German Literary Conceptions of Nature Between Romantic Science and Objective Empiricism
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Carolina Digital Repository TANGLED UP IN TRUTHS: GERMAN LITERARY CONCEPTIONS OF NATURE BETWEEN ROMANTIC SCIENCE AND OBJECTIVE EMPIRICISM Lindsey J. Brandt A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. in the Carolina-Duke Graduate Program in German Studies Chapel Hill 2015 Approved by: Eric S. Downing Clayton Koelb Thomas Pfau Gabriel Trop Kata Gellen © 2015 Lindsey J. Brandt ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Lindsey J. Brandt: Tangled up in Truths: German Literary Conceptions of Nature between Romantic Science and Objective Empiricism (Under the direction of Eric S. Downing) This dissertation explores the relationship between literature and science in German- speaking Europe of the 1830s and 1840s against the backdrop of large shifts in conceptions of nature and natural inquiry. Many scientific and literary writers of this period reflected on the increasing tensions between early 19th century Romantic science and modern empirical science, as well as the implications of these tensions for fields such as biology and geology. The key texts examined in this context include Lorenz Oken’s journal Isis; Carl Gustav Carus’s Neun Briefe über Landschaftsmalerei and Zehn Briefe über das Erdleben; Annette von Droste-Hülshoff’s essay “Westfälische Schilderungen aus einer Westfälischen Feder” and poems “Die Mergelgrube” and “Der Hünenstein”; Adalbert Stifter’s painting “Bewegung II” and prose tale Kalkstein; and Georg Büchner’s prose work Lenz, trial lecture “Über Schädelnerven,” and dissertation on the nervous system of the barbel fish. Several of the texts examined here seek to reconcile the newer trend toward objective empiricism with older elements of nature discourse reflected, for instance, in Friedrich Schelling’s Naturphilosophie and the aesthetic-scientific approaches of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Alexander von Humboldt. As such, the writers in question often advocate for aesthetically inspired ways of knowing nature (i.e., through literature, Stimmung-oriented landscape painting, and more poetically attuned forms of science) as necessary complements iii to empirical science. Defending the aesthetic perspective was especially important at this time, as a rising trend toward disciplinarity threatened to isolate modes of knowledge—such as poetry and science—that were previously considered inextricable from one another. Particularly within the realm of literary history, this period of the 1830s and 1840s is typically framed in terms of political events; likewise, literary works are often interpreted and categorized based on their authors’ political views. My findings suggest that, by examining the literary and scientific writings of this era in dialogue with one another, another reading of this period is possible. Namely, literary and scientific authors across the political spectrum express common concerns about the increasingly complicated relationship between humans and nature, as well as the capacity of the arts and the sciences to gain knowledge about that relationship. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply grateful to the Carolina-Duke Joint German Studies Program for its generous financial, administrative, and general academic support during the development and completion of this dissertation project. I am also very much indebted to the many faculty, staff, colleagues, friends, and family members who have shown me their caring support over the last few years. Special thanks go to my advisor and mentor, Eric Downing, for his unwavering enthusiasm as well as his patient guidance during my moments of fatigue and uncertainty. Both his sharp eye for detail and his masterful grasp of the Überblick set my bearings straight on countless occasions. I would like to thank my committee members, who have helped me in countless ways over the years: Jonathan Hess for his practical advice and willingness to talk about process; Gabe Trop for his contagious excitement and for always pushing the limits of my readings; Thomas Pfau for his unending resourcefulness and meticulous eye; Kata Gellen for the opportunity to explore my project’s connections to the 20th century; and Clayton Koelb for his invaluable feedback at my defense. I am also grateful to Ann Marie Rasmussen for being a critical source of professional guidance and support; Heidi Madden for her incredible resourcefulness; and Prof. Jutta Müller-Tamm, both for her generous feedback and for welcoming me into her research colloquium at the Freie Universität Berlin. Many thanks as well to Liz Ametsbichler at the University of Montana for introducing me to Adalbert Stifter and 19th century German literature