Literary critics such as Karl Grun and Johannes Scherr have argued for Johann Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther as revolutionary social criticism that paved the way for many rebellions in 1848 – Grun even argues that the novel set the stage for the French Revolution. But as one of the most important figures of sentimentality in Western literature, Werther is difficult to read as a social critic without recognizing the barrier his affect presents to taking on such a role. Friedrich Engels even accused Grun of “confusing genuine social criticism with Werther's complaints about the discrepancy between bourgeois reality and his equally bourgeois illusion. Werther, says Engels, is a 'schwarmerischer Tranensack' (dreaming lacrimal sac)” (Duncan 76). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Can we, then, denounce the criticisms expressed by Werther as inauthentic due to his bourgeois identification and his selfish vision of the social order? Can we interpret the lament of a “dreaming lacrimal sac” as a social criticism? Although Engel raises legitimate concerns about a critical reading of The Sorrows of Young Werther, we dilute the significance of a series of letters Werther devotes to mocking his aristocratic company in the second half of the novel without engaging in a critical analysis of the novel. His criticism is particularly informed by his characterization of genius as torrential and transcendental. While Werther's views on class divisions and the romanticization of labor seem to detract from his ability to criticize the social order, Goethe complicates the temptation to dismiss Werther's polemic against aristocratic society by distancing him from the almost equally problematic bourgeoisie at the end of the novel . .Werther's hostility towards the aristocracy arises from a clash of ideologies: a barrier to class mobility enforced by privileging an individual's pedigree over his strength of character is utterly detestable to Werther because it diminishes what makes him exceptional. In a letter dated May 26 Werther jokes: “Oh, my friends! Do you wonder why the torrent of genius so rarely flows, so rarely floods and thunders and overwhelms your amazed soul? – Because, dear friends, on both banks live cold and respectable gentlemen, whose pavilions, tulip beds and cabbage fields would be swept away, and who are therefore very skilful in preventing future dangers in time, by building dams and digging canals.” (33). Werther explains the constraint placed on the genius through his relationship with respectable gentlemen. Although Werther never explicitly states that the respectable gentleman is a figure of the aristocracy and that the genius is a figure of himself, the similarity within the groups is striking. The genius is characterized by an image of complete surrender, which is similar to Werther's attitude as he wrote the letter on May 10; the respectable gentleman is associated with intrigue and self-interest, two qualities that Werther criticizes in the nobility he encounters working under the ambassador. Werther's criticism of the aristocracy is that this group values ​​future earnings over the pleasure of the present. Shortly after working for the ambassador, Werther complains: “The boredom of these horrible people locked up here! and their greed for rank, and the way they are ever watchful and attentive to gain or precedence: the most miserable and abominable of passions” (75). His judgment becomes more and more explicit as he continues his argument: he begins by underlining their "greed for rank", implying that he does notthey are satisfied with their current status. He then goes on to further denounce the aristocratic mentality that comes with rank, underlining that aristocrats are specifically “vigilant” and “attentive” to profit. Here it is more explicit: Werther is frustrated by the aristocratic focus on future progress rather than satisfaction in the present. This is especially “miserable and abominable” to Werther, who tells Wilhelm, “I am so happy, dear friend, so absorbed in this feeling of peaceful existence” (26). Unlike the aristocracy who seeks happiness in future earnings, Werther believes that happiness must be “absorbed” in the present. For this reason, he states: «It is enough that the source of my misery is within me, as it once was the source of all my joy» (98). By rejecting the aristocratic mentality of looking to the future and focusing on the beautiful transience of existence, Werther gains autonomy: it is his own source of pleasure and dissatisfaction. While it is easy to broadly categorize Werther as a supporter of the working class, it is important to note Werther's problematic views. This task becomes important as the essay moves from examining Werther's criticism of the German aristocracy to Goethe's criticism of society and its relationship to the type of person Werther represents. Werther romanticizes the work by stating: “It is good that my heart can feel the simple and innocent pleasure that a man feels when the cabbage he eats at the table is what he has grown himself; the pleasure he feels. . . in remembering the evenings he watered it and the pleasure he felt in its daily growth” (45). By describing agriculture through an idyllic vignette, Werther creates the narrative that the farmer enjoys his work. This construct is destructive for two reasons. First, Werther praises the picturesque image of a man dependent on nature for sustenance, but completely ignores the arduous nature of agrarian life and thus glorifies the image of the peasant without sympathizing with any of his struggles. Second, it imposes its own narrative on a group of people that it knows are “not equal, nor can they be” (28). He doesn't know the experiences of a farmer because he isn't a farmer. By suggesting that the working class enjoys its work, Werther perpetuates a narrative that the upper class uses to oppress its subordinates; in Werther's mind, working class labor is necessary for my social standing and there is no moral cost to prospering on the backs of these simple people because they like it! However, although Werther holds beliefs that work against the lower class, Goethe nevertheless makes it clear through the metaphors of Christ and the juxtaposition of Albert and Werther that, even if marked by hypocrisy, criticism is preferable to inaction. Albert serves to embody the upper class. class ideals of bourgeoisie wealth and respectability, and thus serves as a contrast to Werther. Even though he competes with Albert for Lotte's affections, Werther declares: “I cannot help but esteem Albert. The coldness of his character contrasts strongly with the impetuosity of mine” (22). Going beyond the polite behavior that deserves Werther's recognition, the editor also exalts Albert as a "man of pure heart", establishing that he is a man viewed positively by society. Yet it is Albert himself, with a pure heart, who gives the gun to Werther to commit suicide. A symbolic reading indicates that bourgeois society perceives characters who adhere to beliefs similar to Werther's as a threat to its way of life and seeks to eradicate these individuals. Furthermore, Werther compares himself to Christ by asking: “What is the destiny of man if not that. . . drink the cup of bitterness", (99) establishing.