Schiller's Weltanschauung (World Conception)
and his Wallenstein
We
cannot talk of Schiller's view of life as we can of that of
other men, for it is in continual flux and continual process of
ascending. Lesser personalities find it easy to reach a view of
life; greater struggle through with difficulty. This is because
lesser personalities are incapable of seeing into the great
riddles. For the greater every experience provides a new
riddle; a new basis is given for the philosophy, which has to
take on a new form. This was Goethe's experience all through
his life and with Schiller it was the same. Schiller himself
remarked that fundamentally he knew very little of the sphere
of his own development; but his spirit worked incessantly to
deepen and harmonise his ideas and experience of life. Very
characteristic is the way in which Schiller carried on a
conversation; in which he was the antithesis of Herder; and we
can get a conception of his nature by that antithesis.
When
Herder was in the society of interested people, he used to
develop his own views, and there were seldom any objections;
his position was so firm and clear that he could not have gone
any deeper into a problem by a dialectic conversation. Schiller
was quite different. With him every conversation became
alive; he took up every objection, every aspect was touched on,
and consequently the conversation went along all sorts of
side-paths; everything was illuminated from every side.
In his conversation, in the personal life that existed round
Schiller, we can see best how his views were in a continual
flux. There is the same striving after truth which is expressed
in Lessing's words: “If God stood before me, the truth in
one hand, in the other the striving after truth, I should beg
of him: Lord, give me the striving after truth, for the whole
truth indeed exists for God alone.”
We see
similarly how Schiller, in all periods of his life, is engaged
in a continual struggle for a higher view of the world; how he
was driven, when he took up his professorship at Jena, to
make his ideas living, how he strove to grasp the great forces
which are effective in the world and to fructify them in really
vivid lectures. The smaller essays on subjects of world history
show us how he wrestled with these ideas. Apart from the
above-mentioned essay on “What is, and how should we
study history universally?” he tried to describe the
significance of a law-giver like Moses. Then he dealt with the
period of the Crusades; and perhaps, there is nothing finer and
more interesting than the way in which Schiller depicts the
conditions of ownership and vassalage in the Middle Ages. From
his account of the Netherlands' struggle for freedom we can
learn on what inner principles historical development moves.
Then he comes to the Thirty Years' War, in which he is already
particularly fascinated by the figure of Wallenstein, a man
with the law of his will within himself, firm in his own person
but fettered by a petty ambition, unstable in his aims and in
the confusion of his ideas concerning himself with the message
of the stars. Later on he tried to disentangle this puzzling
character in poetry. But before then he had to clear things up
by studies in the work of Kant. Nor did he approach Kantianism
without philosophical preparation. There was something in
him which could only come out by reference to Kant.
We
have to understand this point in Schiller thoroughly if we wish
to understand the greatness of his personality aright. There is
a series of letters, “Philosophical Letters”
between Julius and Raphael; and the philosophy which he
develops there is something that is born in himself. The view
which grew out of the depths of his personality, is represented
by the man called Julius, while in Raphael we have to imagine a
man like his friend Körner who had reached a certain
completeness, even if without the same depth. For in
life the less often appears the cleverer and the superior over
against one who struggles higher. This struggling (philosopher)
who is still living amid disharmonies, outlines his view, in
the “Theosophy of Julius” somewhat as follows:
“Everything in the world derives from a spiritual basis.
Man also originated here; he represents the confluence of all
the forces in the world; he is the epitome and unification of
all that is extended in nature; all existence apart from him is
only the hieroglyph of a force which is like him: thus in the
butterfly which rises into the air with its youth renewed from
the caterpillar stage, we have a picture of human immortality.
Satisfaction is only attainable if we rise to the ideal planted
within us.” This view he calls the “Theosophy of
Julius.” The world is a thought of God, everything lives
only in the infinite love of God; everything in me and outside
of me is only a hieroglyph of the highest being.
As
Goethe in his Prose Hymn to Nature had put it, that man is set
by nature, unasked and unwarned, into the cycle of life, that
nature herself speaks and acts in him, so Schiller comes in
this theosophy of Julius, to some extent, to a similar
standpoint. But he is still unsatisfied, for none but God
could, he feels, regard the world from this standpoint. Is it
really possible for the human soul, so small and limited, to
live with such a picture of the world?
From
Kantianism Schiller got a new world-picture which lasted till
the middle of the nineties. The problem of the world has become
a problem of man, and it is the problem of freedom which now
concerns him. The question that now demands answer is how man
can reach his perfection. Schiller's view of things appears
before us in its clearest and finest form in his
“Aesthetic Letters”: on the one hand man has a
lower nature and is subjected to animal impulses; and nature is
thus far necessity in the things of the senses which press upon
him. On the other side there is an intellectual necessity in
man's thinking; and it is logic to which he must subject
himself. He is the slave both of necessity in nature and of the
necessity of reason.
Kant
answers this contradiction by depressing the necessity of
nature in favour of intellectual necessity. Schiller seized
upon this gulf between the two necessities in all its depth. To
him it was a problem which extends over all human
relationships. The laws which control men have come partly from
the necessity of nature, the dynamic forces which are active in
men, partly from asserted. That was not the case, especially
with his Wallenstein. Schiller started from an inner musical
mood, as he called it, not from ideas. The stream of complex
forces in man appeared in his inner being as melody, and solved
themselves in a harmony or collapsed in disharmony. Then he
looked for the thoughts, the characters, the single moods; and
thus there appeared before his eyes the conflicting soul-forces
of Wallenstein which led him of necessity to a vast
catastrophe. Unfortunately, we cannot reproduce this mood
except with intellectual means.
There
may be in one case a personality built upon itself which
suffers tragic collapse. But the effect is truly tragic only if
it collapses upon itself. What Hebbel demanded as the necessary
pre-supposition of tragedy, “That things had to happen
thus,” that nothing can be tragic which might have
happened otherwise, was grasped intuitively by Schiller, though
he never puts it thus in words. But there is another tragic
idea under the influence of which Schiller stands which does
not admit of solution and which was expressed particularly in
Wallenstein. This is the consciousness that there is something
higher acting within human life which cannot be solved within
this framework. Not till the world's end when men have reached
perfection, will man's eyes be able thus to survey their
destiny. Till then there must always be errors, something
insoluble, for which Wallenstein looks for the solution in the
stars, something imponderable in his heart.
Wallenstein believes that he can read his destiny, firmly
pre-established in the stars and yet he has to see how Octavio,
contrary to the oracle of the stars, deceives him.
But
man's freedom still remains the highest; an inner necessity
makes him search for the solution in the stars: so he faces a
new riddle: — that the stars have lied.
Yet
again, the stars cannot lie; man, who offends against the most
sacred laws of feeling and the heart, brings the harmony of the
stars into disorder.
There
can be no order in nature which opposes the laws of the human
spirit.
If we
look at the character of Wallenstein in this way, we shall see
Schiller's own personality shining through the person of
Wallenstein. Schiller wanted to look this contradiction in the
face and show how man lives with it. There must be a truth in
the world, he tells himself, and he has sought it as he does in
the letters of Julius.
The
contradiction lies in the single appearances; and here Schiller
reaches to the knowledge, to what the old Indians and other
wise men recognised as illusion.
He
wanted to live in truth, and he regarded art as a gateway
through which man must travel so as to reach the dawn of beauty
and freedom. In his poem “Der Künstler” he
calls on artists to take their place in the world-scheme and to
help in the realisation of the ideal. He cries to them: Human
dignity is in your hands. Preserve it.
|