A History of Poetics (German Scholarly Aesthetics and Poetics in International Context, 1770-1960) - Sandra Richter

Sandra Richter
A History of Poetics
Sandra Richter
A History of Poetics
German Scholary Aesthetics and Poetics
in International Context, 1770-1960
With Bibliogaphies by
Anja Zenk · Jasmin Azazmah
Eva Jost · Sandra Richter
De Gruyter
The publication of this volume was generously supported by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation).
ISBN 978-3-11-022244-9
e-ISBN 978-3-11-022245-6
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Richter, Sandra, 1973-

A history of poetics : German scholarly aesthetics and poetics in inter-
national context, 1770-1960 / by Sandra Richter ; with bibliographies by
Anja Zenk … [et al.].
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-3-11-022244-9 (alk. paper)
1. Poetics - History. 2. Literature - History and criticism - Theory,
etc. 3. Aesthetics, German - History. 4. Poetics - Bibliography.
I. Hill- Zenk, Anja, 1972- II. Title.
PN1035.R53 2010
809.1-dc22
2009048972
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
쑔 2010 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York

Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
⬁ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
. 1
. 2
. 3
. 4
. 5
. 6
. 7
. 8
. 9 To Jörg Schönert
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
. 1
. 2
. 3
. 4
. 5
. 6
. 7
. 8
. 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4 Preface
5
6 A history of poetics, a device for orientation I know not.1
7
8 Poetics has always been a key to the history and systematic order of the
9 humanities: the renaissance ‘poeta doctus’ proved his scholarly knowl-
10 edge and stylistic competence by writing a poetological treatise. In
11 the 19th century, poetics was seen as the core area of the humanities –
12 as the ‘logic’ of the humanities. Nevertheless, we know astonishingly
13 little about the different national histories of poetics; even less can be
14 said about international developments and exchanges. Wilhelm Scherer
15 is still correct when he states that a history of poetics is lacking.
16 These deficiencies originate from the conflicting nature of poetics
17 itself: on the one hand, poetics participates in the general history and
18 theory of science and the humanities but is neglected to a large extent
19 by these fields of study. The reason is simple: poetics deals with poetry
20 – and not with the ‘hard sciences’. On the other hand, poetics is close to
21 the study of literature, to criticism and its history. But critique tends to
22 focus on its ‘beautiful object’ and to ignore its own history, especially
23 after the end of ‘great theory’ in the final decade of the 20th century.
24 Facing so many difficulties, this study on German poetics in its interna-
25 tional context cannot be anything but an expedition into uncharted ter-
26 ritory. Only a few islands, the aesthetics of the ‘big thinkers’ of course,
27 are well studied.
28 This study can build on this research but is designed to discover the
29 lesser known texts. In order to do so, the study will focus on scholarly,
30 ambitious aesthetics and poetics up until the point at which poetics be-
31 come discredited in the 1960s. By then, poetological thinking tended to
32 regard works published under the title of ‘poetics’ as not being scientific
33 enough and preferred the term ‘literary theory’ instead. Literary theories
34 from the 1960s to the present day are examined and presented by the
35
36
37
1 Wilhelm Scherer: Poetik [1888]. Mit einer Einleitung und Materialien zur Re-
38
zeptionsanalyse. Ed. Gunter Reiss. Tübingen: Niemeyer (dtv) 1977, p. 29:
39 “Eine Geschichte der Poetik, ein Hilfsmittel zur Orientierung kenne ich
40 nicht.”
VIII Preface
1 Centre of Literary Theory at the University of Göttingen (director: Si-

2 mone Winko; http://www.simonewinko.de/arbeitsstelle.html).
3 Furthermore, this study will only occasionally consider didactical
4 school poetics or literary poetics. School poetics will be dealt with in
5 a separate study by Anja Zenk who was a member of my Emmy Noeth-
6 er research group on ‘Poetological Reflection. Poetics and Poetological
7 Lyric Poetry in Aesthetic Context’ from which the findings presented
8 here result. Literary poetics were studied in other publications of the
9 group:
10 By myself:
11 - (published under my maiden name Sandra Pott) Poetiken. Poetolo-
12 gische Lyrik, Poetik und Ästhetik von Novalis bis Rilke. Berlin,
13 New York: de Gruyter 2004.
14
- (published under my maiden name Sandra Pott) Poetics of the Pic-
15
ture. August Wilhelm Schlegel and Achim von Arnim, in: The
16
Image of Words. Literary Transpositions of Pictorial Ideas, ed. by
17
Rüdiger Görner. Munich: Iudicium 2005 (Institute of Germanic
18
Studies X), pp. 76 90.
19
- (published under my maiden name Sandra Pott) Poetologische Re-
20
flexion. “Lyrik” in poetologischer Lyrik, Poetik und Ästhetik
21
(19. Jahrhundert), in: Lyrik im 19. Jahrhundert. Historische Gattung-
22
spoetik als Reflexionsmedium einer kulturwissenschaftlichen Germa-
23
nistik, eds. Steffen Martus, Stefan Scherer, Claudia Stockinger. Bern:
24
Lang 2005 (Publikationen zur Zeitschrift für Germanistik NF 11),
25
pp. 31 60.
26
- Lyrik im Ausgang aus der Stummfilmzeit: Claire Golls Lyrische Films
27
(1922). In: Literatur intermedial, eds. Wolf Gerhard Schmidt, Thor-
28
ACHTUNGREsten Valk. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2009 (Spectrum Literatur-
29
wissenschaft 19), pp. 67 86.
30
31 By Gunilla Eschenbach: Imitation und Parodie. Poetologische Lyrik
32 und Poetik im George-Kreis (submitted with Hamburg University).
33 By Eva Jost: Dichtung als Sensation. Die populäre Moderne: Otto
34 Julius Bierbaum.
35 Some parts of this publication are further developed in the following
36 contributions and articles by myself:
37 - (published under my maiden name Sandra Pott) Von der Erfindung
38 und den Grenzen des Schaffens. Fallstudien zur Inventio-Lehre in
39 Poetik und Ästhetik, in: Imagination und Invention, Paragrana 2
40 (2006), eds. Toni Bernhart, Philipp Mehne, pp. 217 242.
A history of poetics, a device for orientation I know not. IX
1 - (published under my maiden name Sandra Pott) International, natio-

2 nale und transnationale Poetik: Hugh Blair auf dem Kontinent und
3 einige Bemerkungen über den Transfer poetologischen Wissens seit
4 1790, in: Triangulärer Transfer: Großbritannien, Frankreich und
5 Deutschland um 1800, Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 56/
6 1 (2006), eds. Sandra Pott, Sebastian Neumeister, pp. 99 114.
7 - Unsichere Schönheit. Der Ursprung der Ästhetik aus der Kritik des
8 Skeptizismus. In: Unsicheres Wissen. Skeptizismus und Wahrschein-
9 lichkeit, 1550 – 1850, eds. Carlos Spoerhase, Dirk Werle, Markus
10 Wild. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2009 (Historia Hermeneutica
11 7), pp. 159 178.
12 - Anschaulichkeit versus Sprachlichkeit. Ein paradigmatischer Schein-
13 gegensatz in Ästhetik und Poetik (ca. 1850 bis 1950), in: Die Künste
14 und ihre Wissenschaften im 19. Jahrhundert, eds. Oliver Huck, San-
15 dra Richter, Christian Scholl. Hildesheim (forthcoming).
16 - (with Hans-Harald Müller) Nationale Philologien – europäische
17 Zeitschriften. Zur Rezeption von Poetik und Literaturtheorie in
18 den wissenschaftlichen und literaturkritischen Zeitschriften zwischen
19 1880 und 1930, to be published in the papers of the conference on
20 European Philologies, VW-Foundation. Osnabrück University,
21 April 2007 (forthcoming).
22 - Wie kam das Bild in die Lyriktheorie? Präliminarien zu einer visuel-
23 ACHTUNGRElen Theorie der Lyrik, in: Das lyrische Bild, eds. Nina Herres, Cson-
24 gor Lörincz, Ralf Simon. Munich 2008 (forthcoming).
25
For the generous support and funding the group has received in the
26
Emmy Noether programme, I wish to thank the German Research
27
Foundation. During the years of research necessary for a study like
28
this the junior research group was hosted by various institutions: by
29
Hamburg University (Institute of German Studies II), King’s College
30
London (German Department) and Stuttgart University (Modern Ger-
31
man Literature I). We wish to thank all three Universities for their hos-
32
33
pitality. Many colleagues are responsible for the warm welcome and the
34
fruitful time that the group spent in Hamburg, London and Stuttgart. I
35
can only name a few of them: Jörg Schönert did his utmost to support
36
and help the group intellectually as well as administratively. Peter Hühn
37 was a corner-stone for the integration of any English content. Hans-
38 Harald Müller, whose principal field of research is on empirical poetics
39 around 1900, became an intellectual counterpart for the group. The col-
40 leagues and friends from the research group ‘Narratology’ at the Univer-
X Preface
1 sity of Hamburg (German Research Foundation) as well as Philip Ajouri

2 (Stuttgart University) contributed to our interests by their own research.
3 Lutz Danneberg and his ‘Research Centre of Historical Epistemology
4 and Hermeneutics’ (Humboldt University Berlin), Simone Winko,
5 Christoph König’s ‘Network Philologies in Europe’ (University Osna-
6 ACHTUNGREbrück) and Marcel Lepper (German Literature Archiv Marbach) en-
7 riched the project through many discussions.
8 I am in great debt to Jasmin Azazmah, Saskia Bodemer, Mara De-
9 lius, Gunilla Eschenbach, Kristof Gundelfinger, Eva Jost, Tim Kopera,
10 Deirdre Mahony, Petra Mayer, Oliver Krug and Yvonne Zimmermann.
11 Without them, this manuscript would not exist. Gunilla Eschenbach
12 and Eva Jost did some of the research on individual scholars. Saskia Bod-
13 emer, Mara Delius, Tim Kopera, Oliver Krug and Kristof Gundelfinger
14 helped to find and analyse the material. Deirdre Mahony helped with
15 proof-reading. Anja Zenk was responsible for the bibliography of poet-
16 ics and was helped by Jasmin Azazmah, Eva Jost and myself. Last but not
17 least, I wish to thank my curious students at Hamburg University, who
18 stimulated this book by continuous questioning. The book was, howev-
19 er written in London, therefore its language is English.
20
21 Stuttgart 2009
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII
I. Introduction
1. Poetics as Field of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. Text Types and Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
II. Aesthetics and Academic Poetics in Germany
1. Eclectic Poetics: Popular Philosophy (1770 – 1790) . . . . . . . . 40

(a) The Moralizing Standard Work: Johann Georg Sulzer
Allgemeine Theorie der schçnen Knste (1771 – 1774) . . . . . . 43
(b) Popular Aesthetics as a Part of “Erfahrungsseelenlehre” in
1783: Johann Joachim Eschenburg, Johann August
Eberhard and Johann Jacob Engel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2. Transcendental Poetics and Beyond: Immanuel Kant’s Critical

Successors (1790 – 1800) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
(a) Critical Poetics and Popular Critique: Johann Heinrich
Gottlob Heusinger (1797) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
(b) Systematical and Empirical Poetics on a Cosmological
Basis: Christian August Heinrich C. Clodius (1804) . . . . 68
(c) Towards a Realistic Poetics: Joseph Hillebrand (1827) . . 72
3. Historical and Genetic Poetics: Johann Justus Herwig (1774),

