Friedrich
Schlegel (1772-1829) – whose full name was Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel –
was a leading philosopher of German Romanticism, as well as a poet and a
scholar. Together with his brother August Schlegel he was at the center of
early German Romanticism. Romanticism was an 18th-19th century movement that
appeared in Germany, Britain, France, and other countries. Its ideal was to
unify the different aspects of the human world – philosophy, poetry, the sciences,
art, nature – around aesthetics, or beauty. As Friedrich Schlegel wrote: “The
Romantic imperative demands that all nature and science should become art, and
art should become nature and science.” This ideal took various shapes,
sometimes that beauty is the basis of truth, sometimes that poetry should be
the model of all fields of knowledge, or that life and philosophy should be
made poetic, etc. The result was much emphasis on feelings, creative
imagination, and non-rational elements of existence (although without rejecting
reason and systematic thinking).
Friedrich Schlegel was born in Hanover,
Germany. In his mid-twenties he moved to Jena and collaborated with Novalis,
Ludwig Tieck, Fichte, and Caroline Schelling (who married his brother). Together
with his brother, he founded the journal Athenaeum, and published in it
fragments and essays about the principles of Romanticism. He later moved to
Berlin, where he lived with the thinker Friedrich Schleiermacher and met his
future wife, Dorothea Veit, daughter of the Jewish thinker Moses Mendelssohn.
She was a married woman, nine years older than him, but they started an affair.
Even after she divorced, they remained unmarried, because he despised social
norms. Eventually they married and joined the Catholic Church. After some
writing and publishing activity he went to Paris, where he gave philosophy
lectures and studied Indian languages and wisdom. He published an influential
book on the topic, in which he argued that European languages and Sanskrit have
a common origin, a view that is accepted today. Throughout the years his social
and political views changed: he turned away from his earlier radicalism and
became conservative and opposed to civil liberties. In 1809 he went to Vienna
and took up political positions and also wrote texts on philosophy, literature
and history. He died at the
age of 56.
On
philosophizing - Fragments and
Symphilosophy
The
following are some of “the Atheneum fragments” which Schlegel published in
1797-1798 in Atheneum, the journal which he and his brother founded. For the
Romantics, particularly for Schlegel, the philosophical fragment was an
important format of writing philosophy. Each fragment is an incomplete idea,
written spontaneously, and is therefore open-ended. It inspires or suggests,
but without having a finished meaning. In this sense, a collection of
philosophical fragments is creatively open to the universe. It points to the
unity of everything, but without trying to capture it with a theory.
The idea of writing in fragments is related to
another Romanic notion used by Schlegel, that of symphilosophy (Symphilosophie
in German) – which means philosophizing together. In this process, each
philosopher contributes a few fragments, so that the collection of fragments
creates a whole composed by several authors. Both of these methods,
fragment-writing and symphilosophy, were used to point to an ideal harmonic
whole which cannot be captured in a theory. But this does not mean that the
Romantics rejected systematic philosophy. Rather, they aimed at a balance
between systematic and fragmentary thinking. Indeed, Schlegel also wrote and
lectured systematic texts and lectures.
53. It
is equally fatal for the mind to have a system and to have none. The mind will
simply have to decide to combine the two.
54. You can only be in the process of becoming
a philosopher, you cannot be one. As soon as you think that you are a
philosopher, you stop becoming one.
77. A dialogue is a chain or garland of
fragments. An exchange of letters is a dialogue on a larger scale. And memoirs
constitute a system of fragments. But so far, no existing genre is fragmentary
both in its form and in its content: completely subjective and individual – and
at the same time completely objective, and like a necessary part in a system of
all the sciences.
112. Philosophers who are not opposed to each
other are usually joined only by sympathy, not by symphilosophy.
