Abstract
Modern research often locates Hölderlin between Classicism and Romanticism. But is that because he is neither classical nor Romantic or because he is both? This chapter argues for the latter answer. It does so by identifying features of both Classicism and Romanticism in Hölderlin’s works, so that he constitutes a sort of combination of both movements, despite the fact that they are often viewed as mutually exclusive.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
To name just one example: Walter Kißling (1993), Zwischen Klassik und Romantik: Hölderlin, Jean Paul und Kleist, chap. 8, 336–54.
- 2.
One of the most important and brilliant Hölderlin scholars, Jochen Schmidt (1978, 182), argues that Hölderlin rejected the Romantic tendencies he displayed in his final phase before succumbing to mental illness (1803–1806). Schmidt refers to the poem Voice of the People, reading it as statement against emerging Romanticism. According to this interpretation, Hölderlin here performs a poetic analysis of the desire for death and the lustful destruction of art by the artists themselves as a criticism of, and performative counterpoint to, Romanticism.
- 3.
This period began around 1794 and was fuelled both by his studies in Jena, where he attended Fichte’s lectures, and, during the Frankfurt/Homburg-period of 1797–1800, by intense conversations with his friends Hegel, Jakob Zwilling, and Isaac von Sinclair. It ended all too early around 1805/1806.
- 4.
Cf. Hölderlin 1943ff., vol. 7/2, 27. (This standard edition will be cited in the following as StA; and this is the basis for my translations. In order to simplify the search for the quotations in English, I also indicate the following translations: for the poems, Hölderlin 1998; for the theoretical works, Hölderlin 2009; for Hyperion , Hölderlin 1990.)
- 5.
- 6.
See Varnhagen von Ense 1843, Pt. 2, p. 73; Varnhagen dates his meeting with Hölderlin as December 29, 1808.
- 7.
Rosenkranz (1839), Pt. 1, chap. X: Ludwig Tieck und die romantische Schule, 292.
- 8.
- 9.
Waiblinger met Hölderlin for the first time on July 3, 1822, and then quite often in Tübingen, where he was deeply impressed by the poet. Hölderlin’s mental illness began around 1802, and from May 3, 1807, he was in his tower in Tübingen under the care of the Zimmer family. For Waiblinger’s connection to Hölderlin, cf. his Phaeton (1823) and Friedrich Hölderlins Leben, Dichtung und Wahnsinn (1827–1828). Among the evidence that Rosenkranz is dependent on Waiblinger is the mistaken claim that Hölderlin wrote ἓν καὶ πᾶν on the wall of his study in Tübingen: Hölderlin never did this, and it would not be in keeping with his character to write such a thing on a wall. Rather, it was in fact Waiblinger himself who was impressed by an entry of Hölderlin’s in Hegel’s visitor-book from February 12, 1791 (cf. Hölderlin StA 2/1, 349, and 2/2, 965; the pantheistic motto is also stated in Hyperion , StA 4, 207; Hölderlin knew the pantheistic idea from Jacobi’s Spinoza Letters). Hölderlin’s entry in Hegel’s visitor-book from 1791 first quotes Goethe: “Lust and love are the wings of great deeds,” and then continues: “S.[ymbolum] Ἓν καὶ πᾶν.” The Goethe quotation is written in Hölderlin’s handwriting and the symbolum is written in Hegel’s. Therefore, it is actually an addition by Hegel. Waiblinger was taken with the phrase and wrote it on the wall of his own garden house in Tübingen, where Hölderlin would see it much later when he visited Waiblinger. The latter must have been confused when he later wrote Hölderlin’s biography, from which Rosenkranz picked up the false anecdote. Later—in his correspondence from July 13, 1843 with the Hölderlin-editor Schwab—Rosenkranz corrected the error and noted that the words were inscribed on the wall of Waiblinger’s garden house (cf. Hölderlin StA 7/3, 354). The same applies to Rosenkranz’ reference to the term “Kalamata language,” which we only know as a putative symptom of madness in Hölderlin via Waiblinger’s Friedrich Hölderlins Leben, Dichtung und Wahnsinn (cf. StA 7/3, 64).
- 10.
See Haym 1870, 281–324.
- 11.
See ibid., 305.
- 12.
See ibid., 322.
Works Cited
Bachmaier, Helmut. “Theoretische Aporie und tragische Negativität.” In Hölderlin. Transzendentale Reflexion der Poesie, edited by H. Bachmaier, Th. Horst, and P. Reisinger, 85–128. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1979.
Franz, Michael. “Hölderlins Logik. Zum Grundriss von ‘Seyn Urtheil Möglichkeit’.” Hölderlin-Jahrbuch 25 (1986–1987), 93–124.
Haym, Rudolf. Die romantische Schule. Berlin: Weidmann, 1870.
Henrich, Dieter. “Hölderlin über Urteil und Sein. Eine Studie zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Idealismus.” Hölderlin-Jahrbuch 14 (1965–1966), 73–96.
———. Der Grund im Bewusstsein. Untersuchungen zu Hölderlins Denken (1794–1795). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1992.
Hölderlin, Friedrich. Sämtliche Werke. Edited by Friedrich Beissner. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1943ff. (Cited as: StA.)
———. Hyperion and Selected Poems. Edited by Eric Santner, translated by C. Middleton, R. Sieburth, and M. Hamburger. New York: Continuum Press, 1990.
———. Selected Poems and Fragments. Edited by Jeremy Adler, translated by Michael Hamburger. London: Penguin Classics, 1998.
———. Essays and Letters. Edited and translated by Jeremy Adler and Charlie Louth. London: Penguin Classics, 2009.
Kißling, Walter. Deutsche Dichtung in Epochen. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1993.
Rosenkranz, Karl. Studien—Reden und Abhandlungen zur Literatur und Philosophie. Pt. 1. Berlin: Jonas Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1839.
Schmidt, Jochen. Hölderlins später Widerruf in den Oden ‘Chiron,’ ‘Blödigkeit’ und ‘Ganymed’. Tübingen: Max Niemayer, 1978.
Varnhagen von Ense, Karl August. Denkwürdigkeiten des eigenen Lebens. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1843.
Waiblinger, Wilhelm. Phaeton. Stuttgart: Friedrich Franckh, 1823.
———. Friedrich Hölderlins Leben, Dichtung und Wahnsinn. [1827–1928]. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1831.
———. Friedrich Hölderlin’s Life, Poetry, and Madness. Translated by Will Stone. London: Hesperus, 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schäfer, R. (2020). Hölderlin and Romanticism. In: Forster, M., Steiner, L. (eds) Romanticism, Philosophy, and Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40874-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40874-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-40873-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-40874-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)