August Wilhelm Schlegel (1801 – 1803/1809 – 1811) and
Johann Gottfried Herder’s Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4. Logostheological Poetics Beyond Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph

Schelling: Friedrich Ast (1805), Joseph Loreye (1801/1802,
2
1820) and Johann Jakob Wagner (1839, 21840) . . . . . . . . . . 89
XII Contents
5. Post-Idealist Poetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

(a) An Empirical Idealist Poetics: Friedrich Bouterwek
Aesthetik (1806) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
(b) Religious Poetics: Wilhelm Wackernagel’s Lectures
(1836/7) and Catholic Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
(c) The Turning Point after Hegel and Beyond: Friedrich
Theodor Vischer (1846 – 1857) and the New Challenges
( Johann Friedrich Herbart, Robert Zimmermann) . . . . . 112
(d) Literary Poetics: Rudolf Gottschall (1858, 61893) . . . . . . 121
6. Pre-Empirical and Empirical Poetics since 1820 . . . . . . . . . . 129

(a) Poetics as Life Science: Moriz Carriere (1854/21884,
1859) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
(b) Psychological Poetics: From Gustav Theodor Fechner
(1871/1876), Rudolph Hermann Lotze (1884) and
Heinrich Viehoff (1820) to Wilhelm Dilthey (1887) and
Richard Müller-Freienfels (1914/21921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
(c) Processual Poetics: Wilhelm Scherer (1888) . . . . . . . . . . 164
(d) Evolutionary Poetics: Eugen Wolff (1899) . . . . . . . . . . . 173
7. Comprehensive Poetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

(a) On the Way to a New Discipline Called
‘Literaturwissenschaft’: Ernst Elster (1897) . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
(b) Back to Poetics: Hubert Roetteken (1902/1924) . . . . . . 181
8. Poetics and “Geisteswissenschaft” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

(a) Renewed Historical Poetics: Wilhelm Dilthey (1906) . . 190
(b) On the Way to Epistemological Poetics: Emil Ermatinger
(1921) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
(c) Bi-polar Poetic Formalism: Oskar Walzel (1926) . . . . . . 197
(d) Typological Poetics and the Relevance of the Creative:
Hermann Hefele (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
9. The Turn Towards Language: Theodor A. Meyer (1901) . . 205
10. Phenomenological and Ontological Poetics: Edmund Husserl

and Roman Ingarden (1931) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
11. Anthropology, Existentialism and Hermeneutics: the

Influence of Søren Kierkegaard and Martin Heidegger . . . . . 219
Contents XIII
(a) On the Way to Hermeneutical Poetics: Theophil Spoerri

(1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
(b) Existentialist Poetics: Johannes Pfeiffer (1936) . . . . . . . . . 228
(c) Anthropological Poetics in Refined Genre Theory:
Emil Staiger (1939/1946) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
12. The After-Life of the ‘Artwork of Language’

(“Sprachkunstwerk”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
(a) The Great Amalgamation: Wolfgang Kayser (1948) . . . . 242
(b) Back to a Poetics of Style: Herbert Seidler (1959) . . . . . 245
13. Poetics under the Fascist Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

(a) Problems of German Poetics: Karl Justus Obenauer (1936) 251
(b) Poetry and “Volkheit” – a New Literary Science: Heinz
Kindermann (1937) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
(c) Biologist Approaches: Ludwig Büttner (1939) . . . . . . . . . 260
(d) Morphological Poetics: Günther Müller (1943) . . . . . . . 264
(e) Towards a Methodology of a ‘General Literary Science’:
Julius Petersen (1939, 21944) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
14. New Approaches in a Reproductive Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

(a) Author Poetics from America: Joachim Maass (1949,
2
1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
(b) Holistic Poetics in a General Literary Science:
Max Wehrli (1951, 21969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
15. Conclusion: Tendencies, Trends and Sunken Ideas . . . . . . . . 288
III. Bibliographies and Prints
1. Bibliography of German Poetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

2. Selected Bibliography of German Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
3. Selected Bibliography of Early German Literary Theory . . . . 369
4. Selected Bibliography of Non-German Rhetoric, Poetics and
Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
5. Other Primary Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
6. Research Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
7. Prints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
XIV Contents
Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 I. Introduction
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
I. Introduction 3
1 In his famous book on Truth and Method (1960) Hans-Georg Gadamer

2 reports a big shift in historiography: the scientification born in 19th-cen-
3 tury poetics. This scientification is not only said to have introduced
4 logic and the natural sciences but also to have colonised the humanities
5 under the flag of objectivity. According to Gadamer, one person is es-
6 pecially to blame for this colonisation and he directly attacks him: Wil-
7 helm Dilthey, Gadamer writes, against his own better knowledge, sub-
8 ordinated his poetics to the ideal of the natural sciences. Although
9 Dilthey himself never forgot the romantic idea of ‘spirit’ (“Geist”)
10 and, in his letters to Wilhelm Scherer, practised ways of scholarship
11 which Gadamer esteems, Dilthey was blinded by the ideas of logical
12 conclusion, of ‘induction’ and objectivity.1 As a consequence, Gadamer
13 argues, Dilthey neglected the core ideas of the humanities: ‘individual
14
tact’ (“individuelle[n] Takt”), ‘culture of the soul’ (“seelische Kultur”),
15
authority and tradition.2
16
Indeed, in his early writings on poetics Dilthey announced his aim
17
to rebuild the humanities on the basis of empiricism and psychology.3
18
But in contrast to what Gadamer asserts, Dilthey’s goal was not to ex-
19
tinguish individuality. On the contrary, Dilthey hoped to be able to
20
prove it. For this reason the poet, his experience, his fantasy, in short
21
everything that distinguishes his extraordinary personality, nature and
22
23
talent from non-creative people, became Dilthey’s field of study.
24
Through the study of the poet’s experience Dilthey sought to find a
25
‘systematic poetics’ – a poetics that shows the laws of individuality
26
and therefore serves as the ‘logic’ or the ‘general science’ (“allgemeine
27 Wissenschaft”) of the humanities.4
28 Gadamer is also wrong in a second aspect. He accuses the 19th cen-
29 tury alone and especially Dilthey of having established the reign of the
30 natural sciences in the humanities. History proves to be more compli-
31 cated: the ‘scientification’ of poetics can be traced back (at least) to
32
33
1 Hans-Georg Gadamer: Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophi-
34 schen Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Mohr 1960, p. 12.
35 2 Ibid., p. 13.
36 3 Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller: Dilthey gegen Scherer: Geistesgeschichte
37 contra Positivismus. Zur Revision eines wissenschaftshistorischen Stereotyps.
In: Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte
38
74 (2000) 4, pp. 685 709.
39 4 Wilhelm Dilthey: Die Einbildungskraft des Dichters: Bausteine für eine Poetik.
40 In: Philosophische Aufsätze, ed. by W.D. Altenburg: Pierer, 1887, p. 107.
4 I. Introduction
1 Christian Wolff’s rational psychology (1727) 5 and to Alexander Gottlieb

2 Baumgarten’s reflections on aesthetics as a discipline (Aesthetica, 1750/
3 1758). Wolff and Baumgarten focused on one question: how to judge
4 emotions? While Wolff dedicated his psychology to the examination
5 of cognition, Baumgarten grounded a new doctrine on Wolff’s system:
6 according to Baumgarten ‘sensitive cognition’ (“cognitio sensitiva”) is
7 analogous to reasonable judgement.6 Matters of taste and imagination
8 in turn become the touchstones of aesthetics as well as of the philosophy
9 of cognition and judgement – a development with a long afterlife in
10 19th-century poetics and aesthetics until Dilthey.
11 Taking this complex constellation into account I will show how
12 complicated the late 18th-, 19th- and early 20th-century history of poetics
13 is, thereby building on the increasing research interest in aesthetics and
14 poetics. The last seven years have seen the publication of various large-
15 scale 500- to 700-page anthologies on aesthetics of all kinds. To name
16 only a few of them: The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics (2001,
2
17 2005) aims at a comprehensive overview which includes histories of
18 aesthetics, the individual arts as well as current issues.7 In contrast to
19
20 5 The book is known as ‘German Metaphysics’ but published under the title:
21 Vernünftige Gedanken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen,
22 auch allen Dingen überhaupt. Christian Wolff. Frankfurt: Andreä & Hort,
1727; see Matthew Bell: The German Tradition of Psychology in Literature
23
and Thought, 1700 1840. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 2005,
24 pp. 22 f; Jean-François Goubet and Oliver-Pierre Rudolph (eds.): Die Psycho-
25 logie Christian Wolffs: Systematische und historische Untersuchungen. Tübin-
26 gen 2004 (Studien zur Europäischen Aufklärung 22).
27 6 Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten: Aesthetica. Repr. ed. Hildesheim: Olms,
1970. (Frankfurt a. d. Oder 1750). Baumgarten was not the only one to formu-
28
late such an attempt. His disciple Georg Friedrich Meier developed a similar
29 theory. See Meier’s aesthetic chief work “Die Anfangsgründe aller schönen
30 Wissenschaften und Künste” (3 parts, Halle 1748 50. Reprint of the 2nd
31 ed. 1754 at Hildesheim/New York: Olms 1976), in which he summarizes
32 his aesthetic views. Cf. also “Frühe Schriften zur ästhetischen Erziehung der
Deutschen” (3 parts), ed. by Hans-Joachim Kertscher and Günter Schenk.
33
Halle Saale: Hallescher Verlag 1999 – 2002. Cf. also Jean-François Goubet
34 and Gérard Raulet (eds.): Aux sources de l’esthétique: Les débuts de l’esthé-
35 tique philosophische en Allemagne. Paris 2005. (Editions de la Maison des Sci-
36 ences de l’Homme 2005; Collection Philia); Stefanie Buchenau and Élisabeth
37 Décultot (eds.): Esthétiques de l’Aufklärung: Akten des Kolloquiums ‘Esthé-
tiques de l’Aufklärung (1720 1780)’. In: Revue Germanique Internationale
38
4 (2006).
39 7 Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes (eds.): The Routledge Companion to
40 Aesthetics. 2nd ed. London, New York: Routledge 2005 (1st ed. 2001).
I. Introduction 5
1 this, The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics (2003) identifies general and spe-
2 cific issues with a focus on the method of aesthetical study.8 Last but not
3 least, Blackwell publishers present a double-sided account of aesthetics:
4 the anthology Continental Aesthetics (2001) 9 followed by the companion
5 Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art. The Analytic Tradition (2004).10 Both
6 studies give the impression that a geographical line could be drawn be-
7 tween two entirely different traditions of aesthetics, one aiming at
8 metaphysics and hermeneutics (‘the Continental tradition’), the other
9 at the analysis of art and its perception (‘the Anglo-American tradition’).
10 This impression is misleading, not only historically but also systematical-
11 ly.11 19th- and 20th-century aesthetics has been both analytical and her-
12 meneutical or metaphysical, regardless of the country of origin.
13 This book is, in part, written against general assumptions about ‘the
14 tradition of aesthetics’ and broad geographical denominations; rather, it
15 aims to show how little we know about aesthetics, starting with the sub-
16 field of aesthetics that is poetics. Not only key developments of poetics
17 will be examined but also its results as well as its unresolved problems.
18 Some of them appertain to the development of the 19th-century nation-
19 al philologies.12 These national philologies still participated in the reflec-
20 tions on poetry that had already been developed in the light of a Euro-
21 pean ‘res publica litteraria’. Yet national philologies also tended towards
22
specific national canons of literature and towards a more or less specific
23
national poetics. In this volume I will deal with the history of German
24
poetics and ascertain whether or not this ‘national’ poetic thought
25
shared at least some systematic knowledge about poetry as well as
26
about its production and perception with other national or even local
27
28
8 Jerrold Levinson (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford
29 Univ. Press 2003.
30 9 Richard Kearney and David Rasmussen (eds.): Continental Aesthetics: Ro-
31 manticism and Postmodernism. An Anthology. Cambridge: Blackwell 2001.
32 See also the smaller but more focused volume by J.M. Bernstein (ed.): Classic
and Romantic German Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 2003.
33
10 Peter Lamarque and Stein Haugham Olsen (eds.): Aesthetics and the Philoso-
34 phy of Art: The Analytic Tradition. Cambridge: Blackwell 2004.
35 11 On this problem see the helpful review of ‘Aesthetics and the Philosophy of
36 Art’ by Roger Pouivet. In: The British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (2005) 1,
37 pp. 88 94.
12 See the contributions in Frank Fürbeth, Pierre Krügel, Ernst E. Metzner and
38
Olaf Müller (eds.): Zur Geschichte und Problematik der Nationalphilologien
39 in Europa: 150 Jahre Erste Germanistenversammlung in Frankfurt am Main
40 (1846 1996). Tübingen: Niemeyer 1999.
6 I. Introduction
1 traditions of poetological thinking.13 For that purpose, I will firstly ask

2 how to explain poetics (chapter 1). Secondly, a few words will be
3 said on its periodisation (chapter 2). Thirdly, a brief remark on method
4 will stress my particular aim (chapter 3).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
13 Studies on comparative poetics are rare – even more so if the transfer of knowl-
34 edge is called into question. More or less inspired by a comparative approach are
35 Georges Saintsbury: A History of Criticism and Literary Taste in Europe: From
36 the Earliest to the Present Day. Edinburgh, London: Blackwood 1961. (3
37 vols.); René Wellek: A History of Modern Criticism: 1750 1950. New
Haven, London: Yale Univ. Press 1950 sq. (4 vols.); Jean Bessière, Eva Kush-
38
ner, Roland Mortier and Jean Weisgerber (eds.): Histoire des poétiques. Paris:
39 PUF 1997; Lubomír Doležel: Occidental poetics: Tradition and progress. Lin-
40 coln, Nebraska [et al.]: Univ. of Nebraska Press 1990.
1
2
3
4 1. Poetics as Field of Knowledge
5
6
7 In the middle ages, scholars studied the ‘ars poetica’ in the rhetoric-
8 course of the ‘trivium’.1 Until late in the 18th century ‘ars poetica’ com-
9 prised the examination and practice of poetry, of texts in verse (‘oratio
10 ligata’) 2 and of texts which may also benefit from a certain liberty of in-
11 vention and presentation (‘licentia poetica’) and which need not neces-
12 sarily persuade but may instead educate and delight people (‘prodesse et
13 delectare’).3 Therefore, not only metrics and versification but also gen-
14 eral questions about the poet, his topics and his audience were part of
15 the ‘ars poetica’. These questions did not vanish in 19th- and early
16 20th-century poetics and continue to play a role in current literary schol-
17
18
1 On the early history of poetics Heinrich F. Plett (ed.): Renaissance Poetics.
19 Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 1994; Barbara Bauer: Jesuitische ‘ars rhetoric’
20 im Zeitalter der Glaubenskämpfe. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang 1986; Volkhard
21 Wels: Der Begriff der Dichtung vor und nach der Reformation. In: Fragmenta
22 Melanchthoniana 3: Melanchthons Wirkung in der europäischen Bildungsge-
schichte, ed. by Günter Frank and Sebastian Lalla. Heidelberg: Winter 2007,
23
pp. 81 104; Jörg Robert: Methode – System – Enzyklopädie: Transformatio-
24 nen des Wissens und Strukturwandel der Poetik im 16. Jahrhundert. In: Maske
25 und Mosaik: Poetik, Sprache, Wissen im 16. Jahrhundert, ed. by Jan-Dirk
26 Müller and Jörg Robert. Berlin, Münster i. W.: Lit. 2007; Ingo Stöckmann:
27 Vor der Literatur: eine Evolutionstheorie der Poetik Alteuropas. Tübingen:
Niemeyer 2001. (Communicatio 28); Stefanie Stockhorst: Reformpoetik: Ko-
28
difizierte Genustheorie des Barock und alternative Normenbildung in poetolo-
29 gischen Paratexten. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2008. (Frühe Neuzeit 128).
30 2 Ludwig Fischer: Gebundene Rede: Dichtung und Rhetorik in der literarischen
31 Theorie des Barock in Deutschland. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1968. (Studien zur
32 deutschen Literatur 10).
3 On 17th- and 18th-century poetics Ingo Stöckmann: Vor der Literatur: Eine
33
Evolutionsheorie der Poetik Alteuropas (fn. 15); Jörg Wesche: Literarische Di-
34 versität: Abweichungen, Lizenzen und Spielräume in der deutschen Poesie und
35 Poetik der Barockzeit. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2004. (Studien zur deutschen Lit-
36 eratur 173); Dietmar Till: Transformationen der Rhetorik: Untersuchungen
37 zum Wandel der Rhetoriktheorie im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Nie-
meyer 2004; Volkhard Wels: Der Begriff der Dichtung vor und nach der Re-
38
ACHTUNGREformation. In: Fragmenta Melanchthoniana, vol. 3: Melanchthons Wirkung in
39 der europäischen Bildungsgeschichte, ed. by Günter Frank and Sebastian Lalla.
40 Heidelberg: Winter 2007, pp. 81 104.
1 arship. The following list of questions on, and topics of, poetics depicts
2 this fictive entity of tacit or active poetological knowledge spread
3 throughout poetological texts in various times and places. This list is
4 meant as an addition to Heinrich Lausberg’s systematic account of rhet-
5 oric.4 Although no poetological text will include every component
6 named, the synchronised and fictive framework of questions and topics
7 might be of some use to the historical as well as the systematic study of
8 poetics. The fictive framework functions as tacit knowledge which can
9 be activated should it be required.5 With the help of this list a study on
10 the history of poetics will provide information on different historical
11 stages in the development of poetics:
12
13 0. Context
14 0.1 Writer
15 0.1.1 Reason for writing a poetological work
16
0.1.2 Tradition/influenced by
0.1.3 Adversaries
17 0.2 The poetological text
18 0.2.1 Main idea
19 0.2.2 Non-literary and literary fields of knowledge (which the text
20 refers to)
21
0.3 Comparative poetics: other nations and literatures
0.4 Knowledge Claim
22 0.4.1 Normative/descriptive
23 0.4.2 Systematical/historical
24 0.4.3 Essentialist/pragmatic
25 1. Production
26
1.1 Concept of the poet: poeta vates, poeta doctus, versificator, genius,
poeta magus, the calculating poet
27 1.2 Act and process of production
28 1.2.1 Erotics: courtship
29 1.2.2 Enthusiasm
30 1.2.3 Mania: kiss of the muses
31
1.2.4 Furor poeticus/“Dichtungstrieb”
1.2.5 Imagination
32 1.2.6 Fantasy
33 1.2.7 Temper/Character
34 1.2.8 Taste/Goût/Geschmack
35
36
37 4 Heinrich Lausberg: Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: eine Grundlegung
der Literaturwissenschaft. Munich: Hueber 1960.
38
5 A similar approach is to be found in Katrin Kohl: Poetologische Metaphern:
39 Formen und Funktionen in der deutschen Literatur. Berlin, New York: de
40 Gruyter 2007.
1. Poetics as Field of Knowledge 9
1.3 Concept of poetry (in relation to the arts, regarding the evolution of
1
poetry, in contrast to myth, theology, philosophy, rhetoric, dialectics,
2 ut pictura poesis, beauty and ugliness, humour, satire)
3 1.3.1 Inventio: perception and apperception, materiae
4 1.3.2 Dispositio: ordo naturalis vs. ordo artificialis, amplificatio
5 1.3.3 Mimesis
1.3.4 Sublime
6
1.3.5 Nature and art, ars and techné
7 1.3.6 Lexis/elocutio: virtutes elocutionis (aptum/decorum, puritas,
8 perspicuitas)
9 2. Text/textual structure
10 2.1 Genre/style:
11
2.1.1 Genus humile/subtile
2.1.2 Genus medium/mixtum
12 2.1.3 Genus grande/sublime
13 2.1.4 Personal style
14 2.1.5 Genre (and the evolution of genre)
15 2.2 Partes orationis (textus):
16
2.2.1 Exordium
2.2.2 Narratio
17 2.2.3 Argumentatio (partitio/divisio, probationes)
18 2.2.4 Peroratio (enumeratio, affectus)
19 2.3 Metre
20 2.4 Rhythm
21
2.5 Verseform
2.6 Rhyme
22 2.7 Topoi/loci
23 2.8 Ornatus: ornatus in verbis singulis (antiquitas, fictio, tropos), ornatus in
24 verbis coniunctis (figurae verborum, figurae sententiae), compositio
25 2.9 Simplex et unum: ‘unity of the work’
26
3. Performance and Presentation
3.1 Media
27 3.2 Memoria
28 3.3 Pronuntiatio/actio
29 3.4 Mimic art
30 4. Reception
31
4.1 Concept of the Audience/the Reader (national/international)
4.1.1 Reader
32 4.1.2 Historical audience and market
33 4.1.3 Influence on the reader
34 4.2 Officia oratoris (poetae): probare/docere, delectare, movere
35 4.3 Aims of presentation
36
4.3.1 Catharsis
4.3.2 Pathos, compassion, sympathy/antipathy
37 4.3.3 Ethos
38 4.3.4 Persuasio
39 4.4 Judgement, evaluation
40
1 In the period in question here, poetics explores its boundaries in a

