1 Schiller and the Young Coleridge
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes 1 Schiller and the Young Coleridge 1. For the details of Schiller’s career and thought I am drawing on a number of works including Lesley Sharpe, Friedrich Schiller: Drama, Thought and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Walter Schafarschik, Friedrich Schiller (Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam, 1999); F. J. Lamport, German Classical Drama: Theatre, Humanity, and Nation, 1750–1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); and T. J. Reed, The Classical Centre: Goethe and Weimar, 1775–1832 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), and Schiller- Handbuch, ed. Helmut Koopmann (Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner, 1998). 2. Schiller later revised the essay and published it in his Shorter Works in Prose under the title ‘The Stage Considered as a Moral Institution’ (‘Die Schaubühne als eine moralische Anstalt betrachtet’). 3. See David Pugh, ‘“Die Künstler”: Schiller’s Philosophical Programme’, Oxford German Studies, 18/19 (1989–90), 13–22. 4. See J. M. Ellis, Schiller’s ‘Kalliasbriefe’ and the Study of his Aesthetic Theory (The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1969). 5. See Paul Robinson Sweet, Wilhelm von Humboldt: a Biography, 2 vols (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1978–80) and W. H. Bruford, The Ger- man Tradition of Self-Cultivation: ‘Bildung’ from Humboldt to Thomas Mann (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), ch. 1; also E. S. Shaffer, ‘Romantic Philosophy and the Organization of the Disciplines: the Found- ing of the Humboldt University of Berlin’, in Romanticism and the Sciences, ed. Andrew Cunningham and Nicholas Jardine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 38–54. 6. Norbert Oellers, Schiller: Geschichte seiner Wirkung bis zu Goethes Tod, 1805– 1832 (Bonn: Bouvier, 1967). 7. For Schiller’s reception in England see Frederic Ewen, The Prestige of Schiller in England, 1788–1859 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932) and Robert Pick, Schiller in England, 1787–1960: a Bibliography (Leeds: English Goethe Society, 1961); also Violet Stockley, German Literature as Known in England, 1750–1830 (London: Routledge, 1929) and F. W. Stokoe, German Influence in the English Romantic Period, 1788–1818 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926). 8. For earlier scholarly discussions of Coleridge’s German reading in this period see Werner W. Beyer, ‘Coleridge’s Early Knowledge of German’, Modern Philology, 52 (1954–55), 192–200; A. C. Dunstan, ‘The German Influence on Coleridge’, MLR, 17 (1922), 272–81; H. M. Goodman, ‘The German Influence on Samuel Taylor Coleridge’, Ph.D. thesis (University of Florida, 1957); Fritz Wieden, ‘S.T. Coleridge’s Assimilation of Ideas from Schiller’s 207 208 Notes Early Writings’, in Analecta Helvetica et Germanica: eine Festschrift zu Ehren von Hermann Boeschenstein, ed. Achim Arnold et al. (Bonn: Bouvier, 1979), 170–81; Elizabeth M. Wilkinson, ‘Coleridge und Deutschland’, Forschungs- probleme der vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1958), II, 7–23; and L. A. Willoughby, ‘Coleridge and his German Contemporaries’, PEGS, 10 (1934), 43–62 and ‘Schiller in England and Germany’, PEGS, 11 (1935), 1–19. 9. David Fairer, ‘Coleridge in Conversation: Sonnets by Various Authors (1796)’, paper presented at the Coleridge Summer Conference, 20 July 2000. 10. See Donald G. Priestman, ‘Godwin, Schiller and the Polemics of Coleridge’s Osorio’, Bulletin of Research in the Humanities, 82 (1979), 236–48. 11. For related discussions of the play see John David Moore, ‘Coleridge and the “Modern Jacobinical Drama”: Osorio, Remorse, and the Development of Coleridge’s Critique of the Stage, 1797–1816’, Bulletin of Research in the Humanities, 85 (1982), 443–64, and Daniel Watkins, ‘In that New World: the Deep Historical Structure of Coleridge’s Osorio’, Philological Quarterly, 69 (1990), 495–515. 12. Neil Vickers discusses this review in connection with Beddoes’s wide-ranging scholarly interests in ‘Coleridge, Thomas Beddoes and Brunonian Medicine’, European Romantic Review, 8 (1997), 47–94. 13. Giuseppe Micheli and René Wellek, The Early Reception of Kant’s Thought in England, 1785–1805 and Immanuel Kant in England, 1793–1838 (London: Routledge/Thoemmes Press, 1993), 47–54. 14. Carl August Weber, Bristols Bedeutung für die englische Romantik und die deutsch–englischen Beziehungen (Halle: Niemeyer, 1935), 92–115; see also Beyer, ‘Coleridge’s Early Knowledge of German’. 15. Shaffer, ‘Kubla Khan’ and the Fall of Jerusalem: the Mythological School in Biblical Criticism and Secular Literature, 1770–1880 (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1975); Dorothy A. Stansfield, ‘A Note on the Genesis of Coleridge’s Thinking on War and Peace’, The Wordsworth Circle, 17 (1986), 130–4; Vickers, ‘Coleridge, Thomas Beddoes and Brunonian Medicine’, passim. 