Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Plutarch in Germany: The Stefan GeorgeKreis

  • Published:
International Journal of the Classical Tradition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

...AndriansGarten der Erkenntnis, FlaubertsEducation sentimentale, GeothesWilhelm Meister undvon allem Plutarch Stefan George (1911)

Abstract

Plutarch’s place in the classical tradition is usually considered as a Renaissance or Early Modern phenomenon, seldom as one extending into the twentieth century. Germany illustrates this perception as exemplified in the celebrated works of Schiller, Hölderlin, and Goethe. Yet Plutarch also influenced later generations in Germany as elsewhere. This is seen in the case of the poet Stefan George and his circle, the so-calledGeorgekreis. Familiar with the Plutarchan legacy, George impressed the style and technique of Plutarch upon his circle. The biographies of Friedrich Gundolf (Caesar) and Ernst Kantorowicz (Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite) demonstrate Plutarch’s continuing impact. Complementing these modern lives are the ideas of George himself as well as other modern thinkers, particularly Friedrich Nietzsche.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. See, e.g., M.H. Howard,The Influence of Plutarch in the Major European Literatures of the Eighteenth Century (Chapel Hill, 1970).

  2. E. Salin,Um Stefan George. Erinnerung und Zeugnis 2 (Munich and Düsseldorf, 1954), p. 11. The translation is that of P. Gay,Weimar Culture (New York, 1968), p. 46.

  3. F. Gundolf,Caesar, Geschichte seines Ruhms (Berlin, 1924), trans. by J.W. Hartmann asThe Mantle of Caesar (London, n.d.), criticized by E. Kehr, “Der neue Plutarch. Die ‘historische Belletristik’, die Universität und die Demokratie,”Die Gesellschaft 7 (1930): 180–88; reprinted inDer Primat der Innenpolitik. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur preussisch-deutschen Sozialgeschichte im 19. u. 20. Jahrhundert, ed. by H.-U. Wehler, w/intro. by H. Herzfeld, Historische Kommission zu Berlin, v. 20 (Berlin, 1965), pp. 269–78. Both the English and German editions of Gundolf are cited below.

  4. E. Kantorowicz,Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite (Berlin, 1927); Eng. trans. by E.O. Lorimer (London and New York, 1931). References to both are provided below.

  5. W. Graf Uxkull-Gyllenband,Plutarch und die griechische Biographie (Stuttgart, 1927). Uxkull-Gyllenband, to whom Kantorowicz dedicated hisKaiser Freidrich, later celebrated George’s fame in a pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic lecture, published under the title,Das revolutionäre Ethos bei Stefan George (Tübingen, 1933).

  6. See P. HoffmannClaus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg und seine Brüder (Stuttgart, 1992), pp. 61–78, for discussion of the Stauffenberg association with S. George. One example of the George-von Stauffenberg link is the vision of a “secret Germany” that theGeorgekreis shared. George wrote a poem with this title (“Geheimes Deutschland” inDas Neue Reich, 1917), Kantorowicz’s dedication inKaiser Friedrich carried the phrase, and finally von Stauffenberg, just as he was executed, may have cried out these words (for the last reference I thank Dr. Philip Beeley of the Gedenkstätte Deutscher Widerstand, Berlin).

  7. K. Ziegler,Plutarchos von Chaironeia 2 (Stuttgart, 1964), col. 324. D. A. Russell,Plutarch (New York, 1973), p. 143, refers to the survey of Plutarch’s influence made by R. Hirzel,Plutarch (Leipzig, 1912). As Russell notes, Hirzel’s work is now out of date and incomplete. One topic understandably absent in his discussion is that of Plutarch’s influence on theGeorgekreis. See also the brief comments of G.W.M. Harrison, “The Critical Trends in Scholarship on the Non-Philosophical Works in Plutarch’s ‘Moralia’” inAufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ANRW) ed. by W. Haase (Berlin and New York, 1991), II, v. 33,6:4678.

