Romanticism Philosophy and Literature

Michael N. Forster
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/romanticism-philosophy-and-literature-michael-n-forst
er/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Romanticism, Philosophy, and Literature Michael N.

Forster (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/romanticism-philosophy-and-
literature-michael-n-forster-editor/

Herder’s Philosophy Michael N. Forster

https://textbookfull.com/product/herders-philosophy-michael-n-
forster/

The Cambridge Companion To Hermeneutics Michael N.

Forster

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-cambridge-companion-to-
hermeneutics-michael-n-forster/

Romanticism, Hellenism, and the Philosophy of Nature

William S. Davis

https://textbookfull.com/product/romanticism-hellenism-and-the-
philosophy-of-nature-william-s-davis/
The Philosophy and Politics of Aesthetic Experience:
German Romanticism and Critical Theory 1st Edition
Nathan Ross (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-philosophy-and-politics-of-
aesthetic-experience-german-romanticism-and-critical-theory-1st-
edition-nathan-ross-auth/

Creative Compassion, Literature and Animal Welfare

Michael J. Gilmour

https://textbookfull.com/product/creative-compassion-literature-
and-animal-welfare-michael-j-gilmour/

Style in Theory Between Literature and Philosophy 1st

Edition Ivan Callus

https://textbookfull.com/product/style-in-theory-between-
literature-and-philosophy-1st-edition-ivan-callus/

Aviation in the Literature and Culture of Interwar

Britain Michael Mccluskey

https://textbookfull.com/product/aviation-in-the-literature-and-
culture-of-interwar-britain-michael-mccluskey/

Beyond the ancient quarrel: literature, philosophy, and

J.M. Coetzee First Edition Coetzee

https://textbookfull.com/product/beyond-the-ancient-quarrel-
literature-philosophy-and-j-m-coetzee-first-edition-coetzee/
Romanticism,
Philosophy,
and Literature

Edited by
Michael N. Forster · Lina Steiner
Romanticism, Philosophy, and Literature
Michael N. Forster • Lina Steiner
Editors

Romanticism,
Philosophy, and
Literature
Editors
Michael N. Forster Lina Steiner
Bonn University Bonn University
Bonn, Germany Bonn, Germany

ISBN 978-3-030-40873-2    ISBN 978-3-030-40874-9 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40874-9

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2020
Chapter 4 is a revised and translated version of Johannes Korngiebel, “Schlegel und Hegel in
Jena. Zur philosophischen Konstellation zwischen Januar und November 1801,” © 2018
Wilhelm Fink Verlag, an imprint of the Brill Group (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden,
Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill
Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany)Chapter 9 is reprinted by permission from The
Literary Absolute: The Theory of Literature in German Romanticism by Philippe Lacou-
Labarthe and Jean-Luc Nancy, the State University of New York Press, © 1988, State
University of New York. All Rights Reserved.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Acknowledgements

This volume is loosely based on a conference that we organized at Bonn

University in March 2015 with the help of generous financial support
from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation: “Romanticism:
Philosophy, Literature, and Music.” “Loosely” because in the interest of
generating the most coherent and useful volume possible, some of the
papers that were presented at the conference have been omitted and oth-
ers have been added. We would like to thank Bonn University and the
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for making the conference itself
and subsequent editorial and translational work on the volume possible.
We would also like to thank SUNY Press for allowing us to reprint an
extract from their English translation of Jean-Luc Nancy and Philippe
Lacoue-Labarthe’s L’absolu littéraire (Seuil, 1978), titled The Literary
Absolute (SUNY Press, 1988). Warm thanks also go to all of the partici-
pants in the original conference and to all of the additional contributors to
the volume. In addition, we would like to thank Michael McGettigan and
Justin Morris for editing and translating the contributions by Manfred
Frank and Andreas Arndt, Moritz Hellmich for translating those by
Helmut Hühn and Johannes Korngiebel, and Anne Birien for translating
that by François Thomas. We would also like to thank Alex Englander,
Alexandra Nagel, David Tain, and Simon Waskow from Bonn University
for their editorial work on the volume. Finally, we would also like to
express our gratitude to the editors at Palgrave Macmillan and to two
anonymous reviewers for thoughtful advice that helped us to shape the
volume in significant ways.

v
 Contents

1 Introduction  1
Michael N. Forster and Lina Steiner

Part I Philosophy  17

2 Novalis’ Fichte-Studies: A “Constellational” Approach 19

Manfred Frank

3 Dialectic and Imagination in Friedrich Schlegel105

Andreas Arndt

4 Hegel as an Attendee of Schlegel’s Lectures on

Transcendental Philosophy in Jena119
Johannes Korngiebel

5 Schleiermacher and the “Consideration for the Foreign”:

The Need to Belong and Cosmopolitanism in Romantic
Germany135
François Thomas

6 Romantic Antisemitism153
Frederick C. Beiser

vii
viii Contents

Part II Philosophy and Literature 171

7 Mythology and Modernity173

Helmut Hühn

8 Schlegel’s Incomprehensibility and Life: From Literature

to Politics193
Giulia Valpione

9 The Fragment: The Fragmentary Exigency217

Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe and Jean-Luc Nancy

10 Hölderlin and Romanticism229

Rainer Schäfer

11 Romantic Self-Transformation in Kierkegaard245

Fred Rush

12 Romanticism and The Birth of Tragedy265

Michael N. Forster

13 Shandeanism, the Imagination, and Mysticism:

Coleridge’s Biographia Literaria297
James Vigus

14 The Experience of Everything: Romantic Writing and

Post-Kantian Phenomenology315
Paul Hamilton

15 Dostoevsky as a Romantic Novelist335

Lina Steiner

Index359
 Notes on Contributors

Andreas Arndt is Professor of Philosophy at the Faculty of Theology of

the Humboldt-University in Berlin, and Director and Research
Coordinator of the Schleiermacher-Research-Center at the Berlin-­
Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. He is the author of
eight monographs. His recent book publications include Die Klassische
Deutsche Philosophie nach Kant (with Walter Jaeschke, C.H. Beck, 2012),
Friedrich Schleiermacher als Philosoph (Walter de Gruyter, 2013), and
Geschichte und Freiheitsbewusstsein. Zur Dialektik der Freiheit bei Hegel
und Marx (Berlin: Owl of Minerva, 2015).
Frederick C. Beiser is Professor of Philosophy at Syracuse University,
New York. A graduate of Oriel and Wolfson Colleges, Oxford, he lived
and studied in Berlin from 1980 until 1996. He is the author of many
books on German philosophy. Those most relevant for Romanticism
include, in addition to the ones described in the Introduction, also Schiller
as Philosopher (2005) and Diotima’s Children (2009). In 2015 he was
awarded the Bundesverdienstkreuz for his work on German philosophy.
Michael N. Forster was educated at Oxford University and Princeton
University. He is Alexander von Humboldt Professor, holder of the Chair
in Theoretical Philosophy, and Co-director of the International Centre for
Philosophy at Bonn University in Germany. Previously he taught for
twenty-eight years at the University of Chicago, where he served for
ten years as Chairman of the Philosophy Department, held the Glen
A. Lloyd Distinguished Service Professorship, and still retains a ­regular
visiting professorship. His work combines historical and systematic aspects.

