{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05555555555555555, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009623797025371828, 'mean_word_length': 5.018421052631579, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Interpreting a Pronoun in Mörike - Reply

beauty, and we stand apart from the masses. That faith causes misreadings of supporting sources as well, the two most important ones being a line by Goethe and one by Morike himself. In Faust, part 2, Goethe says: “Die Schone bleibt sich selber selig” (7403; translated in PMLA as “The beautiful remains blissful in itself” [418]). Our disputants quickly agree that “die Schone” is a rare synonym for “Schonheit” (“beauty”), and then they become entangled in explanations why Morike, in paraphrasing the line, changes “sich” to the supposedly synonymous “ihm.” Yet when Goethe means “Schonheit,” he uses the same word as everybody else, as could have been seen a mere four lines earlier: “Frauenschonheit will nichts heiBen” (7399; “Female beauty means nothing”). “Die Schone” is a beautiful woman. The speaker holds a negative view of her self-contentment and instead praises grace that pleases others. Goethe points to the contemplating other—just like Morike, who, for this very reason, replaces “sich” with “ihm.” In English, the Goethe line might read: “A beauty gives bliss merely to herself.” In the Morike reference, quoted by Spitzer, a speaker admires an innocently graceful dancer, and he wishes that one could be like her, “Sich selber so zu seliger Gentige” (“Thus blissfully contented in oneself” or, in PMLA, “It itself to such blissful satisfaction” [432]). That line appears to support Spitzer’s opinion, until one sees the very next line, which he suppresses: “Und alle Welt zu letzen, zu erbaun!” (Samtliche Werke, 1964, 264; “And to regale and edify all humankind!”). That poem as a whole should leave no doubt that Morike is thinking of the audience, but his concern for human beings is quashed by the interpreters. And what about the old bone of contention, the reading of “scheint”? Morike’s usage (which nobody checked) clearly favors Staiger’s position (“seems”), but when one accepts an observer as the locus for that which is beautiful, the whole famous dispute becomes virtually pointless, explaining why the poet did not foresee and prevent it. Within a contemplating mind, the beautiful object seems, appears, shines, or possibly even sparkles (Spitzer)—what’s the difference? The translation might be changed from