  8. Cf., e.g., K. Böttcher and H.J. Geerdts, eds.,Kurze Geschichte der deutschen Literatur (Berlin, 1981), pp. 123, 124, 262, 263. An important exception here is Ulrich Goldsmith, who has long been a student of George (see hisStefan George: A Study of His Early Work [Boulder, 1959]), and has recently contributed to the classical dimensions of theGeorgekreis; see, e.g., “Wilamowitz and theGeorgekreis: New Documents,” inStudies in Comparison, ed. by H.E. Barnes, W.M. Calder III, and H. Schmidt, Utah Studies in Literature and Linguistics, v.28 (New York, 1989), pp.125–62 (=Wilamowitz nach 50 Jahren, ed. by W.M. Calder III, H. Flashar, and T. Lindken [Darmstadt, 1985], pp. 583–612).

  9. See, e.g., the many analogies and comparisons made to the Kaiser and Caesar by Gundolf,Mantle of Caesar, pp. 87, 91, 99, 105–106, and id.Caesar, Geschichte, pp. 90–2, 99–100.

  10. Beyond the scope of this investigation are the researches of others within theGeorgekreis who conducted the usual forms of scholarship normally associated with the study of Plutarch. Among these was Victor Frank (=Frank Mehnert), killed in Russia in 1943, whose posthumously published translation of theLives of Agis and Cleomenes appeared in 1944 (published by Frank’s friend K.J. Partsch asAgis und Kleomenes. Nach dem Plutarch, by Delfinverlag in Munich). This is a later draft of a 1937 ed. prepared in typescript and now deposited in the George Archiv in Stuttgart; this text closes with the inscription “von Cajo [=K.J. Partsch]und Frank—1937.” Fr. Frank informed me that Robert Boehringer wrote this inscription. Frank’s decision to translate the lives of the revolutionary kings of Sparta in war-torn Nazi Germany conjures up diverse thoughts on his perception of Plutarch and the constant nature of his appeal. For discussion of Frank and his relationship with the Stauffenbergs, and his translation and work on Plutarch, see Hoffmann, ibid.,Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg und seine Brüder (Stuttgart, 1992) pp. 160–61, 165–66.

  11. Note the references to Plutarch and these authors in E.M. Butler,The Tyranny of Greece Over Germany (Cambridge, 1935; reprint ed., Boston, 1958), pp. 163, 216, 281 and bibliography in n.l.

  12. E. Landmann,Gespräche mit Stefan George (Düsseldorf, 1963), p. 126 (a conversation in Basel, c. November 1923–9 March 1924). This remark may be merely a pompous boast, or perhaps a vague and rather generous estimate of the occasions when George dipped into Plutarch for exempla or poetic inspiration.

  13. Landmann, E. Landmann,Gespräche mit Stefan George (Düsseldorf, 1963), pp. 72,140 (conversations in Basel, June–September 1919 and February–April 1924, respectively).

  14. Ibid. E. Landmann,Gespräche mit Stefan George (Düsseldorf, 1963), p. 128 (conversation in Basel, December 1923).

  15. George had a good foundation in both Greek and Latin, as indicated in theCensurlisten (i.e., grade books) of the Grossherzogliche Realschule in Bingen, which record George’s grades for 1881. Among the books from his personal library preserved in the George-Gedenkstätte in Bingen, which Dr. Wolff, its Director, generously shared with me, are the usual dictionaries, e.g., G.E. Benseler,Griechisch-Deutsches Schul-Wörterbuch,5 ed. by J. Rieckher (Leipzig, 1875) and F.A. Heinichen,Lateinisch-Deutsches Schulwörterbuch,3 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1875) as well as various editions of all three of the great tragedians and several volumes of Greek poetry.

