Anthony Krupp

Karl Philipp Moritz’s Life and Walks

The following material was presented at a 2006 conference devoted to Karl Philipp Moritz, held at the University of Chicago; the oral mode of delivery and the assumption of general familiarity with Moritz have been retained. While addressed to scholars, this discussion is intended to serve here as a preface to further reading in this volume.

Moritz Fugue Moritz is a difficult figure to situate in literary history; perhaps ‘late Enlight- enment’ is the safest term to apply to him. He was raised in Pietist/Quietist circumstances; his early veneration of Goethe’s Werther aligns him to ; but he allied himself to the Enlightenment, at least until his Italian journey, after and through which he helped form Classicism (and Berliner Klassik, a period designation recently being promoted). Among Moritz’s students were several early Romantics, and then Moritz admired and was admired by , who also forms an exception to traditional liter- ary periodization. In a recent article, I claimed that Moritz takes the Enlight- enment as a point of departure, “daß Moritz von der Aufklärung ausgeht”.1 This departure or ‘Ausgang’ recalls Kant’s dictum: sapere aude! Dare to think, dare to use your own intellect, look for the exit from self-incurred immaturity, the “Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit”.2 Willi Winkler, the most recent Moritz biographer, highlights the difficulty Moritz had to face in making this departure: Moritz’ Geburtsfehler – die Herkunft aus dem Vierten Stand, die unterdrückte Jugend – hätte ihm nur wenige Jahre vorher die Geisteswelt versperrt, an einen sozialen Aufstieg wäre nicht zu denken gewesen. Erst mit der Aufklärung wurde das anders. Moritz wuchs im schlimmsten denkbaren Sektenunwesen auf, doch führte ihn der gleiche religiöse Fanatismus, der ihn zwingen sollte, jedes Selbstbe- wußtsein abzutöten, erst recht zur Schrift und gab ihm die Sprache, in der er sagen konnte, was er auf dem Weg aus der Unmündigkeit leiden musste.3

1 Anthony Krupp: Das Gehen als Grundfigur bei Karl Philipp Moritz. In: Karl Philipp Moritz in Berlin 1789–1793. Ed. by Ute Tintemann and Christof Wing- ertszahn. Laatzen: Wehrhahn 2005. Pp. 215–232. 2 Immanuel Kant: Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung? In: Werkausgabe. Vol. 11. Ed. by Wilhelm Weischedel. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1993. P. 53. 3 Willi Winkler: Karl Philipp Moritz. Hamburg: Rowohlt 2006. P. 8. 12

The language in which Moritz articulates his sufferings: Winkler refers of course first and foremost to Anton Reiser. In one oft-cited passage from that text, we learn that at some point in his youth, Anton “schmeckte zuerst die Wonne des Denkens”.4 But this fact is not simply celebrated. One page after this new taste for thinking is discovered, we learn that it seemed to Anton “als ob er plötzlich an etwas stieße, das ihn hemmte, und wie eine bretterne Wand, oder eine undurchdringliche Decke auf einmal seine weitere Aussicht schloß – es war ihm dann, als habe er nichts gedacht – als Worte” (1:301). Trying to think, in words, about the relationship between thought and words nearly drove young Anton mad. And this problem continued to occupy Moritz. Here is Winkler’s assessment, with which I completely concur:

Um die Niederlegung dieser bretternen Wand und die Wonne des Denkens geht es im Werk von Moritz. Man kann auch sagen, daß er diese Wand sechsunddreißig und drei viertel Jahre und an die fünfzig Bücher lang berannt hat, dass er in die andere Richtung, dass er irgendwohin gelaufen ist.5

This last phrase rings particularly true. Moritz’s settled opinions – if there are any – regarding thought and language may ultimately not be live options for us. But his ‘running’, to follow Winkler’s metaphor, has resulted in a rich and strange oeuvre that should interest literary and intellectual historians, if not philosophers or linguists. Moritz never settled, not well, not for long. I submit that Moritz’s work can be viewed in part as an attempt to escape immobility, as well as an attempt to rationalize his compulsion to move, his dromomania. I will paint here with broad strokes: in Anton Reiser, the immo- bility is at first physical, then mental; a “Fußentzündung” binds him to his bed for a significant period of time, such that Moritz blames this swollen foot for his having lost out on all the joys of childhood; his compensation for this loss was the joys and sufferings of imagination, in mental games and the reading of forbidden novels; from his “Fußentzündung”, Anton graduates to “Seelen- lähmung”, one of the foci of Anton Reiser. Quite obviously, “Fußentzündung” and “Seelenlähmung” contrast with the ability to move, to walk, to travel. Moritz’s diagnosis of Anton’s pathology is of a piece with Kant, who in his famous essay contrasts the ideal of standing on one’s own two feet and tak- ing secure steps forward – thus ‘Aufklärung’ as ‘Fortschreiten’ – with the undesirable situation of being fettered by prejudice. Two of Kant’s images for this being fettered are the “Gängelwagen” – the baby’s walker, which is fine for infants but wrong for adults – and “Leitbänder” or ‘leading strings’,

4Karl Philipp Moritz: Werke in zwei Bänden. Ed. by Heide Hollmer and Albert Meier. Frankfurt a. M.: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag 1997/1999. Volume 1. P. 300. Subsequent parenthetical references to this edition are to volume and page. 5 Winkler: Karl Philipp Moritz. P. 9.