This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
OK, so my attempt (GOEH tuh) isn't much better. I guess there's no English word that uses the "œ" sound. http://www.bartleby.com/61/12.html Take a shot at improving it if you want, just please don't include an "r".Goethean 18:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, my browser (IE 5.50) won't even render the current pronounciation, so I'm guessing that that's less than ideal.
(to view other characters on the previous page in IE, try clicking "View," "Encoding," and "Western European")
Or, you could get another browser (i.e. Firefox) ;) -- Grunt(talk) 00:38, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
---
From the Bartleby sound, I would surmise GRR-tuh, only without voicing the R's so much as blowing them. If you think you know how this is pronounced, post something!
I have removed the following, as it is not a Goethe quotation:
Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative and creation, there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way
---
The truly German pronunciation of "Goethe" is rather difficult to actually describe. "Guhrr-tuh" is a fairly good and commonly accepted approximation of his name's pronunciation. (Anon)
Google has 0 hits. It can't be that commonly accepted. Mark1 16:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Look I found a whole article on the sound. — goetheanॐ 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The oe in Goethe is pronounced like a German 'ö'. I think there's no approximation of this letter in English, hm? :-) 84.130.182.218 14:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC) (Honeypot)
---
Not called "go-eth" then? Is this an anglicization (like Par-is rather than Pari'...) or just a sign of cultural resistance/pig-headedness?
ISBN codes in the middle of the text...
...are awful. There has probably some kind of consensus about this that I'm not aware of (?), but the two ISBN numbers in the first paragraph should really be removed. --stw (Talk) 18:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a consensus, but a common practice (similar to the convention with paper documents) is to move them to a "references" section at the bottom of the article, with internal links made like this:<sup>[[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe#References|1]]</sup>. Securiger 14:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I started a list of Goethe's works and moved the ISBN numbers there. The list is far from complete, if anybody feels like improving it: see the german article. --stw (Talk) 18:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Removed lk
The following probably does not belong in the article at all. If it does, it should not be at the top of page, even in tiny type, and it should have a context that justifies it.
I removed the hint to Rammsteins Dalai Lama song. There are many more songs or poems that are based on Goethes Erlkönig, Rammstein made only a little and unimportant interpretation of the theme.
Was it Goethe who wrote about Hummel, the hunchback water-carrier? If so, in which story, please? [djsderek@aol.com]
Alternate spelling
Not sure, but is his name spelled Göthe? If so, should we change it throughout the article?
Dear Goethean, I am sorry to tell you that the umlauted "ö" is transcribed as "oe." In German books, the name is spelled "Göthe." I own such a book and will scan a page for you if you so desire. 205.188.117.70 15:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)HansWurst
I am aware of the ö -> oe transliteration. I have German books by Goethe, and none of them give it an umlaut. I am interested in seeing your text. Be sure that the context makes clear that they are referring to Johann Wolfgang. — goetheanॐ 15:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought that I owned the book, but actually I had seen it in a college library. I no longer have access to the library, so I can't prove my claim. I saw it on the title page of Schopenhauer's "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung." He quoted Göthe's words: "Ob nicht Natur zuletzt sich doch ergründe?" (If Nature hasn't finally fathomed itself?) It is from his letter to State Minister von Voigt. His name was printed with the umlauted ö. I guess you'll just have to take my word. Best wishes.Lestrade 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)HansWurst
The German wikipipedia says "auch Göthe" which roughly translated means 'also Göthe'
Goethe is the correct spelling. You might find other spellings by people (in earlier times), who have only heard his name or decided to write it differently (there was no "right" spelling at the time anyways, although names are normally consistant); those are not alternate, but misspellings. I'm german and have studied Germanistik and never came across "Göthe".
I have seen this spelling, mostly in older sources, but it's not that common.Anthony Krupp 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
goethe --- politician?
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (pronounced ['gø tə]) (August 28, 1749 – March 22, 1832) was a German writer, politician, humanist, scientist, and philosopher.
I'm considering removing the word "politician" from the above sentence. Objections? --goethean ॐ
He adminstered one of the German states, you shouldn't have changed the article if you don't know the subject. 145.94.41.95
I've returned the word for now, I'll do more research on his career and add it to the article in the near future. --145.94.41.95 14:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've found the following for example:
In 1775, Goethe was invited to visit Charles Augustus, duke of Saxe-Weimar, at whose court he was to spend the rest of his life. For ten years Goethe was chief minister of state at Weimar. He later retained only the directorship of the state theater and the scientific institutions.[1]
I think ten years as the chief minister of Weimar qualifies him as a politician! --145.94.41.95 15:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I rm-ed the "poliitician" assertion, if only because it does not belong at that point in the list.
It also doesn't belong in the article unsupported and unexplained within the article: the language to do so needs to be worked out on talk, then "politician" can go in at the end of the list.
The ext lk the IP supplied is to bartleby.Com; the text should be examined, and perhaps will justify research to determine whether the position had anything to do with politics or was simply the civic equivalent of an honorary degree from Universität Weimar. (Who else had that role, and what else are they remembered for?) Also whether the text is a notorious parody that is kept available just to show JWG was well enuf known to write parodies about.
I can document that the position for the Duke of Weimar was a real job with responsibilities. I removed it because I considered it a bureaucratic rather than a political position. But I guess that public administrator is a type of politician. --goethean ॐ 16:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see that you know your subject after all! why didn't you add the information to the article? I apologise for the remark above, no offence intended --145.94.41.95 16:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Too late — offense taken. I guess I overlook his mundane activities for his lasting achievements. I wonder if "public administrator" or "bureaucrat" would be more precise. To me, "politician" connotes someone who runs for office. --goethean ॐ 17:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The position Goethe had was not "honorary".
The text above is from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. which is hosted on bartleby.com --145.94.41.95 16:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The detail of most import to take into account that was either unconscionably obscured or haply overlooked is Goethe's public service in Weimar was that of a cabinet minister, it thereby follows the term "politician" hardly suits in order to depict what his work involved during his civic services. As such, "cabinet minister of Weimar" is more appropriate—and the article will be changed accordingly.--Glyphonhart 04:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Since Goethe didn't run for office, perhaps 'public servant' would be more appropriate? Lexo 15:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The article now reads: ...and for ten years chief minister of state for the duchy of Weimar — goetheanॐ 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Was he a Romantic or not?
Schlegel's theory of Romanticism is based off of Goethe's themes and a lot of his themes are traditionally Romantic, but I know I've read that he did not like Romanticism and this is partly clear in Faust part 2. It seems that he's aiming for a synthesis of Romanticism and Classicism. He's usually thrown in as one of the Romantics so I'm wondering if this is a mistake.