in the first place so many years ago. v A generous Fulbright grant allowed me to spend a year researching in Berlin for this project and engaging in academic exchange at the Freie Universität. I am incredibly thankful for this fellowship, not only because it was an eye-opening academic opportunity for me but also because it allowed my husband time to explore the culture to which I have dedicated so many years of study. I am equally grateful for a UNC dissertation completion fellowship that provided me funding to finish writing. A number of friends in Chapel Hill and Durham had a meaningful impact on my time as a doctoral student. Many heartfelt thanks to my fellow graduate students: Silia and Steffen for our productive writing dates in Berlin; Sandra for keeping my German language in shape; Alex and Corinna Z. for crucial input on my fellowship applications; Tayler for her witty humor and rock-star lesson plans; Matt for coming to Montana and baking my wedding cake; Sara for showing me what determination is; Emma for her contagious, never-ending energy; and Melanie, Rory, and Erik for being such a funny, thoughtful, and unconditionally supportive cohort, year in and year out. To my neighbors, Stephanie, Richard, and Kelley: you are my North Carolina family. To my Montana family: thank you Keelie for always taking the time to witness my life abroad; Chris for helping me move clear across the country—and back; and Ryan, for your open ear. Thanks to Mom and Dad for always giving me the space to find my own way. “Last and foremost,” as some of us say, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my husband, Jim, who has moved across the country, and the world, and then back home again, with an open mind and a heart for adventure. His kindness, reassurance, and humor lift me up day in and day out. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………viii INTRODUCTION………………………………...…………………………………………..1 CHAPTER ONE – Lorenz Oken’s Isis: Defending Romantic Values at the Dawn of Disciplinarity…………………………….………………………………......15 CHAPTER TWO – Reading the Face of Nature: Geology, Biology, and Physiognomy in Annette von Droste-Hülshoff's Lyric Poetry……………..…….……..48 CHAPTER THREE – Training Scientific and Aesthetic Vision: Stimmung in the Work of Adalbert Stifter and Carl Gustav Carus…………………………..…….…...93 CHAPTER FOUR – “[N]otwendige Harmonie”: The Paradox of Nature in Büchner’s Scientific and Literary Writings…………………………………..……...….152 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………..……..…….194 WORKS CITED……………………………………………………………………………201 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Adalbert Stifter, “Bewegung II” (Oil Study)…………………………………….93 viii INTRODUCTION If it form the one landscape that we, the inconstant ones, Are consistently homesick for, this is chiefly Because it dissolves in water. - W.H. Auden, “In Praise of Limestone” The interest behind this project was sparked by an observation that, at first, seemed rather mundane and inconsequential: erosion imagery in Adalbert Stifter’s mid-19th century tale Kalkstein (Limestone).1 Why, I wondered, does so much of the physical description in this story revolve around wornness and dissolution? Why do the physical qualities of the limestone landscape described also seem to pervade the human realm, and vice versa? What I initially reduced to a descriptive obsession on Stifter’s part slowly evolved into a series of exciting discoveries about the way conceptions of nature and human nature were shifting in the German-speaking lands leading up to the mid-19th century. This dissertation will present many of those discoveries throughout the next few chapters. Limestone, however, deserves its own brief moment in the sun. Throughout the course of this project, I remained astounded at the power of the image of that eroded limestone landscape, as well as its constant relevance to 19th century nature discourse. Admittedly, Stifter’s affinity for limestone was not an arbitrary one without weight or precedent. The story’s foregrounding of limestone and its unique qualities resonates with observations already established by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in his 1809 novel Die 1 Adalbert Stifter, Bunte Steine. Erzählungen, Munich, Goldmann, 1983. 1 Wahlverwandtschaften. In the famous chemistry parable of this novel, the captain cites limestone as an example of a substance that readily interacts or unites with other substances and is thus continuously in a state of transformation: Diejenigen Naturen, die sich beim Zusammentreffen einander schnell ergreifen und wechselseitig bestimmen, nennen wir verwandt. An den Alkalien und Säuren, […] sich am entschiedensten suchen und fassen, sich modifizieren und zusammen einen neuen Körper bilden, ist diese Verwandtschaft auffallend genug. Gedenken