Questions on The Sorrows of Young Werther

Some background: Sorrows was written fifty years after Persian Letters, just before the American Revolution, and it's set in the world of small German states, each centering on a principal city. These states shared language, culture, and many social ties, but Germany would only become a unified nation in the nineteenth century. Werther and his friends are well-off and well-educated but not noble; most of them work for these small governments, moving among the courtiers and advisers who surround the princes. Except for the unhappy ending, the story loosely corresponds to Goethe's own; unlike Werther, he would go on to become one of the most famous intellectuals of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Europe. Sorrows itself was an enormous hit when it first appeared; the hero's experiences apparently resonated for many young Europeans.

In thinking about the novel, start with its format. Like Persian Letters, Sorrows is an epistolary novel, so think about the similarities and differences in their organization and impact. Persian Letters gives us multiple voices and divergent truths; how many voices do we hear in Sorrows, and what are they like? Then think about the plot. What does Werther do, and what gets done to him? The story ends with Werther in complete despair: why? What's his problem?

Those questions point to the problem of emotions in the novel's development-- how important are they? What kinds of emotions, and how intense? Do we hear of anything comparable in Persian Letters? Both novels talk about love—but do they describe it in the same terms? We also hear a lot about friendship in Sorrows; how is it described, and how important is it? More broadly, what assumptions does the author seem to make about human psychology? How does Goethe see emotions, drives, reason, and will fitting together?

We also hear a lot in Sorrows about nature. How important is it in the letters, and what effects does it have on the characters? What ideas about nature come up in the novel? What makes it such a big deal? How does talk about nature fit with what the novel shows us of social and political interactions in Werther's social circles? What's the relationship between social organization and nature, as the novel presents it?

In class we've discussed the radical implications of Persian Letters and other Enlightenment texts. Are there radical implications in Sorrows? Namely? Is it a more or less radical book than Persian Letters? Think about "radicalism" in broad terms: that is, think both about what the novel has to say about politics and what it says about personal relations. To what extent does Werther seem like a modern man, with an emotional make-up that we might recognize?

Reading The Persian Letters

The Persian Letters goes in multiple directions; it's a book that combines philosophy, comedy, social observation, and straight narrative. As with our other readings, the first step in making sense of all this is to get a handle on the story: who are the main characters, and what are they like? What do they do, and what gets done to them? Note the wide range of characters we encounter— why does Montesquieu include so many of them? The names don't matter very much, but get a sense of what social types Montesquieu has included.

The next step is to think about connections between themes we've encountered earlier in the course and what's going on in the novel. First, we've talked about the rise of the big city and big city pleasures: do we see signs of those social processes in The Persian Letters? Note that the characters visit a café, typical of the urban amenities that emerged in the later seventeenth century—what's it like? In class we discussed the role that Montesquieu sees money playing in French society; what else do we hear about money and the marketplace? What kinds of problems do they seem to pose?

In the same way, Montesquieu has a lot to say about politics, especially about monarchy; what's his take? In class we discussed his portrait of Louis XIV; do we get other accounts of how power works and what problems it creates? Note that Usbek's authority over his slaves and wives parallels that of some kings; what position does Montesquieu take on that authority?

And Montesquieu takes up a third big them we've discussed, that of race, slavery, and empire. What position does he seem to hold on these questions? Was he a racist, insofar as we can judge from his book? In one of the letters (#64, pp. 130-134), an African slave tells his story; how is it presented? More generally, how much does Montesquieu seem to value freedom? Does freedom make a society stronger or weaker, in his opinion?

A fourth connected theme: that of science. At a few points, Montesquieu makes reference to the idea of an infinite universe; what implications does he draw from that idea? He also talks (#97, pages 180-182; #105-106, pages 192-196) about the benefits the west has drawn from science; what are they, and how enthusiastic is Montesquieu about them?

Think about the place of sex and other physical pleasures in this book—an awfully big place, considering that it's a work of philosophy. Why is it there? Do women enjoy these sides of life as much as men? How important are they to a good life, according to Montesquieu? What would be an alternative view? That is, what other moral assessments does the book consider and reject?

Finally, how radical a book is this-- both for its own times and for ours? Is there anything here that would seem shocking if published in 2010? Consider three episodes in particular: the tale of Apheridon and Astarte (letter 67, pages 136ff); the tale of Anaïs and Ibrahim (letter 141, pages 248ff); and the book's conclusion. I've said in class that the Enlightenment included a view of human nature; what views are implied by those stories?