ix
x NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Historically it focuses mainly on ancient philosophy and especially German

philosophy. Systematically it focuses largely on epistemology (especially
skepticism) and philosophy of language (in a broad sense of the term that
includes hermeneutics and translation-­theory). He is the author of many
articles and eight books: Hegel and Skepticism (1989), Hegel’s Idea of a
Phenomenology of Spirit (1998), Herder: Philosophical Writings (2002),
Wittgenstein on the Arbitrariness of Grammar (2004), Kant and Skepticism
(2008), After Herder: Philosophy of Language in the German Tradition
(2010), German Philosophy of Language: From Schlegel to Hegel and Beyond
(2011), and Herder’s Philosophy (2018). He is also co-editor of several
volumes, including the Oxford Handbook of German Philosophy in the
Nineteenth Century (2015), The Cambridge Companion to Hermeneutics
(2019), and two volumes on German Romanticism: Die Aktualität der
Romantik (LIT, 2012) and Idealismus und Romantik in Jena: Figuren
und Konzepte zwischen 1794 und 1807 (Wilhelm Fink, 2018).
Manfred Frank is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of
Tübingen. A leading contemporary authority on German Romanticism,
he is the author of twenty-six books. Besides those described in the
Introduction, these include Selbstgefühl. Eine historisch-systematische
Erkundung (Suhrkamp, 2002) and Ansichten der Subjektivität
(Suhrkamp, 2012). Frank has held numerous guest professorships at
American, European, and Australian Universities. In 1996 he was
named Officier dans l'Ordre des Palmes Académiques.
Paul Hamilton is Professor of English at Queen Mary College, University
of London. He was previously a Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, and
Professor of English at the University of Southampton. His most recent
books are Realpoetik: European Romanticism and Literary Politics (2013)
and The Oxford Handbook of European Romanticism (2016).
Helmut Hühn is Lecturer in Philosophy at the Friedrich-Schiller-­
University, Jena, where he directs the Research Center for European
Romanticism, Schiller᾿s Gardenhouse, and the Goethe Memorial. He is
the author of many scholarly articles. He is also co-editor of the Historisches
Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vols. 1–13 (Schwabe, 1971–2007).
Johannes Korngiebel studied Philosophy and History of Culture at Jena
(Germany) and Padua (Italy). Undertaking doctoral research on “Friedrich
Schlegels Jenaer Vorlesung zur Transcendentalphilosophie (1800/01),”
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xi

he is also a visiting lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the

University of Jena and an academic member of the research project
Propyläen: Goethes Biographica. He has published several papers, arti-
cles, and reviews on German Idealism and Romanticism, with par-
ticular emphasis on Friedrich Schlegel, and he is co-editor of the
volume Idealismus und Romantik in Jena. Figuren und Konzepte zwischen
1794 und 1807 (Wilhelm Fink, 2018).
Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe (1940–2007), was a French philosopher, lit-
erary critic, and translator. He was a member and President of the Collège
international de philosophie in Paris. Lacoue-Labarthe wrote several books
and articles in collaboration with Jean-Luc Nancy, including Le Titre de la
lettre: une lecture de Lacan (1973; trans., The Title of the Letter: A Reading
of Lacan) and L'Absolu littéraire: théorie de la littérature du romantisme
allemand (1978; trans., The Literary Absolute: The Theory of Literature in
German Romanticism).
Jean-Luc Nancy is Professor of Philosophy at the Marc Bloch University,
Strasbourg. His first book was Le Titre de la lettre: une lecture de Lacan
(1973; trans., The Title of the Letter: A Reading of Lacan), written in col-
laboration with Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe. Nancy is also the author of
many other works, including La Remarque spéculative (1973; trans.,
The Speculative Remark), Le Discours de la syncope (1976), Ego sum
(1979), Le Partage des voix (1982), and L’Impératif catégorique (1983).
In La communauté désoeuvrée (1990; trans., The Inoperative Community)
Nancy reopened the question of the ground of community and poli-
tics, which led to a worldwide debate across several disciplines.
Fred Rush is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.
He is the author of On Architecture (2009) and Irony and Idealism (2016).
He also edited The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory (2004) and
for several years co-edited the Internationales Jahrbuch des Deutschen
Idealismus.
Rainer Schäfer is Professor of Philosophy at Bonn University. He is the
author of seven books, including Dialektik und ihre besonderen Formen in
Hegels Logik—Entwicklungsgeschichtliche und systematische Untersuchungen
(Meiner Verlag, 2001), Hegel. Einführung und Texte (Wilhelm Fink Verlag,
2011), Ich-Welten. Erkenntnis, Urteil und Identität aus der egologischen
Differenz von Leibniz bis Davidson (Mentis Verlag, 2012), and WAS
xii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

FREIHEIT ZU RECHT MACHT—Manuale des Politischen (De Gruyter

Verlag, 2014).
Lina Steiner received a PhD in Comparative Literature at Yale University
and taught as an assistant and associate professor at the University of
Chicago before joining Bonn University, where she teaches philoso-
phy of literature and directs the Research Center on Philosophy and
Literature. She is the author of For Humanity’s Sake: The Bildungsroman
in Russian Culture (2011), and co-editor (with Marina Bykova and
Michael N. Forster) of the Palgrave Handbook to Russian Thought
(forthcoming).
François Thomas is Associate Professor (Maître de conférences) in the
Department of Philosophy at the University of Paris-Nanterre, France.
From 2015 to 2019, he was research fellow and teaching assistant in the
Department of Philosophy at the University of Bonn in Germany. His
PhD dissertation was on “The Art of Translation: Philosophical, Ethical,
and Political Translation Issues from the Historical Context of the German
Romantics’ Criticism of the French Practice of Translation in the 17th and
18th Centuries.” He is also the author of a monograph on Georg Simmel,
Le Paradigme du comédien (Herman, 2013) and he wrote a chapter on the
“Translation of Philosophy” for the volume Histoire des traductions en
langue française XVIIe–XVIIIe siècles (Verdier, 2014).
Giulia Valpione is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Padua
(Italy), having previously studied at the University of Jena (Germany). She
has conducted research in Italy, Germany, France, and Brazil. She has pub-
lished articles in several languages on the political philosophy of
German Romanticism, Kant, and Hume. She has also written on
Salomon Maimon’s philosophy. She is the editor of L’Homme et la
nature. Politique, critique et esthétique dans le romantisme allemand (LIT
Verlag, forthcoming). She is also Editor in Chief together with Laure
Cahen-Maurel of the online, open-access, peer-reviewed international
journal of philosophical Romanticism Symphilosophie. She is writing a
monograph on the influence of the natural sciences on the political
thought of German Romanticism from von Baader to Görres.
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xiii

James Vigus is Senior Lecturer in Romanticism at the School of English

and Drama, Queen Mary College, University of London. His work on
literature, philosophy, and religion in the period of European Romanticism
includes Platonic Coleridge (2009), Henry Crabb Robinson: Essays on
Kant, Schelling, and German Aesthetics (2010), and edited collections on
symbol-concepts and on Shandean humour (2013).
 Abbreviations

Fichte
EPW Early Philosophical Writings. Translated by Daniel Breazeale.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988.
FNR Foundations of Natural Right. Translated by Frederick
Neuhouser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
GA Gesamtausgabe der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Edited by Reinhard Lauth et al. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt:
Frommann-­Holzboog, 1962–2012.
IW Introductions to the Wissenschaftslehre and Other Writings.
Translated by Daniel Breazeale, Indianapolis/Cambridge:
Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1994.
SK Science of Knowledge. Translated by Peter Heath and John
Lachs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
SK 1804 Science of Knowing: J.G. Fichte’s 1804 Lectures on the
Wissenschaftslehre. Translated by Walter E. Wright. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press, 2005.

