Readers of these reflections over the past few months will know of my particular interest in the Romantic Period and of the relationship between Germany and Britain. This week I will spend a little time examining those influences in particular looking more generally at the Enlightenment and Culture during the period 1780-1880.
During this period philosophers, writers and artists in Britain and Germany were working under the influence of the cultural revolution known as the Enlightenment. This could be said to have begun with René Descartes in France and with John Locke in Britain. Isaac Newton in England and Gottfried Leibnitz in Germany were somewhat later and very influential figures. One of the best definitions of the Enlightenment is that of Kant who wrote that the ‘Enlightenment was the emergence of human beings from a tutelage to which they had voluntarily acceded’: ‘tutelage is the inability to make use of one’s understanding without being guided by another. Sapere aude! Have courage to make use of your own understanding! That is the slogan of the Enlightenment’.[i] This slogan, writes Hans Küng was addressed particularly to the ‘church authorities of all confessions’ who had been keen to keep to the superstitions, prejudices and dogmatics of the medieval period.[ii] This cultural change, together with increasing use of the vernacular in church services as well as the gradual increase in the abilities of the bulk of the populations to read, led to profound changes in the churches and the beginning of enculturation or even, as some might suggest, the secularisation of the church. The practical effect of these changes was the development of textual and contextual analysis of the scriptures – a process known as historical-critical analysis – which continued as the main approach to biblical hermeneutics until the end of the twentieth century when the approach was broadened to include post-modern reader-response criticism.[iii]
Apart from Newton’s forays into alchemy and an endeavour to date the universe from the Bible, this polymath was very much concerned with the development of physics, and pure and applied mathematics, establishing four fundamental principles of applied mathematics which still to this day underlie the basis of much engineering development. It is now known that his mathematics can only be applied within certain limits, but this does not mean that his work has been superseded.[iv] In addition, Newton developed the branch of mathematics known as the differential and integral calculus – it should be noted that Leibnitz also, and independently, developed the calculus. As one of the foremost thinkers during the Enlightenment in England, Newton’s emphasis was always on reason – every argument had to be firmly rooted in logic. This emphasis rather eclipsed his religious affinities and his belief in the Bible.[v] William Blake in his philosophy was concerned to provide a counterbalance to this emphasis on reason; hence the importance he attached to the highlighting of the use of the imagination in both his written and visual work and would therefore have had a slightly greater affinity with the views of Leibnitz.
Leibnitz, was one of the foremost thinkers in Germany and was much more diverse than Newton in the way in which he developed his philosophy.[vi] Not only was he a great mathematician but he also embraced the subjects of philology, theology, medicine and politics to mention just four of the attributes that would enable us to describe him as one of the most significant polymaths of the eighteenth century. This much broader approach to thought within the period of Enlightenment meant that reason was not so predominant in mainland Europe in comparison with the attitude in England. Philology, for example, might be considered an unusual subject for one who is primarily known for his original work in mathematics – I highlight this interest because it has a significant bearing on Enlightenment thought in Germany. To understand this, it needs to be remembered that Germany in the eighteenth century consisted of a large number (some two hundred) separate states or electorates with a language which could be said to be common and German, but which in practice consisted of very many dialectical and linguistic variations. Leibnitz was keen to bring some conformity to this diversity to ensure that thoughts expressed in one part of the country could be fully understood in another, and indeed could be translated into other established languages.