  16. T. Carlyle, “On History,” inThe Varieties of History, rev. ed. by F. Stern (New York, 1972), p.93 (lecture printed in its entirety). For further discussion of Carlyle, see, e.g., A. Marwick,The Nature of History (New York, 1971), pp. 52–53, who characterizes Carlyle’s work as prophecy, P. Geyl,Debates with Historians (Cleveland and New York, 1958) pp. 48–69, and E. Bentley,The Cult of the Superman (Gloucester, Mass., 1969), pp. 3–62 (first published asA Century of Hero Worship [Philadelphia and New York, 1944]).

  17. See, e.g., Bentley, ibid.The Cult of the Superman (Gloucester, Mass., 1969) pp. 194–95, and H. Raschel,Das Nietzsche-Bild im Georgekreis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen Mythologeme (Berlin, 1984).

  18. For some general comments see H.M. Block, “Some Concepts of the Literary Elite at the turn of the Century,”Mosaic 5 (1971/72): 57–64, esp. 60–62. For a specialized study of theGeorgekreis, see D. Jost,Stefan George und seine Elite (Zurich, 1949).

    Google Scholar 

  19. See S. Aschheim,The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany. 1890–1990 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1992), pp. 71–83.

  20. S. George, “Nietzsche,” fromDer siebente Ring, 11.25–28. See also the discussion in Raschel,Das Nietzsche-Bild, pp. 37–54.

  21. Bentley,Superman,The Cult of the Superman (Gloucester, Mass., 1969), pp. 197–98.

  22. See Bentley, ibid.,superman The Cult of the Superman (Gloucester, Mass., 1969), pp. 197–98., and Aschheim, ibid.,Superman,The Cult of the Superman (Gloucester, Mass., 1969), p. 71, George’s “Master” status is clearly evident in the dedication “DM” (i.e.,Dem Meister) in E. Kantorowicz’s gift copy ofKaiser Friedrich given to George and now in the collection of the George-Gedenkstätte in Bingen.

  23. The event, the Antikes Fest, occurrend in Munich; see the description in R. Boehringer,Mein Bild von Stefan George,2 2 vols. (Düsseldorf and Munich, 1968), 1:116, and 2:88. See also Butler,Tyranny of Greece, pp. 322–23, who reports the Festival of February 1904; George this time dressed as Dante.

  24. Landmann,Gespräche, E. Landmann,Gespräche mit Stefan George (Düsseldorf, 1963), pp. 28, 148–49.

  25. Gundolf,Mantle of Caesar, pp. 10, 294, id., Gundolf,Caesar, Geschichte, pp. 7, 264.

  26. This would seem to imply criticism of such noted contemporaries as Mommsen and Wilamowitz, dismissed by Gundolf as “inveterate modern Protestants.” See A. Momigliano,The Development of Greek Biography (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), p. 1.

  27. Gundolf,Mantle of Caesar, pp. 301–02, id. Gundolf,Caesar, Geschichte, p. 265.

  28. Ibid., Gundolf,Mantle of Caesar, pp. 10–11, id., Gunfolf,Caesar, Geschichte, p. 8.

  29. See L. Helbing and C.V. Bock, “Friedrich Gundolf,” inOn Four Modern Humanists: Hofmannsthal, Gundolf, Curtius, Kantorowicz, ed. by A.R. Evans, Jr. (Princeton, 1970), p. 69, who note that Gundolf not only admired Ranke’s ability to collect facts and to recount them, but also his ability to explain how things came to pass.

  30. Gundolf,Mantle of Caesar, p. 17, id., Gundolf,Caesar, Geschichte, p. 14.

  31. The bibliography on this aspect of Plutarch’s manner of composition is extensive; cf., e.g., G.W. Bowersock, “Plutarch,” inThe Cambridge History of Classical Literature, ed. by P. E. Easterling and B. M. Knox (Cambridge, 1985), p. 667–68.

