Introduction

‘Genius’ is an eye-catching, resonant expression to include in any title, be it of a book, film or exhibition, whether factual or fiction, popular or scholarly. Its fascination persists in academia despite repeated announcements of its demise as a term in serious critical debate. Generations of influential thinkers have sought to discredit and deconstruct it, presenting it as an ahistorical means of obscuring the workings of culture or else as a reactionary fetish that lends itself all too readily to political appropriation.11 See, for example, Walter Benjamin, ‘Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit’ (1936, in particular the foreword to the third edition), Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, Frankfurt a. M. 1963, pp. 7–44 (p. 10); Roland Barthes seeks to reveal genius as a bourgeois fetish in Mythologies, Paris 1957; and in ‘La mort de l'auteur’ (1968), in Roland Barthes, Le Bruissement de la langue: Essais critiques IV, Paris 1984, pp. 63–9, as does Michael Foucault in ‘Qu'est-ce qu'un auteur?’, Bulletin de la Société française de philosophie, 63/3 (Jul-Sept 1969), 73–104. Nevertheless, it survives effortlessly, due in large part to its versatility or rather de facto opacity; genius defies definition, while maintaining a wide spectrum of highly evocative associations. Although it fell out of general use or else was considered unviable in aesthetics and literary criticism post-1945, it periodically returns as a term of justification and approbation, if not of analysis or explanation;22 Harold Bloom is notable for his efforts to save genius, not only as a literary historical term but also as a critical term for the new millennium, referring back to Ovid to explain its effects: ‘The ancient answer is that there is a god within us, and the god speaks.’ Harold Bloom, Genius. A Mosaic of one Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds, New York 2002, p. 12. in other disciplines, most notably psychology, it is currently thriving (again).33 See Dean Keith Simonton (ed.), Wiley Handbook of Genius, Hoboken, NJ 2014, which features almost exclusively psychologists and psychiatrists among its contributors. The role genius played in the emergence of psychology as a discipline has often been explored; see, for example, John Carson, ‘Equality, Inequality, and Difference: Genius as Problem and Possibility in American Political/Scientific Discourse’, in Joyce E. Chaplin and Darrin M. McMahon (eds), Genealogies of Genius, New York and Basingstoke 2016, pp. 43–62. There has also been a recent resurgence of interest in its history as a discursive phenomenon, interest which, understandably, has tended to examine its emergence as a modern concept in the eighteenth century, or else its refinement and universalisation during Romanticism.44 Recent historical studies include Julia Barbara Köhne, Geniekult in Geisteswissenschaften und Literaturen um 1900 und seine filmischen Adaptionen, Vienna, Cologne and Weimar 2014; Chaplin and McMahon (eds), Genealogies of Genius (note 3), and Mike Porath, Mütter – Die Geniefigur in der deutschsprachigen Literature 1750–1950, Stuttgart 2021. This special number focuses instead on the period which gave genius a bad name with critical theorists in the first place: the nineteenth century.55 See, in particular, Edgar Zilsel's attack on nineteenth-century genius cults in Die Genie-Religion. Ein kritischer Versuch über das modern Persönlichkeitsideal, mit einer historischen Begründung, Berlin and Leipzig 1918. We begin at the point most studies see its discursive power waning, around 1830,66 The standard work on genius in German, Jochen Schmidt's Die Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens in der deutschen Literatur, Philosophie und Politik 1750–1945, 2 vols, Darmstadt 1985, needs only half as many pages to cover the period from the 1820s to 1945 as it does for the ‘eigentliche Genieperiode’ in the eighteenth century. Schmidt writes of the ‘Ablösung des Genie-Gendakens’ in the post-Romantic period, see II, pp. 40–61. and carry our investigation through to the early twentieth century. And while acknowledging that intense international dialogue and exchange played a vital role in the crystallisation of genius as a modern concept, we also seek to implement the insight of Joyce E. Chaplin and Darrin M. McMahon who note that ‘genius has performed specific cultural work within each of the societies in which it has had a historical presence’.77 Joyce E. Chaplin and Darrin M. McMahon, ‘Introduction’, in Chaplin and McMahon (eds), Genealogies of Genius (note 3), pp. 1–10 (p. 2). The appeal and survival of genius may be due to its seemingly universal applicability, potentially in all spheres of activity, transcending cultural boundaries.88 Rather than artists or poets, the English texts which formed the basis for much early theorising on genius in German often took natural scientists of the previous century as their model of genius; see Bernhard Fabian, ‘Der Naturwissenschaftler als Originalgenie’, in Bernfried Nugel (ed.), Englische Literaturtheorie von Sydney bis Johnson, Darmstadt 1984, pp. 298–325. In Hereditary Genius, London 1869, Francis Galton takes into consideration judges, politicians, musicians, writers, painters, wrestlers and rowers; see, for example, Janet Browne, ‘Inspiration to Perspiration: Francis Galton's Hereditary Genius in Victorian Context’, in Chaplin and McMahon (eds), Genealogies of Genius (note 3), pp. 77–95. Wilhelm Lange-Eichbaum's series of genius miniatures, Genie, Irrsinn und Ruhm, Munich 1928, covers religious leaders, statesmen, painters, poets, scientists and explorers. As literary and cultural historians, however, it is incumbent on us to relativise its fascination; our special number is therefore made up of localised studies, considering theories, uses and ‘manifestations’ of genius within their particular discursive contexts.99 In this respect, our approach was inspired by Ann Jefferson, Genius in France. An Idea and its Uses, Princeton and Oxford 2014, which points out the pitfalls of treating genius discourse as though it were nothing other than ‘a single, pan-European conversation [...] ignoring the nature of the disciplinary and discursive context in which [...] contributions were made’ (p. 5). The German term ‘Genie’ has a very particular history within the general history of genius. Over the course of the 1700s, genius – ‘génie’, ‘genio’, ‘Genie’ – was established throughout Europe, primarily as a designation for exceptional creative power, but increasingly also for individuals considered to possess such power. Stemming from the Latin genius and ingenium, the term itself was not, of course, new: its extraordinary proliferation and evolution during the classicist eighteenth century were due in no small part to this distinguished ancestry.1010 Wendelin Schmidt-Dengler, Genius. Zur Wirkungsgeschichte antiker Mythologeme in der Goethezeit, Munich 1978, pp. 23–30. Originally denoting a specifically male procreative force, in antiquity genius came to mean an individual tutelary spirit, but could also refer to the defining characteristics of someone or something. Ingenium could likewise refer to a person's character, or else to an inborn trait or aptitude which could take on the guise of a divine gift, akin to inspiration.1111 Jürgen Klein, ‘Genius, Ingenium, Imagination: Aesthetic Theories of Production from the Renaissance to Romanticism’, in Frederick Burwick and Jürgen Klein (eds), The Romantic Imagination: Literature and Art in England and Germany, Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA 1996, pp. 19–62 (19–23), and Katrin Kohl, Poetologische Metaphern: Formen und Funktionen in der deutschen Literatur, Berlin 2007, pp. 262–3. Modern genius maintained the potential to reactivate aspects of all of these older meanings.1212 See Hubert Sommer, Génie: zur Bedeutungsgeschichte des Wortes von der Renaissance zur Aufklärung, Frankfurt a. M. and Vienna 1998; also Schmidt-Dengler, Genius (note 10), pp. 39–54 and 58. It aggregated historical topoi from poetological traditions of antiquity and the Renaissance: Platonic mania, the link between creativity and melancholy, the writer as poeta vates and alter deus.1313 See Ernst Kris and Otto Kurz, Die Legende vom Künstler. Ein geschichtlicher Versuch, Frankfurt a. M. 2018. New, however, was the association of modern genius with originality and innovation, also the urgency with which it was debated, in a dynamic that only intensified as the eighteenth century wore on.1414 Raymond Williams, Keywords. A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Oxford 2015 (new rev. edn), pp. 99–100; Rob Pope, Creativity. Theory, History, Practice, Oxford and New York 2005, p. 102; Andreas Reckwitz, Die Erfindung der Kreativität. Zum Prozess gesellschaftlicher Ästhetisierung, Berlin 2012, pp. Darrin McMahon, A of Genius, New York pp. only within and but also in the context of of the genius a if Jefferson, Genius in (note pp. The urgency of these was in to German ‘Genie’ and its were into the from the des in (eds), und p. their to the from to to as the or out of in the eighteenth century with of or for example, to the as the der his that the was a of the see in und Ernst vols, and Munich II, p. the and had been established as literary historical see, for example, Geschichte der der vols, Leipzig pp. and Genius a term in the discipline of in which culture was to take a Die Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens (note pp. It also played a vital role in the of as an See, for example, in Reckwitz, Die Erfindung der (note und Die des pp. in and Zum pp. see also Literature and the of on and New York Michael Ein vom in particular pp. the ‘Genie’ or could be not only to artists and their but also to exceptional in other of as as to historical and Schmidt-Dengler, Genius (note 10), p. Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens (note pp. Its emergence in the the has it to be in to the of the p. ‘Genie’ of an for within the of or as as for and It from and literary discourse to popular im von und pp. in a that its in specific the its discursive history is by Schmidt-Dengler, Genius (note 10), pp. and Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens (note p. Genius to the of German during the for example, while at the and from Reckwitz, Die Erfindung der (note pp. ‘Inspiration und in der der in (eds), in der vols, Berlin pp. and Die (note one of the to the psychology of genius it also as a of while the emergence of German cultural as a the in which genius into and was by the of cultural the in the eighteenth century, see und im Stuttgart in particular pp. also Schmidt-Dengler, Genius (note 10), pp. and This was by the which the of ‘Genie’ inspired in The of a with Latin to a culture that than to be German was not on of the Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens (note pp. its as a term of and a of and its or rather pp. und Berlin pp. As ‘Genie’ was to or and it was that its criticism from to the no had it made an in German than it was as a an by its It was however, or by who were by no means to but it be by to Schmidt-Dengler, ‘Genius’ rather than as to the des see Genius (note 10), p. also on pp. and and association of ‘Genie’ with the of the see pp. ‘Genie’ had no such and its discursive history in German is a not only in of but also of of it has been as a through its that its it as the from the Latin see his in und Wilhelm vols, Leipzig Its is that of an to use term for while have part of other to point to of the as new of of the of the and the in the new point to cultural that Princeton and Oxford p. of the that ‘Genie’ or see Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens (note p. ‘Genie’ may have in German as a but it was Its in a of and from the very that it with it as as and despite to that it was an Although on ‘Genie’ in the note was a the term was in German and despite the that to it, that it is a and has nothing to the analysis of the of this see to the In this respect, it defining of culture in the and the of a of on and to seek or such ‘Genie’ has as it was to the in which this was and the nature and of The of discursive and to its as the eighteenth century to a It new and in for example, in it as and its as über und Die p. while that it – or – the very of and See Andreas and as Art and Art as in Jochen (ed.), as A of German Romantic London pp. and ‘Das als des Genie-Gedankens in der der see Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens (note pp. and other early their of genius in to in der The had genius a vital role in with his der only to that genius be by a that had to be and der in Wilhelm vols, Darmstadt pp. (p. Die Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens (note pp. In the genius to and not as a of other but rather as a of the potential of genius it as and and therefore as to in such as or the natural that to a divine power with a who is only to into the Die (note p. In definition, by ‘Genie’ be out from or the power of it is a that by as as for a for an des Genie, it with Romantic that of p. This up of genius a in to as des that these the nineteenth century in to a of see Reckwitz, Die Erfindung der (note pp. see ‘The in in Michael (ed.), A to Oxford 2005, pp. was genius and than it had been the were by and The in genius as a of the political of culture and cultural its political potential to the by the of and the of its political potential see Schmidt-Dengler, Genius (note 10), in particular pp. This itself in may to be of genius on the one and the of individual or as on the The on that each or have a and creative which had of the of classicist genius ‘Genie’ was first the German p. up by the and of this into an justification for German political genius, the from and in the or who the of and if or is to have it be an expression of the definition, the or of considered be of the and therefore be to and the Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens (note p. A or model genius a particular and the genius individual all be to each other at or as is and the as in the and cultural German also the traditions and of genius an literary around as a of See Barbara und Darmstadt see also to this special As this very has nineteenth-century culture to a of genius that was and – influential but increasingly the the of had and the of in the of German most of It has been that the period was by a of genius as a of interest be in the German were that of genius, in particular could have a on the vital of their and Das der und Frankfurt a. M. p. in and a of their cultural to the of the in the and the of the of and Modern Oxford 2016, pp. Genius by no means at this The an of it in their on their in particular not only to as a genius while as an and reactionary but also to to the of genius itself as a if in cultural and political Das Stuttgart pp. and The in the and of genius around this be in a of the nineteenth century. As and the popular and took at the general were in of and a to the and of Das der in und im pp. Die Geschichte des zur pp. A of the on ‘Genie’ in the popular in the course of the nineteenth a in from the in to the in The has been by a third – the itself with – and a has been that had the previous in der mit in and an Leipzig pp. (p. first this to the on to include that on its rather than its a genius is someone who das in vols, Leipzig p. In the previous had been as a not as a genius in this respect, the it up in the and previous had by that [...] der des in p. the this in its ‘Das von And for the first the as not only political and but also See note Die in [...] mit um das der mit das [...] in und in von und Geschichte der deutschen und vols, vom bis p. Nevertheless, despite his of and the und as that genius as a of their and to the is that has any to the of p. as to genius or it the of this does not to to the that its and for their The of genius to its use of it it had in for and cultural as it to or genius had therefore a of individuals or of their as as the of any or on In this genius could be to as as discursive It a in a series of which, while back to the political that genius had during were not only to nineteenth-century academia but also to and and as were points of were in their and – as – genius of the The and the in in to on German Literature and pp. See also Reckwitz, Die Erfindung der (note p. genius was often the of and by individuals and however, and of genius was through increasingly means as the century wore this special number with an investigation of such in their the of the in in the and was in the of a of in the in with the writer was The points of and between the and of genius and literary on it, not only his texts on and but also the of his the as genius was in for in was it to on the in In his analysis of the of and genius also for in the cultural history of ‘Genie’ to the of in In the of ‘Genie’ in the in which on the and the of who as reveal the increasingly nature of the of in his on of by and with as the of genius in his and this is in of cultural The from in genius discourse is not, however, in the of political and in and the literary as the of genius while acknowledging the role of in The of whether and individual or to had Romantic such as or E. in genius at with the of their and with Schmidt-Dengler, Genius (note 10), p. Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens (note II, pp. A of the of E. In Die als und takes up the of a between genius and the general of but it a new with his of the the individual genius – for a male – as the of the who all the and all at the of their genius is not a of is only of his potential for and his into of is to melancholy, and therefore and genius, and of genius with its – the as der – as the nineteenth century not in his on See ‘Das und In the the many in which a point of for genius in his and as a historical and into and were to the of genius and that was established as an of and in the nineteenth in (eds), in Stuttgart and Weimar II, pp. see also Das der (note pp. in the as to whether genius was by see Reckwitz, Die Erfindung der (note pp. established as a modern concept of see McMahon, (note pp. The link between creativity and the of much to this with an on the of the see, for example, with and the New York or (ed.), and on as as his that with genius throughout his out with a of genius in to the as an often only to this to in his does not genius at this as but rather seeks to it and to genius in which is due to his In an in which genius cults had the of the exceptional individual or to has The of which genius discourse the of the nineteenth century is by the of analysis of with the by on the of the focuses on which from its in the was by the particular it the and by as to their role within the the seek to to the bourgeois cultural – in a of considered and to all – or bourgeois cultural be to and the on the emergence of a specifically on genius, these reveal in the as as in its and cultural See, for example, the and the at the of in in The within ahistorical genius in the but not the of genius back to for example, in their of as a of and for the genius could therefore be as a phenomenon, a for on between and of in early the of genius as an expression of creative power. As the on and has tended to on or reactionary of genius, these contributions by and much as the cultural of genius and the of texts and to in genius Recent be in its of see, for example, and Die Geniefigur in der deutschsprachigen Literature (note which seeks to the and of and genius, but to the of and for the nineteenth and early twentieth century. also to be as as genius up to of is Its repeated historical as a term that is only to to have much as to its de facto in The of as genius understandably, to it as an of the See, for example, and a Die und der der Stuttgart and Barbara (eds), und in der um Berlin and in (ed.), – – Stuttgart 2002, pp. only – in German at – has this approach to on the in which or in genius The by Wendelin note and Jochen Schmidt almost from a of in a Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens (note p. no in The to studies on the such as Das des Ingenium zur der und Stuttgart on was first to the aspects and in genius; see, for example, as of in German see also and the Art of The in on of the has also aspects to on genius, if only on this particular see and (eds), um creativity around and John and (eds), and in German New York the nature of the it is no that within genius traditions in the nineteenth century often or as is the with by from the of ‘Genie’ in while a natural creative that is of of genius. the as the in the of their is often with of The of to genius in of at the de of the most texts in this in the German is Otto and und which Le for us in the of the out to the and up to from genius that his needs As Le it is to of genius from his and and may be to us it is the of these aspects that und a work of In the in this special number reveal that of the of genius at the of the eighteenth century is as at the of the in um einer und des der ‘Das (note p. As we to this is genius its discursive power throughout the nineteenth century and it at the of cultural takes or take – whether it be through the genius the genius or the inspired by the individual genius. The contributions were first as at a at the Paris in We to the the the at and the as as the for the also to all for the which The is to Barbara who took part in the with and insight is

Art · Genius · Literature · Psychoanalysis · Romance · Hermeneutics and Narrative Identity · Philosophy · Psychology