His early Sturm und Drang ("Storm and Stress") period is proto-Romantic, but his work after 1780 is Classicist and sometimes explicitly anti-Romantic. The Romantic School named itself in opposition to Goethe's Classicism. --goethean ॐ 19:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now, in lieu of the obvious ambiguity of "romanticism," it is nevertheless important to convey the deep differences Goethe, who expressed ascerbic views that refused romanticism as unacceptable, had to those that called themselves romantics (e.g., Novalis, Tieck, Schelling, Arnim, Brentano, etc.) in opposition to classicism. Notwithstanding all that, the synthesis of which you speak is in actuality Goethe's all-embracing universalism, so to say, which quite emphatically redeems all in the world--and such is Faust's redemption. Much support of this can be derived from Walter Kaufmann's From Shakespeare to Existentialism, an alacrious collection of essays that tears asunder various misconceptions and augments the offal into a perspective that is truly insightful.--Glyphonhart 9 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)
Most famous line in German poetry?
The article presents this line as "the most famous line in German poetry":
Kennst du das Land, wo die Zitronen blühn?
Can someone, please, include a reference for the claim that this should be the most famous line in German poetry? What about "Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind?" or "Edel sei der Mensch, hilfreich und gut", "Über allen Gipfeln ist Ruh" or many other such IMHO more famous lines?--345Kai 03:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Can someone provide a translation for it in English? siafu 00:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Those deutschers are always dreaming about the tropics. The most famous song in Nazi Germany was Zarah Leander's "La Habanera," that is "Woman of Havana (Cuba)." 205.188.117.70 15:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)LittleJoeyGoebbels
A Nonfiction is indeed Fiction for Goethe.
I've recently noted that Goethe's Out of my Life is listed as nonfiction, and in the article itself, by clicking the link aforementioned, adequately shows that it is no such thing and in fact is another work of fiction by Goethe. Therefore, I've decided to move it to the Fiction section in the main Goethe article. If there are any qualms with this, perhaps we can thereby ignite a discussion and meanwhile get the full idea of the book, too.--Glyphonhart 2 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)
Goethe versus Romanticism.
Thus it states in the article: "Goethe was one of the paramount figures of German literature and European Romanticism." Now this is through and through a factitious account of a man that even but now continues as this whole issue evinces. Throughout his other works, volumnes of which were written, he stands in opposition to those that named themselves the romantics against him. At the very least, however, he did not endorse such a poetical view and it is therefore more appropriate to attribute a name that he would not have rejected. As that would have it, he is a classicist. The article may undergo further changes to date due to this spurious addition. I'll keep it beneath a magnifying glass for some time.--Glyphonhart 2 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
Another quirky sentence: "As a philosopher and writer he is one of the key figures in the transition from the Enlightenment to Romanticism." I will conduct some research to see wherein lies the validity of such a statement. For he is not a romanticist and he was no philosopher, but he influenced many. (Note: for the mean time, I have deleted it from the main article.)--Glyphonhart 2 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
The statement has been revised to: "Many of his writings, most of which are philosophical and sententious in nature, spurred on the development of many philosophers, such as Georg Hegel, Friedrich Nietzsche, and others."--Glyphonhart 9 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)
As my recent, extensive capitulations express, there is an essential revision that deserves a statement: Goethe is a philosopher as his Scientific Studies show, therefore, I have enacted the appropriate measures to demonstrate this and provided a restatement with regard to his "formative impulse".--Glyphonhart
Removed sentence
I removed the following, as it doesn't make any sense to me. --goethean ॐ 18:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
For Goethe, contradictory qualitative states quintessentially inheres as a feature of all manifest reality.
IMHO This phrase is sheer brilliance, uniquely capsulizing the essence of Goethe's genius, and should be reinstated ASAP.
The sentence itself requires too much explanatory exposition for its instauration, however, those that care to take the energy necessary to do so can readily find support for it. Goethean's assessment is most apt and appropriate. Note: the original has "inhere" as the verb "inheres", and I have altered the above quotation to follow suite.
I would love to see a citation for the above italicized obfuscational sentence.205.188.117.70 15:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)OckhamTheRazor
Why can I not understand a single word that all of you have typed? Was this deliberate? Aaрон Кинни (t) 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me the word sententious is used incorrectly in the article, where tendentious should be used instead. I will change it unless there any tendentious objections.
Objection: your assumption is unfounded. It has been changed to "aphoristic" to make its meaning more apparent for parsing.
Goethe's Intelligence
I have heard from numerous people that Goethe was one of the most intelligent people to have ever lived. I was looking it up and found this aswell on many websites, although I do not know if they are reliable or not. Can anyone confirm or deny his immense level of intelligence and if it can be confirmed it should be added to the article.
I've heard that, too. Maybe I'll add a short sentence. --goethean ॐ 14:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Hows that? --goethean ॐ 14:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Trottel. – 84.146.175.4 15:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Removed. Retrospective studies of IQ are nonsense. Goethe's work should speak for itself -- if it is not obvious that he was a polymath and genius from the article, a one liner will not convince anyone. Qrater 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Idealized Portrait
The image of G. at the beginning of the article is too idealized. Goethe had a longer nose and less chin. There is a bust of him in Paris's Museum d'Orsay that was done from life and it doesn't look like a movie star. Goethe always appreciated truth.152.163.101.11 13:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)HansWurst
"Until one is committed"
who did write the "Until one is committed" passage, and how do you know that Goethe did not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by71.36.54.92 (talk • contribs) .
Someone replaced a huge portion of this article with the above. I've restored it to what appeared to be its original version. I hope I didn't miss any important changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by159.91.115.53 (talk • contribs) .
Thanks for your help. I completed the revertion. There are some tips on how to do this at Wikipedia:Revert. — goetheanॐ 15:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Goethe --- pantheist?
65.185.213.33 added this article and several others to the Pantheists category. Vandalism? Charivari 08:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Not vandalism. Goethe is accurately characterized as a pantheist. — goetheanॐ 15:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Sentence does not makes sense
"His poetry would be set by almost every major German composer from Mozart to Mahler, and his influence would spread to French drama and opera as well."
¿QUE? What is that supposed to say?
Set to music. Fixed. — goetheanॐ 15:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Theory of Colours
Goethe wrote many criticisms of Isaac Newton's color theory, but none successfully challenged its validity. Within his own lifetime, most scientists and many of Goethe's friends considered his criticisms of Newton incorrect. Goethe's voluminous output on color theory, in hindsight, has been regarded as his weakest work [2].