Hegel
GW Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Gesammelte Werke. In Verbindung
mit der deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. Edited by Rheinisch-­
Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Hamburg: Felix
Meiner, 1968–.

xv
xvi ABBREVIATIONS

TWA Werke in zwanzig Bänden. Theorie-Werkausgabe. Auf der

Grundlage der Werke von 1832–1845 neu edierte Ausgabe.
Edited by Eva Moldenhauer and Karl Markus Michel. Frankfurt a.
M.: Suhrkamp, 1970–.

Hegel/Hölderlin/Schelling
EPS Earliest Program for a System of German Idealism. In Theory as
Practice: A Critical Anthology of Early German Romantic Writings.
Edited by Jochen Schulte-Sasse et al. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1996. 72–73.

Herder
FHA J ohann Gottfried Herder Werke. Edited by U. Gaier et al. Frankfurt
am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1985–.
S Johann Gottfried Herder Sämtliche Werke. Edited by B. Suphan
et al. 33 vols. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1877–1913.

Hölderlin
StA Sämtliche Werke. Edited by Friedrich Beissner. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1943ff.

Kant
AA Kant, Immanuel. [Immanuel] Kant’s gesammelte Schriften. Edited
by the Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Later
by the Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Berlin
and Leipzig: Reimer/de Gruyter, 1900/1911–.
KrV Kritik der reinen Vernunft. In Immanuel Kant, Theoretische
Philosophie. Texte und Kommentar. Edited by Georg Mohr. Vol. 1.
Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 2004.
KU Kritik der Urteilskraft. Cited from the amended second edition
(B) of 1793: Schriften zu Ästhetik und Naturphilosophie, critically
edited and with commentary by Manfred Frank und Véronique
Zanetti. Frankfurt a. M.: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1996. New
impression with identical pagination in 3 vols. as pocket edition:
Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 2001. In one volume: Frankfurt a. M.:
Insel TB 4, 2009.
 ABBREVIATIONS xvii

Kierkegaard
KW Kierkegaard, Søren. Kierkegaard’s Writings. Edited by H. Hong
and E. Hong. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978ff. Cited
by abbreviated individual volume title and page number.
SKS Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter. Edited by Søren Kierkegaard
Forskningscenteret, København: Gads, 1997 ff. Cited by volume
and page number.

The following abbreviations refer to the English translations:

CI The Concept of Irony, KW II
CUP Concluding Unscientific Postscript, KW XII.1
E–O 1&2 Either/Or, KW III & IV
FT Fear and Trembling, KW VI
PV Point of View, KW XXII
R Repetition, KW VI
SLW Stages on Life’s Way, KW XI

Nietzsche
KSA 3 Nietzsches Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. III.3. Edited by
F. Bornmann. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1993.

Novalis
AB Novalis. Notes for a Romantic Encyclopedia. Das Allgemeine
Brouillon. Translated by D.W. Wood. New York: State University of
New York Press, 2007.
FS Fichte-Studies. Edited and translated by Jane Kneller. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
NS Novalis Schriften: Die Werke von Friedrich von Hardenberg. Edited
by Richard Samuel, H.-J. Mähl, P. Kluckhorn, and G. Schulz.
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1960–1988. Cited in the format “NS
2:494, no. 4” indicating volume and page number (as well as frag-
ment number, if applicable).
PW Philosophical Writings. Edited by Mahony Stoljar. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1997.
xviii ABBREVIATIONS

Schelling
SW Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph. Sämmtliche Werke. Edited by
K.F.A. Schelling. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1856–61.

Schiller
NA Schillers Werke. Nationalausgabe. Edited by Julius Petersen et al.
54 vols. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1943.
TGG “Die Götter Griechenlandes.” In Schillers Werke. Nationalausgabe.
Edited by Julius Petersen, 1:190–5. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus
Nachfolger, 1943. The English translation: The Poems of Schiller.
Translated by E. A. Bowring. London: George Bell and Sons,
1874, 72–7.

Schlegel, Friedrich
DP “Dialogue on Poesy.” In Schulte-Sasse, Jochen et al. (eds.),
Theory and Practice: A Critical Anthology of Early German
Romantic Writings. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1997. 180–94.
KFSA Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe. Edited by E. Behler,
J. J. Anstett, and H. Eichner. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1958–.
SZ Friedrich Schlegel im Spiegel seiner Zeitgenossen. Collected and
annotated by Hans Eichner, edited by Hartwig Mayer and
Hermann Patsch. 4 vols. Würzburg: Königshausen und
Neumann, 2012.

Schleiermacher
KGA Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst. Kritische Gesamtausgabe.
Edited by Hans Joachim Birkner, Gerhard Ebeling, Hermann
Fischer, Heinz Kimmerle, and Kurt-Victor Selge. Berlin and
New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980–.
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Michael N. Forster and Lina Steiner

German Romanticism has not received the attention it deserves from phi-
losophers and literary scholars in the Anglophone world. This volume is
concerned with German Romanticism’s ideas about philosophy and litera-
ture, especially during its first and most important phase: the early German
Romanticism of roughly the period 1796–1801. The volume is also con-
cerned with the influence of those ideas on later thinkers both within
Germany and beyond it.
As is well known, German Romanticism was philosophically ambitious
not only in a general way, but in particular metaphysically. One of its lead-
ing representatives, Schleiermacher, already in the early 1790s embraced a
version of Spinoza’s monism, which he attempted to reconcile with the
epistemological strictures of Kant’s critical philosophy, and he then con-
tinued to propagate such a position in his famous On Religion: Speeches to
Its Cultured Despisers from 1799. Friedrich Schlegel, after an initial flush
of enthusiasm for the subjective idealism that Fichte developed in Jena
during the 1790s, in 1796 turned to criticizing it, and by 1800–01 was
instead committed to a project of synthesizing Spinoza’s monism with it
(a project that Hegel would continue subsequently). Similarly, Novalis

M. N. Forster (*) • L. Steiner (*)

Bonn University, Bonn, Germany
e-mail: mnforste@uchicago.edu; lsteiner@uni-bonn.de

© The Author(s) 2020 1

M. N. Forster, L. Steiner (eds.), Romanticism, Philosophy, and
Literature, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40874-9_1
2 M. N. FORSTER AND L. STEINER

from about 1796 on developed criticisms of Fichte’s subjective idealism,

instead preferring a realist monism.
What is equally important, but less well known (at least in the
Anglophone world), is that German Romanticism also had a hard-edged
“scientific” (in the broad German sense of wissenschaftlich) side, in par-
ticular a side that was devoted to issues that are fundamental to the human
sciences (as contrasted with the natural sciences). For one thing,
Romanticism—especially as it was represented by Friedrich Schlegel and
Schleiermacher—was one of the most empirically well-informed and radi-
cal champions of what later came to be known as “historicism”: the real-
ization that human mental life—concepts, beliefs, values, perceptual and
affective sensations, genres, and so forth—change in profound ways over
historical time (as well as varying deeply between cultures and even
between individuals at a single time and place).
Romanticism was also the heir to an important “linguistic turn” that
had then recently been undertaken by Herder and Hamann, a turn away
from conceiving the relation between thoughts or concepts on the one
hand and language or words on the other in dualistic terms, as the
Enlightenment had usually done, and toward instead conceiving thought
as essentially dependent on and bounded by language, and concepts as
consisting in word-usages. Moreover, Romanticism effected some impor-
tant improvements in this new philosophy of language, including substi-
tuting for a strong tendency of the Enlightenment that Herder and
Hamann had sustained to conceive words and concepts atomistically a
new insight into various forms of linguistic holism.
Relatedly, Romanticism essentially founded modern linguistics. It
achieved this by recognizing that thoughts’ and concepts’ essential depen-
dence on and bounding by language made the investigation of language
an ideal means for discovering the nature of people’s thoughts and con-
cepts, thus providing a sort of empirically accessible and reliable window
on them; developing the insight that grammar is fundamental to language;
perceiving the deep variability not only of other aspects of language, such
as word-meanings, but also of grammars; recognizing that grammar is the
best criterion for discerning the genealogical relationships between lan-
guages (more reliable than lexicon, for example); generating a taxonomy
of different types of grammar; and mapping out the genealogical relation-
ships between the members of what are today known as the Indo-European
family of languages (Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, German, the Romance lan-
guages, etc.). These achievements were originally due to Friedrich Schlegel
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

in his revolutionary book On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians

(1808). They almost immediately stimulated a great wave of closely related
work in linguistics by August Wilhelm Schlegel, Franz Bopp, Jacob
Grimm, Wilhelm von Humboldt, and others.
On the basis of all of the aforementioned achievements—especially in
response to the challenge to interpretation that is posed by historicism, as
well as in light of the fundamental role that is played by language in
thought and by words in concepts—Romanticism also developed a revo-
lutionary new theory and methodology of interpretation, or “hermeneu-
tics.” This achievement is most famously associated with Schleiermacher
in his hermeneutics lectures, which he delivered from 1805 on. But it was
also in large part due to Friedrich Schlegel.
Again on the basis of the aforementioned achievements, Romanticism
in addition developed a radical new theory and methodology of transla-
tion—one that in particular aimed to make it possible to bridge the intel-
lectual, and especially conceptual, gulfs that historicism implied through
translation by drawing on the new philosophy of language that has been
mentioned. This was above all an accomplishment of Schleiermacher in his
groundbreaking essay On the Different Methods of Translation (1813).
In addition, Friedrich Schlegel’s brother August Wilhelm Schlegel
developed the science of analyzing the meters of poetry to new heights of
sophistication that were previously unknown (so that, for example, Goethe
would consult him about questions of meter that were relevant to his own
poetry).
These various extraordinary theoretical achievements of the Romantics
also formed the indispensable foundation for seminal work that they did
on the history of literature. Indeed, they constituted the foundation of
virtually all of the most important work that would be done in the human
sciences over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in
fields such as literary studies, classical scholarship, biblical scholarship, his-
toriography of law, historiography of philosophy, general historiography,
and (eventually) cultural anthropology.
Another noteworthy and laudable dimension of German Romanticism
during its most important, early period was a strikingly progressive politi-
cal and moral philosophy. During the 1790s and the early 1800s German
Romanticism’s leading representatives, Friedrich Schlegel and
Schleiermacher, both championed moral cosmopolitanism,
republicanism/democracy, liberalism, feminism, and a rejection of racism
and antisemitism. They also found important allies in these ideals in
4 M. N. FORSTER AND L. STEINER

Alexander and Wilhelm von Humboldt, who can in many ways be seen as
associate members of German Romanticism.
In addition to all of these philosophical achievements, the German
Romantics were also profoundly concerned with poetry or literature (and
to a significant extent the arts more broadly as well). Several aspects of this
preoccupation can be distinguished. First, they aimed to overcome the
“old quarrel between philosophy and poetry” of which Plato had already
written in the Republic (607b) in a very radical way, namely by effecting a
sort of synthesis between philosophy and poetry, or science and art. As
Friedrich Schlegel put it in the Athenaeum Fragments (1798), Romanticism
aims “to bring poetry and philosophy in contact” (KFSA 2, no. 116, cf.
no. 451), “in philosophy the only way to science is through art, as the
poet … only becomes an artist via science” (no. 302, cf. no. 255).
This goal can easily be misunderstood. The Schlegels knew enough
about the history of literature (for example, about Homer and the ancient
tragedians) to avoid the mistake that is often made by philosophers even
today of equating literature either with fiction or with mere entertain-
ment. Consequently, their goal of bringing philosophy and poetry together
does not, as it might seem to, imply any trivializing of philosophy.
Moreover, that goal is at least as much about making poetry more philo-
sophical or theoretical as it is about the converse (see on this especially
Athenaeum Fragments, no. 255). In this connection, it is important to
avoid another seductive mistake, one that is likely to be especially tempt-
ing to Anglophone readers: that of assimilating German Romanticism’s
ideal for poetry to the sort of return to nature in rejection of artificiality
that at around the same period constituted the ideal of English Romanticism,
in particular Coleridge and Wordsworth’s Lyrical Ballads (1798). Instead,
German Romanticism’s ideal for poetry was born out of Schiller’s defense
in his essay On Naïve and Sentimental Poetry (1795) of sentimental, or in
other words theoretically reflective, poetry as contradistinguished from
naïve poetry, incorporated criticism into poetry, and reveled in the reflex-
ive meta-structure of “poetry of poetry” (see especially Athenaeum
Fragments, no. 238), so that it was virtually the opposite of that English ideal.
The German Romantics’ ideal of a philosophically or theoretically
sophisticated literature already found implementation by themselves and
their circle to some extent, especially in that paradigmatically Romantic
form of literature, the novel, or Roman (note that in German the words
Roman and romantisch are obvious cognates). Examples of this imple-
mentation are Friedrich Schlegel’s Lucinde, Novalis’s Heinrich von
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

Ofterdingen, and Madame de Staël’s Corinne ou l’Italie. However, the

ideal’s influence also outlived the Romantics themselves, continuing to
serve as a foundation for many later and arguably greater novels, such as
those of Victor Hugo, Marcel Proust, and Thomas Mann.
Second, the leading Romantics were also path-breaking researchers
into the history of literature—indeed virtually inventing the discipline.
Friedrich Schlegel’s works in this area include his On the Study of Greek
Poetry (1795/7), History of the Poetry of the Greeks and Romans (1798),
and Lectures on the History of Literature (1815). August Wilhelm Schlegel’s
works include his History of Classical Literature (1802–03), History of
Romantic Literature (1803–04), and Lectures on Dramatic Art and
Literature (1809). The Schlegel brothers’ treatments of the history of
literature are informed by a deep knowledge of the relevant literary works
in their original languages and in their historical contexts, so that they can
still be read with profit even today. While it would be a mistake to read
them reductively as merely illustrations of such a theoretical position, they
are guided by a theoretical distinction, originally due to Friedrich Schlegel,
between Classical literature (which he mainly associated with antiquity)
and Romantic literature (which he mainly associated with modernity).
Friedrich first developed this distinction (albeit using slightly different ter-
minology) in On the Study of Greek Poetry and he gives his best-known
explanation of it in Athenaeum Fragment, no. 116. Among the criteria
that he and August Wilhelm see as distinguishing Romantic poetry from
Classical, and which they moreover advocate, are a striving for the Infinite,
interesting individuality, a mixing of genres, a fusion of striving for God
with striving for a female beloved, Christianity, rhyme, and a preference
for the novel as the main literary form. Friedrich and August Wilhelm
Schlegel’s main models of Romantic poetry are not, as is often supposed,
contemporary German authors such as Tieck or Goethe, but instead
Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio from Italy, Cervantes from Spain, and
Shakespeare from England. Accordingly, their broad, deep preoccupation
with the history of literature made an enormous contribution to the devel-
opment of the age’s interest in “world literature” and to the eventual
founding of such disciplines as Romance languages and literatures
[Romanistik] and comparative literature [Komparatistik].
Third, most of the leading Romantics were also involved in writing
literature. Friedrich Schlegel’s novel Lucinde has already been mentioned,
but he also wrote a tragic play Alarcos (which no one less than Goethe
himself put on in Weimar) and some lyric poetry. Novalis’s novel Heinrich
6 M. N. FORSTER AND L. STEINER