  32. Gundold,Mantle of Caesar, p. 37, id., Gundolf,Caesar, Geschichte, p. 31.

  33. Plutarch’sLife of Phocion enjoys the reputation of being most dominated by anecdotes, yet even here Gundolf’s analysis of Plutarch and his use of anecdotes is erroneous. For full discussion, see L.A. Tritle, “Plutarch’s ‘Life of Phocion’: An Analysis and Critical Report,” inANRW, ed. by W. Haase (Berlin and New York, 1991), II, v. 33, 6: 4258–97, at 4287–90.

  34. Bentley,Superman,The Cult of the Superman (Gloucester, Mass., 1969), p. 201.

  35. See Goldsmith, “Wilamowitz and theGeorgekreis,” inStudies, p. 140, who refers (e.g.) to Gundolf’s essay (with F. Walters) “Herrschaft und Dienst” (1909), which set forth the principles previously mentioned. For similar views see K. Landfried,Stefan George—Politik des Unpolitischen (Heidelberg, 1975), pp. 132–40. Ironically Gundolf himself exercised a comparable force over those who came within his orbit, as recalled by René Wellek who attended his lectures in Heidelberg in the early 20s,. See H. Rüdiger, “‘Staat’ und Individualität. Zur Entwicklung von Gundolfs Persönlichkeit,”Euphorion 75 (1981): 217.

  36. See above n. 4 for reference, and below the discussion of the debate’s political dimensions.

  37. Kehr, “Der neue Plutarch,” pp. 269, 272–75.

  38. Ibid., Kehr, pp. 270–71. The coincidence of Gundolf’sCaesar appearing at this moment should not be exaggerated. U. Goldsmith has pointed out to me that this study of Caesar had been almost an obsession with Gundolf for years. This began with his 1903 dissertation,Caesar in der deutschen Literatur, followed (e.g.) by reference to Caesar in hisDichter und Helden in 1912 (seeDichter und Helden 2 [Heidelberg, 1923], p. 48). After the 1924 publication ofCaesar, Gundolf would return to this subject withCaesar im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1926), “Zur Geschichte von Caesars Ruhm,”Neue Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung 6 (1930): 369–82, and “Paracelsus und Dnate. Ein Nachtrag zur Geschichte von Caesars Ruhm,”Neue Schweizer Rundschau, Wesen und Leben, xxiii, 38/39 (1930): 105–06. These later works on Caesar were republished under the titleCaesar by Helmut Küpper Verlag (vormals G. Bondi), Darmstadt, 1968. For a specialized study see V. Pöschl, “Gundolfs Caesar,”Euphorion 75 (1981): 204–16.

  39. Kehr, ibid.,“: p. 278.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ibid.,: p. 271.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See the discussion below.

  42. Herzfeld,Der Primat der Innenpolitik, pp. 3, 20. The dispute between Kehr and Brackmann was not only historiographic (i.e., focusing on Kehr’s controversial dissertation,Schlachtflottenbau und Parteipolitik 1894–1901, which made him an instant celebrity andenfant terrible of the German historical profession) but also political. Kehr was a socialist and published in the Social Democrat organDie Gesellschaft and knew that he was a prime candidate for arrest and imprisonment in a concentration camp. Brackmann on the other hand was a Nazi whose work in the 1930s aimed in part at justifying German expansion in the East. For further discussion see M.H. Kater, “Refugee Historians in America: Preemigration Germany to 1939,” inAn Interrupted Past: German-speaking Refugee Historians in the United States after 1933, ed. by H. Lehmann and J.J. Sheehan (Washington, D.C., 1991), pp. 73–93, at 82–83, 88–89.

  43. Y. Malkiel, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz,” inFour Modern Humanists, p. 167.

  44. S. George, “Die Graeber in Speier,” fromDer siebente Ring, 11: 25–32.

  45. See, e.g., C.M. Bowra,The Heritage of Symbolism (London, 1947), p. 126.

  46. Eckhart Grünewald,Ernst Kantorowicz und Stefan George. Beiträge zur Biographie des Historikers bis zum Jahre 1938 und zu seinem Jugendwerk “Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite”, Frankfurter Historische Abhandlungen, v. 25 (Wiesbaden, 1982), pp. 36–39.