This is very confusing. Both the link cited and the article Theory of Colours are considerably more sympathetic to Goethe's Theory of Colours. In fact, the latter states: "Mitchell Feigenbaum was convinced that 'Goethe had been right about colour!" Can we update the Goethe article to agree with this? Or does somebody want to debate against that position? --JianLi 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
From the theory of colours article: "This basic difference between Goethe and the Newtonians has caused almost all of modern physics to reject Goethe's theory as unscientific." Hardly very sympathetic. Rmhermen 02:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well in any case, the body of information on this subject in Wikipedia is self-contradictory. What do you make of the Mitchell Feigenbaum quote. I don't have an opinion either way, but I just want to make sure that all of our info is consistent, and, more importantly, true JianLi 23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Newton was right on the physics of light, Goethe was right on the perception of color by humans. Goethe was dead wrong that his theories were a GENERAL theory of light but was right on some specifics of color theory. Qrater 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
re-arrangement
Shouldn't the 2 paragraphs following: The following list of key works may give a sense of the scope of the impact his work had on his and our time. be under the "works" section rather than "historical importance"? — goetheanॐ 15:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Goethe and the East
There is no mention of Goethe's fascination with the East, Orientalism, especially with Islam. Goethe knew much arabic, persian and turkish and used to read the poetry and literature of these oriental languages. He often wrote about Mahomet, the Koran and Islam and even wrote poetry in the style of the Urdu diwan (West-Ostlicher Diwan). Is there a reason for this omission? --Tanzeel 00:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a lack of experts on the subject! Go ahead and write something. — goetheanॐ 00:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
disorganization
OK, the article is all disorganized now. I put section headers over some of the sections that were too long, and it appears that we have 2 sections on Goethe's importance. They need to be merged. And we have two sections on his works. They also need to be merged. I would be amenable to moving the info on Goethe's works to a new article. — goetheanॐ 19:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest moving Key works as a subsection of Works and similarly Influence under Historical importance, though this may ultimately lead to the dissolution of the subheadings but that can be settled later. I agree that Goethe's list of literature should be created (not to mention expanded).--Igni 19:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Dashes and the like
I've noticed a rebound between en-dash and em-dash recently. My reasoning with the first alteration was not only due to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) but also in line with the article's predominant manifestation, which follows the em-dash preference. Could we come to a general concensus along these lines so the article can have overall consistency (all that I'm really after), since "correctness" is not genuinely applicable?
I'm sorry that I made a big deal out of it. I assumed that the WP manual of style would have a guideline for the use of dashes, but it looks like I assumed wrong. It looks like several styles can be used so whichever is fine with me. — goetheanॐ 22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Goethe biography
Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry
probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?
By all means. A very nice addition at that as well.—ignisscripta— 18:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I decided to do it myself.—ignisscripta— 18:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah? 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Goethe's Religion
I dont think Goethe's religious views should be included in the very first paragraph of the article unless they played a overwhelming role in his life which, from my ownhumble knowledge of him, they did not. I suggest the reference to his religious beliefs be removed from the article, and placed under a seperate heading in his biography Lehi 06:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Calling oneself a "non-Christian" in a place and time in which the state religion was Lutheranism was radical...radically modern, you could say. This actually anticipated Nietzsche's vehement anti-Christianity (Nietzsche admired Goethe immensely) and actually anticipated (or epitomized) the secularization of European thought in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cenuties. I don't feel strongly one way or another about it, but the case can certainly be made to leave it in. — goetheanॐ 15:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Converse to your expectations, his disinclination toward the Christian following is cardinal to a particular degree, the elements are: his views in aesthetics and upon creative activity (more comprehensively stated, the whole of his thought); namely, the circumstances underlying his journey to Italy are one instance—and are most definitively significant. In short, more on this will be addressed in the article in order to exhume the nature of his anti-Christian views at a later date. Aware though I am, this is, to be sure, typically unbroached and rarely rendered it and that towards which will consequently enrich the article's value should nevertheless be addressed. In consideration of your last, self-contradictory statement, however, I agree with the latter position, that is to say, more should be expressed within the body of the article (as I already remarked), but for the mean time his anti-Christian views will not be waived due to standing substative and methodological procedures and as my reasoning would have it retained as it is for further emendations. Of course, those sciential to provide a betterment of Goethe's anti-Christian views for representation are welcome to do so.—ignisscripta— 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
1. I apologize for my last statements poor wording.
2. I am not implying that the references to his religious beliefs be removed, I just think that they don't belong in the introductory paragraph. A seperate section in his biography would be more suiting, and would provide more detail to the reader.
3. By Goethes time, there was already signifigant secularization spread throughout Europe due to the enlightenment, and while Goethe's reasons for his disinclination towards christianity might have been unique, the overall stance of secularism was certainly nothing new.:Lehi 23:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The relative novelty of such a view is not an applicable criterion for the determination of inclusion or removal, if that is what your are implying with your last statement, nor, though it may not be your aim to say, does such a historical evaluation in any way denigrate a view's formal value, in light it has existed since time immemorial and so forth. The singular nature of his non-Christian perspective is of importance and is the motive for its insertion. Moreover, making a new section for it exclusively, insofar as I view it, is not requisite, but rather, further integration of it into the preexisting article is warranted, as such permitting a clearer conveyance of its particular qualities in conflux with the representation of his aesthetico-philosophical thought. In due time, if no one else does beforehand, I will move it into the body of the article along these delineated parameters; in sum, I agree with you (partly on #2) but have not gone about it in this manner as yet.—ignisscripta— 01:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I apologize but I am afraid that I don't understand your argument.the referance to the novelty of the view was a response to the statement made by goethean. Usually for there to be a reference to someones religion in the introductory paragraph, the belief was/is of overwhelming signifigance to his work, usually to the extent that it is what made him famous in the first place. Yet this is hardly the case with Goethe.
One further point to be made is that all of the descriptions of Goethe in the first paragraph are descriptions of his accomplishments. Since ones beliefs are usually seperate from ones acomplishments, I believe that because of this, the referance should be moved further down in the article.Lehi
Goethe: a Rosicrucian ?
These men who contributed to humanity's progress WERE ROSICRUCIANS:
Goethe, polyglot and poet (Source: www.rosicrucian-order.com/principal.htm)
Was Isaac Newton really a rose-cross brother? Who can help?