von Ofterdingen has already been mentioned, but he was also the author
of the hauntingly beautiful lyric poems Hymns to the Night and other
poems. Madame de Staël’s novel Corinne ou l’Italie has already been men-
tioned, but she was also the author of several other novels and literary
works. Moreover, the broader Romantic circle included a number of peo-
ple whose primary achievements were literary rather than theoretical,
among them Wilhelm Heinrich Wackenroder, Ludwig Tieck, and Clemens
Brentano.
Fourth, leading Romantics were also heavily involved in a (theoreti-
cally–methodologically informed) translation of literary and other works.
For example, August Wilhelm Schlegel and Tieck together published
extraordinarily fine translations of Shakespeare’s plays in German and
Schleiermacher equally excellent translations of most of the Platonic dia-
logues. Both the translation theory and the translation practice of the
Romantics exercised an enormous beneficial influence on subsequent
translation theory and practice down to the present day. For instance, in
the early twentieth century Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig’s transla-
tion theory and their connected translation of the Hebrew Bible into
German were profoundly indebted to them, as is the most important con-
temporary approach in translation theory, Antoine Berman and Lawrence
Venuti’s “foreignizing” approach.
Fifth and finally, it is worth noting that the Romantics’ deep preoccupa-
tion with literature has the potential to be philosophically fruitful not only
for the sorts of reasons that they themselves developed explicitly—for
example, their official project of erasing the division between literature
and philosophy—but also for a reason about which they were less explicit
and of which they were perhaps less consciously aware, namely that litera-
ture can serve a sort of paradigmatic function in relation to a number of
important broad philosophical issues with which they were dealing. For
example, in hermeneutics (the theory and methodology of interpretation)
it makes good sense to focus on literature because literature tends to be
the most difficult type of communication to interpret, so that a hermeneu-
tics that has concentrated on and succeeded in coping with this specific
case has good prospects of being able to cope with all other types of com-
munication as well. Relatedly, but more specifically, the Romantics’ focus
on literary genres as constitutive features of literary works, on their histori-
cal, cross-cultural, and individual variability, and on the severe difficulties
for interpretation to which such variability leads illustrates vividly in micro-
cosm a situation concerning genre that in fact obtains for all forms of
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

communication—not only literary texts but also non-literary ones, not

only texts but also discourse, indeed not only linguistic media but also
non-linguistic ones such as painting and music. That the literary case illus-
trates such a broader situation was first clearly recognized by one of the
Romantics’ earliest and most important followers: Schleiermacher’s stu-
dent, the eminent classical philologist and hermeneutic theorist, August
Boeckh, who in his Encyclopedia and Methodology of the Philological Sciences
(published posthumously in 1877) presented the exact identification of
the relevant genre as an essential part of all interpretation. Similarly, the
Romantics’ tendency to focus on literature in their theories of translation
reflects not merely a general perception of the importance of literature but
also the fact that the challenges that face translation are especially severe,
or at least especially clearly severe, in the case of literature—where, for
example, the translator obviously needs to do justice not only to semantic
features of the text translated but also to musical ones—so that a theory of
translation that can cope even with this most difficult of cases has good
prospects of being able to cope with any case. It is therefore probably no
accident that many of the deepest insights in the theory of interpretation
generally, genre-theory in particular, and the theory of translation have
been achieved by thinkers who were seriously interested in literature—for
example, the tradition of the Romantics themselves, including the Pre-­
Romantic Herder, Friedrich Schlegel, Schleiermacher (to the extent that
the Platonic dialogues and the New Testament can be counted as litera-
ture), and Boeckh, or more recently Roland Barthes, Mikhail Bakhtin,
Tzvetan Todorov, Alastair Fowler, and Antoine Berman—rather than by
the more narrowly philosophical thinkers who have tried to make contri-
butions in these areas (for example, Heidegger, Gadamer, Quine, and
Davidson).
The scholarly contributions in the present volume address a wide range
of aspects of the Romantics’ relationship to philosophy and literature
(though certainly not all). The contributions that are mainly concerned
with philosophy alone come first in order of appearance (Part I), those
concerned with both philosophy and literature follow subsequently
(Part II).
Let us, then, try to give a brief overview of the contents of the volume.
Both in the interest of achieving optimal quality and in a spirit of inclusive-
ness that mirrors that of the Romantics themselves, we have tried to
include in the volume contributors who belong to different nations, gen-
ders, and age groups. In the spirit of that approach, the following
8 M. N. FORSTER AND L. STEINER

overview will be a bit more ample in discussing three contributors whom

we have selected as representatives of contemporary research on German
Romanticism in Germany itself, the Anglophone world, and France:
Manfred Frank, Frederick Beiser, and Jean-Luc Nancy, respectively.
Manfred Frank is arguably the most prolific and accomplished specialist
on the philosophy of German Romanticism from post-war Germany. His
works include an ambitious book on the metaphysics and epistemology of
early Romanticism, Unendliche Annäherung (1997), in which, among
other things, he shows that Friedrich Schlegel in the mid-1790s, under
the influence of a skeptical circle around Friedrich Immanuel Niethammer,
renounced the Reinhold-Fichte program of finding a single, certain first
principle for philosophy in favor of espousing the ideal of a “reciprocal
proof [Wechselerweis].” Frank is also the author of Einführung in die früh-
romantische Ästhetik (1989), a wide-ranging work on the aesthetics of
early Romanticism that includes treatments of Schelling, Novalis, Friedrich
Schlegel, Tieck, and Solger, and which in particular gives a detailed
account of the development of the distinctively Romantic concept of irony
by the last three of these thinkers. In addition, Frank is the author of a
seminal book on Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics, Das individuelle
Allgemeine (1977), which, in addition to exploring the subtle interplay
between the collective and the individual in communication and interpre-
tation that Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics foregrounds (as its title implies),
also argues that his hermeneutics is grounded in a conception of consensus
as the criterion of truth that he develops in his lectures on dialectic. In a
related book, Das Sagbare und das Unsagbare (1980), Frank continues his
treatment of Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics but this time in relation to
more recent French theorists such as Sartre. Frank is also the author of
further works on the Romantics’ fellow-traveler Schelling, including the
book Eine Einführung in Schellings Philosophie (1995). And he is the edi-
tor of important editions of Schleiermacher’s Hermeneutik und Kritik and
Dialektik.
Frank’s contribution to the present volume focuses on the leading poet
of early Romanticism, Novalis, whose Fichte-Studies from 1795/6 Frank
considers to be early Romanticism’s most important philosophical contri-
bution. On Frank’s reading, the Fichte-Studies, under the influence of
Niethammer’s skeptical circle, react against Fichte, aiming to replace his
subjective idealism with a monistic realism. According to Frank, the earli-
ness and the sophisticated detail of this project make it at least rival in
importance Hölderlin’s similar but much less detailed contribution from
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

around the same period, whose seminal role in the development of German
Idealism has been emphasized by Dieter Henrich (Frank accordingly criti-
cizes Henrich for his neglect of Novalis’s contribution). On Frank’s inter-
pretation, Novalis’s version of a realist monism retains a strongly skeptical
character, though: philosophy is in the end only a form of infinite striving,
not a task that can ever be fully accomplished.
The second contribution to the volume is by Andreas Arndt, who is
another of the leading experts on German Romanticism from post-war
Germany. Arndt is the author of the book Schleiermacher als Philosoph
(2013) as well as of numerous scholarly articles on German Romanticism.
In addition, he is the editor of many scholarly editions of the works of
Friedrich Schlegel and Schleiermacher. In his contribution to the present
volume Arndt discusses the concept of dialectic that Friedrich Schlegel
already developed as early as 1796. Arndt argues that, unlike Kant’s and
Fichte’s conceptions of dialectic, Schlegel’s conception of it acknowledged
the validity of contradictions. In this respect, as in some others, it antici-
pated the version of dialectic that Hegel would more famously develop a
few years later. In connection with this topic Arndt also touches on two
further important aspects of German Romanticism that receive fuller
treatment elsewhere in this volume: Romantic irony and the Romantic
ideal of a new mythology.
Johannes Korngiebel is a younger specialist on German Romanticism
from Germany who is currently completing doctoral work on the subject
at the University of Jena—the city that gave birth to German Romanticism
in the late 1790s and early 1800s. In his contribution to this volume
Korngiebel considers the relationship between Friedrich Schlegel and
Hegel in Jena, especially Hegel’s well-attested attendance of Schlegel’s
lectures on “transcendental philosophy” in 1800/1. Korngiebel points
out that there are some striking similarities between Schlegel’s philosophi-
cal approach and that developed later by Hegel, especially in the
Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) (incidentally, a subject on which Frederick
Beiser and Michael Forster have amplified elsewhere). But Korngiebel’s
emphasis is instead on Hegel’s disagreements with Schlegel. He argues
that, although Hegel’s well-known explicit critique of Schlegel—espe-
cially, of his concept of irony, which Hegel castigates as subjectivist or rela-
tivist—as it has been explored in detail by Otto Pöggeler and others, only
occurs relatively late in Hegel’s career (mainly in the Philosophy of Right
from 1820 and in a review of Solger from 1828), the earliness of Hegel’s
first encounter with Schlegel’s work in Jena suggests that he must already
10 M. N. FORSTER AND L. STEINER

have begun his critique of Schlegel considerably earlier. Accordingly,

Korngiebel discerns just such an earlier critique of Schlegel in the first
article of the Kritisches Journal der Philosophie that Hegel and Schelling
co-authored in 1802.
François Thomas is a young French specialist on German Romanticism,
especially its theory of translation, who has taught at Bonn University and
now teaches at the University of Paris, Nanterre. In his contribution to
this volume he discusses the role that foreignness plays in Schleiermacher’s
philosophy. He argues that while Schleiermacher recognizes that a certain
rootedness in a single culture is important, he also valorizes an encounter
with the foreign, holding (as Hegel also does) that this is an essential part
of the individual’s formation [Bildung]. According to Thomas,
Schleiermacher accordingly assigns to translation and dialectic the impor-
tant function of complementing rootedness in a single culture with just
such an encounter with the foreign.
Frederick Beiser is the leading specialist on the philosophy of German
Romanticism in the Anglophone world. Like Manfred Frank, he has pub-
lished extensively on the subject. In German Idealism (2002) he prob-
lematizes the traditional distinction between German Idealism and
German Romanticism, in particular by arguing that it was in fact Friedrich
Schlegel who, in his Jena lectures on “transcendental philosophy” from
1800/1, gave the first public presentation of an absolute idealism (even
before Schelling’s and Hegel’s early public presentations of such a posi-
tion). In The Romantic Imperative (2003) Beiser develops a wide-ranging
account of the philosophy of early Romanticism, including its positions on
literature and art. Among other things, he challenges the widespread con-
ception that Romanticism’s preoccupation with these domains was apoliti-
cal or an evasion of politics: according to Beiser’s account, it was on the
contrary deeply political, and moreover politically radical. In Enlightenment,
Revolution, and Romanticism (1992) Beiser discusses the political philos-
ophy of the era to which the Romantics belonged, including the political
philosophy of the early Romantics themselves, especially Friedrich
Schlegel. The early Romantics who emerge from Beiser’s account are rep-
resentatives of a political philosophy that is both imaginative and progres-
sive—in particular, championing republicanism, liberalism, and
cosmopolitanism. Relatedly, Beiser is also the editor and translator of an
important collection of the Romantics’ political writings, The Early
Political Writings of the German Romantics (1996).
 1 INTRODUCTION 11

In his contribution to the present volume Beiser qualifies his own very
positive picture of the political philosophy of early Romanticism in a cer-
tain way, though, especially in connection with the issue of antisemitism.
Beiser argues that the so-called Hochromantik of the period 1803–15,
which included such important figures as Clemens Brentano and Achim
von Arnim, was deeply antisemitic. In particular, he shows that the influ-
ential Berlin intellectual club, the Berliner Tischgesellschaft, founded in
1811, to which those Romantics and Schleiermacher belonged, made
antisemitism a prominent part of the German nationalism that it champi-
oned in reaction to Germany’s recent invasion by France. However,
Beiser’s case is not restricted to Hochromantik, but also concerns early
Romanticism to a significant extent. For one thing, on Beiser’s account
the ideal of a Christian state that undergirded much of this antisemitism
was largely an invention of Novalis in his Christianity or Europe (written
in 1799; partly published in 1802; fully published in 1826). For another
thing, on Beiser’s account Schleiermacher was not only a founding mem-
ber of the Tischgesellschaft from 1811 onward, but even the early
Schleiermacher of the Letters on the Occasion of the Politico-Theological
Task and the Open Letter of Jewish Householders [Briefe bei Gelegenheit der
politisch-theologischen Aufgabe und des Sendschreibens jüdischer Hausväter]
from 1799, who at first sight seems to be making a strong case in support
of political rights for Jews, was in fact implicitly pursuing an agenda that
was in certain ways antisemitic. (Beiser does not, however, extend this
critical case to certain other early Romantics and allies of Romanticism
who seem to be more unquestionably philosemitic rather than antisemitic,
such as Friedrich Schlegel and Alexander and Wilhelm von Humboldt.)
At this point our volume turns from contributions that are mainly con-
cerned with philosophy to ones that are also heavily concerned with litera-
ture. Helmut Hühn is another leading specialist on Romanticism from
Germany. He has not only published widely on the subject but also co-­
directs the Research Center for European Romanticism [Forschungsstelle
Europäische Romantik] in Jena. In his contribution to the present volume
he considers the German Romantics’ central project of developing a “new
mythology.” He explains the background of this project in the historicism
of the period and in Schiller’s diagnosis of the ills of modernity in his
poem The Gods of Greece (1788). He then turns to an investigation of the
most important versions of such a project, namely those in the Earliest
Program for a System of German Idealism (1796/7) and in Friedrich
Schlegel’s Dialogue on Poetry (1800), in order to show that poetry played
12 M. N. FORSTER AND L. STEINER

