THE POETIZATION OF MYSTICAL CONSTRUCTS IN THE WORK OF NOVALIS By VERONICA FREEMAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2000 The poet enters into himself in order to create The contemplative enters into God in order to be created. Thomas Merton ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To my family, whose love is boundless. To Robin and Jean Gibson and CLAS for the fellowship award enabling me to devote time to this project in the spring of 1999. To the Department of Germanic and Slavic Studies, especially Anne-Marie and Sophia. In thanking them, I thank the department. Particular thanks to the chair who accepted me into the program, Alexander Stephan, and to the chair who kept me in, Keith Bullivant. To the latter: it did not go unnoticed that you unfailingly knew my needs ahead of time and paved the road, from lemon lime mineral water to extra time when needed. A very special thanks to Franz Futterknecht, a wise, patient, and supportive teacher who allowed his student’s potential to unfold. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii ABSTRACT v CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 WHAT DO MYSTICISM AND ROMANTICISM HAVE TO DO WITH REALITY? 1 Mysticism 22 The Journey 48 Ken Wilber 58 3 THE ALLURE OF NATURE: INVITING THE ARTIST TO EMBRACE THE MYSTIC 67 Nature Mysticism 83 Die Lehrlinge 92 Pantheism 96 4 LONGING FOR HOME: THE ROMANTIC CONDITION 1 16 Regression 137 Heinrich von Ofterdingen 143 5 SELF-CONSTRUCTING LOVE; ROMANTIC VERSUS MYSTIC 174 Ontogeny of the Self 182 Romantic Love 197 6 ROMANTIC REFLECTIONS 223 BIBLIOGRAPHY 229 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 241 IV Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE POETIZATION OF MYSTICAL CONSTRUCTS IN THE WORK OF NOVALIS By Veronica Freeman May 2000 Chair: Franz Futterknecht Major Department: Germanic and Slavic Studies The poet Friedrich von Hardenberg, assuming the pen name Novalis when he joined the Jena circle in 1798, was venerated among his fellow artists for his keen perception, nostalgic evocative portrayal of moods, and fervent faith in the afterlife. Novalis and a number of influential interpreters (as does popular understanding of mysticism today) fuse the terms romanticism and mysticism to denote the unknown, secret and mysterious. The dissertation examines those constructs found in the romantic period typically given a mystical interpretation, based in part on their ineffability. As the constructs of self, home, and love are examined more closely, however, the difficulty in giving the romantic period a mystical interpretation becomes apparent when such issues as magical idealism, regressive tendencies, and a love of self arise. I suggest that in approaching these constructs in light of the mystical v tradition, it is possible to argue that Novalis emits a mystical hue or flavor without being grounded in the practice. The romantics and mystics share a common goal of a return to original union, yet the path to wholeness led them down separate roads which, it may be argued, converged only linguistically. Couching my argument in the work of the contemporary philosopher Ken Wilber, who synthesizes western and eastern thought to offer a uniform scale of the levels of consciousness from its evolutionary beginning to the most evolved form of the transcendent levels attained by mystics, it becomes clear that metaphoric language must be examined within its tradition. The inward journey as depicted by the mystic is one which transforms as it evolves through stages of development from everyday consciousness through the spiritual (as heightened sensual sensitivity) through the self to the experience of no self which is pure potential. The romantic envisions this union poetically within the self, setting romantic consciousness at a different level than that of the authentic mystic. vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The twentieth century mystic Karl Rahner declares that in the coming age, we must all become mystics or be nothing at all, while his contemporary Thomas Merton suggests that mysticism is the only cure for the Angst of modern human beings. Strikingly similar contentions emerged from members of the young romantic school of late eighteenth century Germany who denounced the world in a heartfelt effort to romanticize it. By that they meant to liberate the individual self from the confines of reason in order to embrace the emotional childlike spirit destined to see it to its true home. Novalis and a number of influential scholars (as do those who apply mysticism popularly today) fuse the terms romanticism and mysticism to denote primarily the unknown, secret, and mysterious. The romantic view of spiritual growth romanticizes even our understanding of the mystical process today. Though romanticism in the effort to live fully may indeed peripherally characterize mystical elements, the essence of mysticism rests on the perennial belief that the Ultimate Mystery becomes known in transforming union. The influence of mystical thought evident in the Romantic period, particularly 1 in the writings of the poet Novalis, is well researched and acknowledged. Seldom, however, has emphasis been placed on how Novalis incorporates his understanding of 1 In selecting Novalis as his pseudonym when he joined the Jena circle in 1798, Friedrich von Hardenberg resurrected a family name dating back to the twelfth century. One can entertain fantastic speculations: is this perhaps supportive of a regressive longing for bygone days? Is he connecting with old roots to marry the old and the new? To what extent is Novalis associated in fact with the word ‘new’? Interestingly enough, the pseudonym was only used for his four major works—letters, individual poems, etc. were signed Hardenberg. For convenience, I will predominantly call him Novalis. 1 2 mystical constructs into his work and thought. It remains generally accepted that the metaphors which the mystics employed to approximate ineffable experiences are transferred in the constructs themselves, leaving little differentiation for the manifold layers of meaning and intention possible between the mystic and the romantic tradition. Arguably, a mystic’s direct experience of the Absolute is as difficult to translate verbally as is the romantic’s similarly intense experience of connection with the innermost self. Yet when analogous constructs such as soul, self, or home are set in their respective traditions (mystical vs. romantic), considerable differences emerge which make it problematical that more often than not, a study on German mysticism includes Novalis as the preeminent mystical figure in the Romantic period without acknowledging the various stages of mystical development. I hope that in presenting the mystical constructs found in the work of Novalis, which appear as both strikingly mystical and romantic, reference to the larger framework of established mysticism will illuminate the different intentions of the two schools of thought and thereby present a 2 fairer understanding of certain aspects of their relationship . Much as Jung believed that the process of individuation, attaining self- realization through self-transformation, could only be effectively completed in the mythic realm of a spiritual tradition (as this gives a context by which to interpret the experience), I believe that misunderstanding, or incomplete understanding, occur when meanings are applied to metaphors from without rather than from within a given tradition. The frequency and permeability of the word mysticism among Novalis and his interpreters even until today first alerted me to the potential for an interesting 2 1 take issue with statements such as the following found in Inge: “The paths are different, but the prospect from the summit is the same” (312) he claims when comparing the likes of Wordsworth, St. John of the Cross, and a Platonic philosopher! As will be shown, the spiritual journey takes many levels of experience into account. I argue that it is precisely because of the different stages of awareness that the prospect from the point of one’s personal summit differs, though this may not be apparent in the language used to express the experience. 3 investigation resulting in the dissertation at hand. Approaching Novalis in light of the mystical tradition presents a perspective that may enrich the work of other Germanists. Mysticism as a term and as depicting the full extent of the spiritual journey has, within the last two decades, returned to its authentic and appropriate understanding only partially compatible with its use in the romantic sense. Afforded today the vocabulary to express the psychology of mystical experiences, increased inter-monastic dialog between eastern and western traditions has deepened the understanding of the mystical journey for all. The title of the dissertation focuses on the poetization of mystical constructs—words referring to ineffable experiences—by both Novalis and his interpreters. Mystics write aware that their experience of home, for example, can never be fully explained or understood but experientially. Others, such as the romantics grappling with the construct of home or union, may appear to come from mystical understanding but in the end, their use of the construct poeticizes—veils mystical constructs in romantic desire—to offer but an illusion of what few experience as true reality. I agree with Lukacs that Novalis personifies the essence of romanticism: “Novalis ist der einzige wahrhafte Dichter der romantischen Schule, nur in ihm ist die 3 ganze Seele der Romantik Lied geworden und nur in ihm ausschlieBlich sie” (34). It is on grounds of his “atherische Glut,” his being “ganz Dichter” that Henrik Steffens claims that, although Novalis may have gone above and beyond his time, he is not a mystic in the traditional sense: Man kann ihn nicht einen Mystiker im gewohnlichen Sinne nennen, denn diese suchen hinter der Sinnlichkeit, von welcher sie sich gefangen fiihlen, ein tieferes GeheimniB, in welchem ihre Freiheit und geistige Wirklichkeit 3 Lukacs, Georg.