The Supposed Influence of Schiller’s Über naive und sentimentalische Dichtung on F. Schlegel’s Über das Studium der griechischen Poesie

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size NotesCaroline: Briefe aus der Frühromantik. Nach G. Waitz vermehrt herausgegeben von E. Schmidt (Leipzig, 1913), I, 374; Briefe von und an F. u. D. Schlegel, ed. J. Körner (Berlin, 1926), pp. 14, 436; F. Schlegels Briefe an... A. W. Schlegel, ed. 0. Walzel (Berlin, 1890), p. 246.A. Koberstein, Grundriß der Geschichte der deutschen Nationalliteratur (1827), III, 2209; cf. Haym, Die Romantische Schule, 2d ed. (Berlin, 1906), p. 202.Haym, pp. 192, 204.Friedrich Schlegels Bekehrung zu Lessing (Weimar, 1913), p. 34.Romantiker und Klassiker (Berlin, 1924), pp. 37-38.F. Schlegel et son groupe: La doctrine de l’Athenäum (Paris, 1934), p. 9.Schiller und die Romantiker (Stuttgart, 1948), pp. 43-44.Euphorion, XII, 210.“Ohne Einfluß aber blieben Schillers großartig fundierte Abstraktionen des Naiven und Sentimentalischen. Die Arbeiten Schlegels waren abgeschlossen, als die Abhandlung erschien.” (Introduction to F. Schlegel, Über das Studium der griechischen Poesie, ed. Paul Hankamer [Godesberg, 1947], p. 36.).“On the meaning of ‘Romantic’ in Early German Romanticism,” MLN, XXXI, 385 ff., XXXII, 65 ff. “Schiller and the Genesis of Romanti cism,” MLN, XXXV, 1 ff., 136 ff.An unprinted note from the summer of 1797 in Schlegel’s notebook Fragmente zur Litteratur und Poesie reads: “Es giebt auch eine ρ/O [absolute Rhetorik); diese liegt meinem Stud[ium] zum Grunde.” A similar note will be found in the notebook “Zur Philologie,” ed. J. Körner, Logos, XVII, 60. The editor of the latter note is not sure of his reading, but the p in the former one is written quite clearly.F. Schlegel, Prosaische Jugendschriften, ed. J. Minor (Wien, 1906), I, 87–93.Ibid., pp. 93–109.Ibid., p. 114.Ibid., pp. 109–124.Ibid., pp. 124–170. This section of the essay contains the first positive mention of Schiller (p. 163).Ibid., pp. 170–178.Ibid., p. 177.Cf. Schiller, Sämtliche Werke, Horenausgabe, XII, 81–82 and A. O. Lovejoy, “Schiller and the Genesis of Romanticism,” MLN, XXXV, 138–139.F. Schlegels Briefe an ... A. W. Schlegel, p. 280.Borcherdt, p. 418.For detailed accounts of the quarreL which was then shaping up between Schlegel and Schiller, see Michael Bermays, Schriften zur Kritik und Litteraturgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1898), II, 225 ff.; 1. Rouge, F. Schlegel et le genèse du romantisme allemand (1904), pp. 196 ff.; Josef Körner, Romantiker und Klassiker, pp. 25 ff.;H. H. Borcherdt, pp. 35 ff. The last-named work contains a convenient collection of most of the relevant documents. Haym’s account in Die Romantische Schule is marred by his prejudice against Schlegel.It is of course only this (and possibly the later sections of Schiller’s essay) which is relevant to the subject under discussion; the first section, Über das Naive, may have been read by Schlegel in November, 1795, but has no bearing on the disputed conclusion of the Studiumaufsatz..Borcherdt, p. 410.Ibid., p. 418.Caroline, I, 372.Briefe von und an F. u. D. Schlegel, p. 11. On the basis of this passage, J. Körner changed his mind. (Cf. the Bibliographisches Nachwort to the 5th edition of Haym’s Romantische Schule [Berlin, 19281], p. 942.).In his letter to his brother of Dec. 23, 1795 (loc. cit., p. 246), Schlegel writes that he has sent the end of the Studiumaufsatz to Michaelis “vor 21⁄2 Wochen

Art · Art history · German · Humanities · Romanticism · Theology · German Literature and Culture Studies · Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Hegel · Philosophy · Philosophy and Historical Thought

• Hans Eichners Bedeutung für die Romantik-Forschung

  Hermann Patsch•The Germanic Review Literature…•2010

  Add to list