a central role in these versions of the project and that their goal was in
important part political. He argues that the project ultimately succumbed
to certain aporias, or deep problems, especially the problem of how, as an
essentially collective possession, such a new mythology could possibly be
brought into existence. However, he also argues that the project and its
failure remain with us as an important part of our intellectual heritage.
Giulia Valpione is a young scholar of German Romanticism from Italy
who did her doctoral work on the subject in Jena. Her contribution to the
present volume focuses on Friedrich Schlegel’s concept of Life and its
significance for his views on both literature/art and politics (for, as she
points out, these two spheres are intimately connected for Schlegel).
According to Valpione’s interpretation, in both of these cases Schlegel’s
application of the concept of Life to the domain in question implies a
conception of the limitations of reason and intelligibility.
Jean-Luc Nancy is a leading French expert on German Romanticism’s
treatment of philosophy and literature. Accordingly, we have chosen him
as our representative of French research on the subject. Together with
Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe (now deceased), Nancy is the author of the
book L’absolu littéraire (1978), an important work on German
Romanticism’s positions concerning philosophy and literature that has
been very influential not only in France but also in other countries. In
their book Nancy and Lacoue-Labarthe devote separate chapters to the
Romantics’ conceptions of a system, the fragment, religion, poetry, and
critique, in each case translating key texts by the Romantics into French
and providing a substantial commentary of their own. Nancy is also the
(co-)author of a number of articles that continue the book’s treatment of
those topics, sometimes in a more contemporary mode, such as the article
on the fragment “Noli me frangere.”
The contribution by Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy that we have selected
for this volume is an excerpt from their chapter of L’absolu littéraire on the
Romantics’ conception of the fragment. This genre, which is paradigmati-
cally exemplified by the Athenaeum Fragments (1798) that Friedrich
Schlegel authored in collaboration with the other leading Romantics, con-
stitutes—together with the novel (the subject of Lina Steiner’s contribu-
tion to this volume)—the Romantics’ most important innovation in
relation to genres or types of writing. Lacoue-Labarthe and Nancy begin
their contribution with some brief but helpful general remarks about the
Romantics’ conception of the relationship between philosophy and litera-
ture, in which they in particular emphasize that their conception of this
 1 INTRODUCTION 13

relationship was neither reductive nor exclusive in spirit. They then turn to
the Romantic fragment itself. They note that this is only one of a number
of genres that the Romantics use. They explain some of its historical back-
ground, especially the work of Nicolas Chamfort. They also carefully dis-
tinguish it from various other sorts of “fragment” that can be found either
in the Romantics themselves or in other sources—such as the Romantics’
own rough notes and sketches of projects or the “fragments” of lost works
of the ancients. In contrast with these, the Romantic fragment is charac-
terized by being the way it is deliberately rather than accidentally, standing
in an ambiguous relation to systematicity, (paradoxically) representing
incompletability in a complete way, essentially being plural (part of a col-
lection of fragments), and essentially being a collective achievement (a
product of “symphilosophy” or “sympoetry”).
Rainer Schäfer is an expert on Classical German Philosophy from
Germany who teaches at Bonn University. In his contribution to the pres-
ent volume he considers the relation of the philosopher-poet Hölderlin to
German Romanticism. Schäfer points out that Hölderlin does not himself
explicitly address the question of his relation to Romanticism and he
argues that it was only a certain nineteenth-century scholarly tradition—
saliently including Karl August Varnhagen von Ense, Karl Rosenkranz,
and Rudolf Haym—that generated a sort of myth that Hölderlin was a
Romantic. Schäfer himself holds that Hölderlin is best seen as both
Romantic (in virtue of his focus on such themes as love, nature, and infin-
ity) and Classical (especially in virtue of the seriousness with which he
takes the Greek gods). Schäfer gives a detailed account in accordance with
this picture of Hölderlin’s varying treatments of history from Greek antiq-
uity to modernity in his novel Hyperion (1797/9), his unfinished drama
The Death of Empedocles (1797–1800), and works that date from
1801 onward.
Fred Rush is another leading expert on German Romanticism from the
Anglophone world. His recent book, Irony and Idealism: Rereading
Schlegel, Hegel, and Kierkegaard (2016) is the most detailed treatment
available in English of the Romantics’ distinctive concept of irony and its
influence on subsequent thinkers. In a continuation of the latter topic
(that of influence), Rush’s contribution to the present volume considers
Kierkegaard’s response to, and repurposing of, the concept of irony that
he found in Socrates and Friedrich Schlegel. On Rush’s account,
Kierkegaard made irony serve as the means for effecting the transition
from the aesthetic sphere to the ethical sphere—just as he made comedy
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
It was only the vicar's dog who had accidentally found his way in, but he was dressed in a paper cap,
and though he turned his head from side to side he could not get it off.

There was holly on the stair-rail and it pricked Noel; he leant over farther to get away from it, and
then to the horror of Nurse, who had followed him out, she saw him over balance himself, and with a
sudden awful thud, his little figure fell, his head striking the tiled floor of the hall with awful force.

Chris uttered a horrified cry which brought his mother out of her room.

She was the first to reach her darling, and raised him in her arms; but he lay still and unconscious. It
had been so swift, so sudden an accident, that he had not had time to utter a cry.

The little household gathered round him.

"He is killed!" cried Diana and Chris together.

"No—no—stunned!" said Mrs. Inglefield in her agony, still striving to allay the fears of her children.

Then she turned to Chris:

"Fetch the doctor. Go on your bicycle. Nurse, come with me."

Diana watched the limp, unconscious form of her small brother being carried upstairs. Mrs. Tubbs
followed Nurse; Cassy put her apron up to her eyes and began to cry.

"Oh, Miss Diana, 'tis his birthday; what an end to it!"

Diana seemed turned to stone.

How and why did these things happen? They were all so happy a few minutes ago, and now Noel
was perhaps dead and would never speak or laugh again.

She went slowly into the dining-room. The tea was all laid upon the table, the silver kettle boiling over
the methylated lamp. They would have all been sitting round the table now, mother would be pouring
out the tea, Noel's cake would have delighted him. It was a surprise—made by Mrs. Tubbs, who had
put her very best work into it. It was a big iced cake, and had seven candles upon it. In the centre
was a tiny little Christmas tree—a copy of Noel's. Its leaves and branches were frosted with sugar
and a robin perched on the topmost branch. In pink letters on the white surface was written:

"Noel Inglefield. Happy Returns of his Birthday,

and best Christmas Wishes."

As Diana gazed at the cake, tears crowded into her eyes.

Noel's cake! And he might never see it!

There were crackers round the table. What fun they would have had! There were jam sandwiches
and sugarcoated biscuits, and coco-nut cakes and shortbread.

Who would enjoy the tea now, when Noel lay dead or dying upstairs?

"Oh, it's awful! awful!" she cried, "worse than anything I have ever thought of or made up for my
stories! And I've spoken so crossly to him to-day, even though it was his birthday! Oh, what shall we
do! What shall we do!"
When Chris returned he found Diana pacing the hall like a demented person.

The doctor followed on his heels, and with two or three strides had mounted the stairs and gone into
the nursery.

"Oh, Chris," said Diana with tearful eyes, "what shall we do? I believe he is quite dead already."

"He can't be," said Chris. "Wasn't it awful seeing him fall! I've been thinking the whole way along to
the doctor's and back, of my cross words to him about the carol. We haven't been kind to him, Dinah
—over and over again we haven't! And we can't ask him to forgive us. And it's his birthday. Do you
think we could pray to God? Noel gets all his prayers answered, he says."