The simple answer is: No. Although, Goethe did some Rosicrucian studies, the result of which is the alchemical notions within Faust and elsewhere, this does not validate the claim, but I can see why it would be made—Goethe's is good for exposure… among other things. In short, I would not count on the validity of others being subsumed in this denomination as stated at the website, at least not in Goethe's case. — ignisscripta 17:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I just nominated this nice article at WP:V0.5N, but I notice that the "Life" section is rather brief for such a major figure. Could someone knowledgable on Goethe expand this section a bit? Thanks, Walkerma 04:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the way to do this is to integrate the "key works" and "life" sections, since so much of his life had to with creating his major works. — goetheanॐ 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a great deal of information within the German-language article that would significantly improve this article if it were translated, but most unfortunately it seems much time will have passed before such a recrudescence is possible. — ignisscripta 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Eroticism
I see in the speculative "Eroticism" that our homosexual editors are doing what they do in all communications media, namely, trying to present pederasty as acceptable behavior. If they succeed, then future generations will believe that sex with another person of the same gender is completely normal, as a matter of fact, a civil right. This, in contrast to its real nature, which is similar to criminal and unnatural sexual molestation. I vote that the "Eroticism" section be deleted since it is not based on objective fact and merely serves to further a criminal and unnatural purpose.Lestrade 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
09090909090: Well, call anyone "homosexual" all you like, but the section clearly does not "present pederasty as acceptable behavior." Where do children come up in it? Are you joking me? Who's homosexual agenda could this be? Do you know the writers are homosexual? Give me a break. Let's see if it's pushing an agenda: "when [Pruy's book] formalized the possibility of Goethe's homosexuality, tentatively deduced from Goethe's writings". If you actually read that with some level of thought, it obviously shows that "Goethe's homosexuality" is really an impossible conception. There's NO PROOF. This part I have an issue with: "even though his homosexuality is purely speculative and polemical it partly shows what homosexuality in his works seems to embody to various people". I would rephrase it as: "even though Pruy's work is purely speculative and polemical, since there are no verifiable indications of Goethe ever being a homosexual." And I think the authors would agree. So I'll change it.23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I am surprised that User:Lestrade, a well-educated editor, objects to the eroticism section. Please provide us with a secondary source that presents your belief that the description of Goethe's eroticism as presented in the article is inaccurate. (Alternatively, you can simply familiarize yourself with Goethe's Roman Elegies and Venetian Epigrams.) I am ignoring your odd contention that the article should be censored in line with your personal moral values. — goetheanॐ 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
For another example of similar agenda pushing, see the Roger Penrose article. An anonymous reader wrote: "I heard of him being gay. Is that true?" When I responded to this childish insinuation, my reply was deleted by User:Blainster.Lestrade 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
Please limit your comments here to those which pertain to improving the Goethe article. Irrelevant chat can be deleted. — goetheanॐ 14:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Homosexuality does predate morality. Sex as an immoral act is a relatively new idea. Articles shouldn't be deleted on such groundsKechvsf 08:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Homosexuality? Here are some of the women in Goethes live: Christiane Vulpius, Marianne von Willemer, Ulrike von Levetzow, Susanne von Klettenberg, Friederike Brion, Charlotte Buff, Maximiliane von La Roche, Lili Schönemann, Henriette von Lüttwitz, Charlotte von Stein, Corona Schröter, Christiane Friederike Wilhelmine Frommann, Anna Amalia von Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach. He fathered five children. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.169.81.147 (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
Philosophy
I wouldn't go as far as calling him a philosopher, whilst he did read some philosophical works like Plato, Aristotle and did confirm to some ideas of Spinoza, he did not write any serious work on philosophy. At least as far as I know of. Anybody having more information on Goethe and philosophy?
If not, we should not exaggerate his personality by describing him as a philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.58.41.163 (talk • contribs)
Because "polymath" is the most accurate term. He is famous for being a poet, but his most famous work is a drama and he considered his scientific achievements to be his greatest accomplishment. And Nietzsche said that his "conversations" book was the most important book of the nineteenth century. Was he primarily a poet, a scientist, a dramatist, or a state minister? I wasn't the one who put the term "polymath" in the article, but I think it's the best term to use. If you have a better term, let's discuss it. — goetheanॐ 18:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't. My reaction was based on the fact that in 30-odd years as a journalist (and I use the term 'odd' advisedly), I never encountered the word 'polymath.' I guess I wasn't moving in the right circles!
If this is an encyclopedia we're writing, it would seem that a good basic principle would be using a vocabularly that's in general English usage, at least in the introductory sections of articles.
From what you say, 'polymath' indeed appears to be accurate. Unfortunately, unless I'm mistaken, it won't be understood by most readers.
I'm certainly no authority on Goethe, but I do have a general education in Western culture (Ich habe nun, ach! Philosophie, Juresterei und Medizin, und leider auch, Theologie, durchaus studiert....). And it does seem to me that Goethe is best known as a poet and dramatist, with "Faust" being his best-known work.
PS: As you probably know, the German article describes Goethe as a Dichter, Theaterleiter, Naturwissenschaftler, Kunsttheoretiker und Staatsmann, and says he is der bekannteste Vertreter der Weimarer Klassik. But being "the most widely known represetative of Weimar Classicism" isn't going to mean much to most English speakers, either.
The German article in the same introductory paragraph notes: Als Verfasser von Gedichten, Dramen und Prosa-Werken gilt er als bedeutendster deutscher Dichter und als herausragende Persönlichkeit der Weltliteratur. How about starting the English article something like this:
"... is generally regarded as the most famous of German poets and dramatists, but he was also a novelist, humanist, scientist, theorist (rather a vague term), painter, and for ten years chief minister of state for the Duchy of Weimar." How does that grab you?
Readers can simply click on the word "polymath" if they don't know what it means. It's a perfectly useful and appropriate English-language word. Americans generally use the term "Renaissance man" for the concept. But this might be misleading since Goethe did not live during the Renaissance. — goetheanॐ 16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I know what the word means, it's not very hard to understand. It's used in the da Vinci article, also. So you'll have to remove it there, as well. Aaрон Кинни (t) 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Add quotes by Goethe
Add some of his quotes it would be nice--Halaqah 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's a whole article on them, which is linked from the wikipedia goethe article. — goetheanॐ 16:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
What's up with the "Goatse" vandalism?
What's up with the "Goatse" vandalism? At first I thought I was seeing things, then like a fool I started correcting the vandalism incident by incident, before finally seeing the history page and realizing it's some anonymous user.
Still, why "Goatse"? Anyone?--TallulahBelle 15:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure seems to be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.177.12.41 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
No, Goethe is, appropriately, a redirect to this article. — goetheanॐ 23:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Goethe and Beer
on the label of Kostritzer Schwarzbier it states "even Goethe appreciated the traditional Kostritzer Black Beer." I've heard elsewhere that he survived a month on nothing but this beer. Does anyone know if there is any textual basis to these claims?
Hi there, I have seen a publication in Beck Verlag (ISBN3406558720), in which one of the questions answered is about Goethe and beer.