116. Romantic poetry is a progressive,
universal poetry. Its aim is not just to reunite all the separate types of
poetry and put poetry in touch with philosophy and rhetoric. It tries to, and
has to, mix and fuse poetry and prose, inspiration and criticism, the poetry of
art and the poetry of nature, and make poetry lively and sociable, and make
life and society poetical. It should poeticize wit, and fill and saturate the
forms of art with every kind of good solid educational matter, and animate them
with the pulses of humor. It embraces everything that is purely poetic, from
the greatest systems of art […] to the sigh, to the kiss that the poetizing
child breathes in a natural song. […] Only Romantic poetry can become, like the
epic, a mirror of the whole surrounding world, an image of the period. […]
The
romantic kind of poetry is still in the process of becoming. This, in fact, is
its real essence: that it is always in the process of becoming and is never
perfected. It cannot be exhausted by any theory, and only a guessing
interpretation would dare try to characterize its ideal. It alone is infinite,
just as it alone is free, and it recognizes as its first commandment that the
will of the poet cannot tolerate any law above itself. The romantic kind of
poetry is the only one that is more than a kind – it is, as it were, poetry
itself. Because in a certain sense, all poetry is, or should be, romantic.
125. Perhaps there would be a birth of a whole
new historical period of the sciences and arts if symphilosophy and sympoetry
became so universal and heartfelt that it would no longer be unusual for
several complementary minds to create communal works of art. One is often
struck by the idea that two minds really belong together, like divided halves
that can realize their full potential only when joined. […]
206. A
fragment, like miniature work of art, must be entirely isolated from the
surrounding world, and be completely in itself like a porcupine.
264. You shouldn’t try to symphilosophize with
everyone, only with those who are à la hauteur.
297. A work is cultivated when it is everywhere
sharply limited by boundaries, but within those limits it is limitless and
inexhaustible; when it is completely faithful to itself, entirely homogenous,
and nevertheless exalted above itself. Like the education of young Englishmen,
the most important thing about it is le grand tour. It should have traveled
through all the three or four continents of humanity […] in order to broaden
its vision and give its spirit more freedom and inner versatility, and thus
greater independence and self-sufficiency.
344. Philosophy is a mutual search for
omniscience.
451. Universality is the gradual realization
of all forms and substances. Universality can reach harmony only through the
unification of poetry and philosophy; and even the greatest and most universal
works of isolated poetry and philosophy seem to lack this final synthesis. They
come to a stop, still imperfect but close to the goal of harmony. The life of
the Universal Spirit is an unbroken chain of inner revolutions. All individuals
– that is, all original and eternal individuals – live in it. It is a genuine
polytheist, and it bears within itself all Olympus.
Philosophy
and the unity of life.
Throughout
his philosophical career, Schlegel believed that philosophy, like poetry,
should aim at the unity of life. Although the life we see around us seems to be
divided, although it consists of conflict and contradictions, life in its
highest form is a unity. Romantic philosophy, as he envisioned it, aims at
restoring this unity.
The following text is adapted from Lecture 1
from his series of lectures, titled “Philosophy of Language,” which he gave in
Germany during the last years of life, in 1828-29. By this time he had turned
away from his radical years, and had become conservative in his political and
ethical views. Yet, the theme of philosophy as unifying life remained central
in his late philosophy. Schlegel argues here that if we want to truly
understand life, we should explore it not in everyday moments in which it is
fragmented and in conflict, but in its pure or higher state, in which it is a
harmonious unity.
“If the
object of philosophy is the sublime understanding of our inner life, which
struggles to expose the mystery of its own being, how could it possibly want to
exclude one half of humanity, or society, or of civilized life? The proper
sphere of philosophy, no less than of art, is the whole of human life. […]
Therefore, the field in which philosophy has to act and work is not a narrow
field, limited and confined by some unjustified exclusivity. On the contrary,
it must be complete and perfect, as much as humanly possible. And for this
reason, too, philosophy must not, and cannot start from a consciousness that is
artificially divided, and which is only half of its true self, and which, biased
in its views, is divorced from real life. It can originate only from the mind’s
greatest perfection and its full and most undivided totality, so that it makes
this consciousness clear to itself and to others.
[…]
A true
and living philosophy cannot choose and follow the method of higher and higher
abstraction, much less can it regard it as the only right method. It starts,
rather, from life itself and the feeling of life, and indeed from a feeling and
consciousness of life which strives to be as complete as possible. It does not
seek its success and hope of true knowledge in any artificial and elaborate
division of the human mind. […] This kind of philosophy is based on an
assumption which is entirely arbitrary, and which is discovered to be baseless
once we examine it more carefully: It assumes that the human mind as it exists
now is in a perfect state, and has always remained entire and complete, and has
not changed from its original constitution. It believes that nothing is missing
for the task of finding the truth, except for a careful and skillful analysis
of man’s self-consciousness, and a correct and appropriate classification of
its different elements. But we, in contrast, whenever we examine the experience
of our inner consciousness, and try carefully to understand it simply as it is,
the first thing that strikes us most strongly is conflict and opposition – not
only between ourselves and the external world, but also within our own self in
the inmost center of the mind. Thus, our mind seems to fall apart and to split
into absolute unconsciousness and irreconcilable contrarieties.
[…]
The
immediate and specific aim of philosophy is simply to analyze and clearly
understand the psychological fact of the conflict and opposition which exists
between the several faculties of the soul and spirit, and to present it just as
it is. After accomplishing this, philosophy will continue to show the point
from which the work of restoration must begin, or at least the way which leads
to it – the path of returning to the original harmony of the soul. In other
words, the ultimate object of philosophy will be to discover the way to restore
a living and perfect consciousness, and to create a more harmonious cooperation
of its divided powers and faculties, whether of soul or spirit.
Now, even in ordinary experience, under
certain circumstances this inner conflict and disagreement between the
understanding and the will, reason and imagination, is happily overcome. When
this happens, the faculties which previously were separated and divided, or
which fought against each other, are brought into profitable agreement and
harmony, at least partly. These rare moments are characterized by extraordinary
energy of character, unique artistic genius, or other high and rare mental
gifts. These, therefore, do not only prove the possibility of restoring the
conflicting and isolated elements of the inner man to completeness of unity and
entirety of life, but also provide stable starting points from which we can
begin with the work of restoration. Such moments, however, are only exceptions
from the usual situation. They are, no doubt, fortunate and rare exceptions,
but even so they prove the universal fact of the internal conflict among the
faculties of the human mind.
[…]
To sum
up, the ordinary state of the human mind, as it shows itself in its present
condition to our inner perception, is in a state of four-fold conflict and
disturbance. We may say that it is a consciousness divided to four, that it is
the victim of the double opposition between the understanding and the will, and
between reason and imagination. […] Now, the return from the divided mind into
a harmonious consciousness is the very beginning of a true philosophy of life,
and, indeed, of a renewed and enhanced vitality. “
Poetic
energy.
Poetry
was a central topic for German Romantic thinkers. It was viewed as a
metaphysical force representing unity, harmony, and beauty, which were
humanity’s highest goals and aspirations. Poetry was often associated with
philosophy – poetry and philosophy enriching each other, uniting, and acting
towards unity and harmony.
Friedrich Schlegel, who was the main critical
thinker of the German Romantic school, spoke about poetry in many of his texts.
But his most important text about the topic was Dialogue on poetry, published
in 1800. It is structured, like Plato’s Symposium, as a collection of speeches
and conversations between several people. The selections below are from the
first two main sections, “Epochs of literature” and “Talk on mythology”
(slightly adapted for ease of reading). They express Schlegel’s idea that
poetry is a metaphysical energy that flows through human history.
“Epochs
of literature’
This
first main section is about the history of poetry. It describes Homer as the
“fountain” of Greek poetry and Western poetry in general. From there, poetry
continued to flow like a river that inspired future poets and that split into
several smaller rivers. The details of this historical exposition should not
interest us here, but note that Schlegel uses the metaphor of a flowing river
of poetic inspiration:
“It is
an essential quality of all art to follow closely what has already been formed.
Therefore, history goes back from generation to generation, from phase to
phase, always farther back into antiquity, to its original source.
For the modern generation, for Europe, this
source resides in Greece, and for the Greeks and their poetry is was Homer and
his followers. This was the inexhaustible source of poetry, a powerful stream
of representation in which waves of life rush against each other, a peaceful
ocean where the fullness of the earth and the splendor of the heavens are
nicely reflected. Just as the ancient thinkers saw water as the beginning of
nature, so does the oldest poetry manifest itself in fluid form.”
From
ancient Greece, the flow of poetic energies continued to flow in many rivers
throughout the history of Europe: “…The Romans had only a short outburst of
poetry… the stream of fervent love flowed powerfully from Horace’s sincere
heart… With the appearance of the Teutons, a new fountain of a new heroic
poetry flowed across Europe. And then the wild energy of Gothic poetry merged…
After it sprang from such sources, the stream of poetry in the fortunate
Italian nation could not run dry again…”
Talk on
mythology
In the
next section, which is also built as a speech, Schlegel presents his vision
about the essence and future of poetry. He tells us that the spirit of poetry
must be given a new life. But in order to do this, it needs a new cultural
source of life. Without such a common fountain, each poet would be a separate
creator, an isolated little fountain that is forced to start poetry from the
beginning. This common fountain of poetic inspiration, Schlegel proposes, is
mythology – a non-rational, complex, “chaotic” framework about human life,
nature, and reality.
Poetry needs individual creators, but it also
needs a cultural fountain of poetic energies. To be a poet you must have
certain personal gifts, but you also need to be connected to the river of
poetic energies that is bigger than you. In the ancient world, this river was
fed by mythology. Now, in modern times, we need a new poetic source that would
unify all poetic creativity.
“You
yourselves have written poetry, and you must have often felt the absence of a
firm foundation for your activity, a matrix, a sky, a living atmosphere. The
modern poet is forced to create all these things from within himself, and many
have done it wonderfully. But until now, each poet had to do it separately, and
to work on it from its very beginning, like a new creation out of nothing.
I will go right to the point. Our poetry, I
maintain, lacks a focus, something like mythology was for the ancients. We can
summarize the inferiority of modern poetry to ancient poetry in these words: We
have no mythology. But, I add, we are close to getting one! Or, rather, it is
time that we work seriously together to create one.
[…]
The new
mythology must be created from the deepest depths of the spirit. It must be the
most creative work of art, because it must include all the other arts. It must
be a new vessel for the ancient eternal fountain of poetry, an infinite poem
which contains the seeds of all other poems.
You may smile at this mystical poem, and at
the disorder that might result from so many poetic creations. But the highest
beauty – indeed the highest order – is that of chaos. It is a chaos which waits
only for the touch of love to reveal itself as a harmonious world, a chaos like
ancient mythology and poetry were. Because mythology and poetry are one and
inseparable. All poems of antiquity join one another, until a whole is created
from the many members. Everything inter-penetrates everything else, and
everywhere there is one and the same spirit, only expressed differently. And
thus, it is not an empty image to say: Ancient poetry is a single, indivisible,
and perfect poem. Why shouldn’t that which once was, come to life again? – in a
different way, of course. And why not in a more beautiful, in a greater
way?
[…]
Because
this is the beginning of all poetry: To cancel the laws of rationally thinking
reason, and to transplant us once again into the beautiful confusion of the
imagination, into the original chaos of human nature. I don’t know a better
symbol for this than the many different gods of the ancient world.
[…]
We must
be able to press towards the goal in more than one way. Let each one of us
pursue his own way in joyful confidence in the most individual manner. Because
individuality has the greatest validity here, where the sublime is at issue –
as long as we understand what individuality means: indivisible unity and an
inner and vital coherence. From this standpoint, I would not hesitate to say
that the true value – indeed the virtue of man, is his originality.
[…]
And so,
let us, by light and life, no longer hesitate, but accelerate the great
development to which we are called, each one according to his own mind. […]
What an immense expansion will this power experience, and especially now! It seems
to me that anybody who could understand the historical period – that is, those
great principles of general renewal and of eternal revolution – would be able
to grasp the poles of mankind, to recognize the activity of the first man, as
well as the nature of the Golden Age which is about to come. Then the empty
chatting would stop, and man would become conscious of what he is: He would
understand the earth and the sun."
Philopractice , July 18 , 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment