This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 26 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Literature

Noël Carroll, John Gibson

Philosophy of Literature in the Nineteenth Century

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315708935-3 Allen Speight Published online on: 09 Dec 2015

How to cite :- Allen Speight. 09 Dec 2015, Philosophy of Literature in the Nineteenth Century from: The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Literature Routledge Accessed on: 26 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315708935-3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:47 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315708935, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315708935-3 contemporary philosophyofliterature.Two oftheseapproaches— the nineteenthcenturyandtowhatextenttheseframeworks stillhaverelevancefor philosophical frameworkswererelevantfortheconstrual ofliteratureoverthecourse ations. Inthefirstsection,Iwillexploregeneral questionofwhatoverarching between literatureandarapidlychangingsocialpoliticalworld. century Russian,French,andEnglishnovelsraisednewquestionsabouttherelation acquire thesprawlingandnarrativeformassociatedwithmanyofgreatnineteenth- the late eighteenthcenturyhadbeenwritten in a primarily epistolary form, came to century buttheirdevelopmenttothenineteenth.Inparticular, thenovel,whichuntil by the artistic development of new forms which owed their origins to the eighteenth construals ofliteraturemorethanmettheirmatch—wereinfactmanywaysovertaken even morestrikingly, giventheliteraryoutputofcentury, thesenewphilosophical with other artistic genres), but the epitome of artistic experience. Perhaps comparison genre ofart among many(or, forthatmatteraformofdiscourseremovedfrom (in thewordsofHegelandothers)as“artitself,” and Idealistthoughtoccurringattheendofeighteenthcentury, literatureemerged in severalcrucialnewways.Inthewakeofpost-Kantiandevelopmentsbothromantic The nineteenthcenturymarkedtheemergenceofliterature’s philosophicalimportance the conception of the creation ofsomethingindependent fromthem. art isengagedwithsocialand culturalrealities,forexample,orisconcernedwith the work ofartanditsrelation to theworld—thequestionofwhetherandwhatextent important overthecourseof thecenturybetweenliterature’s internalimportanceas a philosophical andaesthetic approachestoliteratureatensionthatbecomesespecially literature. Finally, inthethirdsection,Iexplore lightoftheseconsiderations mimetic characterofmusichadbroaderconsequences forthephilosophyofartand genres—in particular, howthereflectionofSchopenhauerandNietzscheonnon- the shiftingcontoursofnineteenthcentury’s accountsofaestheticsandartistic interest.Inthesecondsection,Iwilltakeupstatus of literaturewithin particular In whatfollows,thesedevelopmentswillbetracedinterms ofthreelargeconsider NINETEENTH CENTURY LITERATURE INTHE PHILOSOPHY OF objectivity or independence of the literary artwork Allen Speight 3 par excellence”—notsimplyone lyric expressivism —will be of and - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:47 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315708935, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315708935-3 as Johnson’s poetry andthenovel.Theprimaryeighteenth-centurymeaningof“literature”wasstill, category of “significant imaginative or aesthetic writing in general” including both such, but“literature”hadnotyetcometobewidelyusedasabroadtermreferringthe academic sub-disciplineknownas“philosophyofliterature”notcomeintobeing different fromthoseusedincontemporarydiscussionsthefield:notonlyhad of philosophicaldiscourseaboutliteratureinthenineteenthcenturywerefrequently literature itself.) independence isdistinctfromtherelatedandmuch-discussedissueof some heritageamongtheearlyGermanromantics,aswell.(Thisissueof the literaryartwork,whichhadsomewhatmoreemphaticallyIdealistroots,although which hadalooselyromanticorigin,andthesecondobjectivityorindependenceof that haveremainedimportantforcontemporarydiscussion:thefirst,lyricexpressivism, to the philosophical construal of literature that developed in the nineteenth century section, Iwillarguethatthereweretwoespeciallyimportantandopposingapproaches the timeofpublication reflections onthem—inthelasttwodecadesofeighteenthcentury(roughlyfollowing the publication of new literary works and philosophical critical production—both noticed, forexample,therewasaremarkableexplosioninGerman-languageliterary within lateeighteenth-centuryliteratureandphilosophy. AsDieter Henrichhas new philosophicalinterestinliteraturecanbetracedmanywaysbacktocurrents century philosophers,fromHegeltoMillKierkegaardNietzsche.Therootsofthis It isclearthataconsiderationofliteraturewasanimportantissueformanynineteenth discussions in the philosophy of literature). One obvious difference that a contemporary inthephilosophyofliterature). Oneobviousdifferencethat acontemporary discussions issues than one framed in terms of many ofournineteenth-century philosophers)doesinfactposedifferentconceptual a generalphilosophicalapproach toliteratureconstruedaround contributionstothephilosophyofliterature. nineteenth-century linguistic aswellconceptualquestionsrelevantin thiscontextasonelooksat the historyofa institutional theoryof literature) that we should not confuse the history of a question. PeterLamarqueiscertainlyrighttosay(inthe contextofadiscussionthe structures withinwhichtheywork. by themona somewhat butratheras “poetry”—andwhatisseriousinprosefictionoftentreated “literature” in whatfollowsmarkofftheirterritoryofphilosophical interestinthisareanotas writers. Mostofthephilosophicalwritersfromnineteenth centurytobeconsidered to distinguishwritingthatmattersaestheticallyorethicallyarefromtwentieth-century literature, comeinthemid-nineteenthcentury, andthestrongest evaluativeusesofit toaspecificnationalortechnicalliteraturesuchas“German”“scientific” reference general to mean “written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit” without according tothe Before we examine these two approaches, it should benoted thatthe prevailing terms Philosophically, onequestionof particularrelevancethatmightbeaskediswhether Whether thisdifference in usage matters only historically orphilosophicallyisagood I Two NineteenthCenturyPhilosophicalFrameworks Dictionary concept (Lamarque2009,64).Thereare,however, Iwouldargue,both Oxford EnglishDictionary,thefirstindicationsofusewordin PHILOSOPHY OFLITERATURE: NINETEENTHCENTURY haddefinedit,“learning;skillinletters”(seeSpeight2013b); ad hoc basis,notalwaysneatlyfitting into the larger aesthetic for ConsideringLiterature Critique ofPureReason;seeHenrich2003,74).Inthis literature (as is the case with most contemporary 31 poetry (asarethoseof autonomy of word with ’s artwork’s Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:47 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315708935, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315708935-3 between The contrast that interests Hegel in his discussion in the Lectures on Fine Arts is one eses—that stemfromthefirstthirdofnineteenthcentury:thoseHegelandMill. aesthetic genretheoriesandtherelationofliteraturetoworld. viewed?—but also for the other two central questions of our discussion, concerning moment—under whatgeneralphilosophicalframeworkshouldworksofliteraturebe out, whichwillproveilluminatingnotonlyfortheissueweareinterestedinat and origin.Thedifference,however, isoneofemphasis,anditaquestion,asturns contemporary philosophers of literature is certainly not unconcerned with issues of form of value,(especially, asitturnsout,thevalueof century concernwithpoetryalso—especiallyinHegel—neverleavesasidethequestion something significantenough—ethicallyorotherwise—tobeconsideredliterature?). distich, butobviouslymoresooverthecourseofanentire epic): (ibid., 965);thewholewhichitarticulates(evenin relativelyshortcompassofa world of mutual dependence, stands there foritsown sake and freeonitsownaccount” in itspartstheappearanceofcloseconnectionandcoherence and,incontrasttothe independence visibleeveninadistich,workofpoetry has anorganicunity how the Thermopylaedistichis“finewriting”andthereforepoetic,butratherthatitsome contrasting with many views of the poetic (or the literary, for that matter): it’s not that “the vocationofbeingasphereitsown”(ibid.,974).Hegel’s pointhereisworth of speech,”andthuspoetrycanbesaidtohave distinguish itselffromanyothermode myriads. “ as reportedbyHerodotus: theelegiacdistichcommemoratingGreekswhofellatThermopylae, surroundings form and origin discussions seem to focus perhaps more immediately on questions of nineteenth-century philosopher wouldremarkbetweenthetwoconstrualsisthatpoetry-centered ing tounifydetailsunder the abstractuniversalsfoundinphilosophyorscientific many ofthegreatnineteenth-century novels).Butpoetrymustlikewiseavoid attempt of nature cannotsatisfactorily unify(orsoclaimedHegel,writingbeforetheappearance Poetry thus mustavoidmerely retailing theendless particular details thatprosebyits Hegel gives as an example of poetry’s of imaginingthings[ found inconsiderationsofdiction,rhyme,orrhythm,but“theformwhichtheway therefore independent”(Hegel1975,973).Therealoriginofpoetryisthusnottobe subject matter as prose does but rather presents it “as a totalitycompleteinitselfand in Hegel’s view, “istheoriginalpresentationoftruth,”whichdoesnotdivideits to “ordinary” prose?) rather than, say, the contemporary question of Let usbegin withtwofamousyetquite differentdiscussionsofpoetry—anditsantith These are,ofcourse,notexclusivequestions:aswewillseeshortly, thenineteenth- externally inthisorthatindividualdetail. andanimatedbythesingle principlewhichismanifested itself, asproduced feelings, sortsofideas,butpoetrymustdisplaythisvast complexasperfectin may be rich and may have a vast range of relations, individuals, actions, events, stands out ” Suchacommemorativeexpressionis“ofsuchhighdignitythatittriesto poetry andwhathecalls,inamemorablephrase,“ (what account can we give of what makes a withsomeindependencefromotherwriting.Within thesphereof ] must take in order to be expressed poetically” (ibid., 1000). Vorstellen] must take inordertobe expressed poetically” (ibid., 1000). Here fourthousandfromthePeloponnesefoughtagainstthree A llen independence S 32 peight truth), andtheliteraryperspectiveof and distinctness from its prosaic the proseofworld poem come to be, as opposed value (Ibid., 973) which “gives which“gives (what makes .” Poetry, - - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:47 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315708935, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315708935-3 expressive (concernedwiththeromanticimpulseofpoettoexpress Friedrich Schlegel);thisapproach suffersperhapsmorediminutionoverthenineteenth fellow IdealistSchelling(and tosomeextentaswellintheearlyGermanromantic the work of art or literature as independent or objective has further articulation in his different figuresasTennyson, Carlyle,Wagner, andNietzsche.Hegel’s understandingof run fromWordsworth andtheEnglishromantics at thebeginningofcenturytosuch well representedacrossthe nineteenth centuryinaromanticstrainthatcanbesaid to remain importantacrossthenineteenthandintotwentieth century. Mill’s viewis underlying Mill’s approach andtheobjectivityofartworkarticulatedbyHegel and pre-Kantiandiscussionofaestheticsaestheticreaction. Butboththeexpressivism post-Kantian Idealistswhoturnedawayintheirphilosophies ofartfromtheKantian eighteenth-century exponentshadinturnbeencriticizedespeciallybythe prominent as wellhiscontributionstothisvolume]).Meanwhile thepragmatictradition’s persistent elementsthatcontinueevenintothetwentieth century[seeHalliwell2002, many) fordead(although,asHalliwellamongothers have argued,thattraditionhas The mimetictraditionhadbeenroundlyattackedinthe eighteenthcenturyandleft(by associated withHegelandMillwereperhapsmostimportant inthenineteenthcentury. own creation). It is not surprising that the two of Abrams’ approaches that we have objective/autonomous (construingworksofartanditselfashavingnopurposebutits pragmatic Aristotelian understandingsofartasprimarilyaform critical approachescanbeeither well-known typologyofcriticalapproachestoliteratureandart.AsAbramspresentsit, the finaltwooffourgeneralapproachestoliteratureoutlinedinM.H.Abrams’ kinds ofcharacter. first, whereaspoetrycomeslater;theseareforhimabovealltheresultofdifferent of the human race—narrative prose, thirst for gossipy details and incidents, comes phylogenetically—i.e. bothinone’s andinthechildhood ownindividualchildhood primal within the development of the human race.ForMill, both ontogeneticallyand literature: forHegel,phylogeneticallyspeaking,poetryissomehow of literature,bothonthelevelsocietyandindividualcharacterthatisdrawnto contrast inthisdistinctionbetweenconcernforfeelingandincident.) have apoetrytothem—andnotmerelybeinverse—butmaintainstheunderlying to novels—whichcanattractareader’s attention.Millacknowledgesthatnovelscan concern with derives atitsdepthfromaconcernwith broadly intermsoftheirorigin.Aninterestingdifferenceemerges:Mill’s view, poetry But Millthenmovestodifferentiatepoetryfrom consider centraltotheworld’s prosaicness:therealmoffactandscience(Mill1833). opposite”—in thiscase,notproseinthebroadsense,butelementsthatHegelwould Two Kinds of Poetry”) begins with Wordsworth’s contrasting of poetry with its “logical within outwards”(ibid.,973). the all-comprisingunity, therealanimatingsoul,ismadetoworkonlyinsecretfrom thewhole,andyetatsametimeexpressedinsuchawaythat determining ensouled, thinking: it mustinstead presentthemwithinaunitythatis“animated,manifest, The differingapproachesthatHegelandMilltaketopoetrycorrelatecloselywith The differentinterestsinpoetrytakenbyHegelandMillgeneratedifferinghistories Mill’s discussionofpoetryinhistwo well-known essays(“What Is Poetry?”and“The (concernedwiththe incident (the details of stories—from the latest gossip to travel narratives PHILOSOPHY OFLITERATURE: NINETEENTHCENTURY effect a work of art or literature has on a reader or spectator); aworkofartorliteraturehasonreaderspectator); mimetic heart andfeeling,whereasfictionderivesfroma 33 (derivingultimatelyfromPlatonicand fiction , of representationorimitation narrative, andthenovel himself more originalor above all); or above all);or more ); ); Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:47 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315708935, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315708935-3 commitment tothe commitment commitment thatisimplicitintheiremphasisontheobjectivityofartwork:a motivations behind considering works of artasindependentliesin a broader aesthetic is the topic of the next section. On the Idealist side, aswe will see, one of the prime century’s approachtoliteratureinthecontextofaesthetictheorymorebroadly, which and theAmericanNewCritics. through the early and mid-twentieth century in figures like A. C. Bradley, T. S. Eliot, century than does the lyric, but it nonetheless remains an important approach up the eighteenthcentury. Theclassificationofthe stillworkedwithinasetofassumptionsthathadlargelybeeninheritedfrom century wesawinthefirstsection. models in manywaysfollowsloosely(thoughwithsomequalifications)thelyricandIdealist broader aesthetictheoryinthenineteenthcentury, weseea divisionofapproachesthat aesthetics (Lamarque2009,12–16).Whenwelookatliteraturefromtheperspectiveof ture asadistinct of literaturehasplacedausefulemphasisondoingso—andhenceseeinghowlitera how literaturefitswithinalargertheoryofart,recentworkanalyticphilosophy Although certainly not all literary critics have approached their field with an eye for still engagedfullysuchrapidlydevelopingnineteenth-centurygenresasthenovel. discoverednewfoundimportanceinmusic.Yet,others aswillbeseen,neitherapproach genre stemmingfromanessentiallylyricimpetus,asSchopenhauer, Nietzsche,and theory motivatedbythiscommitment,however, waschallengedbynewapproachesto qualities ofepic). of thesameunificationwithin poetryitself,bringingtogetherbothlyricandthevisual drama thatisregardedas the supreme form of poetry(asoffering a recapitulated version somehow offeringaunification orreconciliationofthevisualandmusicalarts) and series, forexample,itispoetry thatisplacedattheheightofschemegenres (as these eighteenth-centuryviews withimpressivesimilarity. Ineachofthethreelecture critic A.W. Schlegel—allsketchaviewoftheindividualartistic genresthatdrawson series onaestheticsgivenbytheIdealistsHegelandSchelling aswellthoseofthe the startofnineteenthcentury—forexample,extensive andinfluentiallecture (Lessing 1984). by importantdistinctionssuchasthatofLessing’s betweenthevisualartsandpoetry the artswithinthisbroadergenreclassificationrelate to oneanotherwereinfluenced opments inKivy2012andPorter2002).Atthesametime, centralquestionsabouthow debate abouthisclaimsconcerningtheimportanceofthese eighteenth-centurydevel- Greek and Roman conceptions of the arts (see Kristeller 1951–2, as well as recent at leastaccordingtotheviewofKristeller, breakfromtheancient adecisive“modern” canonical forminthemid-eighteenthcenturyBatteuxandothers,represented, the five arts of architecture, sculpture, painting, music, and poetry—had reached its Künste Both theromanticandIdealisttraditionsaredecisiveaswellinnineteenth Most oftheprominent treatmentsofgenreintheearlypart nineteenth If welookatthemostprominentphilosophically-inspired theoriesofaestheticsat ) asagroupdistinctfromtheusefulormechanicalarts—andincludingespecially II LiteratureandArtisticGenre:ChangingNineteenth genre unity offormandcontent connectswithotherartisticgenresinabroadertheoryof Century Approaches A llen S 34 inartmoregenerally. Thesystematicgenre peight fine arts(the beaux artsortheschöne - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:47 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315708935, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315708935-3 at once(fortheGreeks,theyclaimed,Athenadidnotsimply whowerebothuniversalandparticular example, intherepresentationofGreekgods, Hegel andSchelling(despitetheirdifferences)bothsawthisunityasmostvisible,for commitment tothe commitment that underliestheemphasiswehaveseenonanartwork’s unityandobjectivity:a wisdom butinsomesense human, itisdrama,Hegelsays,inwhich“ concerned withtheadequate(formal)representation(ofessentialcontent)of ability torepresentaboveallhumanaction.Whiletheartisticgenresaresomehow and essenceofallart”(Schelling1989,247)Hegelvalorizesdramabecauseits his unity of form and content, according to both Hegel and Schelling. Thus Schelling in thoroughly unifiedapproachtoart. regarded somehowjustasnaturalkindsbutrathermustbeconstruedintermsofamore begun tofadeincrucialways bythemiddleofnineteenthcenturyand was Hegel’s suggests—theIdealistapproach togenrehadalready accountofartisticmodes ied meaning frame ofreferencebutalsofor otherslikeArthurDanto,forwhomthenotionof those, likeA.C.Bradley(Bradley 1901),whoworkedwithinanessentiallyIdealist sophical viewsofaesthetics stretchingintothetwentiethcentury—andnotonly for stems fromHegel’s Idealistcommitmentsretainsanimportance formanylaterphilo to art to find the adequate rendering of human significance in human shape. looking of offers a presentiment of the decline over the nineteenth century of the general project which might best voiceaspectsofmodernity(asopposed to ancient beauty) literary mode Greek art (Speight 2013a). From this perspective, Hegel’s own appeal to the lyric which wearealwaysawareofthedownfallcivilization thatgaveusthebeautyof worldexperiencenecessarilyretrospectively,which weinthemodern fromadistanceat the ancientGreeksinsculpturalrenderingsofanthropomorphic divinityisaunity a tragicidealofsculpture—thatistosaythattheunity formandcontentcapturedby notice thattheobversesideofHegel’s havingasculptural idealoftragedyisthathehas the past”(ibid.,11).AcorrectconstrualofthissideHegel’s viewofliteraturewould romantic) world“art,consideredinitshighestvocation,isandremains forusathingof (post- taken upinterms ofhissupposed“endart”thesis—thatinthemodern often task asawholemustincludesomeconsiderationofthatsidehisaestheticsis onlybecausehisengagementwiththequestionofunityinart’s highhuman tension—if sculpture” thusmostfullyunifiesaestheticformandcontent. “made intoananimatedworkofart”(Hegel1975,627,955).Dramaasakind“living byman,”thusrenderingthewholeman“fullyalive”onstage, work ofartproduced a genuinely systematic totheunityofformandcontentmakesclearIdealistneedworkout commitment fully visibleintheanthropomorphicsculpturesofGreekdeities.Andsucha which eachofthetwomustharmoniously“interpenetrate”other—somethingmost union ofuniversalmeaning( inmindtermsofa of classicalbeautyisconstruedwiththisunitytheGreekgods The Idealist Within thisaccountofthegenres,itisaboveall So itisofcoursetrueenoughthatthebroadlyholisticapproach toworksofartthat Hegel’s praiseof dramahereis, however, notonewhich canbe read asfree of Lectures onthePhilosophyofArt becamecentralforother reasons (Danto1997).But—asthetensionin account PHILOSOPHY OFLITERATURE: NINETEENTHCENTURY unity offormandcontent account of the genres: specific artistic media could not to be of this genre scheme follows in important ways on a commitment of thisgenreschemefollowsinimportantwaysonacommitment was Bedeutung divine wisdomitself calls drama“thehighestmanifestationofthenature ) andparticularshape( the wholeman 35 in aesthetics more generally (Zuckert 2010). inaestheticsmoregenerally(Zuckert2010). as drama a particular god). Hegel’sa particulargod). notion presents, by thatachievesthehighest mean Gestalt producing it,the reproducing or stand fordivine ) accordingto as that embod- -

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:47 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315708935, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315708935-3 twentieth century(by, e.g.LukácsandBakhtin). construe, for example, the nineteenth-century Russian novel were made in the early ray bythelaternineteenthcentury;inanycase,boldestnewtheoreticalattemptsto for example,scant.Partlythisisbecausesystematicgenretheoryitselfwasinrealdisar great nineteenth-centurynovelsshouldbethoughtaboutintermsofgenretheorywas, within nineteenth-centuryaccountsofliterature.Philosophicalattentiontohowthe Dionysian arenottheonlyaestheticforceswhichrepresentneedsforpotentialshifts But thelyricexpressiviststrainbehindWagnerian opera and Nietzsche’s appealtothe replaced withthemorelyricalexperienceofpathosorfeeling: view oftragic different way. AremarkofNietzsche’s in Apollinian–Dionysian