However I was not able to order it yet, for that matter read it, but if you have any knowledge of the german language you can probably easily find out on your own by ordering this book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.240.52.200 (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Page move + intro cleanup
I’ve checked Britannica (1911), Britannica (2002), Columbia encyclopedia (2005), World Encyclopedia (1980), Encarta (2006), Biography.com (2007), Eric Weisstein’s World of Scientific Biography (2007), the Quotations Page, as well as a Google search for Goethe and Wikipedia is the only source that leaves out the “von” in his name title. As such, I plan to request a page move to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe shortly. Moreover, the definitive sentence of Goethe needs to be concise, i.e., as compared to other references, we need to pick the top four (or so) words that define him. Then describe more following the main sentence. Certainly the word “polymath” is not a main definer. I'll do a "start" cleaning based on the above sources. --Sadi Carnot 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I temporarily fixed "von" part, which was added to his name in 1782, in the article; but we still need a page move. --Sadi Carnot 17:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems that in ’06, the page was moved with the following explanation:
Wikipedia, however, uses the most common name as would be the case via the nine sources cited above. Hermann von Helmholtz is a good example. I will now request a page reverse. --Sadi Carnot 13:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you don't need admin intervention to reverse the page move, you can do it simply by being BOLD. All the same, I should wait a few more days to let people comment before you actually do it: seven days discussion would seem to be a minimum for an article such as this one. If you have any problems, drop me a message (I probably won't be on Wikipedia this weekend, which gives you some delay). Also, please don't forget to do the incoming redirects (10–15 at a quick look), not that you would foget of course ;) Cheers, and keep up the good work! Physchim62(talk) 12:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I just do it myself then. I just thought a page move to a redirect could only be done with sysop tools so that the related links stay true? Talk later: --Sadi Carnot 15:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...there are a lot of intrawikilinks which need to be updated so that there are no double redirects. --HappyCamper 16:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No doubt. I'll try to work on this after the move. --Sadi Carnot 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless the software has been updated in some way, moving over a redirect requires some magic buttons because the redirect needs to be deleted first before the move can proceed. Anyway, it's all yours! My apologies for the tardiness. --HappyCamper 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Good work HC. I found the Wikipedia:Request move page, I'll try to use that next time. Talk later: --Sadi Carnot 11:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think "semi-autobiographical" is much too strong a description of "Die Wahlverwandschaften". Many novels are inspired by certain real persons, events, and experiences of the author. But I have never heard anybody go remotely as far as to call Wahlverwandschaften "semi-autobiographical". —Ebab 17:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Measure of IQ
Could we remove the idiotic "estimated IQ" of Goethe, and its comparison with da Vinci's estimated IQ, in the introduction? Anybody feel me on this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.197.79 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I have removed it (again). — goetheanॐ 21:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see the original entry, but surely no one seriously doubts that he was a genius (any more than they would, say, Gauss, Newton and J S Mill, though they also lived before the days of psychometric testing).
Meltingpot (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Repeated references
References 3 and 4 are equivalent to 6 and 7, which are equivalent to 11 and 12. I would correct this but haven't yet worked out how to make two citations point to the same reference. — metaprimer (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Leibniz's profound influence on Goethe not mentioned at all
Leibniz had a profound influence on Goethe yet is not mentioned at all. He isn't even listed in the upper right under influences. Can someone please add this?
Goethe was influenced by Leibniz' monadology, of which reincarnation is nothing but a logical consequence. This influence is especially clear in the following sayings to Falk [Vogel loc cit page 134]
Some of these monads . . . . are so small, so insignificant, that they qualify themselves at best for a subordinate service and existence. Others, however, are very strong and powerful. The latter, therefore, are wont to draw everything approaching them into their circle. Only the latter I would call souls, properly speaking. Death is the setting free of the subordinate monads by the higher one and the separation from each other of the single ones. There is no question of annihilation; but to be stopped on the way by a powerful and at the same time vile monad and to be subordinated to it, this danger has no doubt something inimical in it and the fear thereof I, for my part, could not quite remove by the way of a mere contemplation of nature.
I realize this is wikipedia here, and we can't expect everything, but this aricle reads rather poorly and contains inaccuraces as well as misused words. Werther has little if anything in commeon with Hamlet, for example, and the suffix "esque" has limited respectable uses outside of humor. There is an inaccurate attribution to Hippocrates (Goethe did not invert the saying) and so forth. I've tried to clean up these and other inaccuracies, and will work to massage the style into tomething more worthy of Germany's greatest literary figure.
And please please please people, can we get rid of heavily, or use it 99% less and look for a better word? And largely? Largely isn't even a word. It's a joke from the original movie of "Star Wars." Those two and -esque. That would raise Wikipedia to a new level.
In response to the above: Largely is an adverb which is a synonym for "on the whole / mainly" It has a long history in the English language. The suffix "esque" comes to English, via Old French, from Latin. It's use is largely to make reference to similarities in style, particularly in literature and comedy. These words may be overly used, but they are quite acceptable. I haven't corrected the typos in the original message; I think they speak for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.24.197 (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
how can you guys possibly neglect goethes obsession with fruitcake ?
theres even a german nursery rhyme containing that important fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.16.88 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Drowning in a sea of parentheses
From the article as it currently stands:
Goethe's father, Johann Caspar Goethe (Frankfurt-am-Main, Hessen, 29 July 1710 – Frankfurt-am-Main, Hessen, 25 May 1782), lived with his family in a large house in Frankfurt am Main, then an Imperial Free City of the Holy Roman Empire. Goethe's mother, Catharina Elisabeth Textor (Frankfurt-am-Main, Hessen, 19 February 1731 – Frankfurt-am-Main, Hessen, 15 September 1808), the daughter of the Mayor of Frankfurt Johann Wolfgang Textor (Frankfurt-am-Main, Hessen, 11 December 1693 – Frankfurt-am-Main, Hessen, 6 February 1771) and wife (married at Wetzlar, 2 February 1726) Anna Margaretha Lindheimer (Wetzlar, 23 July 1711 – Frankfurt-am-Main, Hessen, 18 April 1783, a descendant of Lucas Cranach the Elder and Henry III, Landgrave of Hesse-Marburg), married 38-year-old Johann Caspar when she was only 17 at Frankfurt am Main on 20 August 1748. All their children, except for Goethe and his sister, Cornelia Friederike Christiana, who was born in 1750, died at an early age.
Sorry, but that's completely unreadable. I don't need to know where so-and-so married so-and-so and I certainly don't need to be told that Frankfurt is in Hessen SIX times. I want to know who was related to whom and how. And that's just impossible when I keep having to look through two or three lines of dense text to find out where a parenthesis ends. PLEASE tidy this up -- and start by getting rid of all the placenames, ONE mention that they lived in Frankfurt would be sufficient. I'm not going to do it myself because I'm sure I'd end up getting the facts wrong -- it really looks to me like it's saying Anna Lindheimer was born in 1711 and married in 1748 at the age of 17, so something is clearly wrong there. 91.105.22.66 (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
minor nit-pick
the article states, that goethe died in 1832, in "weimar, germany", which is factually incorrect. weimar at the time was the capital city of the duchy of saxe-weimar-eisenach. "germany" as a nation-state did not exist until much later, 1871. i'd like to change that, any comments?--Nevrdull (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Go for it. RandomTool2 (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Not true that Italian Journey omits the second year; author may have meant that the second year is not based on G's journal (but on correspondence and later -- much later -- "retrospect"). Nor does the book omit the Venice visit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.15.228 (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Peerage or nobility?