2 way that is still inspiring from today’s perspective.6 Poetics participates
3 in a variety of scholarly processes, influences these processes and stresses
4 some questions or keywords accordingly. It is necessary to highlight just
5 five of these processes: firstly, around 1830, history of literature estab-
6 lishes itself as its own genre – be it for the public or for the purposes of
7 national philology.7 Histories of literature deal in great length and detail
8 with writers, literary texts and their historical backgrounds. In contrast
9 to the history of literature, poetics focuses on the core aspects and prob-
10 lems of literature in general. For that reason, the early Dilthey under-
11 stands poetics as a theory or as ‘the logic’ of the humanities – a logic
12 that does not necessarily care for historical ‘incidentals’.8 As a conse-
13 quence, poetics is not executed in one specific discipline; poetics
14
turns into a field of study which occupies literary historians or scientists
15
and philosophers, as well as classical philologists.
16
This ahistorical understanding of poetics shapes the whole corpus of
17
poetics to different extents: poetics becomes detached from literary his-
18
tory but complements it as well. Even Oskar Ludwig Bernhard Wolff
19
(1799 1851), professor at Jena University, in his popular historical an-
20
thology Poetischer Hausschatz des deutschen Volkes (1839, thirty-one edi-
21
22
6 Cf. Louis Armand (ed.): Contemporary Poetics: Redefining the Boundaries of
23
Contemporary Poetics in Theory and Practice, for the Twenty-First Century.
24 Northwestern Univ. Press 2007.
25 7 Michael S. Batts: A History of Histories of German Literature 1835 1914.
26 Montreal [et al.]: McGill-Queen‘s Univ. Press, 1993; Michael Schlott (ed.):
27 Wirkungen und Wertungen: Adolph Freiherr Knigge im Urteil der Nachwelt
(1796 1994). Eine Dokumentensammlung. In collab. with Carsten Behle.
28
Göttingen: Wallstein 1998. (Das Knigge-Archiv 1); Michael Ansel: G.G. Ger-
29 vinus’ Geschichte der poetischen National-Literatur der Deutschen: Nationbil-
30 dung auf literaturgeschichtlicher Grundlage. Frankfurt a. M. [et al.]: Lang 1990.
31 (Münchener Studien zur literarischen Kultur in Deutschland 10); Tom Kindt
32 and Hans-Harald Müller: Nationalphilologie und ‘Vergleichende Literaturge-
schichte’ zwischen 1890 und 1910: Eine Fallstudie zur Konzeption der Wissen-
33
schaftshistoriographie der Germanistik. In: Stil, Schule, Disziplin. Analyse und
34 Erprobung von Konzepten wissenschaftsgeschichtlicher Rekonstruktion (I), ed.
35 by Lutz Danneberg, Wolfgang Höppner and Ralf Klausnitzer. Frankfurt a. M.
36 [et al.]: Lang 2005, pp. 335 361.
37 8 This understanding has its forerunners. Already in 1871, Heymann Steinthal de-
scribes rhetorics, poetics and metrics as the ‘rational foundation’ (“rationale
38
Grundlage”) for literary history; Heymann Steinthal: Einleitung in die Psycho-
39 logie und Sprachwissenschaft. 2nd ed. Berlin: Dümmler 1881, p. 35. (1st
40 ed. 1871).
1 tions until 1901) includes an introduction to poetics.9 This introduction

2 consists of several contemporary notions on poetry – from Kant’s Kritik
3 der Urteilskraft, Hegel’s and Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand Solger’s aesthetics,
4 as well as from August Wilhelm Schlegel, but it does not refer to the
5 history of the Hausschatz as a whole.10 Poetics and literary history are
6 presented in parallel, not in common. The same is true for G. A. Zim-
7 mermann’s Handbuch der Deutschen Literatur Europa’s und Amerika’s
8 (1876). It contains a long and separate third part on verse poetics, rhet-
9 oric and style.11
10 A similar double development of differentiation and complementa-
11 tion applies, secondly, for rhetoric or eloquence. Although poetics con-
12 sists of rhetorical assumptions, the study of rhetoric becomes more and
13 more a subject for specialised treatises. In short: 19th-century poetics
14 participates in the general tendency of a ‘de-rhetoricisation’ that had al-
15 ready begun in the late 17th century.12 This separation of rhetoric and
16 poetics has different consequences: it can mean the simple exclusion
17 of poetics from rhetoric or vice versa. This exclusion of poetics can
18 be illustrated with the example of Christian Friedrich Koch’s Deutsche
19 Grammatik (1848, six editions until 1875) and his Figuren und Tropen,
20 Grundzge der Metrik und Poetik (1860, four editions until 1880). In
21 the first edition of the Deutsche Grammatik Koch distinguishes between
22 grammar, rhetoric and metric; from the second to the fourth editions he
23
24 9 The 32nd edition does not contain the poetic chapter any longer. The reason
25 for this change might be that the 31st edition is renewed not by Wolff himself;
26 see Wolffs Poetischer Hausschatz des Deutschen Volkes. Entirely renewed by
27 Heinrich Fränkel, with an introduction by Wilhelm Münch, 31st ed. Leipzig:
Wiegand, 1866.
28
10 See Oskar Ludwig Bernhard Wolff: Poetischer Hausschatz des deutschen
29 Volks: Ein Buch für Schule und Haus. 21st ed. Leipzig: Wiegand 1863,
30 pp. 61 69. Wolff trusts on phantasy in order to explain the concepts of poetry
31 and poetics; ibid., p. 61: “Poesie ist das freie Spiel der schöpferischen Phantasie
32 und des Gemüthes in allgemeinster Bedeutung, ohne bestimmt ausgesproche-
nen Zweck, […].”/ ‘Poetry is the free play of creative phantasy and mind in
33
the most general sense, without any distincively named purpose.’
34 11 G.A. Zimmermann: Handbuch der Deutschen Literatur Europa’s und Ameri-
35 ka’s: Dritter Theil, enthaltend einen Abriss der Literatur-Geschichte, Verslehre,
36 Poetik, Rhetorik und Stilistik nebst Zugaben verwandten Inhalts. Ein Lese-
37 und Hülfsbuch für den Unterricht in der deutschen Sprache. Chicago: Enderis
1876.
38
12 Dietmar Till: Poetik a. d. Grundlagen: ‘Rhetorisierte’ Poetik. In: Rhetorik.
39 Begriff – Geschichte – Internationalität, ed. by Gert Ueding. Tübingen: Nie-
40 meyer 2005, pp. 143 151, p. 144.
1 combines these areas whilst in the fifth and sixth editions his posthu-
2 mous editor Eugen Wilhelm differentiates the fields again. Different
3 patterns of this exclusion can be shown: rhetoric vanishes or dissolves
4 into the areas of style and metric as in Karl Borinski’s popular Deutsche
5 Poetik (1895).13 In turn, literature becomes an autonomous art that is
6 separated from rhetorical purposes such as the persuasion of a public.
7 Nevertheless, rhetorical knowledge implicitly structures poetics. For in-
8 stance, rhetoric is kept alive in Wilhelm Scherer’s posthumously pub-
9 lished oeuvre. The thorough and witty founding father of a whole phi-
10 lological school refers not only to the rhetorical order of speech, but also
11 to the fact that rhetoric has provided a framework for poetics – a frame-
12 work that can still be adopted and modified in current poetics. In stating
13 this, Scherer explicitly contradicts 19th-century common sense: that
14 rhetoric, style and poetics could be seen as separate fields of knowl-
15 edge.14
16
This separation is further developed through the history and philos-
17
ophy of language. History and philosophy of language transform the re-
18
lations between rhetoric, language and poetry as well as the methods
19
used to examine them. Following the examples of Herder, Wilhelm
20
von Humboldt, and the philosopher of language Heymann Steinthal
21
(1823 1899), Karl Heinrich Ludwig Pölitz (1772 1838), professor of
22
the ‘Staatswissenschaften’ (natural law, international law, cameralism)
23
in Leipzig and author of several books which from today’s perspective
24
fall under the heading of ‘cultural history’, published a four-volume
25
26
book on Das Gesammtgebiet der deutschen Sprache (1825).15 He not only
27
13 On style see also Hans-Harald Müller: Stil-Übungen: Wissenschaftshistorische
28
Anmerkungen zu einem (vor-) wissenschaftlichen Problem. In: Literaturwis-
29 senschaft und Linguistik von 1960 bis heute, ed. by Ulrike Haß and Christoph
30 König. Göttingen: Wallstein 2003, pp. 235 243.
31 14 Wilhelm Scherer: Poetik [1888]: Mit einer Einleitung und Materialien zur Re-
32 zeptionsanalyse, ed. by Gunter Reiss. Tübingen: Niemeyer (dtv) 1977, p. 27:
“Diese gesamte Kunst der Rede ist in dem traditionellen Titel ,Rhetorik, Po-
33
etik[,] Stilistik enthalten. Aber dieser deutet hin auf ein Fachwerk [the reference
34 is Wilhelm Wackernagel 1836], welches auf der Vereinzelung der Disciplinen
35 beruht. Wir constatirten dagegen, daß sich die Forderung gerade nach einer
36 umfassenden Betrachtung der Kunst der Rede ergiebt.”/ ‘This whole art of
37 rhetoric is included in the traditional title ,rhetoric, poetics, style‘. Yet this
title alludes to a professional work which relies on the isolation of disciplines.
38
In contrast, we state that a claim for a comprehensive observation of the art
39 of rhetoric follows [from the isolation described].’
40 15 Among his countless works is also an Aesthetik für gebildete Leser (1806).
1 examines the history of the German language but also its genres: elo-
2 quence, prose, and poetry. The only connection that remains between
3 these three is language; furthermore, poetry is envisaged as an autono-
4 mous art governed by its own principles.16 Persuasion, the classical rhet-
5 oric purpose, is omitted.17
6 Yet conflicting tendencies should be mentioned.18 Adolf Calmberg
7 (1885 1915), a writer as well as a teacher of the German language and
8 literature (Zurich), adheres to rhetorical descriptions. According to
9 Calmberg, poetry is still to be described as a special kind of speech –
10
11
12
13
16 Karl Heinrich Ludwig Pölitz: Das Gesammtgebiet der deutschen Sprache, nach
14 Prosa, Dichtkunst und Beredsamkeit theoretisch und practisch dargestellt.
15 Vol. 3: Sprache der Dichtkunst. Leipzig: Hinrich 1825, p. 4: “Wenn der eigen-
16 thümliche Charakter der Prosa auf der Darstellung der unmittelbaren Zustände
17 des menschlichen Vorstellungsvermögen, und der eigenthümliche Charakter
der Beredsamkeit auf der Darstellung der einzelnen Zustände des menschlichen
18
Bestrebungsvermögens vermittelst der Sprache beruht; so beruht der eigen-
19 thümliche Charakter der Sprache der Dichtkunst auf der Darstellung der indi-
20 viduellen Gefühle vermittelst der Sprache, unter der Bedingung der Idealisie-
21 ACHTUNGRErung dieser Gefühle durch die Selbstthätigkeit der Einbildungskraft.”/ ‘If the
22 distinctive character of prose relies on the depiction of immediate states of
the human faculty of impression and the distinctive character of rhetoric relies
23
on the depiction of isolated states of the human faculty of thriving through lan-
24 guage, then the distinctive character of the language of poetry relies on the de-
25 piction of individual sentiments through language on the condition of the ide-
26 alisation of these sentiments through self-actuating imagination.’ See also Karl
27 Tumlirz: Poetik. 1st part: Die Sprache der Dichtkunst: Die Lehre von den
Tropen und Figuren […]. 1st ed. Prague: dominicus 1881; 3rd ed. Prague:
28
dominicus 1892; 4th ed. Leipzig: Freytag 1902; 5th augm. ed. Vienna: Temp-
29 sky, Leipzig: Freytag 1907.
30 17 This way of dealing with poetry fits well into Pölitz’s work which can be char-
31 acterised as Kantian and oriented towards progress; Jochen Johannsen: Heeren
32 versus Pölitz: Herders ‘Ideen’ im Streit zwischen empirischer und philoso-
phischer Geschichte. In: Vom Selbstdenken: Aufklärung und Aufklärungskritik
33
in Herders ‘Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit’. Contribu-
34 tions to the Conference of the International Herder Society, ed by Regine Otto
35 and John H. Zammito. Heidelberg: Winter 2001, pp. 199 213.
36 18 Again, it needs to be said that further research is required. In his case, it would
37 be helpful to examine a considerable amount of 19th-century rhetorical treatises
and to find out about their attention to the field of poetics. Advice can be found
38
in Dieter Breuer and Günther Kopsch: Rhetoriklehrbücher des 16. bis 20.
39 Jahrhunderts: Eine Bibliographie. In: Rhetorik, ed. by Helmut Schanze.
40 Frankfurt a. M.: Athennnaion 1974, pp. 217 355.
1 as ‘poetic speech’ (“poetische Rede”).19 The public seems to have es-