oppositionconstruesthegroundsforsuchunityintragedya Schelling, andSchlegel,butNietzsche’s revaluationofaestheticsintermsthe together thelyricalandepicasit did inthe systematic aesthetictheoriesofHegel, re-envisioning whatthetragicspectatorexperiences.Tragic dramamaystillbring Schopenhauer’s appealtomusic’s non-mimeticcharacter, butalsotoaradicalwayof first book, music (Abrams1953,50).TheemphasisinthetitleoffirsteditionNietzsche’s poetry—to viewpoetryashavingwhatAbramscallsits“mostprofoundaffinity”with theothersideofromanticmovementandcritiquemimetic century—on in theIdealistsculpturalviewoftragedy, itismoretypicalofthelaternineteenth compared poetry as a genre with painting and the visual arts, culminating particularly between musicandtherestofartsinSchopenhauerNietzsche. challenged inparticularbythenewstressfromlyricalsidetobefoundconflict New Criticism,waslargelysupplanted mid-centurybysuccessivewavesofstructuralist, literary theory, themostrecognizably Idealistcousinleftintwentieth-centurytheory, analytic philosophyofliterature—certainly seemstobecastinquitedifferentterms. In siderations ofgreatestimportance tonineteenth-centurythinkers? in discussionour own day, or has philosophy of literature simply moved past the con nineteenth-century debateaboutthesetopicsthathavecontinued topersistwithinfluence contemporary debatesaboutthephilosophyofliterature? Arethereelementsofthe assessment can we make about the role of these approaches from the perspective of tions bothaboutthestatusofliteratureanditsplacewithin aestheticgenretheory, what Given theimportantnineteenth-centuryshiftswehave seeninphilosophicalconversa If the eighteenth-century views of aesthetics the Idealists had drawn upon had The landscapeofthecontemporary debate—bothincurrentliterarytheoryand before thebeginningorbehindscene). Ancient dramaaimedatscenesofgreat error isworld-wideandextendseventophilologistswhooughtknowbetter. translated ‘action’ [Handlung] It hasbeenarealmisfortuneforaestheticsthattheword III Literature,PhilosophyandtheWorld: Nineteenth-Century The BirthofTragedy outoftheSpiritMusic action as unifyingthespectator’s experienceofthedramaneedstobe Influences inContemporaryDebates? . It is not Wagner alone who errs at this point, the A llen The CaseofWagner S 36 peight pathos—it precludedaction(movingit makes clear why the Idealist makesclearwhytheIdealist , istheresultnotonlyof drama hasalwaysbeen (Nietzsche 1968) - - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:47 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315708935, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315708935-3 himself (as the post-Fregean discussion has) particularly with the role of not frame the issue precisely in terms of these twocompeting intuitions, or concern worlds ofaestheticcreationratherthanthis-worldlyrepresentation. WhileHegeldoes while atthesametimenotlosingasecondintuition—that literaturecanpresent intellectually significantengagementwithsocialandcultural reality”(Gibson2007)— “humanist intuition”—that literature can present the reader with an “intimate and literary workofartoffers,forexample,awaypreservingwhatGibsoncallsthe contributions to make within the contemporary context.The Idealists’ approach to the thinkingaboutliterature? philosophical pre-Freudiancommitments—stillhaveaninfluenceincontemporary pre-Marxist, literature wehaveexploredhere,forexample—giventheirgenerallypre-Fregean, philosophy ofliterature?Caneitherthegeneralnineteenth-centuryapproachesto of the nineteenth-century approaches that might offer resources for current work in the for example,fictionalrepresentationsservepreciselyaspropsin“gamesofmake-believe”). questions oftruth,thesemustreferrathertofictionalworlds(inWalton’s formulation, hope tofindinitknowledgeofwhatourworldisactuallylike.Ifliteratureconcerns Olsen putit,looktoliteratureforsomekindofinsightorunderstanding—butcannot imaginative issues inour engagement with literature—may even, asLamarque and Frege’s claimmeansthatwemayofcoursebeconcerned with compellingaestheticand including LamarqueandOlsen(1994),Walton (1990),and Moran(1994)—accepting question oftruth(Frege1970).Formanycontemporaryphilosophersliterature— only inthesenseofsentencesandimagesfeelingstherebyaroused,”not largely ofreactionstoFrege’s insistence thatinlisteningtopoetryweare“interested Darwin himselfmayhavecontemplated(see,amongothers,Boyd2009). charted somewhatdifferentlinesconnectingevolutionaryandliterarytheorythan of Species proper nineteenth-centurypointoforigininDarwin,althoughtheauthor in