Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:35:38.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Searching for Modern Culture's Beautiful Harmony: Schlegel and Hegel on Irony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2013

Elizabeth Millán
Elizabeth Millán*
Affiliation:
DePaul University Chicago, IL emillan@rocketmail.com
Get access

Abstract

Goethe and Friedrich Schiller stand together immortalised in Ernst Rietschel's statue at the centre of Weimar. In their lifetime, Goethe and Schiller shaped the culture of German-speaking lands, not only through their poetry, plays, and novels, but also in their role as editors of journals that helped to set the intellectual tone of the period. Schiller's journal Die Horen (1795-1797) and Goethe's Propyläen (1798-1800), although short-lived, were important literary vehicles of the period and provided a forum that brought scientists, historians, philosophers, and poets into conversation with one another. The late 1700s and early 1800s were years of intense intellectual development in Germanspeaking lands; the arts flourished and aesthetics developed as a serious branch of philosophy.

During the ‘Age of Goethe and Schiller’, philosophy was dominated by Kant's philosophy and its post-Kantian variations. A problem with traditional philosophical histories of this period is the overwhelmingly Hegelian reading of it, a reading that subsumes all of the so-called minor figures under the shadows of the great system builder, Hegel. Richard Kroner's influential Von Kant bis Hegel of 1921 set the tone for this reading. Silenced by such narratives are the voices of the early German Romantics, a group of thinkers whose impudence created problems for them, and whose work posed hermeneutical challenges that continue to plague a proper understanding of the movement and the worth of its contributions. As we shall see, Hegel himself began to prepare the ground for a history of philosophy that would dismiss the contributions of the early German Romantics, a dismissal that is unfair and unfortunate: unfair because it is based on false characterisations of the movement, and unfortunate because such misreadings lead us to overlook the wealth of insights offered by the early German Romantics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 31 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue on Hegel and Literature , Autumn/Winter 2010 , pp. 61 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beiser, F. (2002), German Idealism: The Struggle against Subjectivism, 1781-1801. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beiser, F. (2003), The Romantic Imperative: The Concept of Early German Romanticism. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J. M. (ed.) (2003), Classic and Romantic German Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, R. J. (1983), Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bubner, R. (1975), ‘Kant, Transcendental Argument and the Problem of Deduction’, Review of Metaphysics 28.3: 453–67.Google Scholar
Bubner, R. (2003), The Innovations of Idealism, trans. Walker, N.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldridge, R. (1997), Leading a Human Life. Wittgenstein, Intentionality, and Romanticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firchow, P. (trans.) (1991), Friedrich Schlegel Philosophical Fragments. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Frank, M. (1995), ‘Alle Wahrheit is Relativ, Alles Wissen Symbolisch: Motive der Grundsatz-Skepsis in der frühen Jenaer Romantik (1796)’, Revue Internationale de Philosophie 197: 403–36.Google Scholar
Frank, M. (1997), Unendliche Annäherung. Die Anfänge der philosophischen Frühromantik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Frank, M. (2004), The Philosophical Foundations of Early German Romanticism, trans. Millán-Zaibert, E.. Albany: SUNY Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gammon, M. (2000), ‘Modernity and the Crisis of Aesthetic Representation in Hegel's Early Writings’ in Maker, W. (ed.), Hegel and Aesthetics. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Gearey, J. (ed.) (1986), Goethe, Essays on Art and Literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goethe, J.W. von (1999), Schriften zur Kunst und Literatur, eds. Harald Steinhagen, et al. . Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Goethe, J. W. von (1994), Essays on Art and Literature, ed. Gearey, J., trans. Ellen, and Nardroff, Ernest H. von. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (2004), ‘Coherence, Consistency, Cogency, Congruity, Cohesiveness, &c.: Remain Calm! Don't Go Overboard!’, New Literary History 35: 167–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1986), Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, ed. Moldenhauer, E. and Michel, K. M.. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (2004), Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics, trans. Bosanquet, B., ed. Inwood, M.. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Humboldt, W. von (1973), ‘On the Historian's Task’ in Iggers, G. G. and Moltke, K. von (eds), The Theory and Practice of History: Leopold von Ranke. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, W. (1972), ‘The Hegel Myth and Its Method’ in MacIntyre, A. (ed.), Hegel: A Collection of Critical Essays. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Lacoue-Labarthe, P. and Nancy, J.-L. (1988), The Literary Absolute. The Theory of Literature in German Romanticism, trans. Barnard, P. and Lester, C.. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Littlejohns, R. (2004), ‘Early Romanticism’ in Mahoney, D. (ed.), The Literature of German Romanticism. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
Millán-Zaibert, E. (2007), Friedrich Schlegel and the Emergence of Romantic Philosophy. Albany: SUNY Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittman, E. and Strand, M. S. (1997), ‘Representing Self and Other in Early German Romanticism’ in Schulte-Sasse, J. et al. (eds), Theory as Practice. A Critical Anthology of Early German Romantic Writings. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Norman, J. (2000), ‘Squaring the Romantic Circle: Hegel.s Critique of Schlegel.s Theories of Art’ in Maker, W. (ed.), Hegel and Aesthetics. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Novalis, (1965), Novalis Schriften, ed. Samuel, R., Mähl, H.-J. and Schutz, G.. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Pöggeler, O. (1954/1955; new edition, 1998), Hegels Kritik der Romantik. München: Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1987), ‘Thugs and Theorists: A Reply to Bernstein’, Political Theory 15.4: 564–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, R. (1989), Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rush, F. (2006), ‘Irony and Romantic Subjectivity’ in Kompridis, N. (ed.), Philosophical Romanticism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schlegel, F. (1958ff), Kritische Friedrich Schlegel Ausgabe, ed. Behler, E., Anstett, J.-J., Eichner, H. et al. Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
Schlegel, F. (2003), On Incomprehensibility in Bernstein, J. M. (ed.), Classic and Romantic German Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Schulte-Sasse, J. et al. (eds) (1997), Theory as Practice: A Critical Anthology of Early German Romantic Writings. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Seyhan, A. (1992), Representation and Its Discontents. The Critical Legacy of German Romanticism. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoljar, M.M. (ed. And trans.) (1997), Novalis. Philosophical Writings. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar