A History of Modern Criticism 1750-1950 Vol.2: The Romantic Age

220 Pages·18.265 MB·English

by  Rene Wellek

OTHER BOOKS BY RENE WELLEK A HISTORY OF MODERN
Kant in England
The Rise of English Liurary History Criticism:
J 750 -1950
Theory of Literature (with Austin Warren)
BY RENE WELLEK
The Romantic Age
•
JONATHAN CAPE Thirty Bedford Square, London
CONTENTS
FIRST PUBLISHED IN GREAT BRITAIN 195.5
Introductio_n
1. Friedrich Schlegel 5
2. August Wilhelm Schlegel 36
Second printing, November, z955
3. The Early Romantics in Germany: 74
Schelling 74
Novalis 82
W ackenroder and Tieck 88
Jean Paul 100
4. From Jeffrey to Shelley 110
5. Wordsworth 130'
6. Coleridge 151 ..
7. Hazlitt, Lamb, and ·Keats 188
8. Madame de Stael and Chateaubriand 216
9. Stendhal and Hugo 241
10. The Italian Critics 259
, 11. The Younger German Romantics: 279
Gorre s 279
'The Brothers Grimm 283
Arnim and Kleist 288
Adam M tiller 291
12. The German Philosophers: 298
Solger 298
Schleiermacher
3°3
Schopenhauer 308
Hegel 318
Conclusion 335
List of Abbreviations and Short Titles 342
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Bibliographies and Notes 343
Chronological Table of Works 441
Index of Names 445
Index of Topics and Terms 455
v
INTRODUCTION
BY THE turn of the 19th century the romantic movements, at least
~;~any and England,.had definitely got under way. In Ger
many the review written largely by the Schlegels, Das A thenaeum
(1798-1800), is the crucial document; in England it is Lyrical
Ballads (1798), by Wordsworth and Coleridge, to which Words
worth added his theoretical Prefa ce in 1800. France seems to lag
behind, since the French romantic movement is usually dated from
the t;h!mph of Hernani (1830) or the appearance of Hugo's pref
ace to Cromwell, three years earlier. Yet in 1813 Madame de Stael
had expounded the classical-romantic distinction in De l' A lle
magne, drawing on August Wilhelm Schlegel. In Italy the classical
romantic debate started in 1816 under the influence of an article
by Madame de Stael. But these recognized landmarks are some
what deceptive: we shall see that even the Schlegels were not con
scious of forming or founding a romantic school. The designation
of contemporary German literature as romantic was due only to
the enemies of the Heidelberg group (Arnim, Brentano, Gorres),
which today is usually called the Younger or Second Romantic
School. Jens Baggesen, a Danish poet residing in Germany, pub
lished a parodistic Klingelklingelalmanach (1808) with the subtitle
Ein Taschenbuch fur vollendete Romantiker und angehende Mys
tiker. Arnim and Brentano took up with eagerness a term which
was meant to be mere mockery. As far as I know, the first extended
account of the new literary party of the ~o-called "Romantiker"
can be found in the eleventh volume (1819) of Friedrich Bouter
wek's monumental Geschichte der Poesie und Beredsamkeit. In
England none ofthe romantic poets recognized himself as a roman
ticist or recognized the relevance of the Continental debate to his
own ti~e and country. In Italy and France one can speak of defi
nitely "romantic" groups: in Milan after 1816, in Paris after 1824.
But if we ignore the question of self-awareness and conscious
1
A HISTORY OF MODERN CRITICISM INTRODUCTION 3
2
advocacy of a romantic creed, I think _we ml!_~ !"ecogn~z~ th~ we classical distinction, but otherwise she and her opponent Chateau
can speak of a general European romantic move~ent only if we briand can be described as adherents of the emotionalistic concept.
t~ke a wide over-all view and consider simply the general rejection With Hugo there emerges in France for the first time a concept of
oE• the neoclassical creed as a common denominator. In a history poetry which can be defined as symbolistic and dialectical.
of criticism the rise of an emotional concept of poetry, the estab In Italy romanticism was largely a slogan recommending truth
lishment of the historical point of view, and the implied rejection ancr contemporaneity in literature. The Italian romanticists antici
of the imitation theory, of the rules and genres are the decisive pated what was iaterJ)roClaimed by the Junge Deutschland and
signs of change, and these must be ascribed to the i8th rather than the early French realists. Foscolo, though no romanticist in his
to the early igth century. :Qid.~rot_fillg Herde! are_lli~key figur~s. formal creed, must be described as close to Madame de Stael in
There is no profound change in doctrinal positions and concepts of his emotionalistic concept and his grasp of the historical point of
poeu-y between them and such "romantic" (in a more narrow view. Leopardi stands apart, with a profoundly personal, com
sense) figures as Wordsworth or Hazlitt, Madame de Stael or pletely "lyrical" concept of poetry. But there is, I believe, no trace
·Foscolo. In a European perspective, in a history of critical thought, of the dialectical symbolistic view in Italy before De Sanctis.
the technical romantic movements mean no radical change. What Thus one can speak of a romantic movement in criticism in two
ev~ their importance· in literary politics, they did not, in them_ very different senses: in a wider sense it was a revolt against neo
selves, make for a break in critical ideas. These had been formu classicism, which meant a rejection of the Latin tradition and the
lated long before. adoptio~ of a view of poetry centered on the expression and com
"--But within this very large movement there arose in Germany munication of emotion. It arose in the i8th century and forms a
a new concept of poetry, symbolistic, dialectical, and historical, wide stream flooding au countries of the West. -
which must be ascribed largely to Kant, Goethe, and Schiller. The ln a more narrow sense we can speak of romantic criticism as
Schlegels, while hostile to Schiller, codified this view and gave it a the establishment of a dialectical and symbolistic view of poetry.
turn which proved of great contemporary relevance. Germany, ft grows out of the organic analogy, developed by Herd~r and
which in the early i8th century had passively received the main Goethe, but proceeds beyond it to a view of poetry as a union of
doctrines of French neoclassicism, became the center of radiation opposites, a system of symbols. In Germany this view was in con-
for critical thought. Especially did August Wilhelm Schlegel play stantdahger of becoming mystical and thus of losing its grip on
a large role as its most effective propagandist. the aesthetic fact itself, but in the Schlegels and a few critics around
The situation in England was, however, totally different: there them a satisfying theory of poetry was developed which guarded
Jeff;ey a nd Wordsworth, though enemies, -developed further the its fences against emotionalism, naturalism, and mysticism and
empirical, psychological view of poetry inherited from the i8th successfully combined symbolism with a profound grasp of literary
century, and only in Coleridge can we speak of a dialectical and history. This view seems to me valuable and substantially true
symbolistic view of poetry. This seems to have been imported from even today. We find it at that time, outside of Germany, only in
Germany, though Coleridge nourished it by reading in the Pla two prominent critics: Coleridge and Hugo.
tonic tradition, which lies back of the Germans. Coleridge, how For a modern theory of literature this view needs to be.described
ever, remained isolated in his time and country, though he influ in all its implications and wealth of suggestions. We shall there
enced Wordsworth and Hazlitt and later Carlyle. But both Words fore start with the Schlegels, whom we shall discuss not according
worth and Hazlitt remained in the empirical psychological British to their .seniority but according to priority in ideas: first the
tradition, and after Coleridge English criticism resumed its course younger Friedrich Schlegel, and then August Wilhelm. They de
in the empirical tradition, almost unaffected by Coleridge's ideas. serve to be treated separately because they are distinct individual
In France Madame de Stael was the importer of the romantic- ities with different points of view. We shall then take up the other
4 A HISTORY OF MODERN CRITICISM
prominent German romantics: the philosopher Schelling, the
mystical poet Novalis, the friends Wackenroder and Tieck, and
finally Jean Paul, who seems to stand somewhat apart. They pro
vide a body of thought and a definition of taste which can be con
sidered as the background for Coleridge. But before discussing I: FRIEDRICH SCHLEGEL
him, we have to turn to the minor English critics of the time from
Jeffrey to Shelley, and to analyze Wordsworth's frequently mis
judged position. After this, Lamb, Hazlitt, and Keats form a dis
tinct·group held together by identical doctrines and a new method FRIEDRICH SCHLEGEL (1772-1829)-five years younger than his
of metaphorical criticism which proved to be highly influential brother August Wilhelm (1767-1845)-was the more original and
throughout the 19th century. In France we must couple Madame seminal mind of the two. His critical activity and effect precedes,
de Stael and Chateaubriand in spite of their apparent antagonism, to a large degree, that of August Wilhelm. It is admittedly diffi
and in the following chapter we shall confront Stendhal and Hugo, cult to decide questions of priority with exactness in the case of
who both seem champions of the same romantic cause but hold two intimate brothers and friends, but there seems little doubt
completely opposite views concerning the nature of poetry. The that the initiative was almost always Friedrich's. However, August
Italians, stimulated as they were by both Madame de Stael and Wilhelm developed distinct critical theories of his own and can
August Wilhelm Schlegel, follow naturally. We shall return to not be described as a mere echo of his brother, even though he
Germany to describe the new developments there, which were not, served as codifier and popularizer of Friedrich's doctrines. One
however, effective outside of Germany at the time under consid can hardly deny the greater effectiveness of August Wilhelm's ex
eration: the mythic, collectivist concept of poetry in Jakob Grimm, positions, especially outside of Germany. His Vienna Lectures on
the view of poetry as irony in Solger, an expressionist theory of Dramatic Art and Literature, which were delivered 1808-09 and
art in Schleiermacher, the new concept of tragedy in Schopen published 18og-11, affected the course of critical thought very
hauer, and the final synthesis of German aesthetic speculation in widely, especially after they had been translated into French ( 1814),
the grandiose system of Hegel. In the Conclusion we shall look English (1815), and Italian (1817). It is also true that Friedrich
briefly at the other minor countries and open a vista into the fu Schlegel was far less influential outside of Germany, since his con
ture. version to Roman Catholicism in 1808 prevented him from re
publishing most of his early writings and on the whole limited
the appeal of his later work to the definitely conservative and
Catholic world of the Restoration period. The Lectures on Ancient
J.
and Modern Literature, translated into English by G. Lockhart
in 1815, was the only book of Friedrich's which attracted inter
national attention.
The early writings of Friedrich Schlegel, however, are of the
greatest significance both for the history of romanticism and a
general history of criticism. In close proximity to Schiller (whom
he came to hate) Friedrich renewed the debate on ancients and
moderns and developed from it the theory of the romantic which
in his brother's version spread, literally, around the world. But
Friedrich was not merely the propagandist of a catchword, the
5
6 A HISTORY OF MODERN CRITICISM FRIEDRICH SCHLEGEL 7
writer of literary manifestoes which would give him purely his self." 1 Greek poetry thus contains a complete collection of ex
torical importance; he was also the author of a critical theory which amples of all the different genres and contains them in a natural
anticipates many of the most urgent interests of our own time. In order of evolution. It serves both as a theory of genres and as a
Friedrich's theory of the romantic there were contained and im picture of the whole cycle of the organic evolution of an art, as a
plied theories of irony and myth in literature and the novel which kind of laboratory for theory, as "the eternal natural history of
are pertinent even today. Moreover, Friedrich Schlegel reflected taste and art." 2 This evolution is conceived on the analogy of
on the theories of criticism, interpretation, and literary history so biological evolution, in terms of growth, proliferation, blossoming,
fruitfully that he can be claimed as the originator of hermeneutics, maturing, hardening, and final dissolution,3 an analogy which dur
the theory of "understanding" which was later formulated by ing the 19th century received a great deal of impetus from Dar
Schleiermacher and Boeckh and thus influenced the whole long winian evolutionism and led to such curiosities of literary history
line of German theoreticians of methodology. These are solid as Brunetiere's evolutionary histories or John Addington Symonds'
claims to fame, to which we must add Friedrich's pioneering work Shakspere's Predecessors in the Drama. Though this Greek evolu
in Indic philology and philosophy and his wide-ranging histori tion must be thought of as somehow necessary and fated and the
cal and practical criticism of Goethe and Lessing, Homer, Ca table of genres as complete, Friedrich Schlegel did not succumb
moes, Boccaccio, and many other writers of almost all a,ges and na to the relativistic implications of his theory. When he said over
tions. and over again that the "best theory of art is its history" 4 he did
Friedrich Schlegel started out as a classical philologist. His am not mean the usual 19th-century historical relativism which is still
bition was to become the "Winckelmann of Greek poetry," and crippling our present-day literary scholarship. He did not give up
all his early publications, which include two books,• are devoted the task of evaluation or hide behind neutral history. In these early
to this plan. But Friedrich Schlegel's studies of Greek poetry were writings Friedrich Schlegel found his standard in the prescriptive
not, of course, antiquarian contributions to literary history nature, the ideal model of the great Greek classics; and late in his
(though they display an astonishing learning for so young a man). life he came to impose more and more religious criteria derived
As such they would necessarily be obsolete today and merit only from his Christian philosophy. But in his middle stage, which
mention in a history of classical scholarship. Rather, he conceived clearly is the most interesting today, he recognized that the Greeks
of literary history as so closely integrated with criticism that the cannot command the unique position he had claimed for them and
history of Greek literature appeared to him both the nourishing that his theory of the relation between history and criticism must
soil and the proving ground of an aesthetic. Greek literature, in be extended to the whole of literature without idolatry of any one
these early writings, was considered uniquely suitable to such a nation .or age. He saw that the whole history of the arts and
purpose, for Friedrich Schlegel not only saw the Greek works as sciences forms an order, one whole, or as he came to call it, an
eternal models of perfection, as archetypes of poetry, but also "organism" or an "encyclopedia," and that this order is the "source
thought of Greek literary history as natural, spontaneous, un of objective laws for all positive criticism." 6 For Schlegel literature
disturbed by outside interference, and complete in itself. Greek thus forms "a great completely coherent and evenly organized
culture is called "throughout original and national, a whole com whole comprehending in its unity many worlds of art and itself
plete in itself, which merely by internal evolution reached its forming a peculiar work of art." 6 T. S. Eliot in "Tradition and
-highest summit and, in a complete cycle, then sank back into it- the Individual Talent" has said substantially the same. But
• Griechen und Romer (1797), which contains a long paper, "Ober Schlegel-differing fro~ the unhistorical Eliot-can say that he is
das Studium der griechischeil Poesie," written in 1794-g5, and some "disgusted with every theory which is not historical" 7 and that
smaller pieces; and Geschichte der Poesie der Griechen und Romer the "completion of every science is often nothing but the philo
(1798), which, however, breaks off before treating Greek tragedy. sophical result of its history." 8 Schlegel thus rejects both unhis-
8 A HISTORY OF MODERN CRITICISM FRIEDRICH SCHLEGEL 9
torical theorizing and historical relativism. He recognizes that the author's secret intentions, which he pursues in silence and of which
result of Herder's universal tolerance is the denial of any general we can never assume too many in a genius.'' 17 We should uncover
standard of evaluation, in effect the abdication of criticism. The the deeply hidden, the unfathomable, and understand an author
method of Herder to "contemplate every flower of art, without even better than he understood himself.18 These are dangerous
evaluation, only according to place, time, and kind, would finally and paradoxical theories, with a measure of truth which has been
lead to the result that everything must be as it is and was." 9 Also, exploited by much modern criticism far beyond Friedrich
in later years Friedrich Schlegel rejected Adam Muller's similar Schlegel's dreams. Mostly, though, Schlegel suggests sound and
concept of "mediating" (vermittelnd) criticism, since it abolishes sober principles of interpretation. He repeats the commonplaces
the difference between the good and the bad and amounts to say of the historical spirit, the necessity of sympathetic entry into re
ing, "Providence orders everything for the best, and everything mote times and countries, and he always stresses that one must
had to come about as it did according to the philosophy, so dear know all the writings of an author in order to grasp their common
to our contemporaries, of King Gorboduc: 'All that is, is.' " But spirit. In "art history," he understands, "one mass explains and illu
the critical view cannot be simply absorbed by the historical be minates the other. It is impossible to understand a part by it
cause books are not "original creatures.'' 10 These protests against self.'' 19 The construction and knowledge of the whole (of art and
historical relativism are timely even today and were timely espe poetry) is the one and essential condition of all criticism.20 History
cially in Germany, where in the later 19th century historical rela and criticism are one. Every artist illuminates every other artist:
tivism destroyed criticism more thoroughly than in any other together they form an order.
country. Schlegel attempts to describe what is needed in good criticism:
Beyond formulating convincingly the relation between history "(1) a kind of geography of a world of art; (2) a spiritual and
and criticism and stressing the aim of criticism as the "ascertaining aesthetic architectonics of the work, its nature, its tone; and finally
of the value and nonvalue of poetic works of art," 11 Schlegel made (3) iis psychological genesis, its motivation by laws and conditions
many fruitful suggestions concerning the nature of critical pro of human nature.'' 21 He speaks constantly of the whole: the spirit,
cedure and interpretation. It is obvious that he derives from the the tone, the general impression. Mostly he thinks of criticism as a
tradition o£ philology.12 He always stresses the share of philology "reconstructive" process. The critic must "reconstruct, perceive,
in critical practice: "one cannot read out of pure philosophy or and characterize the more subtle peculiarities of a whole ....
poetry without philology.'' 18 Philology means to him the love of One can say that one has understood a work and a mind only if
words, the detailed attention to the text, "reading," interpreta one can reconstruct its course and structure. This profound under
tion. A critic, he can say wittily, "is a reader who chews his cud. standing, if expressed in definite words, is called characterization
He should have more than one stomach.'' 14 Reading or interpreta and is the actual business and inner essence of criticism.'' 22 Yet
tion is always understood to be the right combination of micrology Schlegel has no use for the psychology of the reader, and he is
and attention to the whole. "One should exercise the art of read- · strongest in his condemnation of the British psychological critics
ing both very slowly in a constant analysis of the detail and more like Karnes. 23 He makes the sensible distinction between "fantas
quickly, in one swoop, for a survey of the whole.'' u One should tics" (i.e. the theory of creation, of imagination) and "pathetics" (a
not merely be sensitive to beautiful passages but be able to seize theory of the psychology of the reader, of the effects of poetry), but
the impression of the whole, since "the first condition of all under comes then to the conclusion that "not much is gained for criticism
standing, and hence also of the understanding of a work of art, so long as one wants only to explain the aesthetic sense in general,
is an intuition of the whole.'' 16 instead of thoroughly exercising, applying, and forming it." 24 He
Schlegel wants the critic to "spy on what he wanted to hide from therefore rightly remarks that "almost all judgments on art are
our sight or at least did not want to show himself at first: on the either too general or too specific. The critics should look for the
10 A HISTORY OF MODERN CRITICISM FRIEDRICH SCHLEGEL 11
golden mean here in their own productions, not in the works of the existing, completed, even exhausted literature" but the organon
poets." 2J5 of a literature which is just beginning to form itself. It is thus a
Schlegel recognizes also the dangers of what we might call ex criticism which is not merely explanatory and conservative but
clamatory criticism. "If many mystical lovers of art who consider all productive-at least indirectly so, by guidance, command, or in
criticism dissection and every dissection a destruction of enjoyment stigation. His own criticism was surely "productive" in his great
30
were to think consistently, 'I'll be damned!' would be the best years, when he stimulated a whole emerging literature and helped
judgment on the greatest work. There are critics who do not say to give it directibn. Instigating, directing, "producing" a new
more, though at much greater length." 26 In general he describes literature will always be one of the tasks of criticism which cannot
the aim of criticism as "to give us a reflection of the work, to com be reduced-as is fashionable today-to the preservation and
municate its peculiar spirit, to present the pure impression in such winnowing of tradition. But "creative" criticism, the production
a way that the presentation itself verifies the artistic citizenship of of another work of art, is an aberration, a needless duplication of
its author: not merely a poem about a poem, in order to dazzle for a work of art, a blurring of necessary distinctions.
a moment; not merely the impression which a work has made yes Schlegel's actual standards of evaluation and conception of
terday or makes today on this or that person; but the impression poetry changed at least twice in his career: about 796, when he
i
which it should always make on all educated people." 27 This recog abandoned his "Graecornania"-apparently under the impact
nizes the universal appeal any critical judgment makes, a claim largely of Schiller's treatise on Naive and Sentimental Poetry
which Schlegel apparently found excessive at times: he would say and, more slowly and gradually, after 1801, when he moved toward
merely that the "finished view of a work is always a critical fact" a purely religious conception which finally 1ed him to his conver
and that it can make no other claims than its "invitation to every sion in 1808. But long before, poetry had become subordinated in
body to seize his own impression just as purely and to define it just his mind to philosophy and religion. In the early writings on
as strictly" 28 as the critic himself. At times, however, he can em Greek poetry, especially "Ober das Studiurn der griechischen
brace the fallacy of "creative" criticism. "Poetry can only be Poesie," which, we must remember, was finished before Schlegel
criticized by poetry. A judgment on art which is not itself a work could have read Schiller's treatise, Schlegel expounds a view of the
of art, either in its matter, as presentation of a necessary impression contrast between the ancients and the moderns which in many
in its genesis, or in its beautiful form and a liberal tone in the ways is very similar to Schiller's. It derives, of course, from
spirit of old Roman satire, has no citizens' rights in the realm of Winckelmann, from Schiller's Letters on Aesthetic Education, and
art." 29 But possibly the subclauses limit the demand of the main from Goethe, yet it is elaborated with sharp distinctiveness and
clause: actually a work of criticism is artistic to Schlegel if it is a dogmatic assertiveness. The ideal of poetry is Greek poetry which
precise reproduction of an impression or if it simply has the satiri is objective, "disinterested" (in the Kantian sense), perfect in form,
cal polemical tone, the verve he loved and admired in himself and impersonal, pure in its genres, and free from merely didactic and
others. moralistic considerations. But more important than this rehearsal
"Polemics" is one of Friedrich ·schlegel's favorite words ,and of the familiar traits of Winckelmannian "classicity" is Schlegel's
concepts. One of the functions of criticism is negative, the removal negative characterization of the moderns.
of the false, the making of room for the better, and this is polemics Modern poetry is artificial, "interesting" (i.e. not disinterested,
as practiced by writers like Lessing. "Polemics" is only the obverse involved in the author's personal ends), "characteristic," "man
side of "productive" criticism, by which Schlegel means something nered" (in Goethe's sense, which contrasts subjective manner with
much more practical and useful than "creative" criticism. He objective style), impure in its mixing and confusion of genres, im
means criticism which we might possibly better call "incitory" or pure in its admixture of the didactic and philosophical, impure
"anticipatory," criticism which is not the "commentary on an in its inclusion of even the ugly and the monstrous, and anarchic
A HISTORY OF MODERN CRITICISM FRIEDRICH SCHLEGEL
modern" and "not in the least romantic," while Shakespeare is the mains at least for communication in an illiberal frame of mind." 47
"real center and core of romantic imagination." The romantic Thus art demands the "liberal frame of mind," the power of the art
thus can be found rather in the Renaissance and the Middle Ages, ist to raise himself above his own "highest." 48 "Irony is a clear con
"in that age of knights, of love and fairy tales, whence the thing and sciousness of the infinitely full chaos," 49 of the dark and inexplica
the word are derived." 40 But then the romantic is said to be not ble world, but it is also highly self-conscious, for irony is self-parody,
a genre but an element of poetry, which may dominate or recede "transcendental buffoonery" which "rises above one's art, virtue,
50
more or less yet must never be totally absent. All poetry, Schlegel and genius." Irony is thus associated with "transcendental ,
concludes illogically, must be romantic. These passages contain the poetry," with the "poetry of poetry" which Schlegel finds in Pin-'
essential distinctions of the romantic from the classical and the dar, Dante, and Goethe. Irony to Schlegel is objectivity, complete
modern (i.e. pseudo-classical). But Friedrich Schlegel does not con superiority, detachment, manipulation of the subject matter.