2 teemed his traditional approach as his Kunst der Rede was often reprinted
3 (1881, 21885, 31891). Nevertheless, Calmberg also reduces the overlap
4 of rhetoric and poetics to the very general ideas of speech: to the
5 steps of the rhetor (inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, pronuntia-
6 tio) and the style (aptum/decorum). The purposes of poetry can differ
7 from those of rhetoric when it comes to genres like entertainment po-
8 etry, and, in contrast to the rhetor, the poet is allowed to make extensive
9 use of his ‘licentia poetica’ in order to write beautifully.20
10 Thirdly, problems of presentation and some questions of production
11 become incorporated into the study of style.21 Already in the early 18th
12 century, in the works of Christian Thomasius, Gotthold Ephraim Les-
13 ACHTUNGREsing and others, the anthropological preconditions of good or even gen-
14
ial writing are a matter of interest.22 Following on from the works of
15
Friedrich August Wolf and Friedrich Schleiermacher, scholars focus
16
on personal style.23 Although poetics adopts these ideas, treatises on
17
style and on poetics form different corpora that overlap only to a limited
18
extent. This is the case for instance in Wilhelm Wackernagel’s lectures
19
on Poetik, Rhetorik und Stilistik (1836) which indicate in their title both a
20
combination, and a separation, of the fields in question.
21
22
23
19 Adolf Calmberg: Die Kunst der Rede: Lehrbuch der Rhetorik, Stilistik, Poe-
24 ACHTUNGREtik. Leipzig, Zurich: Orell Füssli & Co. 1884, p. VIII.
25 20 Ibid., § 66, pp. 216 f.
26 21 There is a lack of research concerning this development. Neither a date nor the
27 main texts of this tendency can be named; cf. Lutz Danneberg, Wolfgang
Höppner and Ralf Klausnitzer (eds.): Stil, Schule, Disziplin: Analyse und Er-
28
probung von Konzepten wissenschaftsgeschichtlicher Rekonstruktion (I).
29 Frankfurt a. M. [et al]: Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften
30 2005.
31 22 Till: Poetik a. d. Grundlagen (fn. 12).
32 23 Wolfs’s stress lies on ‘the own productive talent’ (“eigenes produktives Ta-
ACHTUNGRElent”), Friedrich August Wolf: Darstellung der Altertumswissenschaft nach Be-
33
griff, Umfang, Zweck und Wert [Museum der Alterthums-Wissenschaft,
34 1807]. Berlin: Akad.-Verlag 1985. (Dokumente der Wissenschaftsgeschichte),
35 p. 5; Müller: Stil-Übungen (fn. 27), pp. 237 f; see also Gerrit Walther: Frie-
36 drich August Wolf und die Hallenser Philologie – ein aufklärerisches Phäno-
37 men? In: Universitäten und Aufklärung, ed. by Notker Hammerstein. Göttin-
gen: Wallstein 1995. (Das Achtzehnte Jahrhundert; Suppl. 3), pp. 125 136.
38
On Schleiermacher and the prehistory of his thoughts on style Denis Thouard:
39 Dalla grammatica allo stile: Schleiermacher e Adelung. Riflessioni sull’indivi-
40 duazione nel linguaggio. In: Lingue e Stile 3 (1994), pp. 373 391.
1 Things are different, fourthly, with the relation of poetics to criti-

2 cism.24 Whereas late 18th-century popular philosophy, to a large extent,
3 derives its scope, concepts, inspirations and questions from current criti-
4 cism, this marriage dissolves in the 19th century. Only few poetics attrib-
5 ute some poetological relevance to criticism: Rudolf Gottschall
6 (1823 1909) being a journalist himself admits that writing reviews in-
7 fluences his poetics. Scherer critically examines the impact of criticism
8 on the production and reception of literature. Ambitious poetics around
9 1900 tends to disregard criticism, and late in the 1950s the author Joa-
10 chim Maass raises his voice against stupid and subjective judgements
11 made by badly informed journalists.
12 These processes of differentiation, complementation and critical dis-
13 cussion are accompanied by new alliances: Fifthly, from the 18th century
14 on, poetics and the newly emerging philosophical discipline of aesthetics
15 have been difficult to divide.25 Although the term aesthetics, established
16
17
18
24 Herbert Jaumann: Critica: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Literaturkritik
19 zwischen Quintilian und Thomasius. Leiden [et al.]: Brill 1995. (Brill’s studies
20 in intellectual history 62); Steffen Martus: Werkpolitik: Zu Literaturgeschichte
21 kritischer Kommunikation vom 17. bis ins 20. Jahrhundert, mit Studien zu
22 Klopstock, Tieck, Goethe und George. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2007.
25 A study on the history of aesthetics in the 19th and 20th centuries is itself a great
23
desideratum. Although some older volumes offer helpful insights they neither
24 meet current standards nor do they aim at integrating all the developments.
25 See Robert Zimmermann: Ästhetik. Erster, historisch-kritischer Teil: Ge-
26 schichte der Ästhetik als philosophischer Wissenschaft. Vienna: Wilhelm Brau-
27 müller 1858; Max Schasler: Ästhetik: Grundzüge der Wissenschaft des Schö-
nen und der Kunst. Leipzig: Freytag 1886; Hermann Lotze: Geschichte der Äs-
28
thetik in Deutschland. Munich: Cotta 1868; Bernard Bosanquet: A History of
29 Aesthetics. London: Swan Sonnenschein 1898. (2nd ed. Allen & Unwin 1922).
30 Amongst current approaches, Manfred Frank: Einführung in die frühromanti-
31 sche Ästhetik: Vorlesungen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1989; Andrew Bowie
32 gives an inspiring insight into the ambivalence of the concept of ‘subjectivity’ in
the principal aesthetic sources from Kant to Nietzsche. See Andrew Bowie:
33
Aesthetics and Subjectivity: From Kant to Nietzsche. Manchester, New
34 York: Manchester Univ. Press 1990. Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert introduces
35 into some of the ‘big texts’; see A.G.-S.: Einführung in die Ästhetik. Munich:
36 Fink 1995. The most helpful works contributing to a general history of aesthet-
37 ics are the following: Michael Titzmann: Strukturwandel der philosophischen
Ästhetik: Der Symbolbegriff als Paradigma. Munich: Fink 1978; Georg Jäger:
38
Das Gattungsproblem in der Ästhetik und Poetik von 1780 bis 1850. In: Zur
39 Literatur der Restaurationsepoche, ed by Jost Hermand and Manfred Wind-
40 fuhr. Stuttgart: Metzler 1970, pp. 371 404; Carsten Zelle: Die doppelte Äs-
1 by Baumgarten, refers to theories of the beautiful and the epistemology

2 of the arts, books on aesthetics published before 1890 usually include a
3 section on poetics. Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s six-volume Aesthetik for
4 example, dedicates a whole volume to poetics. Also, popular aesthetics
5 such as the often re-edited volume on poetics by the poet Carl Lemcke
6 (1831 1913), co-founder of the poets’ circle ‘Das Krokodil’, professor
7 and director of the Stuttgart gallery, discuss poetry in large chapters.26
8 Treatises on poetics, vice versa, often not only refer to aesthetic pre-
9 ACHTUNGREmises but also introduce aesthetic ideas – like Dilthey’s Einbildungskraft
10 des Dichters (1887). Nevertheless, the close relationship between aesthet-
11 ics and poetics dissolves around 1890. On the one hand, aesthetic trea-
12 tises move away from more specific theories of the arts. Being inspired
13 by empirical aesthetics and aiming at original approaches, they often
14 focus on one specific aesthetical issue such as the essence of art,27 the
15 more or less psychological theory of artistic creation,28 the examination
16 of aesthetical attractions, emotions and conceptions,29 the differences
17 between mere aesthetical effects and the beautiful,30 or the attempt to
18 describe aesthetics as a ‘science of values’ (“Wertwissenschaft”).31 Aes-
19 thetics like these refer to the arts from rather abstract perspectives, ob-
20 serving them only as examples to prove general theoretical arguments.32
21
22
thetik der Moderne: Revisionen des Schönen von Boileau bis Nietzsche. Stutt-
23
gart: Metzler 1995.
24 26 See Carl Lemcke: Populäre Aesthetik. Mit Illustrationen. Leipzig: Seemann
25 1865 (2nd ed. 1844; 3rd ed. 1870, 4th ed. 1873, 5th ed. 1879, 6th ed. 1890).
26 Lemcke is in favour of a rather classical poetics; e. g. he attacks the 17th-century
27 poet Daniel Caspar von Lohenstein for using too many tropes and figures and
highlights the value of simple speech (Lemcke 1865, p. 515, 517).
28
27 Konrad Lange: Das Wesen der Kunst: Grundzüge einer realistischen Kuns-
29 tlehre. Berlin: Grote 1901. (2 vols.)
30 28 Ernst Meumann: System der Ästhetik. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer. 1919.
31 (1st ed. 1914).
32 29 Theodor Ziehen: Vorlesungen über Ästhetik. 2 parts. Halle a. d. S.: Niemeyer
1925.
33
30 Karl Groos: Einleitung in die Aesthetik. Gießen: Ricker 1892.
34 31 Jonas Cohn: Allgemeine Ästhetik. Leipzig: Engelmann 1901.
35 32 See for instance the often reedited and popular work by Robert Prölß that re-
36 duces aesthetics to a minimal amount of principles – and ends up merely stating
37 common late 19th-century assumptions; Robert Prölß: Katechismus der Ästhe-
tik: Belehrungen über die Wissenschaft vom Schönen und der Kunst. Leipzig:
38
Weber (1878; 2nd ed. 1889); reprinted with a less didactical title: Ästhetik: Be-
39 lehrungen über die Wissenschaft vom Schönen und der Kunst. 3rd, augm. and
40 corr. ed. Leipzig: Weber 1903. The same is true for Max Diez: Allgemeine Äs-
1 This is also true for the large debate on a general ‘art science’ in the
2 1910s.33 On the other hand, only the widely known aesthetics which
3 indicate new or old trends are quoted in poetics: Theodor Lipps’s
4 Grundlegung der sthetik (1903) for instance, in which the principle of
5 pleasure as a basis for aesthetical effects is – following on from the
6 works of Kant and Gustav Theodor Fechner – again spelled out,34 or
7 Johannes Volkelt’s attempt to revitalise normative aesthetics.35
8 These five developments are illustrated in the following figure,
9 which represents a synchronal cross-section:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 thetik. Leipzig: Göschen 1906. (Sammlung Göschen 300), a popular work that
35 saw two new prints with Göschen publishers (1912, 1919) and a third one with
36 the recognised scientific publishers Walter de Gruyter (Berlin 1922).
37 33 For an overview see Emil Utitz: Grundlegung der allgemeinen Kunstwissen-
schaft. Stuttgart: Enke 1914. (2 vols.)
38
34 On its history see the chapters on Kant and his successors as well as on Gustav
39 Theodor Fechner.
40 35 Johannes Volkelt: System der Ästhetik. Munich: Beck 1905 1914. (3 vols.)
1 This figure raises the question of whether the field of poetics can be
2 perceived as a separate entity and, if so, which features characterise it? I
3 suggest the following working definition: An x is a type of poetics if
4 (1) it deals with a considerable amount of the poetological topics illus-
5 trated by the list above.
6 (2) it develops relations such as those described in the synchronal
7 scheme.
8 (3) it tends to a more or less systematic view of texts (in most cases, lit-
9 erary texts) which could be either normative or empirical.
10
In order to limit this study I focus on those poetological treatises that
11
present poetological topics in the form of a monograph or a long chapter
12
of an aesthetic treatise that is comparable to a monograph. I will there-
13
fore exclude poetological texts that focus either on history like Alexand-
14
er Jung’s well-informed Vorlesungen ber die moderne Literatur der Deut-
15
schen (1842) or on particular aesthetic aspects, such as Karl Rosenkranz’s
16
sthetik des Hßlichen (1853). Contemporary historical overviews on po-
17
etics will only play a role if they contribute important insights to the his-
18
torical discussion. I will consider a historically specific perspective in the
19
next chapter.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4 2. Text Types and Periods
5
6 Academical Aesthetics and Poetics
7
8 In the 19th century, at least three text types of scholarly poetics devel-
9 oped. They illustrate the enormous attention that was paid to poetics
10 by the reading and writing public:1 firstly, an academically and aestheti-
11 cally ambitious, more or less analytical poetics re-emerged shortly after
12 popular philosophy ( Johann Georg Sulzer, Johann August Eberhard, Jo-
13 hann Jacob Engel) and Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgement (1790).
14 Until now research has largely ignored the fact that Christian August
15 Heinrich Clodius (1772 1836, professor of philosophy in Leipzig), in
16 the year 1804, wanted to re-establish poetics as a systematic discipline.
17 Although admiring Kant, Clodius returned to Baumgarten and redis-
18 covered rational psychology as a principle guide to the study of poetics.
19 It seems that this approach did not disappear during the time in which
20 the philosophy of history with its historical speculations was predomi-
21
nant. On the contrary, it is astonishingly revitalised by the post-idealist
22
philosopher Vischer. In the second book of his Aesthetics (1847/48)
23
Vischer pleads vividly for a psychology of the poet. Scherer, who con-
24
sequently announced an empirical and philological poetics, as well as
25
Dilthey, profited from his work.
26
In the meantime, historical and genetic poetics ( Johann Gottfried
27
Herder, Johann Justus Herwig, August Wilhelm Schlegel) as well as cos-
28
mological poetics developed (among Friedrich Wilhelm Josef Schel-
29
30
ling’s admirers). The speculative outcome of these tendencies seems
31
32 1 In his helpful article on poetics Dietmar Till describes this development as a
‘marginalisation’ of poetics. This is convincing if one limits the concept of po-
33
etics – as Till does – to normative poetics and examines its relation to rhetoric.
34 However, already in the 18th century, this limitation does not cover the aims of
35 the poetics treatises published. With regard to these publications we understand
36 poetics as an analytical as well as normative discipline. Therefore, the develop-
37 ment of poetics should not be described as marginalisation but as a differentia-
tion that ended up in the dissolution of poetics into different areas of study – as
38
Till to some extent envisages himself; D.T.: Poetik a. d. Grundlagen: ‘Rheto-
39 ACHTUNGRErisierte’ Poetic. In: Rhetorik. Begriff – Geschichte – Internationalität, ed. by
40 Gert Ueding. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2005, pp. 143 151, p. 149.
1 to have inspired post-idealist poetics to embrace empirical studies. Ru-