16. Monthly Review, n.s., 21 (1796), 574. Beddoes is translating, and slightly abbreviating, the opening paragraph from the essay: In der Tat scheinen die Zeitumstände einer Schrift wenig Glück zu ver- sprechen, die sich über das Lieblingsthema des Tages ein strenges Still- schweigen auferlegen und ihren Ruhm darin suchen wird, durch etwas anders zu gefallen, als wodurch jetzt alles gefällt. Aber je mehr das beschränkte Interesse der Gegenwart die Gemüter in Spannung setzt, einengt und unterjocht, desto dringender wird das Bedürfnis, durch ein allgemeines und höheres Interesse an dem, was rein menschlich und über allen Einfluß der Zeiten erhaben ist, sie wieder in Freiheit zu setzen und die politische geteilte Welt unter der Fahne der Wahrheit und Schönheit wieder zu vereinigen. (NA, XXII, 106) Notes 209 17. Vickers makes this conjecture in ‘Coleridge, Thomas Beddoes and Brunonian Medicine’, 57. 2 Coleridge and Weimar Classicism 1. For Coleridge’s studies in Göttingen see Clement Carlyon, Early Years and Late Reflections (London: Whittaker, 1836), Willoughby, ‘German Con- temporaries’, 47–50 and Weber, Bristols Bedeutung, 164–74. Schiller’s work does not appear among the books that Coleridge borrowed from the uni- versity library: Alice D. Snyder, ‘Books Borrowed by Coleridge from the Library of the University of Göttingen 1799’, Modern Philology, 25 (1927– 28), 377–80. See also Wilkinson’s note, ‘Coleridge’s Knowledge of German as Seen in the Early Notebooks’ in CN, I, Appendix ‘A’. 2. Luigi Marino, Praeceptores Germaniae: Göttingen 1770–1820 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995). For some contemporary accounts of life in Göttingen in the period, see ‘Selige Tage im Musensitz Göttingen’: Stadt und Universität in ungarischen Berichten aus dem 18. and 19. Jahrhundert, ed. István Futaky (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). 3. The circumstances of this translation are discussed in the second section of the next chapter, pp. 52–3 . 4. For the full circumstances surrounding Coleridge’s translation, see Joyce Crick’s edition of The Piccolomini and Wallenstein’s Death in the Bollingen edition of Poetical Works, ed. J. C. C. Mays, and ‘Coleridge’s Wallenstein: Two Legends’, MLR, 83 (1988), 76–86; see also Walter Grossman, ‘The Gillman–Harvard Manuscript of Schiler’s Wallensteins Tod’, Harvard Library Quarterly, 11 (1957), 319–45, and B. Q. Morgan, ‘What Happened to Coleridge’s Wallenstein’, Modern Language Journal, 43 (1959), 195–201. 5. F. J. Lamport, ‘Wallenstein on the English Stage’, German Life and Letters, 48 (1995), 124–47; Joyce Crick, ‘William Poel’s Wallenstein-Moment’, in Cousins at One Remove, ed. Richard Byin (Leeds: Northern Universities Press, 1998), 42–60. 6. ‘Some Editorial and Stylistic Observations on Coleridge’s Translation of Schiller’s Wallenstein’, PEGS, 54 (1983–84), 37–75; and ‘Coleridge’s Wallen- stein: Available Dictions’, Second Hand: Papers on the Theory and Historical Study of Literary Translation, ALW Cahiers, 3 (1985), 128–60. On Coleridge as translator, see also Jibon Krishna Banerjee, ‘Coleridge’s English Rendering of Schiller’s Plays’, The Aligarh Journal of English Studies, 13 (1988), 103–13 and Matthew Scott, ‘The Circulation of Romantic Creativity: Coleridge, Drama, and the Question of Translation’, Romanticism on the Net, 2 (May 1996), online. <http://users.ox.ac.uk/~scat0385/circulation.html> 7. ‘Coleridge’s Wallenstein Translation as a Guide to his Dejection Ode’, The Wordsworth Circle, 18 (1987), 132–6. 8. In the Theatre of Romanticism: Coleridge, Nationalism, Women (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 63–93; see also her article: ‘Command Performances: Burke, Coleridge, and Schiller’s Dramatic Reflections on the Revolution in France’, The Wordsworth Circle, 23 (1992), 117–32. 210 Notes 9. The Robbers and Wallenstein, trans. F. J. Lamport (Hardmondsworth: Penguin, 1979), 166–7. 10. As Carlson says, the play ‘dramatizes the tragedy of Romantic proposals for change’ (‘Command Performance’, 124). 11. Leonard M. Mackall, ‘Coleridge Marginalia on Wieland and Schiller’, Modern Language Review, 19 (1924), 346. 3 British Germanophiles 1. Monthly Review, 33 (Oct. 1800), 127–31; other reviews appeared in Critical Review, 30 (Oct. 1800), 175–85 and in British Critic, 18 (Nov. 1801), 542–5. See Coleridge: the Critical Heritage, ed. J. R. de J. Jackson (London: Routledge, 1970), 62–6. Coleridge later attributed one of the reviews to Anna Letitia Barbauld and blamed her for turning public opinion against his Wallenstein translation (TT, I, 573). 2. See also Henry Crabb Robinson on Books and Their Writers, ed. Edith J. Mor- ley, 3 vols (London: Dent, 1938), III, 107. Scott quoted from it on several occasions in Guy Mannering (1815), for which Coleridge thanked him in the 1818 Friend (I, 122 and 428–9n),