In the early part of the sixteenth century, Martin Luther (1483-1546) and Hans Sachs (1494-1576) had ‘taken the rough ores of the German dialects and pounded them into a language of beauty and strength’.[vii] During the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), development of the language languished but subsequently with the publication of Nova Methodus (1667) and On the practice and improvement of the German language (1697) by Leibnitz, the language to a greater extent was standardised. In addition, during this period interest in German thought burgeoned throughout Europe, including England.[viii] Furthermore, in an essay entitled The Leibnitzian conception of sensation, Jeffrey Barnouw argues that Leibnitz gives a richer form to Aesthetics than that defined by Baumgarten.[ix] While a detailed discussion of Leibnitz’s alternative methodology to the Cartesian approach to the thought process is beyond the scope of this study, for a full discussion of the subject, reference should be made to the article by Anne Wilson in the Philosopher’s Annual No. 24 (2002) the details of which will be given later in my next Reflection. Mention is only made of Leibnitz’s discussion of the thought process and sensation because it is consistent with the German approach to the Enlightenment.
In the German speaking world the Enlightenment was known as the Aufklärung and unlike the situation in Europe generally and in Britain in particular, the Aufklärung attached less importance to deductive Reason, and more importance to ‘instinct’, sentiment, and sensual impressions. The empirical to them was as significant as the rationalistic: Gemüt (which is but approximately equivalent to our term ‘Soul’) became for them (the German speaking people) as sacred a word as ‘Reason’ became for the western rationalists. Romanticism, although it originated in England, was a plant that prospered lavishly in German soil.[x]
The reason for this more diverse approach to the Enlightenment may be explained by the diversity of the many German states and with the states, the multiplicity of universities, most of which were very conservative in their approach and based on the core subject of theology. After the death of Leibnitz, two figures came to dominate philosophical and literary thought in Germany; they were Kant and Schiller both of whom have featured strongly in these reflections.[xi] As discussed previously, during this period Idealism (the word was first used by Leibnitz) came to the fore, with its emphasis that Materialism should be rejected in favour of a spiritual approach to life.[xii] Implicit within German idealism was Transcendentalism, defined as ‘the recognition in man of the capacity of knowing truth intuitively, or of attaining a scientific knowledge of an order of existence transcending the reach of the senses, and of which we can have no sensible experience’.[xiii]
In Britain, the Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713), although he was rather eclipsed by Locke, Burke, and Hume (1711-1776), was nevertheless influential and relevant with regard to artistic and cultural exchange between Britain and Europe. He lived for much of his life in the Netherlands, and became influential in the world of artistic endeavour when, as a philosopher, he published in 1711, Characteristicks of Man, Manners, Opinions, Times, a book which according to Nicholson became the ‘manual of the age’.[xiv] Leibnitz, as well as a number of other German philosophers including Herder and Lessing, was much influenced by this work which was translated into German.[xv] As Nicholson quotes, ‘The sum of Philosophy’, wrote Shaftesbury ‘is to learn what is just in Society and beautiful in Nature, and the Order of the World …’[xvi] Vaughan indicates in German Romanticism and English Art (1979) that Burke as well as Diderot and Reynolds were strongly influenced by Shaftesbury in their explorations of the phenomenological problems of taste and sensibility.[xvii] Drawing on the work of Shaftesbury, Burke, in his work Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas if the Sublime and the Beautiful (1757) established a line of thought in aesthetics that would be illustrated by the Sturm und Drang writers, and then be further developed by Kant in his Critique of Pure Judgement (1790).
Next time I will write more about the way in which these thoughts were brought to Britain (in particular England) by Coleridge ad Henry Crabb Robinson.
Dr David Greenwood 26-5-22 d.greenwood@uwtsd.ac.uk
[i] Küng, H Christianity – Its Essence and History London SCM Press 1995 (First published as Christentum. Wesen und Geschichte by Piper Verlag, Munich in 1994, translated by John Bowden) p. 684. In the version of the definition quoted, Küng has used the word tutelage for Unmündigkeit that is often translated as self-imposed immaturity or self-imposed nonage or minority. (Mautner, T. Dictionary of Philosophy London Penguin Books 2000, p. 168b.)
[ii] Ibid. p. 685.