2 dolph Gottschall, for instance, derived his poetic theory from the close
3 observation of literature. Shortly after his poetological treatise, Moriz
4 Carriere published one of the first pre-empirical aesthetics which
5 draws on Schelling. Empirical aesthetics and poetics emerged a few
6 years later, culminating in the influential volumes of Gustav Theodor
7 Fechner, Rudolph Hermann Lotze and Wilhelm Dilthey.
8 After Dilthey lost faith in his project to establish poetics as the logic
9 of the humanities (around 1890), other tendencies toward scientific po-
10 etics took centre stage. They prove the richness of a discipline which
11 had spread itself widely and become differentiated: some of the new po-
12 etics were oriented towards literary science (Ernst Elster) or literary
13 theory (a concept which has only been used in a programmatic way
14 since the 1920s),2 or towards the study of ‘Geist’ (Dilthey, Emil Erma-
15 tinger, Oskar Walzel, Hermann Hefele), language (Theodor Alexander
16 Meyer), ontology (Roman Ingarden), existentialism or anthropology
17 (Theophil Spoerri, Johannes Pfeiffer, Emil Staiger); others were inspired
18 by Goethe’s morphology (Günther Müller). During the Nazi period
19 these concepts were kept alive but infiltrated by Nazi thought. Nazi
20 germanists aimed at ‘scientific’ groundings of literary science in blood
21 and race, in combination with heroic ethics. After 1945, Nazi watch-
22 words were deleted in most texts and many Nazi germanists lost their
23 jobs but poetological thinking did not change much.
24 Although the title of ‘poetics’ was still prominent until the 1950s
25 and covered the area of literary theory, treatises, from then on, began
26 to introduce new keywords,3 for example ‘Theorie der Dichtung’ – a
27 theory said to be still concerned with enlightening the ‘fundamental
28
29 2 Ralf Klausnitzer: Koexistenz und Konkurrenz: Theoretische Umgangsformen
30 mit Literatur im Widerstreit. In: Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie/ Litera-
31 turtheorie in der Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer and Carlos Spoerhase.
32 Bern [et al.]: Fischer Taschenbuch-Verlag 2007. (Publikationen der Zeitschrift
für Germanistik NF 17), pp. 15 48, p. 15.
33
3 On these processes Fritz Martini: “Poetik”. In: Deutsche Philologie im Aufriß,
34 2nd rev. ed. by Wolfgang Stammler, Berlin: E. Schmidt 1952; Gerhard Storz:
35 Wendung zur Poetik: Ein Literaturbericht. In: Der Deutschunterricht 2 (1952),
36 pp. 68 83. – Storz himself had published a popular work on poetics a few years
37 before in which he gave the word a very emotional meaning. By referring to
threatening experiences during the war, the text focuses on the relevance of po-
38
etry and promises a ‘poetics for lovers’ in order to rescue poetry and poetics in a
39 difficult time; Storz: Gedanken über die Dichtung: Poetik für Liebhaber.
40 Frankfurt a. M.: Societäts-Verlag 1941.
2. Text Types and Periods 21
1 concepts of poetics’ (“Grundbegriffe der Poetik”).4 Already in 1947

2 there were notions of a new type of text: ‘Einführung in die Literatur-
3 wissenschaft’, in which several methodological approaches were pre-
4 sented in parallel.5
5 In 1951 the belief in the various different kinds of poetics was finally
6 phased out (Max Wehrli). When the new generation of academics de-
7 veloped an interest in analytical or political approaches, poetics became
8 ‘literary theory’ although it still focused on poetological topics.6 The
9 reason for this development lay in a serious critique: poetics of the
10 1930s, 40s and 50s were judged as far too traditional and vague, written
11 from a point of view that only adored poetry and was, in part, inspired
12 by fascist aesthetic ideals. Literary theory claimed to rejuvenate the de-
13 scription of literature by introducing new analytical tools and methods
14
such as social history. Yet literary theory forgot its own Nazi past: also
15
in the 1930s and 1940s, scholars like Karl Justus Obenauer, Heinz Kind-
16
ermann, Ludwig Büttner and Julius Petersen had critically observed the
17
vagueness of poetics and proposed new approaches under the flag of ‘lit-
18
erary theory’ or ‘literary science’. Especially Petersen’s approach lifes on
19
in Wolfgang Kayser’s and Max Wehrli’s works. However, it is no won-
20
21
22 4 See the double play by Hans Achim Ploetz: Die Theorie der Dichtung: Ein
Beitrag zur gegenwärtigen Poetik. Inaug. PhD-thesis at the Friedrich-Wil-
23
helms-University Berlin. Berlin: Triltsch & Huther 1936, pp. 5 f, fn. 3: “Trotz-
24 dem besteht kein einleuchtender Grund, den Namen ‘Poetik’ gegen andere
25 einzutauschen, solange diese neue Bezeichnungen nur Teilgebiete der Poetik
26 umfassen oder weiteste Allgemeinheiten nennen, z. B. Poesieästhetik, theoreti-
27 sche Literaturlehre, Literaturästhetik, allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft.”/ ‘Still,
there is no reason to exchange the name ,poetics‘ against another name as long
28
as the new denotations comprise only separate parts of poetics or mention only
29 large generalities, e. g. aesthetics of poetry, theoretical literature teachings, liter-
30 ature aesthetics, general literary science.’
31 5 Richard Newald: Einführung in die deutsche Sprach- und Literaturwissen-
32 schaft. Lahr: Schauenburg 1947; see Jörg Schönert: “Einführung in die Lite-
ACHTUNGREraturwissenschaft”: Zur Geschichte eines Publikationstypus der letzten
33
50 Jahre. In: Jahrbuch der ungarischen Germanistik (2001), pp. 63 72. Until
34 the 1980s and compared to English publications, introductions to literary theory
35 had seemed to be a German peculariaty. Before Terry Eagleton (Literary Theo-
36 ry. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell 1983), there had been no textbook for
37 English literary theory.
6 Another prominent title of the 1960s was “philosophy of poetry” but this no-
38
tion still marks a more traditional account; Gerd Wolandt: Philosophie der
39 Dichtung: Weltstellung Gegenständlichkeit des poetischen Gedankens. Berlin:
40 de Gruyter 1965.
1 der that some theoretical tendencies in the 1950s again claimed the title
2 of poetics and tried to mould the genre in their own way: Prague Struc-
3 turalism is one of the best-known movements that referred to core con-
4 cepts of ancient aesthetics as well as to aspects of traditional poetics (e. g.
5 ‘elocutio’);7 its general aim was to revitalise these concepts and ap-
6 proaches in an analytical way.8
7
8
9 School Poetics and Popular Poetics
10
11 Compared to these texts and developments, a second group of poeto-
12 logical texts in the 19th and early 20th centuries can be described: school
13 poetics. The study of poetics in schools takes a different direction from
14 the approach of scientific poetics and will therefore be excluded from
15 this book in order to facilitate separate study.9 At the beginning of
16 the 19th century, school poetics still refer back to aesthetics but in the
17 course of the century, less scientifically oriented poetics become the
18 rule. This development has to be seen in relation to the changing
19 ideas about, and regulations of, the study of German in schools. Even
20 though knowledge of poetics was always demanded in the curricula,
21 the time allocated to its study was often limited. Towards the turn of
22 the century, literary history starts to dominate German as a subject
23 and even less time is spent on poetics. School poetics certainly reflect
24 that: by the end of the century, they had usually shrunk to an appendix
25 to literary histories or anthologies including prosody and metrics. These
26 continued to be printed (and used) until the first quarter of the 20th cen-
27 tury, after which their use in schools seems to have declined to the point
28 where the study of poetics was undertaken only at universities.
29 A subtle judgement might also distinguish another group of poetics:
30 popular poetics that mediate between scientific poetics and school po-
31 etics. Johannes Minckwitz (1843 1901) for instance expands his Lehr-
32 buch der Deutschen Verskunst oder Prosodie und Metrik (1854) to a still lim-
33 ited and practical Katechismus der Deutsche Poetik (1868). The reverse de-
34
35 7 Matthias Aumüller: Innere Form und Poetizität: Die Theorie Aleksandr Po-
36 tebnjas in ihrem begriffsgeschichtlichen Kontext. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang 2005.
37 (Slavische Literaturen 35); Till (fn. 1), p. 150.
8 Lubomir Doležel: Occidental Poetics. Tradition and Progress. Lincoln, NE et
38
al.: Nebraska Univ. Press 1990.
39 9 An additional study on school poetics in the 19th and 20th centuries by Anja
40 Zenk is currently in preparation.
2. Text Types and Periods 23
1 velopment could be shown for Conrad Beyer’s voluminous and scien-