  47. Landmann,Gespräche,Gespräche mit Stefan George (Düsseldorf, 1963), pp. 166, 173 (conversations in Basel, February–19 March 1927).

  48. M. Chambers, et al.,The Western Experience 5 (New York, 1991), p. 378; the description ofKaiser Friederich as a “stimulating interpretation” is that of the late David Herlihy (mentioned to me by M. Chambers). See also T. Reuter,Germany in the Early Middle Ages, 800–1056 (London and New York, 1991), p. 12, who describes Kantorowicz’s work as “new wave.”

  49. Cf. Kantorowicz,Frederick,Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite (Berlin, 1927) pp. 526–36, and id., Kantorowicz,Kaiser Friedrich, 1: 480–89, and F. Hartt,History of Italian Renaissance Art 2 (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1979), p. 54 (and citing other authorities).

  50. Cf. Kantorowicz,Frederick,Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite (Berlin, 1927) pp. 3–4, and id., Kantorowicz,Kaiser Friedrich, 1: 9–10, and Plut.Alex. 2–3.

  51. See Seekamp, et al.,Stefan George,Stefan George, Leben und Werk: Eine Zeittafel (Amsterdam, 1972), p. 234. The references to Plutarch are again suggestive of the interest and stimulus of Plutarch on George and theGeorgekreis.

  52. Kantorowicz,Frederick,Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite (Berlin, 1927) pp. 26–7, and id., Kantorowicz,Kaiser Friedrich, 1: 30–31. The incident occurred in 1201 when Markward of Anweiler seized the regency of the young monarch.

  53. For other examples of anecdotes, see Kantorowicz,Frederick,Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite (Berlin, 1927) pp. 6–7, 40, 56, 154, 160, 362, 432, and id., Kantorowicz,Kaiser Friedrich, 1: 11–13, 40, 54–55, 145–46, 150–51, 334, 396. George’s influence on Kantorowicz as well as his use of anecdotes, dreams, and portents is also mentioned by R.E. Lerner, “Ernst Kantorowicz and Theodor E. Mommsen,” inAn Interrupted Past, pp. 189, 193, 196–97 (see above n. 43 for full citation).

  54. Kantorowicz,Frederick,Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite (Berlin, 1927) pp. 20–21, 219–21, id., Kantorowicz,Kaiser Friedrich, 1: 24–25, 198–202; see also the account of Friedrich and the Assassins, pp. 193–94, and id., Kantorowicz,Kaiser Freidrich, 1: 178–79.

  55. Bowra,Symbolism,The Heritage of Symbolism (London, 1947), pp. 104–105, 106–10.

  56. S. George, “Templer,” fromDer siebente Ring, 11. 13–16.

  57. Kantorowicz,Frederick,Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite (Berlin, 1927) p. 87, and id., Kantorowicz,Kaiser Friedrich, 1: 81–82.

  58. See S. Runciman,A History of the Crusades, 3 vols., vol. 2:The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Frankish East, 1100–1187 and vol. 3:The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades (Cambridge, 1955), 2:460, for reference to the Templar massacre of 1187 and 3:175–76, for Runciman’s rather different estimate of the Kaiser (“for all his brilliance, he was not likeable. He was cruel, selfish, and sly, unreliable as a friend and unforgiving as an enemy.”). Rather understated is Runciman’s assessment of Kantorowicz’s study (3:176, n.l): “This book somewhat idealizes and romanticizes him.”

  59. See also Kantorowicz,Frederick Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite (Berlin, 1927) pp. 660–63, and id., Kantorowicz,Kaiser Friedrich, 1: 604–606 for a similar paean to the knights of Germany.