The article is included in Category:German nobility, however, I wonder about the distinction betweem peerage and nobility. I see the title Freiherr mentioned for his children, so I added "peerage-work-group=yes" to the WPBiography template here on the talk page. But is it also relevant to the "Royalty and Nobility work group" of WikiProject Biography? __meco (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Early Years in Weimar
The bulk of this section is dedicated to Goethe's complicity in the execution of a young woman (which is then contrasted with a poem he wrote that year with the intent to portray Goethe as an heartless, hypocritical S.O.B.) This is the first time I have heard of this accusation and I don't believe that it should be allowed to remain in this article without some credible sources.
Master Cranky Hucklebubble (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Master Cranky Hucklebubble
Agreed. Also even with reliable source citation the story should be abridged considerably in accordance with WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.". --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
It is relevant insofar as the confrontation with the topic was an important inspiration for his Faust, and a feeling of guilt may have been a good part of it. Maybe the paragraph should be moved to the Faust article. However, the woman who was the direct inspiration for Gretchen was Susanna Margaretha Brandt, and she's not mentioned at all.—Graf Bobby (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the story of Gretchen's execution was drawn from a real life incident, however the last paragraph of this section is unsourced and reads like melodrama. If true, as written, I believe that it belongs in a separate article. I am not into censorship but I do think that this paragraph does not belong in what should be a genuine overview of Goethe's life and work. I think that it should be removed on the grounds of "undue weight". I do not want to do this unilaterally, however, unless others concur.Master Cranky Hucklebubble (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Master Cranky Hucklebubble
I wouldn't say to remove it if the account was true (and if the incident arguably could have had an influence on Goethe, whether there is a reliable source for this idea or not). Rather I would like to see it cut down considerably and the melodramatic tone removed, in accordance with WP:UNDUE. --EPadmirateur (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
After doing a little cursory research on the matter: The execution of Susanna Magaretha Brandt
occured in Frankfurt when Goethe was 22 years of age. He played no part in this and any guilt derived would have come from association (his uncle and his personal physician were both involved in the proceedings). The Johanna Hohn case in Weimar in 1782 appears factual as far as the timeline but I don't think that it is as cut and dried as the "off with her head!" scenario that is presented in this paragraph. There is actually, from a legal standpoint, quite a bit of scholarly speculation on the web as to whether Goethe actually voted in this case or submitted an "essay" in favor of capital punishment. (Alas, most of it is in German). Goethe apparently left no personal records regarding it. At any rate, I don't have time at present to truncate and properly source the last paragraph of this section so, snarky as it is, it will have to do.Master Cranky Hucklebubble (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Master Cranky Hucklebubble
Place of marriage
"The next day, Goethe legitimized their relationship by marrying Christiane in a quiet marriage service at the court chapel."
As far as I know, having lived in Weimar for several years, Goethe and Christiane were married in the sacristy of St. James church (Jakobskirche), while the sanctuary itself was used as a makeshift military hospital for soldiers wounded during the French attack (October 14th, 1806 being the day of Napoleon's decisive victory over the combined Prussian-Saxonian forces at nearby Jena). Stoeberer--90.186.157.13 (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Darwin Reference in early paragraph...who is it? Charles or Erasmus?
Goethe's influence on Nietzsche is nowhere mentioned, but aside from that I want to know why there is no first name next to Darwin in that first paragraph. Are they referring to Charles Darwin or his Grandfather Erasmus Darwin? It would seem that if they were speaking of Charles that his Grandfather had more influence on him in regards to plants as his grandfather specialized in them (not to mention he is the true father of evolution and Charles only stumbled across something his grandfather already found out.) But yes I was just curious about this and who that Darwin reference was about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unusualpro (talk • contribs) 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If you click on the link, you'll see that it's a piped link to Charles, as in Darwin done like this: [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]. Looking at the cited sources, it seems a bit exaggerated and skips the more significant general influence Goethe's ideas of morphology had during the 19th century. Something to be improved in this article. There wasn't really any "true father of evolution", and Darwin clearly made a significant contribution. . . dave souza, talk 15:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Rareified philosophy
From paragraph three: "Goethe himself expressly and decidedly refrained from practicing philosophy in the rarefied sense."
"Rarefied sense"? Must we be peevish about philosophy on a page about Goethe? This vague yet judgmental phrase should be replaced. If Goethe "expressly refrained from practicing philosophy," perhaps the man can express himself via direct quotation. Thank you. Leishalynn (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the sentence might be a bit of an anachronism. I would assume that the sentence is refering to academic philosophy, as opposed to general philosophy. However, my understanding is that academic philosophy didn't exist until about the time of Hegel, and Goethe was about 20 years older than Hegel. The sentence could be the result of contemporary academic philosophers not having much use for Goethe's writings due to those philosophers' narrowness. (Sorry in advance for any perceived peevishness.) — goetheanॐ 21:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Koran
Why is there such a prominent section on his study of the Koran? Ever since 9/11, there has been a fear of and, in some cases, a sympathy for, Islam. All of my life, I had heard very little of that religion. Now it is an important issue that Goethe once studied the Koran. Unless the article also has sections about his study of other religions, the Koran section should be deleted.Lestrade 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
I'm inclined to agree with you. I think the section should be watched for undue growth/exposure and sentences like: "Goethe's positive attitude towards Islam goes far beyond anyone in Germany before." I don't know that such a statement could easily be backed up or purported as fact. -xiliquiernTalk 22:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Goethe was interested in Muslim poetry was well-known before 2001. In fact, my recollection is that he did so primarily because the Schlegels of the Romantic school, had already began researching Sanskrit literature, and he decided to go a different route. There is some material here that I've never heard of, but it is cited. and "Goethe's positive attitude towards Islam goes far beyond anyone in Germany before." seems self-evident to me. You can put a {{fact}} tag on it if you think otherwise. The only other religion that I know of his comments on was Christianity, and they are not at all positive. — goetheanॐ 16:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to hear from people other than the above two posters, who have posted some clearly bigoted statements on Islam, why there is absolutely no mention of Goethe's study/knowledge of Islamic literature and his Diwan, or poem written in the Muslim Sufi tradition. Mentioning such aspects of him would at least contribute to an understanding of how far reaching his knowledge was ie, of "Eastern" culture. No one should be suggesting that he had become a Muslim, which was not established. This missing dimension seems politically motivated, and is part of the reason I am becoming increasingly skeptical of Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.216.81 (talk • contribs)
Goethe a Muslim? Rubbish! The 'Back to Islam' site contains blatantly falsified quotations with illiterate English renderings. I will continue to delete the Quranic references because they are lies put out by Muslim fanatics.MontanaMax 10:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)MontanaMax
You can'delete facts because they don't suit your beliefs. It is well known that Goethe was an admirer of Persian literature, and in particular Hafiz, in whose inspiration, he wrote a Divan. Goethe: "In his poetry Hafiz has inscribed undeniable truth indelibly ... Hafiz has no peer!". He also often refers to Islamic concepts. I direct you to, for example, the poem called reunion, in which he uses Allah with God interchangeably.