2 tific Deutsche Poetik (1882 83) which provides a comprehensive ac-
3 count of verse form unrivalled since its publication.10 It was not
4 Beyer himself who was responsible for the shortened version; on the
5 contrary, he protested energetically against this monstrous act and de-
6 nied having given the ‘imprimatur’.11 Other cases prove to have been
7 less difficult: some popular poetics, though theoretically not ambitious,
8 focused on more than just schools. They decisively directed their inter-
9 est towards an educated public: a systematic version of such a popular
10 poetics was published by Werner Hahn (1816 1890), a private scholar
11 who devoted himself to writing popular works on political history, the
12 history of Christianity and on the history of German literature.12 A more
13 aphoristic and, in part trivial, artistic poetics was published by Tony
14 Kellen (Anton Kellen, 1869 1948). He was trained as a journalist, pub-
15 lished especially on the history of leading women and worked as a re-
16 porter for the Essener Volkszeitung. 13 Yet all these poetic treatises partic-
17 ipate in the general characteristics and tendencies of either scientific or
18 school poetics. Therefore, they are not dealt with in a separate chapter.
19
20
21 Literary Poetics
22
23 Instead, a third corpus of poetological texts needs to be stressed. It is
24 the large corpus of literature on literature: the letters and essays written
25 by poets about their poetics ideas, semi-fictional works such as Solger’s
26 Erwin. Vier Gesprche ber das Schçne und die Kunst (1815) as well as the
27 so-called ‘implied poetics’, the poetics exemplified by a work of litera-
28 ture.14 Although literature is not only a melting pot of poetological top-
29
30 10 On Beyer Klaus Manger: Zum Todestag des Schriftstellers und Literarhistori-
31 ACHTUNGREkers Conrad Beyer (1834 1906). In: Jahrbuch der Akademie gemeinnütziger
32 Wissenschaften zu Erfurt 2006, pp. 37 41.
11 See second chapter.
33
12 Werner Hahn: Deutsche Poetik. Berlin: Hertz 1879.
34 13 Tony Kellen: Die Dichtkunst: Eine Einführung in das Wesen, die Formen und
35 die Gattungen der schönen Literatur nebst zahlreichen Musterbeispielen. Essen:
36 Fredebeul & Koenen 1911. Kellen often refers to Hahn – a fact that underlines
37 a continuity of this type of popular poetics.
14 There is a tendency in current research to call this corpus ‘meta-poetic’ but this
38
term can be misleading. It suggests that poetological literature deals with poeto-
39 logical (also theoretical) texts on poetics from a meta-theoretical point of view –
40 a suggestion which might be favoured by the underlying premise that literature
1 ics but also a self-reflexive method of poetological thinking, I have to

2 exclude this enormous corpus here and limit myself to the study of po-
3 etics treatises.15 Those readers who are interested in the various interre-
4 lations of literature and poetics will find some interesting and relevant
5 remarks in other books and articles emerging from the project in
6 which this study had been prepared.16
7 The bibliography of German poetics (and selected aesthetics) form-
8 ing the material basis of this study encompasses the period from 1770 to
9 1960. The wealth of literature in this field, which has not been collected
10 and analysed in any systematic study before, is immense: approximately
11 235 first editions of poetics in the narrow sense, 60 first editions of aes-
12 thetics dealing with poetics and 40 first editions of poetological texts
13 close to literary theory were found; including later editions the total
14 runs to 1240. The ratio of scientific to school poetics stands at approx-
15 imately 1:3. Although in some cases it is difficult to determine in which
16 category to post an item, in general, questions of didactic intention and
17 content were deciding factors. Issues of categorisation as well as cross-
18 dissemination from one field to the other will be dealt with in detail
19 in chapters of their own. Throughout the early 19th century, the pub-
20 lication of poetics was limited, with one or two versions or theories ap-
21 pearing a year. A steady increase in production from the middle of the
22 century onwards is notable, even though this is partially due to new ed-
23 itions of earlier works being put on the market. A peak is reached in the
24 year 1888. Only after the mid 1920s does production lessen again and
25 peter out to a similar rate as a century earlier.17
26
27
is the one and only ‘authentic’ language in which to communicate; on this dis-
28
cussion, cf. Author: Poetiken: Poetologische Lyrik, Poetik und Ästhetik von
29 Novalis bis Rilke. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2004, ch. I.; see also Monika
30 Schmitz Emans, Uwe Lindemann, Manfred Schmeling (eds.): de Gruyter
31 ACHTUNGRELexikon Poetiken: Autoren – Texte – Begriffe. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter
32 2009.
15 Further information on special topics of poetics in literature can be obtained
33
from Dieter Burdorf: Poetik der Form. Eine Begriffs- und Problemgeschichte.
34 Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 2001; Simone Winko: Gefühl, Affekt, Stimmung,
35 Emotion: Kodierte Gefühle. Zu einer Poetik der Emotionen in lyrischen und
36 poetologischen Texten um 1900. Berlin: Schmidt 2003; Wolfgang Bunzel: Das
37 deutschsprachige Prosagedicht: Theorie und Geschichte einer literarischen
Gattung der Moderne. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2005.
38
16 See the preface of this book.
39 17 Literary theories after 1970 are collected and presented on the website of the
40 Center for Literary Theory at the University of Göttingen: www.literatur-
1
2
3
4 3. Methodology
5
6
7 The aims of this book will be approached methodologically by applying
8 questions and results from intellectual history,1 historical epistemology,2
9 history of science and science research on the study of poetics.3 My goal
10 is to inform the reader about a field of knowledge that was favoured by
11 several scholars, taught and developed in special institutions, presented
12 in the media, in books on poetry and received by a variety of popular,
13 literary and academic audiences.4 I want to enable the reader to see a
14
15 theorie.uni-goettingen/literaturtheorie/. Furthermore, the German Literary
16 Archive aims at exploring the history of the discipline through its theories, es-
17 pecially those after 1950; see Marcel Lepper: Wissenschaftsgeschichte als The-
oriegeschichte: In: Geschichte der Germanistik: Mitteilungen 29/30 (2006),
18
pp. 33 39; M.L.: Wissenschaftsgeschichte im Deutschen Literaturarchiv Mar-
19 bach. In: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes 1 (2006),
20 pp. 110 121.
21 1 If we refer to intellectual history we wish to stress that we examine a field of
22 scholarship which is part of larger systems of education and produces its own
characteristic ideas. On current approaches in intellectual history see the follow-
23
ing periodical publications: Journal of the History of Ideas (1940 ff); Scientia
24 Poetica (1997 ff); Modern Intellectual History (2004 ff); Zeitschrift für Ideen-
25 geschichte (2007 f); Intellectual History Review (2007 f). Some current ap-
26 proaches are presented in Brian Young and Richard Whatmore (eds.): Palgrave
27 Advances in Intellectual History. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2006; Jour-
nal for the History of Ideas 67 (2006) 1, Special Issue.
28
2 The reference to historical epistemology is designed to underline the fact that
29 poetics has often been recognized as an important area within epistemology
30 or an area which applies epistemological premises. On current approaches in
31 historical epistemology see the website of the Forschungsstelle Historische Epis-
32 temologie und Hermeneutik: www2.hu-berlin.de/fheh/.
3 Poetics has often been inspired by other areas of science, even the natural sci-
33
ences. Therefore, I wish to highlight that poetics is to be regarded as a part of
34 the history of science itself. On the fruitful relations between history of science,
35 science research and literary science see Jörg Schönert (ed.): Literaturwissen-
36 schaft und Wissenschaftsforschung. DFG-Symposion 1998. Stuttgart, Weimar:
37 Metzler 2000. (Germanistische Symposien; Berichtsbände 21).
4 In doing so I owe a great debt to Klaus Weimar’s standard work Geschichte der
38
deutschen Literaturwissenschaft bis zum Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts. Paderborn:
39 UTB 2003 (1st ed. 1989). Weimar already traced important lines of the devel-
40 opment of a ‘Literaturwissenschaft’ that – in part – encompasses the study of
26 3. Methodology
1 panorama of scholarly aesthetics and poetics, of its most important ques-

2 tions, tendencies, practices and ideas. This panorama will be focused on
3 implicit and explicit theoretical premises. Therefore, the history of po-
4 etics indicated by the title of this volume is perhaps more accurately
5 characterized as a ‘history of the theoretical premises of poetics’.5
6 Often, these premises are also regarded as the ‘method’ of poetics.
7 Still, methodology had only been invented through Dilthey’s rediscov-
8 ery of the ‘hermeneutica artificialis’, the reflection on method in his
9 EntACHTUNGREstehung der Hermeneutik (1900).6 If I use the notion of method it is,
10 therefore, a retrospective construct which often only covers pre-meth-
11 odological observations and statements.
12 Furthermore, the question ought to be raised of whether or not po-
13 etics came to an end when modern methodology began. The reason for
14
this lies not only in the development of poetics but also in the develop-
15
ment of hermeneutics after 1900: throughout the 19th century philolo-
16
gical practice linked the ‘hermeneutica docens’, the teaching of reading
17
and commenting on texts, only vaguely with the ‘hermeneutica utens’,
18
19
20 poetics. In contrast to Weimar I do not claim to write the history of ‘Literatur-
21 wissenschaft’ but to present a corpus of texts that influenced its development.
22 Also helpful for such a purpose is Sigmund von Lempicki: Geschichte der deut-
schen Literaturwissenschaft bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts. Göttingen
23
1920.
24 5 To name only a few of the most important ones: August Boeckh: Enzyklopädie
25 und Methodenlehre der philologischen Wissenschaften. Erster Hauptteil: For-
26 male Theorie der philologischen Wissenschaft (1886), ed. by Ernst Bratu-
27 scheck. Stuttgart: Teubner 1966; Julius Petersen: Die Wissenschaft von der
Dichtung: System und Methodenlehre der Literaturwissenschaft. Berlin: Junk-
28
er & Dünnhaupt 1939; Horst Oppel: Die Literaturwissenschaft in der Gegen-
29 wart: Methodologie und Wissenschaftslehre. Stuttgart: Metzler 1939; Viktor
30 Žmegač (ed.): Methoden der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft: Eine Dokumen-
31 tation. Frankfurt: Athenäum-Verlag 1971; Albert Klein, Florian Vassen and
32 Jochen Vogt (eds.): Methoden der Literaturwissenschaft. Düsseldorf: Bertels-
mann 1971/1972; Manon Maren-Grisebach: Methoden der Literaturwissen-
33
schaft. Tübingen/Munich: Francke 1970. See as well the ‘meta-reflection’
34 on method by Lutz Danneberg: Methodologien: Struktur, Aufbau und Evalu-
35 ation. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1989.
36 6 Lutz Danneberg: Dissens, ad personam-Invektiven und wissenschaftliches
37 Ethos in der Philologie des 19. Jahrhunderts: Wilamowitz-Moellendorf ‘contra’
Nietzsche. In: Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie/ Literaturtheorie in der
38
Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]:
39 Lang 2007. (Publikationen der Zeitschrift für Germanistik NF 17),
40 pp. 93 147, pp. 143 147.
3. Methodology 27
1 the reflection on philological activities.7 Poetics did not even need to