[iii] The first treatise on this historical-critical analysis of the Bible was written by Johann S. Semler (1725-71) who produced in 1771-5 a Treatise on the Free Investigation of the Canon. See Küng, H. p. 691 See also the website: http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100454243
[iv] It is important to remember that the work of Einstein did not supersede that of Newton – it defined the limits within which the principles of Newton could still be applied. Essentially the principles of Newton do not apply when dealing with the extremely large and the extremely small.
[v] Descartes as the father of modern philosophy had proposed a separation between science and religion which enabled both subjects to be studied independently albeit often held in contention.
[vi] Leibnitz was regarded by Herder as ‘the greatest man Germany ever possessed’ – Peter Watson quoting Herder in The German Genius, published in London by Simon and Schuster in 2010, p123.
[vii] Nicolson, Harold The Age of Reason (1700-1789) London Constable and Co. Readers Union edition 1962 p. 330.
[viii] Nova Methodus set out Leibnitz’s theories on metaphysics and ontology and On the practice and improvement of the German language argued the case for the use of the German language for the expression of philosophy, science and theology rather than Latin or even French which were generally considered to be the lingua franca of intellectual expression. For further discussion see Nicholson, H pp 330-333.
[ix] Mattick, Paul (ed) Eighteenth-Century Aesthetics and the Reconstruction of Art Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2008, containing the essay The Leibnitzian conception of sensation, by Jeffrey Barnouw p. 82. For a detailed discussion of Leibnitz views on the thinking process, mind, perception, representation and re-presentation see Anne Wilson’s article in Final draft in The Philosophical Review, 110, no. 1 (January, 2001). Reprinted in The Philosopher’s Annual XXIV, 2002. Available:
Click to access PR%20Changing%20the%20Cartesian%20Mind.pdf
[x] Nicholson, H., p. 331. To argue that Romanticism originated in England is very questionable but this caveat does not alter the thrust of the argument concerning reason and the imagination. (The word ‘Romanticism’ was first used in Germany in 1827, many years before its subsequent use by Carlyle in Britain.)
[xi] Johann G.Herder should not be forgotten in this context. He was much influenced by Leibnitz and studied under Kant and was particularly concerned to promote the view that it was only by conscious development that humanity could attain its fulfilment. Thus he saw Bildung (approximately translated as the inner development of the individual) as a task. As Watson points out concept of ‘Bildung as a task dominated the philosophy of the majority of subsequent German writers … Bildung as a task comes from the recognisably Pietist lineage and looks forward to Weber’s concept of the Protestant work ethic’. Goethe was also prominent during this period but his work is beyond the scope of this thesis.
[xii] Goethe in particular, is noted for having been the most renowned writer of the Sturm und Drang period – a period in the literary and artistic life of Germany which lasted approximately from 1770-1780, whilst Kant achieved as a philosopher in Germany the status that had been accorded to the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, Locke, Burke and Hume in Britain.
[xiii] Transcendentalism is difficult to define in precise terms but as a philosophical term a good description is included in a thesis written by Henry D.Gray entitled Emerson – A statement of New England Transcendentalism as expressed in the philosophy of its chief exponent, published in California by Stanford University in `1917. In a footnote transcendentalism is defined as ‘the recognition in man of the capacity of knowing truth intuitively, or of attaining a scientific knowledge of an order of existence transcending the reach of the senses, and of which we can have no sensible experience’. Gray, page 9, footnote 8. Rosemary Ashton emphasises the important distinction ‘between ‘transcendental’ (of our application of a priori categories of the understanding to experience) and ‘transcendent’ (beyond experience and for Kant explicitly illegitimate in the field of knowledge)’. See Ashton, R. p.38.
[xiv] Nicholson, H., p137.
[xv] Fowler, Thomas; Mitchell, John Malcolm (1911). Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of p. 765. Reference: In Chisholm, Hugh. Encyclopædia Britannica 24 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 763–765.
[xvi] Ibid p.137
[xvii] Vaughan, W German Romanticism and English Art London Yale University Press 1979 p. 66.
Brislington Community News 