sider his own age romantic: he singles out the novels of Jean Paul Schlegel praises Wilhelm Meister for the irony with which the hero
as the "only romantic products of an unromantic age." 41 Nor does is portrayed by Goethe, who seems to "smile down from the heights
he expressly contrast the classical and the romantic (though he of his spirit upon his masterwork"; 51 and he looks for similar atti
alludes to their possible union).42 The most influential formula tudes in Aristophanes, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Swift, Sterne, and
tions of the great dichotomy belong only to his brother, August Jean Paul.
Wilhelm, even though all its elements are in Friedrich Schlegel. There is no evidence that Schlegel found irony in the constant
Schlegel's poetic ideal takes on much more concrete meaning if interference of the author in his work, in the deliberate breaking
we examine his demands for irony, myth, and the mysterious, his of the illusion. Only in one fragment (No. 42 of the Lyceum) is
conception of the novel, in fact his whole new hierarchy of genres. there an allusion to the Italian bufjo which might be so inter
He does not call irony "romantic irony." All the early passages us preted.52 But Schlegel speaks there of poetry in general, not of the
ing the term comment on the irony of Socrates, on his "sublime drama, and the reference to the buffo means only that the ironic
urbanity," without any particular modern application.43 Only the author always smiles at' his imperfect medium just as the buffo
review of Wilhelm Meister (1798) and the Gesprach ilber die laughs at his comic role. There is no recommendation of very old
Poesie (1800) give it a meaning in the context of modern literature. devices of art: the playwright on the stage, the play within the play,
I Irony is, in part, associated with Schiller's play-concept of art, the the author appearing in his own novel, which became such particu
I
Kantian view of art as free activity. We demand irony, "we demand lar favorites of Tieck and Brentano, E. T. A. Hoffmann and Heine,
that the events, the people, in brief the whole play of life, should and came to be known as "romantic irony." At the time that
really be conceived and represented as play." 44 Irony is associated Schlegel formulated his ideas on irony he did not know Tieck's
with paradox. It is "a form of paradox. Paradox is what is at the comedies and he never considered them realizations of his ideals.
same time good and great." 45 Irony is his recognition of the fact Goethe, Shakespeare, and Cervantes were his ironists, not his fel
that the world in its essence is paradoxical and that an ambivalent low romanticists.•
attitude alone can grasp its contradictory totality. For Schlegel
• Schlegel's interpretation of irony has been argued over rather
irony is the struggle between the absolute and the relative, the
he;;ttedly, e.g. by Kathe Friedemann, "Die romantische Ironie," Zeit
simultaneous consciousness of the impossibility and the necessity
schrift fur Aesthetik, z3 (1919), 270-82; Carl Enders, "Fichte und die
of a complete account of reality.46 The writer must thus feel am
Lehre von der romantischen Ironie," op. cit., z4 (1920), 279-84; Alfred
bivalent toward his work: he stands above and apart from it and Lussky, Tieck's Romantic Irony, Chapel Hill, 1932; and Oskar Walzel,
manipulates it_a lmost playfully. "In order to be able to describe Romantisches (Bonn, 1934), pp. 73-93. I am convinced by Raymond
an object well," Schlegel can say, "one must have ceased to be inter Immerwahr, "The Subjectivity or Objectivity of Friedrich Schlegel's
ested in it . . . as long as the artist invents and is inspired he re- Poetic Irony," Germanic Review, :i.6 (1951), 173--91.