contemporaryworkevolutionarybiology—aprojectwhich,ofcourse,bearsa the endofheydaytheoryhavesoughtamorenaturalizedhomeforliterary thenewesttheoreticalturnsafter criticism havecometobeseenbysomeasoutmoded, of individualcriticsintheirownreading.Ifthesocialandculturalformsideological a newinterestinthewritingofmemoirandexplicitlyautobiographicalsatisfactions moment, therewasadeclaration—bysomeparties,atleast—ofan“endoftheory,” with to theory, whichhaveintheirturnbynoweachgonepastacertainheyday. Fora post-structuralist, andideologicallygrounded(Freudian,Marxian,feminist)approaches (Hegel 1975, 967). Yet however strong Hegel’s praise of the independent and creative which Hegelthinkscanclarify whatmakestheothergenresformsofartthemselves poetry isthusnotonlythehighest artisticgenre,aswehaveseen,butinfactthatgenre nation thatmakeshimthink ofpoetryasthetouchstoneforartawhole: imaginative our this-worldlylives—and it ispreciselythisessentiallycreativefunctionoftheimagi world thathas contemporarily productive. directly thequestionofliterature’s relationtoworldlinessinawaywhichmightbe tothedebate,hisaccountofformandoriginpoetry nonethelessengages central I would argue that both of these nineteenth-century approaches still have interesting I wouldarguethatbothofthesenineteenth-centuryapproachesstillhaveinteresting In lightofthecontemporarycontourtheseconversations,whatifanythingisleft In analyticphilosophyofliterature,thelandscapehasbeenwelldescribedinterms As wehaveseen,Hegeldoespraisetheabilityofpoetic imaginationtosketcha appears to have written little about literature, and contemporary theorists have appearstohavewrittenlittleaboutliterature,andcontemporarytheorists its own independenceandcoherence overagainst the prosaicreality of PHILOSOPHY OFLITERATURE: NINETEENTHCENTURY 37 fiction Origin other as as - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:47 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315708935, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315708935-3 for anotheroccasion. that emergesfromHegel’s reflectionsonthe“endofart”isaquestionthatmustbeleft Nietzschean approachtoliteratureorinthecontextof thatstrainoflyricmodernism Whether theselyricprovocationsarebestheard,however, inthecontextofalargely of themostprovocativere-considerationsliterature’s connectiontotheworld. as different as Celan, Kafka, Rilke, and Beckett—that may continuefigures to offer some it isperhapsthemoreplaintiveandpersistent,distinctivelyprivatelyricvoice—in point ofpeculiarlytwentieth-centuryhorrorsinsocialandculturalexperience,however, articulated, or, forthatmatter, tothe“Dionysian”itself(Porter 2000). Fromthevantage that bothScheler(1954)andSzondi(2002),indifferentways,forexample,havealso been made in a post-Nietzschean context to “the tragic” as a phenomenon in a direction larger socialandculturalimpact,ascanbeglimpsedfromthevariousappealsthathave terms havebrokenawayfromthenarrowerconsiderationofartanditsgenrestoa for example,thatitisonlyafterNietzsche’s engagementwithtragedythatcertainliterary from theperspectiveofthisphilosophicalstancetowardliterature.Itmightbeargued, worldthatremainimportant important featuresofoursharedwaylifeinthemodern exploration ofthefreedomandcreativityimagination.Yet heretoowemightnotice an engagementwithsocialandculturalrealitiesthanperhapsamoreperfectionist between opposingphilosophicaltendenciestowardperfectionandcommunity—lessof with literature,onemightexpect—following,forexample,Rorty’s (1989)contrast from awork’s aestheticfabric. of formandcontentoftenassociatedwiththeattempttostripsomeideological“meaning” and content—mightallowastanceinwhichcontemporarycriticsmayavoidtheseparation and culturalrealityisfiguredinliterature—givenhiscommitmenttotheunityofform the post-ideologicalageofliterarycriticism,thatHegel’s overall approachtohowsocial life(Pippin2010).Wethat matterforusinmodern mightnote,further, inthewakeof a moreconstitutiverole,inshowinguswhatitcouldmeantoespouseoravowthenorms inmimetictermsasrepresentingtheworldsomewaybutratherhaving understood certain formsoflife(ibid.,967).Inbothfunctions,literatureiscoursenottobe moments inhumandevelopmenthelpingpromptthediscoveryof time and(onthesideofform)thatliteraryartworkshaveinfactbeenusefulatcrucial comprehensive truths of the spirit” (ibid., 7) is something that has in fact significance intermsofwhatHegelcallsthe “deepestinterestsofmankind, andthe most valence needtobepartofthestoryaswell:that(onsidecontent)literature’s imagination, he makes clear that two important facets of art’s historicity and cultural Abrams, M.H.