Goethe was a Freemason. As such he was free to interweave Muslim and other flavors of spirituality and wisdom together with the rosicruscian and other esoteric wisdom traditions he found appealing or interesting. In his work, especially the Wilhelm meister books and to some degree Faust he readily explored masonic themes. In this he was not unusual: Mozart wrote a masonically themed opera and many, many late 18th and early 19th century writers referenced the craft and its associated mysteries in their work.
--CRATYLUS22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.22.51 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
having an intresset for islam doesn't make you a Muslim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.45 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
German muslim regard Goethe as muslim. He had appearently converted to Islam before he died.
Read the following from Goethe's published letters
"Der Dichter (Goethe) ... lehnt den Verdacht nicht ab, daß er selbst ein Muselmann (Muslim in Persian, Turkic and Paleo-Balkan languages) sei. (WA I, 41, 86)"
"Weiter kann ich nichts sagen, als daß ich hier mich im Islam zu halten suche. (WA IV, 33, 123)"
"Oberhaupt der Geschöpfe - Muhammed." (WA I, 6, 482)"
--85.108.240.214 (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Islam is spiritually poor if it needs to resort to revisionist attempts to try and implicate famous thinkers just to make itself seem more prominent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.111.178 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Bismillah: I agree that it's rash to say Goethe was a muslim because he wrote admiringly about Islam and the Prophet (s.a.s.). That was just the personal way of an intellectual to write of something he was deeply impressed by and should indeed not be interpreted as a valid double Shahada by any serious Muslim, unless they would interpret his later statements, like the one on Hypsistarians quoted in the current version of the Wikipedia article, as apostasy from Islam. However, the page quoted and criticized above (http://www.backtoislam.com/goethe-embraced-islam) should be read in its German original (http://www.enfal.de/gote-fat.htm) before you guys judge it: you're right, some of the translations of the quotes are bad. Actually, the German originals make Goethe's affinity for Islam and his decade-long intellectual preoccupation with it (and in case of Muhammad Iqbal's "Payam-e-Mashriq", influence on it) even clearer, even though the English translation is still sufficient in my view. Also please keep in mind that there are many streams and branches of Islam, some orthodox, some mystic, of which the latter have mutualities with mystics among Christians, Jews, Freemasons, even branches of Buddhists and Hindus.
In either case it is as much an irresponsible blurring of facts to completely exclude this part of his work from the Wikipedia article as it is to claim he was definetely a Muslim. If you include his preoccupation with the Hypsistarians, which seems small and shallow in comparison, you must include quotes on Islam, too. - On another note, please heed this correction: from a European (or generally any "old world") point of view it's very naive to say "All of my life, I had heard very little of that religion. Now it is an important issue that Goethe once studied the Koran" (user Lestrade). I know that this applies for many American citizens and I'm not taunting you for it, even though it really seems weird considering 1.3 billion Muslims, but since Goethe was European, you must make the article accordingly, not according to an American point of view. I don't fully agree with user 76.168.216.81 (IP) that "this missing dimension seems politically motivated", which may be true or not, but it definetely is uneducated, and, I agree with this, "(...) is part of the reason I am becoming increasingly skeptical of Wikipedia". 87.167.145.234 (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This page is linked to from the List of Shi'a Muslims. It looks like consensus is that Goethe is NOT a muslim, so if this is correct I will remove his name from that list. I understand the difference between Goethe studying, being influenced by, and converting to Islam, and some of the subtleties of being a spiritual/religious thinker, who would not easily join any one religion. I of course welcome any reliably sourced proof that he was a convert, but I really doubt this would go unnoticed or covered up by students of Goethe all these years.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Goethe´s religion
In general, I find this section quite balanced, though Goethe´s relationship with Christianity could be explained a bit more. The problem comes in the last paragraph, regarding Goethe´s views on Islam.The claim is already controversial, because of its nature and because it doens´t say where Goethe wrote that. It just says that "he said to Eckermann", so I assume that the person who wrote this meant the "Conversations with Eckermann". I tried to find this text, or something similar in that work, but I couldn´t. In fact, I couldn´t find any mention to Ilsam itself.Try here, for example I also tried to find the source provided, "Pakistan as an Islamic State", by Wilfred C. Smith. I couldn´t find anything, except that Smith was a well know scholar of Islam, but not an expert on Goethe or german literature.
I tried to find another sources for Goethe´s views on Islam but unfortunately they only come from islamic sites, where everything is written by islamic pseudo-scholars.In those same sites you learn that there was a buddhist porphecy for Muhamad and that America was discovered by muslims.So, We cannot trust that information.
Therefore, I´ll delete that paragraph until better sources are provided.--Knight1993 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Found it. However, Goethe's comments are not notable enough to be included in this article, and thus I support your edit. — goetheanॐ 22:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it permissible to point out the irony of his mausoleum's pinnacle in relation to his attitude toward the Christian cross?Lestrade (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
I have severely cut back the pro-Christian material attributed to Goethe by Eckermann, since it is all sourced to Eckermann and it is so clearly at odds with Goethe's published work. Both the non-Christian and the pro-Christian 'sides' should be relying on secondary materials like Boyle rather than on primary materials. — goetheanॐ 16:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi goethean.I really don´t know why you don´t consider them reliable. In fact, they are Goethe´s own, but just writenn by his friend Eckermann.I think they are deemed reliable by most scholars. At least, Moltmann and Schweitzer think so, and Schweitzer is a very reliable scholar, a Noble prize in fact.
Besides, I think Goethe´s relationship with Christianity must be expanded a litlle more. After all, he was raised christian, in a christian country, he had christian teachers and friends, he was married in a church(Church of St Jakob in Weimar), and undoubtedly christianity influenced his work in some way. In think the old arrangement was good.The first paragreph for his negative comments on Christianity, the second for the positive ones, the third one for his pantheistic views, and the last for his views on the Hypsistarians.If you think the second paragraph is too long in comparison, I invite you to write more things in the first, and if you don´t want, I can do it myself.
I think this way everyone will be happy and satisfied.--Knight1993 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I really don´t know why you don´t consider them reliable.
