the life of this man, so rich in varied talents, so purposeful and resolute in the attainment of the highest good, by means of truth, one is reminded of the utterance of Heine, a kindred spirit, whose place in German literature is assured and whose life, in some respects, affords an interesting parallel to Lessing’s :

“If ye will do me honor , lay a szuord upon my coffin , for I was an intrepid soldier in the war of the libera ~ tion of humanity.”

I

We read in ancient legends of giants who devoted their lives to freeing prisoners of their fetters. Lessing was such a savior of the German spirit. He searched through venerable books to discover men who were wronged or misunderstood and restored them to their proper place in history. He sought to liberate the genius of his people from prejudice; its literature from slavish dependence upon French influence; its theology from the uncritical worship of the letter of the law; its national consciousness from the trammels of superstition. He was the first free-thinker in Germany.

The Jewish historian, Graetz, says: “With his gigantic mind, Lessing burst through all bonds and regulations which degenerate taste, dry-as-dustscience, haughty orthodoxy and pedantry of every kind had desired to set up and perpetuate. The freedom that Lessing brought to the Germans was more solid and permanent than that which Voltaire aroused in depraved French society, with his biting sarcasm; for his purpose was to ennoble, and his wit was only a means to this end. Lessing wished to exalt the 23 theatre to a pulpit, and art to a religion. Voltaire degraded philosophy into light gossip for the drawingroom.”

While Lessing was a skilful apologist, on behalf of those whose reputation he defended, he was also a redoubtable polemist. Indeed, at one time in his career, controversy was as breath to his nostrils. He was as much at home in the mazes of doctrinal subtlety as in the domain of art, criticism and philosophy. His keen, incisive logic, his caustic satire (always devoid of malice) ; his trenchant style, were weapons which confounded his foes and brought consternation to a whole school of casuists. No one could long endure the withering cross-fire of his argument, and, in all the battles of the spirit, he came off an easy victor.

The years between the publication of “Emilia Galotti” and “Nathan the Wise” were eventful and strenuous ones for Lessing. They embraced those famous theological disputations which became the solace and pride of his liberal followers. The most notable of these writings were the “Wolfenbuttel Fragments” (begun in 1774) and the series of learned philippics against Melchior Goeze, the pastor of Hamburg. In these papers, which bear the title “Anti-Goeze”, as well as in numerous other essays, he employed against orthodox Christianity all the resources of his inexorable logic and linguistic talent ; but true enlightenment and religious tolerance were never wanting in his thought. It was this element which made his plea so significant and effective, and won him so many ardent adherents. Unfortunately, he was not altogether free to express his ideas. In 1778, when the controversy with the fanatical zealot, Goeze, was at its height, he was restrained, by government censorship, from continuing the conflict. He protested in vain, but did not allow himself to be swerved from his purpose. Compelled to lay down his arms, he soon found, in the arsenal of his poetic imagination, another choice of weapons and gave the struggle a new and wholly unexpected turn.

On the nth of August, 1778, he wrote to his brother Carl: “ . . . Many years ago, I sketched a play, the contents of which are somewhat analogous to my present controversies, though I had not yet then dreamt of them. If you and Moses [Mendelssohn] think well of it, I shall have the thing printed by subscription ... Of course, I would not like to have the actual character of the piece made public too soon ; nevertheless, if you or Moses are disposed to know, consult Boccaccio’s Decamerone, Giornata I, Nov . Ill, Melchisedech Giudeo. I believe to have discovered a very absorbing episode, which makes good reading and will certainly enable me to play a far more vexatious prank on the theologians than I could with yet ten more 'Fragments’ ”. A few weeks later, he wrote to one of his friends, Elisa Reimarus: "I am curious to see whether they will let me preach without interference from my old pulpit — the theatre.”

Accordingly, he mounted the pulpit and proclaimed to the world his canticle of tolerance, the gospel of brotherly love, the immortal epic, “Nathan the Wise”.

Amid disappointments and annoyances of every description ; distracted by the death of his wife, which left him lonely and desolate; and incessantly attacked and maligned by his clerical foe, he completed the poem. The first rough draft was finished early in November, 1776. On the 19th, according to a notice discovered among his papers, he began the versification of the first act; and in May, 1779, the printed work was delivered to the subscribers.