A HISTORY OF MODERN CRITICISM FRIEDRICH SCHLEGEL
Still, Schlegel's theory easily lent itself to a subjectivist interpre · the pantheism of Spinoza and the Orient, especially India, a hint
tation; in his own novel Lucinde he certainly exemplified extreme which he later pursued systematically in his own Indic studies.
subjectivism, playing with illusion, moral and artistic irresponsi But Schlegel apparently does not mean by myth merely a new
bility. There is no contradiction between these two attitudes, cosmology or an exploitation of philosophical concepts; he thinks
and in dialectical thinking one extreme easily passes into the of it, rather, as a system of correspondences and symbols. Myth
other. is an analogue of the "wit of romantic poetry," as it is exemplified
Friedrich Schlegel introduced the term irony into modern liter in the works of Cervantes and Shakespeare, which are full of "art
ary discussion. Before, there are only adumbrations in Hamann. fully arranged confusion, charming symmetry of contrasts, marvel
Schlegel's use of the term differs from the earlier purely rhetorical ous eternal alteration of enthusiasm and irony." Myth is some
meaning and from the view of tragic irony in Sophocles which was thing he calls "an indirect mythology," 54 a new world view which
developed early in the lgth century by Connop Thirlwall. Schle abolishes the course of logical reason and returns us to the "beau
gel's concept was taken up by Solger, in whom it first assumed a tiful confusion of imagination, the original chaos of human nature,
central position for critical theory and for whom all art becomes for which I do not as yet know any more beautiful symbol than the
'irony. Hegel and later Kierkegaard criticized Schlegel's concept, colorful milling throng of the ancient Gods." 55 However obscurely
utterly mistaking it as a consequence of his adherence to the Fich this is phrased, the sense becomes clear if we see the passage in the
tean philosophy of ego, as sheer opportunism, artistic and moral light of the other pronouncements on irony and the romantic.
frivolity.* But in the actual texts there is no justification for such "Idealism" (i.e. Fichtean philosophy) means free play; life as play
disparagement. One must realize, moreover, that irony for Schlegel and all art as symbolic. Schlegel does not yet use the distinction
is only one element of modern self-consciousness and is combined between allegory and symbol drawn by Goethe and Schelling. He
with very different requirements. thus can say, "All beauty is allegory" and "Because it is inex
Among these, Friedrich Schlegel's demand for a new myth, an pressible, one can express the highest only allegorically." 56 Art,
ironical, self-consciously elaborated, philosophical myth, is the therefore, is myth, symbolism, even "divine magic." 57
most striking. In the speech on mythology, which also forms a part More light is thrown on Schlegel's conception of poetry by sev
of the Gesprach uber die Poesie (1800), Schlegel develops the thesis eral recently published fragments on beauty. Schlegel distinguishes
-familiar today and still relevant-that modem literature lacks there between multiplicity, unity, and totality in beauty. The triad
the support, the mother-soil, of myth. Classical and Christian my is derived from Kant's table of the categories of quantity,58 which
thology had been used throughout the course of modern literature, he interprets as plenty, richness, and life in a work of art; harmony,
and Germans preceding Schlegel, especially Herder and Klopstock, organization; and perfection or divinity. The first two criteria are
had loudly called for the revival of Teutonic mythology, a return the well-known requirements of unity and variety, local texture
to the sources of folk imagination. But Schlegel suggests a new and and general structure, or whatever we may call them today. The
different mythology which would derive a new system of relation third category is clearly the same as the mythic or the infinite of
ships, a "hieroglyphical expression of surrounding nature," 58 from other passages. At times, Schlegel has in mind simply the cosmic
the new idealistic philosophy (Fichte) and the new physics (Schel quality of art which was familiar to Schiller and Kant. The "in
ling's Naturphilosophie). The exact nature of the new mythology finite" is the morally sublime, the assertion of man's moral free
is left vague in this manifesto. Schlegel suggests as further sources dom, his resistance to suffering in tragedy; 59 but mostly, with in
creasing emphasis and frequency, poetry becomes a part of divine
• Connop Thirlwall, "On the Irony of Sophocles," reprinted in Re
creation, a smaller parallel to the work of art which is nature. "All
mains Literary and Theological (London, 1878)., 3, 1-57. On Solger and
holy plays of art are only distant imitations of the infinite play of
Hegel see below, p. 299 £, 324. Soren Kierkegaard, Der Begrifj der lronie
(1841); two Ger. trans., Munich, i929. the world, of the eternally self-creating work of art" 60-so runs an