The German Romanticists
THE publication of Professor Walzel's Deutscher Romantik in an English translation (gallantly achieved by Mrs. Lussky) leaves little excuse for future misapprehension in this country
of the course of the German Romantic Movement. It would be superfluous to praise Professor Walzel here ; his book— this translation was made from the fifth edition—has long been famous in Germany, and in spite of the fact that much has been written about the Romanticists since its first publi- cation it is still regarded as a standard work. The book is divided into two parts : Romantic Philosophy and Aesthetics and The Creative Literature of Romanticism, and it goes without saying that the first part is the most important ; for the Romanticists, generally speaking, are more notable for their ideas than for their finished artistic achievement.
Although it is a penetrating and exhaustive exposition of the whole history of the Romantic Movement in Germany the author not unnaturally concentrates on the Jena " School," founded at the close of the eighteenth century, and including among its members Friedrich Schlegel, the critical intellect behind the Romanticists, his brother August Wilhelm Schlegel, Tieck, and Novalis. Here the spirit of Romanticism burned with its whitest flame, and. the quest for the Blue Flower was most fervently pursued.
Professor Walzel, throughout his book, lays special stress on the forward drive of the Romanticists :
" Though he cast his eye upon the glories of the past, the Romanticist nevertheless heralded a spiritually quickened golden age of the future. His dreamy eyes became unexpectedly bright and clear ; ironic luminaries gave a sudden but transient light. Hard upon the glorification of death and the world beyond came the brisk, clear call to the joyous life of actual deeds, to vigorous self- contemplation, and to eager activity on behalf of humanity."
That is all very well ; but what was this golden age ? What were these deeds ? What came of that clear call ? The most striking thing about the Romanticist was the gulf between his theory and his practice : indeed, considering the theory, it could hardly have been otherwise. But there is surely little difference between " dreaming " and " heralding a golden age," if the golden age is unattainable. And the goal con- templated by the Romanticist was indeed incapable of realization. Soan the " clear call " died away, and the brightness faded from his eyes, which were again misted with vague dreams.
For it was a hopeless task which these early Romanticists set themselves in the first ardour of the new movement, in their violent reaction from the Enlightenment. The world to them was a living organism, a harmony and synthesis of opposites, and the world was mirrored in the man. The world was a work of art, a unity, and the antitheses in man must also be synthesized and harmonized. Nature and Spirit must be unified, conscious and unconscious ; all duality must be
resoKied ; the Romanticist must be artist and philosopher in one ; life itself must be made a work of art. And this he sought to achieve through " vigorous self-contemplation by exploring the darkness of the unconscious soul he sought to find the secret way. Thus did the Romanticists set out to make themselves " harmonious, balanced personalities, human beings whose inner lives have the assurance of a process of Nature." And because harmony is born of the union and synthesis of opposites, the Romanticist " believed that he could approach his idea of harmony by turning from one antithesis to another and returning again quickly to the first." Only thus, it seemed, could one-sidedness be avoided. Before duality could be surpassed man must become consciously protean. In other words, the Romanticist would not be content until he was playing all the instruments in the orchestra. It is perhaps inevitable that the fiddler should sometimes long for the trombone ; he may even study it in private ; but at the concert he must concentrate on his fiddle or lose himself in chaos.
I cannot give you any definition of Romanticism," wrote Friedrich Schlegel to his 1z:other; " because it would run to a hundred and twenty-five sheets." It took his life-work to discover that there was indeed, no definition at all. Professor Walzel, in three hundred pages, has come as near as anyone to establishing a definition, to achieving, through painstaking synthesis, some sort of unification of the multifarious aspects of the movement. It is incomplete, because Romanticism was incomplete. And when all is said, is there need of apology for the dreaming of the Romanticists ? They stood or fell by their dreams ; and if for the most part they fell, their lives were not without profit for later genera- tions. The spirit of Romanticism cannot be tied down to any one movement ; it is the spfirit of -man soaring beyond its strength. And if too single-minded aspiration can end only in failure, it will none the less be a barren day for the world
Previous page