It is because Eckermann's portrayal is compltely different than Goethe's published writings. Please use secondary material. The opinion of a historian or Goethe scholar like Boyle is much preferred and will take precedent over those of theologians. In short, you are relying on Eckermann too much. All of your material is sourced to him. Use different sources. — goetheanॐ 16:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
In fact, they are Goethe´s own, but just writenn by his friend Eckermann.
Eckermann's book is a portrayal of Goethe. He was an author, not a stenographer. — goetheanॐ 17:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok,I´ll use secondary sources.I hope they are not deleted after.Thanks for your time.--Knight1993 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Goethe and Islam
"Goethe was only 23 years old when he wrote a wonderful hymn in praise of the prophet Muhammad. But even when he was 70 years old, the poet declared quite publicly that he was considering “devoutly celebrating that holy night in which the Koran in its entirety was revealed to the prophet from on high”. Between these two dates lies a long life, during which Goethe testified in many forms to his veneration for Islam. This was expressed primarily in that work which, alongside “Faust”, we today consider one of his most essential poetic bequests: the “West-Eastern Divan”, a collection of 250 poems in an oriental style. In a pre-publication announcement of this work-in which he came closer to the orient than any German writer before or after him-we can even find the remarkable statement that the author of the book would not deny the allegation that he himself was a Muslim" From the work of Katharina Mommsen Professor Emerita, Stanford University
(Endowed Chair for Literature).[1][2][3][4]
Hi Folks, don't know if this is the right form of address, I'm new in Wikipedia, and brandnew in english wiki.
^ According to Gregory Maertz, Goethe was "Germany's greatest man of letters… and the last true polymath to walk the earth." Cf. Eliot, George (2004) [1871]. Note by editor of 2004 edition, Gregory Maertz at link. ed. Middlemarch. Broadview Press. pp. 710. ISBN1551112337. http://books.google.com/?id=4MopnRJ-HmMC&pg=PA710&lpg=PA710.
May be I'm too stupid, but I'm not able to follow this reference No. 1. And I don't know who Gregory Maertz, maybe Gregory Märtz is.
But I do know, that Goethe is a famous writer in Germany (with good cause or without is another matter) but his role as a natural scientist is barely known in germany. And the reason is: whatever he assumed, it was WRONG.
Not without reason germnan wikipedia says:
Er forschte und publizierte außerdem auf verschiedenen naturwissenschaftlichen Gebieten
He researched and publisched in addition on several natural science matters
No one in germany knows Goethe as a polymath (in any aspect compareable with Leorando da Vinci e.g.). If they know from his "natural scientist" hobby, they have to conclude, that the was wrong in many (most) aspects.
Charlotte Kestner is erroneously referred to as an "older married woman" who inspired The Sorrows of Young Werther. She was actually about 4 years younger than Goethe, and during the events that inspired the work she was not married; Christian Kestner was her 'intended.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.47.104 (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is a mess!
Someone should translate the German page for this topic - it's far superior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.1.17 (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Are we allowed to do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.52.231 (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there anybody having a look at the German article? The German version has still to be improved but it may help you to improve the English article. -- German user:H.Albatros 12:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, i feel a bit irritated because my sentence on Goethe`s passion for fruitcake has bee´n erased without further explanation. I thought that this biographical information could be of use. Just like the information that nobody in his time had traveled as far as Mozart could be useful in a Mozart-related article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.42.161 (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the significance of the material in the paragraph on Johanna Catharina Höhn's sentencing. Why is this important in the course of Goethe's life? I'm not saying it's unimportant, but simply that it needs to be explained, because it sounds really out of place now. JKeck (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The spelling of names sometimes retains archaic, "non-standard" conventions. The pronunciation would be the same in either case, but that is how the Goethes spelled their name. It's a little bit like the English name "Taylor," which obviously comes from the occupation "tailor" but was crystallized into a different orthography.
Actually, Goethe did sign "Göthe" at times. People in his times cared less about the conventions of spelling than they do now. —Ebab 18:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebab (talk • contribs)
as a matter of fact, there WERE NO conventions of spelling at his time...--XMCHx (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
His grandfather Friedrich Georg was born a Göthe but later (1687) changed the spelling of his name to Goethe. Abundand information about his family may be found at Goethe Genealogie, especially Goethe-Heimat im Kyffhäuser-Schatten.--87.78.167.187 (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
In the German language every Umlaut can be written with dots above (ä,ö,ü) or with an added e (ae, oe, ue). Before the conventions of spelling fixed the rules in which word you have to use what version, the version with the added e has always been seen as the more sophisticated and cultivated one.--JakobvS (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The title page of Schopenhauer's main work, Volume I, has it spelled "Göthe."
The title page of the expanded 1844 publication
The motto shown is: "Ob nicht Natur zuletzt sich doch ergründe? Göthe." It means "If, however, Nature hasn't fathomed itself at last?" (From Goethe's poem to State Minister Christian Gottlob von Voigt, September 27, 1816.)Lestrade (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Lestrade
im Arsche lecken
I removed the following:
"Although a success of less tasteful appeal, the famous line from the drama Götz von Berlichingen ("Er kann mich im Arsche lecken": "He can lick my arse") has become a vulgar idiom in many languages, and shows Goethe's deep cultural impact extending across social, national, and linguistic borders."
This is unsourced and seems very unlikely. The vulgarism seems sufficiently natural to arise of its own in various languages. More likely Goethe used an already existing vulgarism.Ekwos (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's true. I have learned about it at school and you can say 'lick my arse' specifically with reference to Götz von Berlichingen even though the expression was not invented by goethe. It has become a popular quote; i assume because it was so outrageous or so unexpected from goethe. Either way, i suggest to keep it.--212.204.120.147 (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
In fact, the strange part is the "im"(= in,within!); in German, it´s used to say "..am Arsch lecken." but not "..im Arsch...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.73.207 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
But what is true is that police reports etc. refer to the said phrase as to the "Götz citation", and it is sufficiently understood if you say: "Ach du kannst mich doch Götz von Berlichingen!" (roughly: As far as I'm concerned you can götz my berlichingen.) --77.4.70.195 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Error?
This same paragraph appears twice in this article: "In politics Goethe was conservative. At the time of the French Revolution, he thought the enthusiasm of the students and professors to be a perversion of their energy and remained skeptical of the ability of the masses to govern.[6] Likewise, he "did not oppose the War of Liberation waged by the German states against Napoleon, but remained aloof from the patriotic efforts to unite the various parts of Germany into one nation; he advocated instead the maintenance of small principalities ruled by benevolent despots.""
Please decide to delete one of them. --96.253.50.232 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Spoilers
I'm sorry if this is something that I should already know, but is there a way to handle spoilers in the article? I just briefly skimmed through it and the ending of one of his books was totally ruined for me! I'm not sure how appropriate a spoiler's warning before the section on his notable works would be, but it would have saved me a lot more enjoyment reading The Sorrows of Young Werther! Dying2live (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