  60. A. Brackmann, “Kaiser Friedrich II in ‘mythischer Schau’,”HZ 140 (1929): 534–49; E. Kantorowicz, “Methenschau. Eine Erwiderung,”HZ 141 (1930): 457–71, with a response by A. Brackmann, pp. 472–78. Note also that E. Kehr’s criticism of Gundolf (see above n. 4) also appeared at this time. The exchange between Kantorowicz and Brackmann carried over into the popular press with Kantorowicz’s essay “Geschichtsforschung und Geschichtsschreibung,” inDeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, April 25, 1930, which Brackmann and R. Konetzke answered in the April 30 issue. See also the blunted criticisms of Kantorowicz’s friend F. Baethgen,Mediaevalia: Aufsätze, Nachrufe und Besprechungen, Pt. II (Stuttgart, 1960), pp. 542–49 (=a review inDeutsche Literaturzeitung 51 [1930]: 75–85).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Brackmann,HZ 140 (1929): 534–35, 548–49. Brackmann’s attack on Kantorowicz, just as Kehr’s earlier criticisms of Gundolf, were in fact anticipated by the still earlier criticisms and mockery of Stefan George himself by U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, the great philologist. Essentially this represents another phase in theHistorikerstreit alluded to above, which placed in opposition those who supported the place of positivism in the Academy (e.g., Brackmann, Wilamowitz) and those who saw and denounced it as sterile, lifeless, and bourgeois (e.g., George, Gundolf, Kantorowicz). For discussion of this see Goldsmith, “Wilamowitz and the ‘Georgekreis’” inStudies, pp. 125–62, and id., “Wilamowitz as Parodist of Stefan George,” inStudies, pp. 163–72. Cf. H. Lloyd-Jones, “The Dionysiac Centaur,” in id., Kantorowicz,Greek in a Cold Climate (Savage, MD, 1991), pp. 151–52 (=a rev. of M.S. Silk and J.P. Stern,Nietzsche on Tragedy [Cambridge, 1981]).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Kantorowicz,HZ 141 (1930): 458.

    Google Scholar 

  63. K. Hampe, “Das neuste Lebensbild Kaiser Friedrichs II.”HZ 146 (1932): 441–75.

    Google Scholar 

  64. For a similar view see Momigliano,Greek Biography, p. 1.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History, Loyola Marymount University, Loyola Blvd. at West 80th St., 90045-2699, Los Angeles, California

    Lawrence A. Tritle

Authors
  1. Lawrence A. Tritle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This paper was first read at the Second Meeting of the International Society for the Classical Tradition, held at the University of Tübingen, August 15, 1992. I wish to thank Professors L. de Blois, M. Chambers, and T. Hofmeister for their comments on the paper, and Professor U. Goldsmith for his criticisms on a later draft. Subsequently I have visited the George-Gedenkstatte in Bingen and the George-Archiv (in the Württembergische Landesbibliothek in Stuttgart), where I was generously received and assisted by Dr. R. Wolff and Fr. L. Frank respectively. The present study is intended as a preliminary discussion of what is admittedly a large topic.

The context of this quotation is a June 1911 conversation of Stefan George and L. Thormaehlen, who asked the “Master” (as George was called by his followers), which authors he would recommend as most exemplary and formative. George responded with those cited; the eminence accorded Plutarch thus deserves the emphasis given here. See H.-J. Seekamp, R.C. Ockenden, and M. Keilson,Stefan George, Leben und Werk: Eine Zeittafel (Amsterdam, 1972), p. 227, and especially L. Thormaehlen,Erinnerungen an Stefan George (Hamburg, 1962), pp. 65–67, which elaborates the cited passage and discussion.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tritle, L.A. Plutarch in Germany: The Stefan GeorgeKreis . IJCT 1, 109–121 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02701940

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02701940

Keywords

Search

Navigation