"He's so fond of God," moaned Diana; "perhaps God is very fond of him and wants him in heaven. I
wish mother would come to us."

But it was a long while before their mother came, and when she did, all the glow and brightness of
her face had vanished. She and the doctor went into her boudoir and talked a little, and then he went
away, saying:

"I'll be up the first thing in the morning, but there's nothing more can be done."

Then Chris and Diana crept up to their mother.

"Is he dead, Mums?" Chris whispered.

Mrs. Inglefield looked at them sorrowfully.

"He is very, very ill, dear. It is bad concussion of the brain, and he may be unconscious for a long
time. We must ask God to spare his precious little life."

A choke came in her voice, then she seemed to pull herself together.

"We must have some tea. Nurse is watching by him, and I will go and relieve her soon. Come along."

That was a most miserable meal for both mother and children.

Noel's chair opposite his cake was empty. His cheerful little voice, which was always making itself
heard, was hushed and silent now. Would they ever hear it again, his mother wondered?

And at last in desperation Chris spoke out his thoughts:

"Why has God let it happen on his birthday and on Christmas night, Mums? Any other time it
wouldn't have been so bad."

"Be quiet," said Diana in a whisper, giving him an angry nudge. "You'll only make Mums more
miserable."

Mrs. Inglefield caught the whisper.

"No, he won't, dear. God loves Noel better than any of us. He has sent this trouble to us for some
good reason. We must never question God's will."

The children were silent. They were glad when tea was over, but when their mother left them to
return to the sickroom, they wandered about the house, not knowing what to do with themselves.
Nurse came down at last, and told them that they must keep out of the nursery, as Noel must be kept
as quiet as possible.
"I should go to bed early if I were you," she told them. "Perhaps your little brother will be better to-
morrow morning."

"I know why God has let this accident happen," said Diana to Chris when Nurse had left them, and
they had gone into their mother's boudoir, and sitting down on two chairs near the fire had faced
each other in despairing silence; "it is to punish us. We haven't been good to him. We haven't loved
him, and now God is going to take him away from us."

"We'll miss him horribly if he dies," said Chris. "I wouldn't let him ride my bicycle the day before
yesterday."

"And I pushed him out of the nursery when I was writing," said Diana; "and told him he was a horrid
little bother."

These torturing memories went with them when they went to bed.

For the first time their mother failed to come and wish them good night. Nurse was having her
supper, and Mrs. Inglefield could not leave Noel.

But she did not forget them; only later on, when she did come, they had both forgotten their regrets,
and remorse, in sleep.

The following days were very sad. Noel lay unconscious for two days and two nights; and then when
he was able to eat, and take notice, his memory seemed to have left him. The house had to be kept
very quiet, and for days his life seemed to hang upon a thread.

It was astonishing how many friends the little fellow had. The back door was besieged by the
villagers during the first few days of his illness. Foster took the Christmas tree out of the drawing-
room and planted it in its old bed, but as he did so he was heard murmuring to himself:

"We'll never see his like again. He were too near heaven for a little chap like him!"

Mr. Wargrave, Miss Constance, Ted and Inez, all tried in turns to comfort and amuse poor Chris and
Diana.

As the days went on they began to hope, and when at last the doctor said that Noel was going to pull
through, they cheered up and began to smile once more.

But they were not allowed to see him. Mrs. Inglefield looked worn to a shadow; it was heart-breaking
to her to see her busy chattering little son lying in listless apathy on his bed, only moving his head to
and fro, and hardly recognizing his own mother.

Chris had to return to school before Noel was convalescent. Just before he went his mother let him
come in and see the little patient. Chris could hardly believe that the tiny pinched face with the big
restless eyes belonged to rosy, sturdy Noel.

He stooped over and kissed him very gently, and called him by name; but Noel took no notice, only
moved his head restlessly from side to side.

And Chris went out of the room fighting with his tears. The very next day Diana said to her mother:

"Will Noel never get better, Mums? God isn't answering our prayers. I pray ever so many times in the
day about him."

"Oh," cried her mother in anguish of tone, "don't pray too hard, darling, that we may keep him here.
God knows best. For his sake I dare not pray too earnestly for his recovery."
Diana could not understand this until she talked to Mrs. Tubbs in the kitchen about it.

"Bless your heart, missy, your poor mother is afraid he'll never get his senses again. Some is left
idiots after such a blow in the head. And Master Noel knows nobody yet, and p'r'aps never will."

This was a fresh horror to Diana. It was a good thing for her when Miss Morgan returned and lessons
began again.

But at last steady improvement set in, and Mrs. Inglefield went about with the light again in her eyes
and a smile upon her lips.

Inez came to wish Diana good-bye upon the day when the doctor was for the first time hopeful. She
was going to school, and had been dreadfully distressed about Noel.

"I liked him the best of you," she said; "he was always so funny and so naughty, and yet so very
good. And he talked like an angel. He's taught me more than anybody else, and I'm going to school
with quite a good character."

"I'll write to you, Inez, and tell you about him," said Diana, "and perhaps you'll like me to send you a
bit of my new story sometimes."

"I should love it."

They parted. Diana felt very lonely; she had never imagined that she would miss Noel so very much.

And then one Saturday when Chris was home, he and she went upstairs together to sit for a short
time with the little invalid.

He was decidedly better, his eyes were dear and bright, and he was able to talk a little, though his
voice was husky and weak. He smiled when he saw them.

"I've been very ill," he announced to them.

"Yes," said Diana, "we've missed you dreadfully, Noel. It will be nice when you're quite well again."

"I b'lieve," said Noel in his old slow way, "that I've been away to heaven, only I can't remember. I
know I haven't been here all the time."

Chris stooped over him:

"We'll never be cross to you again, Noel, never."

Noel looked at him, then asked gravely:

"Do you love me now?"

And Chris and Diana both cried out with all their hearts:

"Indeed we do. We'll always love you."

Noel smiled contentedly. Then after a pause he said: "Then will you be kind to my Chris'mas tree?
Will you give him some water and take care of him?"

"I'll water him every day," Diana rashly promised.

The interview was over; but Noel began to recover rapidly. It was a happy day when he was
downstairs again: and the first thing he did was to totter out into the garden, and make his way to his
beloved fir tree.

It stood there, looking rather bedraggled, and showing a great gap where the branch had been cut
off.

Noel was distressed at first, and then Chris, who was with him, said:

"He is like a soldier who has lost his arm in fighting for his King."

Noel's whole face brightened as he said:

"And he gave his branch to God for Jesus' birfday." He was comforted.

That same day, Bessie Sharpe came up to tell Mrs. Inglefield that her father had quietly passed
away.

"He were always talking of Master Noel. The last thing he said was, 'Tell Master Noel when he's well
enough to hear it, that my time of waiting is over and I'm going like his Christmas tree, to be taken in
for my Master's glory.'"

This message was given to Noel. He quite understood it.

"And Mr. Sharpe will be covered with glory," he said. "Everybody who goes to heaven will be like
Christmas trees lighted up. I almost wish I had wented there."

But Chris and Diana had cried out together:

"We want you here."

And their mother looked at them with a smile upon her face and deep thankfulness in her heart. She
knew now what had been the purpose in Noel's accident and illness. It was to bring the brothers and
sister closer together, and to bind them in a strong chain of love and understanding that would not
break under any provocation.

And Noel cried out:

"And I want to be here, for I love you all, specially—my dear Christmas tree."
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NOEL'S
CHRISTMAS TREE ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
 copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.