(1953), Boyle, Nicholas (2010), “Goethe’s Theory of Tragedy,” Boyd, B.(2009),OntheOriginofStories:Evolution, CognitionandFiction Bakhtin, M.(1984), Danto, A.(1997), Bradley, A.C.(1901),PoetryforPoetry’s Sake.Oxford:ClarendonPress. Press. Minnesota Press. University Press. 1072–1086. University Press. From thelyricexpressiviststraininnineteenth-centuryphilosophicalengagement After theEndofArt:Contemporary ArtandthePaleofHistory The MirrorandtheLamp:RomanticTheoryCriticalTradition Problems ofDostoevsky’s Poetics A Bibliography llen S 38 peight , trans.CarylEmerson.Minneapolis:Universityof The Modern Language Review . Cambridge:HarvardUniversity . Princeton:Princeton ,

104, 5 (October), . Oxford:Oxford inadequacy of changed over Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:47 26 Sep 2021; For: 9781315708935, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315708935-3 Halliwell, S.(2002), Gibson, J.(2007),FictionandtheWeave ofLife.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Frege, G.(1970),“OnSenseandReference,”in Eldridge, R.(forthcoming),“TheQuestionofTruth inLiterature:DiepoetischeAuffassungderWelt .” Hegel, G.W. F. (1975), Pippin, R.(2010),“ Nietzsche, F. (1968),BasicWritings ofNietzsche,trans.Walter Kaufmann.NewYork: Library. Modern Moran, R.(1994),“TheExpressionofFeelinginImagination,” Mill, J. S. (1833), “What Is Poetry?” and “The Two Kinds of Poetry,” Lukács, Lamarque, P. andSteinHaugomOlsen(1994), Lamarque, P. (2009),ThePhilosophyofLiterature.Oxford:Blackwell. Kristeller, P. SystemoftheArts:AStudyinHistoryAesthetics,” O.(1951–1952),“TheModern Kivy, P. (2012), “What Henrich, D.(2003), Lessing, G. E. (1984), Porter, J.I.(2000),TheInventionofDionysus:AnEssayontheBirthTragedy Schelling, F. W. J.(1989), Scheler, M.(1954),“OntheTragic,” trans.BernardStambler, inCrosscurrents , 4(1954):178–191. Rutter, B.(2010),HegelontheModernArts.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Rorty, R.(1989),Contingency, IronyandSolidarity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Porter, Kristeller’s J.I.(2009),“IsArtModern? Systemofthe Arts’Reconsidered,” ‘Modern Speight, A.(2013b),“PhilosophyandLiteratureintheEighteenth Century,” in Speight, A.(2013a),“Tragedy andtheHumanImage:GermanIdealism’s Legacy forTheoryandPractice,” Szondi, P. (2002),AnEssayontheTragic, trans.PaulFleming.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress. Schopenhauer, A.(1958),TheWorld asWill andRepresentation,trans.E.F. Payne.NewYork: Dover. Walton, K.(1990),MimesisasMake-Believe:OntheFoundationsofRepresentational Arts Zuckert, R.(2010),“TheAestheticsofSchellingandHegel,”inDean Moyar, ed.,TheRoutledgeCompanion Geach andMaxBlack.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. University Press. 75–106. 60–70; and(October),714–724. trans. AnnaBostock.Cambridge,MA:MITPress. Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress. Journal oftheHistoryIdeas,12,4(October1951),496–527,and13,1(January1952),17–46. (Again),” BritishJournalofAesthetics,52,1(January),61–74. Harvard UniversityPress. Clarendon Press ed. A.LeistandP. Singer. NewYork: ColumbiaUniversity Press. Aesthetics, 49,1(2009),1–24. Press. Cambridge UniversityPress. The ImpactofIdealism:LegacyPost-KantianGermanThought,vol.3,ed.NicholasBoyle.Cambridge: Minnesota Press. Eighteenth CenturyPhilosophy,A.Garrett,ed.(forthcoming). to NineteenthCenturyPhilosophy.NewYork: Routledge,pp. 165–193. Harvard UniversityPress. G. (1971), The ParadoxesofPowerintheEarlyNovelsJ.M.Coetzee, Theory oftheNovel:AHistorico-PhilosophicalEssayonFormsGreatEpicLiterature Between KantandHegel:LecturesonGermanIdealism Laocoön: An Essay on the Limits of Painting and Poetry The AestheticsofMimesis:AncientTexts andModernProblems PHILOSOPHY OFLITERATURE: NINETEENTHCENTURY Aesthetics: LecturesonFineArt Happened in the Eighteenth Century: The ‘Modern System’ Re-examined Really Happened in the Eighteenth Century: The ‘Modern The PhilosophyofArt Truth FictionandLiterature:APhilosophicalPerspective Philosophical Writings ofGottlobFrege , trans.DouglasW. Stott.Minneapolis:Universityof 39 , trans.T. M.Knox.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. The PhilosophicalReview Monthly Repository, VII (January), , trans. Edward Allen McCormick. , trans. EdwardAllenMcCormick. , DavidS.Pacini,ed.Cambridge: . Stanford:StanfordUniversity ” inJ.M.CoetzeeandEthics Routledge Companionto . Princeton:Princeton , trans.anded.Peter , 103, 1(January), British Journalof . Cambridge: . Oxford: . Oxford: , ,