THE COSMOLOGY OF PHILIPP OTTO RUNGE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON HIS INTEREST IN THE GESAMTKUNSTWERK. Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Morgan, David A., 1957- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 08/10/2021 10:34:28 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/275058 INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality- of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations -which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign ox "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round hlack mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. Vhenarnap, drawing or chart, etc., is part ofthe material being photographed, a definite method of "sectioning" the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Mfcroilnris International 300M.Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 1323210 MORGAN, DAVID A. THE COSMOLOGY OF PHILIPP OTTO RUNGE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON HIS INTEREST IN THE GESAMTKUNSTWERK THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA M.A. 1984 University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 THE COSMOLOGY OF PHILIPP OTTO RUNGE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON HIS INTEREST IN THE GESAMTKUNSTWERK by David A. Morgan A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF ART In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS WITH A MAJOR IN ART HISTORY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 8 4 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable with­ out special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: t. M. QUINN "Date Professor of Art PREFACE Problems of Runge Scholarship Several special factors, which condition any research in the art of Philipp Otto Runge, need at least to be indicated here. First, one must consider the primary literary source of all Runge studies, the Hinterlassene Schriften. This collection of untranslated letters by Runge, ranging from 1797 to his death in 1810, were collect­ ed and edited by his older brother Daniel and finally published in 1840 and 1841. In those volumes are letters to any number of notable contemporaries such as Goethe, Schelling, Clemens Brentano and Ludwig Tieck. The tone and language Runge used is generally quite earnest, frequently impassioned as well as mystical, and occasionally unclear. Unfortunately, the alarming dearth of English and American scholarship on Runge does little to facilitate the problem of reading and interpreting his correspondence. German scholarship, on the other hand, is overwhelming. Runge seems to have become a favorite son since his rise to attention at the end of the nineteenth century. Though some­ what uneven in quality, Runge scholarship in German has produced recent outstanding and enduring studies such as Heinz Matile's Die Farbenlehre Philipp Otto Runges (1973) and Jorg Traeger's Philipp Otto Runge und sein Werk (1975). iii These two works have been of particular importance in my own study. In English only two full-length studies on Runge exist—-both of which are to be used with reservation. "" J. B. C. Grundy's Tieck and Runge (1930) and Rudolf M. Bisanz's German Romanticism and Philipp Otto Runge (1970) 1 transmit a number of misconceptions. Nonetheless, I have found Grundy's work to be of some assistance. What deserves mention as particularly helpful, however, is Otto Georg Von Simson's solid piece of scholarship, "Philip Otto Runge and 2 the Mythology of Landscape." Any scholarship making considerable use of written correspondence, as this study does, faces some unavoidable obstacles. For instance, the writer must begin by asking to what degree the artist's practice varied from what he wrote. Some Runge studies have overemphasized the distinction between 3 theory and practice. However, I assert that his writing and his art must remain closely bound, and this study will make a strong case for this assertion. Secondly, one must also ask to what extent Runge expressed all his aesthetic ideas and philosophical thoughts 1. See Reinhold Heller's review of Bisanz's study, Art Bulletin 58, June 1976, pp. 302-306. Heller himself demonstrated an impressive fluency in Runge scholarship in his review of Bisanz's book. 2. Von Simson, Art Bulletin 24, 1942, pp. 535-550. 3. Heller, i'cid. , pp. 303-304. V in his letters. Are they comprehensive or exhaustive? Do they represent the sum of his meditations and aspirations? It is my impression from reading the letters that they likely express, iaore or less comprehensively, what he con­ sidered essential to artistic expression. This is suggested not only by the frequency and regularity with which he wrote, but also by the considerable range of themes and feelings expressed within the letters. In addition, nearly every major artistic project of his career was detailed to a greater or lesser degree in his correspondence. Another problem in working with a collection of letters as a primary source is the inevitable tendency to regard letters written over a period of many years as a single, self-contained expression of the artist's thought. In fact, of course, this is presumptuous. The amount of time and change may not be ignored for the sake of system­ atic clarity. Inevitably, the scholastic impulse to render the content of the diverse letters into an organic unity asserts itself. The passage of time frequently is ignored in the pursuit of exegesis. For instance, can one assume that every problem in the interpretation of passages from 1810 can be resolved by references to letters as early as 1802? If the text is approached as a harmonized, self- authentieating, and dogmatically sound unit of literature, then we may proceed to set aside not only the elapse of time, vi but the fact that, generally speaking, what was written in 1810 probably has not the slightest concern for what was written in 1802, which may have long since faded from the artist's memory. It is important, however, to understand that Runge presents a special case. He is at once an artist and a thinker who considered it worthwhile, not only to correspond extensively with his acquaintances, family and friends, but also to pursue persistently several themes which are fre­ quently implicit in many of his letters and much of his art. Reinhold Heller has pointed out correctly that too 1 much emphasis has been placed on the letter of March 9, 1802. We should remember that only five weeks after this letter Runge wrote that he had already found unuseful some ideas of 2 the March 9 letter. However, he also wrote that he had copied the letter over for himself so that he might have it for reference when he received his brother's response to it. A month later he wrote to Daniel that his formulations should not be taken as final, but that such speculation is !l a necessary part in leading to an ultimate Ubersicht, or overview, of the entire matter of artistic expression. This all suggests the degree to which Runge valued writing his ideas down in epistolary form as aid in developing his 1. Op. cit. " 2. To Daniel, April 14, 1802. 3. To Daniel, May 15, 1802. thought. Consequently, his written expression remains as relevant to charting the evolution of his artistic concerns as his actual artistic studies.