The poet chose English blank verse as the most suitable and dignified vehicle of dramatic expression. “To finish it quickly”, he wrote, on December 16, 1778, “I am composing it in verse, not in rhymed meter, however, for this would be altogether too unrhymed.” He had already written to his brother, on December 7th: “If I have not already told you that the piece is to be in verse, you will, no doubt, wonder to find it so. Do not give yourself unnecessary concern because of this, believing that the work will be delayed. My prose has invariably cost me more time than my verse.” In another letter to a friend, we read: “ . . . I chose the verse form not for the sake of euphony, but because the oriental tone, which I must accentuate, here and there, would seem awkward and conspicuous in prose . . . **

Thus, Lessing was the first author in Germany to use the iambic pentameter, and the noble, stately diction of his “Nathan” served as a model for all subsequent writers of tragedy. It is a didactic poem, conceived in an altogether new vein and wholly independent of the established canons of dramatic art. It is a tendenzschrift, full of majestic thought. With the possible exception of Goethe’s “Faust”, we know of few similar compositions from which so many memorable sentences may be culled. Indeed, in tone, dignity, elegance of diction and profound sincerity, it may be said to hold equal rank with it, in the estimation of critics of literature. The author himself was well aware of the difficulty of treating so exalted a theme in dramatic form. “If it should be said,” he remarks in an early sketch of his Preface, “that a piece of such peculiar tendency is not rich enough in intrinsic beauty, I will keep silent, but not feel ashamed. I am conscious of the goal which lies before me and have no doubt that one can acquit one’9 self with honor in pursuing this path.”

It is certainly remarkable that he should have been able to invest a didactic theme with such vividness and sympathy as to awaken a profound emotional response in the heart of his audience, whenever presented on the stage. The characters of the play, although they typify certain definite ideas which he wished to convey, are not abstractions, as in an allegory, but possess truth, individuality and intense dramatic power. Here, as in “Emilia Galotti”, we see the action of the play develop as a natural and logical necessity.

The poet’s own conception of his task is clearly stated in his Preface:

“If it should be said that this piece teaches, that it is not only since yesterday that people of all nations make light of revealed religion and yet are known to be estimable persons; and when it is further noted that I have quite clearly designed to show such people in a less repulsive light than they are accustomed to be regarded by the ordinary Christian rabble, — I should not have very much objection to such a view, for a man may teach both and yet not reject all revealed religion. I am not sly enough to represent myself as such a man, yet I am bold enough not to dissemble my opinions. But, if it should be said that I have offended against poetic good taste, and that it is inconceivable that such characters should have lived among Jews and Mussulmen, I will have it known that the Jews and Mussulmen were the only learned men at that time; that the detriment which revealed religions bring to mankind must have been at no time more striking to a rational being than at the period of the Crusades; and that historical proofs are not wanting to demonstrate the fact that such an enlightened individual actually existed in the person of a Sultan

I know as yet of no locality in Germany where this play could be produced, but all hail to the place where it will first see the light of day !”

Kuno Fischer, the eminent German critic, whose essay on “Nathan the Wise” gives perhaps the most exhaustive analysis of the drama (an English version is printed, in part, in the Appendix to Miss Ellen Frothingham’s translation, published in New York, in 1867), indulges in considerable sophistry in pointing out the strong antithesis between the character of

Nathan and Shylock, forgetting, for the moment, that, in reality, Shakespeare’s creation, as has been definitely proven, was a Christian and not a Jew. In this connection, another great writer demands to know whether Lessing could have found a Christian hero who would rear an orphan child, committed to his care, free from the trammels of creed. Only a Jew could have pursued such a course, for proselytizing is foreign to his nature, and he is inherently broad in his religious principles. Thus, the main motive of the drama is fully justified.

In accounting for the fact that Nathan is made the hero, Kuno Fischer has this to say: “Take, now, a religion by nature intolerant and proud, the proudest, the most oppressed of all the religions of the world. Imagine a man permitted by his religion to esteem himself the chosen of God, but condemned by the world, despised and rejected of men. If his soul yields to this two-fold pressure, and follows the natural course of human passions, it must be consumed by hatred and revenge. There must be kindled a thirst for vengeance, so demoniacal, so beastly in beastly natures, that it would tear the pound of flesh from an enemy’s heart, if only to bait a hook with it. Yet, when these passions, which in their worst and lowest forms make a Shylock, are conquered by a noble soul — when toleration is wrested from a religion at once the proudest and most oppressed, we have a Nathan. He will not now, indeed, narrowly represent his religion ; but toleration would not cost what it does, if he did not prize his religion and were not in sympathy with it. He still feels it to be his religion, the faith of his people and his fathers — the faith to which he is linked by a thousand indissoluble ties. He does not represent Judaism, but he is and remains a Jew — not because Judaism is a tolerant religion, but because it is the reverse . . . ”