Schiller's Influence during the Nineteenth
Century
I want
to speak to-day of the way in which Schiller's influence was
active during the Nineteenth Century and then to pass over to
his significance for the present and finally to what he may yet
be to the future. In my last lecture I will give a sort of
summing-up of Schiller.
If we
want to describe Schiller's place in the Nineteenth Century, we
can certainly not go into details; and so we shall not pause
over single incidents if they are not of symptomatic
importance. Our business is with the whole cultural life of the
century and Schiller's place within it. In general, it is very
difficult to decide what is Schiller's influence on individual
periods; we cannot follow each path in detail. Schiller's
influence may be compared, in a way, to that of Herder at the
beginning of the century when Goethe said in a conversation to
Eckermann: “Who nowadays reads Herder's philosophical
works? And yet everywhere we meet the ideas which he has
sowed.” That is a more intense influence than one which
is associated only with a name; and it is the case with
Schiller also.
His
influence cannot be separated from that of the great classical
period. One thing we may emphasise, that his influence and the
recognition expressed by the national celebration on 10th
November 1859, did not come into being easily and unopposed.
Schiller did not establish his position so smoothly. Much was
necessary for the spirit of Schiller to have its effect, quite
imperceptibly, on the young especially. Thus the
Glocke (“Song of the Clock”) produced at
first the most violent opposition in romantic circles. Caroline
v. Schlegel, wife of W. v. Schlegel, called it the poem of a
provincial Philistine.
But
not only in those cases which we meet in the Xenien, but
in general in the so-called romantic circles, we shall find
active opposition to Schiller. The Romantics found their ideal
in Goethe's Wilhelm Meister and had raised Goethe to a
pinnacle, at the cost of that friend of his, to whom Goethe had
cried after his death:
Weit hinter ihm im wesenlosen Scheine
Lag, was uns alle bändigt, das Gemeine.
Schiller's great gift, to be able to raise the moral and the
ethical to such heights, found no sympathy with them. Hard
words were uttered by the Romantics against Schiller,
“the provincial moralist.” People who have grown up
in an atmosphere of reverence for Schiller, will hardly
understand remarks like that of Friedrich v. Schlegel in his
essays on Goethe and Schiller. He called Schiller's Imagination
disordered. Here there is no sign of the quality which
attracted all hearts to Schiller. About the end of the 1820's
there appeared the Goethe — Schiller
correspondence, that memorial set up by Goethe to his
friend and their friendship. We can learn much from it and its
importance for the understanding of German art is immeasurable.
Here also the Romantics were bitterly contemptuous and cold. We
can gather how hard it was for Schiller to establish his fame
when we realise the megalomania of the chief people who were
his opponents.
A. W. Schlegel,
the excellent translator of
Shakespeare, wrote a sonnet about himself, which shows what his
own view was of his importance in German literature; he talks
of his poetic significance with a pride which strikes us very
strangely:
What name the future's lips shall give to him Is still unknown,
this generation recognised him His name was August Wilhelm
Schlegel.
Nor
does he present a unique phenomenon; he is typical of the
romantic theory; we can only understand him if we can
understand what the romantic school was after. The Romantics
aimed at a new art, a comprehensive view of all art.
Their theory had as a matter of fact grown out of what Schiller
had said in his aesthetic essays; but it was a caricature.
Schiller's aphorism that man is only truly man when he is
playing, became a sort of motto of theirs. This was the origin
of their romantic irony which turned everything into the play
of genius. People almost began to believe that it lay in the
power of a man's will to turn himself into a genius.
But
when Schiller called art play, he meant the word
“play” in full seriousness. The true secret of a
master lay, said Schiller, in the conquest of the material by
the form; but the romantics despised the form and demanded of
the matter in itself that it should have artistic effect. This
attitude, which I am not criticising but only stating, was
fundamentally opposed by Schiller. Hence the correspondence of
Goethe and Schiller was regarded by them as very tiresome; the
art-rules there discussed they took as naive. A. W. v.
Schlegel, under the stimulus of the correspondence, wrote some
bitter epigrams. Among themselves the Romantics thoroughly
admired one another.
All
this will show how in the first decades of last century
Schiller's life-work was greeted with bitterest opposition. On
the other hand, his personality was so powerful that even among
these men he received his due of recognition and admiration:
for instance, Ludwig Tieck wrote, with understanding and
respect, of Schiller's Wallenstein. Schiller more and more
acquired his influence and made a home for himself in the
hearts of his people. Theodor Körner is the most
important, though not the only, instance of a man who lived
wholly in the spirit of Schiller: — and he died,
moreover, a hero's death filled with the ideals planted in him
by Schiller. He seemed dedicated to it by the personal
friendship which united his family and Schiller's. A close
friendship existed between Körner's father and Schiller,
who was godfather to Theodor Körner and bought him the
“Tyre” which accompanied Körner everywhere.
Schiller made his way slowly but surely into the hearts of
youth.
If we
follow out the development of style in these opposing
romantics, we find the influence of Schiller even in the words
he had coined.
It was
thanks to Schiller that there was formed what we may call the
German culture of the first half of the Nineteenth Century. It
was permeated by the special note that was given to the soul by
Schiller. Things which had their origin in Herder and the other
classicists, made their way into the people by the pictures and
didactic applications of Schiller. However, much men
might bristle at the heights of aesthetic culture, Schiller has
established his position increasingly. His influence grew
steadily, and on the centenary of his birth, it is the best men
in the nation who honour him. The speeches made at the time
have been collected, and among those who spoke we find famous
names like those of
Jacob Grimm,
Th. F. Vischer, the great aesthetic thinker,
Carl Gutzkow,
Ernst Curtius,
Moritz Carriere
and many others. The seed had grown which Schiller had planted.
Nevertheless, the language held at the celebrations in 1859 was
quite alien to the new ideas which were appearing at the time.
To emphasise Schiller's ideals in 1859 fitted strangely in with
the other ideas which saw the light that year. There are four
things of special importance which I want to mention that
appeared in them. In 1859 there appeared Darwin's Origin of
Species; and secondly, Fechner's Prelude to
Aesthetic. Fechner has acquired considerable influence on
one of the lines of modern thought. He started from the ideas
of Hegel, who had himself defended Schiller against the
Romantics. Vischer, who had begun his work in the Goethe
— Schiller period and whose aesthetic was of idealist
type, found himself forced into opposition to his own earlier
views; and Vischer's mode of thinking was completed by Fechner,
who wrote a sort of aesthetic “from below,” whereas
until then the ordinary aesthetic had been one “from
above.” The attempt was now being made to grasp the
essence of the beautiful from below, from the small
symptoms.
The
third work, which treated of space conditions, was in a sense
opposed to Schiller's manner: he had spoken as follows in his
epigram to the astronomers:
Do not chatter, I pray you, so much of nebulae and suns.
Is no greatness in nature, save that she gives you to count?
What you deal with, my friends, in space is truly sublimest;
But the sublime has not its dwelling in space.
This
third work was the Spectral Analysis of Kirchhoff and
Bunsen, by means of which the sun could be seen in its
constituent elements, and an analysis of the most distant
nebulae was made possible.
The
fourth work was Marx's Critique of Political Economy.
There was a marked contrast between the thoughts developed at
the Schiller celebrations and the ideas which were germinating
at the time. It was a unique standpoint which Schiller, and the
classicists generally, held towards world culture. We cannot
picture Raphael or Michelangelo out of relation to their own
times, in which they were born and worked. In the same way
Homeric art is in intimate contact with something that lived in
everyone;
Homer
had only to give form to something
which permeated all his contemporaries as feeling and thinking.
But with the German classicists it was quite different. Homer,
of whom did he tell? Of Greeks he spoke to Greeks. Similarly,
Dante, Michelangelo, even Shakespeare, stood wholly
within their times. But not so our classicists. Lessing was
enthused by Winckelmann and formed his artistic ideas out of
Winckelmann's essays; he also went back to Aristotle. Schiller
and Goethe faithfully with Lessing studied Aristotle. Hence
came that abstracted ideal of beauty, an art so cut off from
the life of the times, particularly as the poets grew older.
For Schiller's earlier plays, the Räuber, Kabale und
Liebe are still connected with his own life. Goethe had
developed particularly in Italy. Art had become an end in
itself, abstract and isolated from everyday life. Goethe and
Schiller had become neutral toward their subject matter: thus
Schiller looks for his material all over the world, he has
risen from the world around him and established himself on his
own feet. Nothing describes Schiller's influence so well as the
fact that he was followed by Romanticism which
assimilated everything foreign. Translations from every sphere
of world-literature are one of the chief services of the
romantic school.
Schiller's attitude to art is something which had decisive
influence on his relation to the Nineteenth Century.
|