2 reflect both of these aspects; its ongoing promise had been to provide
3 some knowledge about both of them. Things changed when modern
4 methodology (after Dilthey) started to perceive philological practices
5 from a meta-perspective, thereby making the application of theories
6 an issue of constant debate. Poetics, in turn, lost its innocence as well
7 as its unique position between the reflection and application of philolo-
8 gical and literary knowledge.
9 In the course of this competition between modern methodology
10 and poetics, poetics aims at discovering hermeneutics on its own: firstly,
11 hermeneutics is introduced when anthropology and existentialism are
12 used, in order to defend the irrational and secret moments of poetry
13 against the scientification of poetics. Among the advocates of such an
14
understanding of literature and theory are Theophil Spoerri and his
15
Zurich colleague Emil Staiger, as well as Staiger’s student Peter Szondi.
16
And although the notion of ‘poetics’ appeared as an anachronistic phe-
17
nomenon in the 1960s, the constitution of the famous research group
18
“Poetik & Hermeneutik” (first meeting in Gießen, June 1963) profits
19
from the combination with the hermeneutical approach and revitalises
20
the field of poetics.8 Secondly, a distinct rational hermeneutics becomes
21
relevant once methodology successively enters the game and attention is
22
23
drawn to the question of the adequate or inadequate interpretation of
24
texts and their rules. Poetics – or parts of poetics – in the 1960s and
25
70s decisively modify themselves again into ‘Literaturwissenschaft’ (‘lit-
26
erary science’), an area which in Anglo-American writing still finds its
27 equivalent in the term ‘poetics’.9
28
29 7 Ibid.
30 8 Klaus Weimar: Historische Einleitung zur literaturwissenschaftlichen Herme-
31 neutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr 1975, p. 26. See also Oliver Müller: Subtile
32 Stiche: Hans Blumenberg und die Forschergruppe “Poetik und Hermeneutik”.
In: Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie/ Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse,
33
ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]: Lang 2007. (Pub-
34 likationen der Zeitschrift für Germanistik NF 17), pp. 249 264.
35 9 For a reflection on the notion of poetics Uri Margolin: The (In)dependence of
36 Poeticy Today. In: PTL. A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Lit-
37 erature 4 (1980), pp. 545 586, p. 545, fn. 2; see also Gerald Graff: Professing
Literature: An Institutional History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
38
1987; Robert Scholes: The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English
39 as a Discipline. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press; Aldár Sarbu: English as an Aca-
40 demic Discipline: Some History. In: Neohelicon 32 (2005) 2, pp. 443 456.
28 3. Methodology
1 If I speak about ‘German poetics’, German is only an abbreviation. I

2 take into account the different national histories of poetics in the Ger-
3 man language: works on poetics were written in Switzerland, Austria,
4 Germany and elsewhere, for example through German studies of for-
5 eign countries (‘Auslandsgermanistik’). Switzerland especially may be
6 responsible for one of the most characteristic types of poetological
7 thinking: an anti-modern one, conceived by the Zurich professors in
8 literature Emil Ermatinger, Theophil Spoerri and Emil Staiger. This
9 type of poetics still adhered to the aesthetic ideals of the Weimar classics;
10 it was heavily attacked by the public as well as by authors and scientists
11 in 1966 when Staiger held his “Zürcher Preisrede” on contemporary lit-
12 erature and criticism.10
13 Bearing these methodological reflections in mind, I will focus on
14
those texts which have rarely been dealt with and avoid detailed (repet-
15
itive) presentations of those aesthetics which have – like Kant’s, Her-
16
ACHTUNGREder’s or Hegel’s writings – already received a considerable amount of at-
17
tention. Referring to the dominant ‘big texts’, the first chapter will pres-
18
ent the development of German aesthetics and academic poetics in the
19
19th century. It traces 19th-century poetics back to Baumgarten by be-
20
ginning with popular philosophy. In doing so I will present the authors’
21
reflections on methods and general poetics in order to be able to com-
22
23
pare their suppositions. By general poetics, I mean the concepts and
24
questions mentioned as titles in the list above (e. g. the production of
25
texts, textual structure, performance and presentation) and not special-
26
ised areas such as verse form.
27
28
10 On the problem of different national histories of literature see Lutz Danneberg
29 and Jörg Schönert: Zur Transnationalität und Internationalität von Wissen-
30 schaft. In: Wie international ist die Literaturwissenschaft? Methoden- und
31 Theoriediskussion in den Literaturwissenschaften. Kulturelle Besonderheiten
32 und interkultureller Austausch am Beispiel des Interpretationsproblems
(1950 1990), ed. by Lutz Danneberg and Friedrich Vollhardt in collaboration
33
with Hartmut Böhme and Jörg Schönert. Stuttgart: Metzler 1996, pp. 7 85;
34 on the example of Switzerland Max Wehrli: Germanistik in der Schweiz
35 1933 1945 [1993]. In: M.W., Gegenwart und Erinnerung: Gesammelte Auf-
36 sätze, ed. by Fritz Wagner and Wolfgang Maaz. Hildesheim, Zurich: Weid-
37 mann 1998. (Spolia Berolinensia 12), pp. 307 320; Michael Böhler: Länder-
spezifische Wissenschaftsvarianten in der Germanistik? In: Schreiben gegen
38
die Moderne: Beiträge zu einer kritischen Fachgeschichte der Germanistik in
39 der Schweiz, ed. by Corina Caduff and Michael Gamper. Zürich: Chronos
40 2001, pp. 13 42.
3. Methodology 29
1 General poetics is, in part, a German peculiarity but also a European

2 phenomenon as would be shown through comparing German texts in
3 this field with English ones. Such a cross-cultural study could build
4 on the research interest in popular philosophy which most recently in-
5 cludes aesthetics11 and on the interest in idealist aesthetics, notably the
6 Hegel-adherent Bernard Bosanquet (1848 1923) and the Ruskin-ad-
7 mirer R.G. Collingwood (1889 1943),12 as well as on the rising interest
8 in comparative approaches in the study of romanticism.13 In addition to
9 this, such a study could show to what extent ‘Auslandsgermanistik’ and
10 English studies interfere with, or deviate from, one another in the area
11 of poetics.14 In late 19th-and early 20th-century England, the situation of
12
13
14 11 See foremost the companion by Elisabeth Décultot and Mark Ledbury (eds.):
15 Théories et débats esthétiques au dix-huitième siècle: Eléments d’une enquête.
16 Paris : Honoré Champion 2001. See also the specialized approaches by Norbert
17 Waszek: “Aux sources de la Querelle” dans les “Lettres sur l’Education Esthé-
tique de l’Homme” de Schiller: Adam Ferguson et Christian Garve. In: Crises
18
et Conscience du Temps, ed. by Jean-Marie Paul. Nancy: Nancy Univ.
19 Press. 1998, pp. 111 129; Timothy M. Costelloe: Hume’s Aesthetics: The
20 Literature and Directions for Research. In: Hume-Studies 30 (2004) 1,
21 pp. 87 126; Paul Guyer: The Value of Beauty: Historical Essays in Aesthetics.
22 Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 2005; Jonathan Friday: Art and Enlighten-
ment: Scottish Aesthetics in the 18th Century. In: Hume-Studies 31 (2005) 1,
23
pp. 184 186; Peter Kivy: The Seventh Sense: Francis Hutcheson and Eigh-
24 ACHTUNGREteenth-Century British Aesthetics. In: British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (2005)
25 4, pp. 445 447; Norbert Waszek: Übersetzungspraxis und Popularphilosophie
26 am Beispiel Christian Garves. In: Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert 31 (2007) 1,
27 pp. 42 61.
12 William Sweet: British Idealist Aesthetics: Origins and Themes. In: Bradley
28
Studies 7 (2001) 2, Special Issue British Idealist Aesthetics, pp. 131 161.
29 13 See, for instance, the first chapter on “Romantic Theoretical and Critical Writ-
30 ing” in the anthology eds. Steven P. Sondrup, Virgil Nemoianu in collab. with
31 Gerald Gillespie: Nonfictional Romantic Prose: Expanding Borders. Amster-
32 dam, Philadelphia: Benjamins 2004. (Coordinating Committee for a Compara-
tive History of Literatures in European Languages).
33
14 John Flood: Poetry and Song on the Isle of Wight. A Mannheim Forty-Eighter
34 Enjoys a Victorian Holiday. In: Expedition nach der Wahrheit: Poems, Essays,
35 and Papers in Honour of Theo Stemmler. Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag für
36 Theo Stemmler, ed. by Stefan Horlacher and Marian Islinger. Heidelberg:
37 Winter 1996, pp. 381 397; John Flood: Ginger Beer and Sugared Cauliflow-
er: Adolphus Bernays and Language Teaching in Nineteenth-Century London.
38
In: Vermittlungen. German Studies at the Turn of the Century. Festschrift für
39 Nigel B.R. Reeves, ed. by Rüdiger Görner and Hellen Kelly-Holmes. Mu-
40 nich: Iudicium 1999, pp. 101 115; Alexander Weber: Der Frühsozialist Tho-
30 3. Methodology
1 poetics differs from that in Germany in one main respect: the metaphys-
2 ically motivated interest in aesthetics is missing – a situation which is
3 similar in France. Whilst aesthetics soon led German poetics to establish
4 itself as a scientific discipline, rhetoric, eloquence and studies on style
5 dominated the English and French scenes until the late 1840s.15 In ad-
6 dition to this, 20th-century English aesthetics proved to be more focused
7 on analytical approaches yet did not simply ignore more hermeneutical
8 ones as current anthologies suggest.16 Taking this into account, one
9 could contest Dilthey’s supposition:
10 ‘Yes, this German aesthetics hastened the fall of the old forms in
11 France and England and influenced the first performances of a new po-
12 etic age yet uncertain of themselves.’17
13 Explaining why there obviously were common trends in the history
14
of poetics in the 19th and 20th centuries, however, is a more difficult
15
task. Studies not only on analogies, but also on transfer, on the book
16
market, on translations, on scientific contact and on travel prove to
17
be the only way to gather evidence about these trends. This history
18
of poetics can obviously not present all sources and I want to stress its
19
provisional character: it is intended as an introduction and a pioneering
20
study into an international history of poetics, as well as a contribution to
21
the history of ‘Literaturwissenschaft’,18 to a history of aesthetics that still
22
23
deserves to be written (also with regard to the reception of aesthetic
24
25 mas Hodgskin und die Anfänge der Germanistik in Großbritannien. In: Inter-
26 nationales Archiv für Sozialgeschichte der Literatur 31 (2006) 1, pp. 51 76.
27 15 On the French refutation and late acceptance of German aesthetics, c.f. Élisa-
beth Décultot: Ästhetik/esthétique. Étapes d’une naturalisation (1750 1840).
28
In: Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 2 (2002), pp. 157 178. A compara-
29 ble study on the English reception of German aesthetics remains a desideratum;
30 Author: Internationale Poetik (see introduction). In some areas the classic study
31 by Abrams gives no more than a first account; M. H. Abrams: The mirror and
32 the lamp: Romantic theory and the critical tradition. New York: Norton,
1958. (Norton Library 102), for example depicts the interest that English rhet-
33
oric shows in the individual talent of the poet.
34 16 See the differentiated approaches in Peter Lamarque (ed.): Aesthetics in Britain.
35 The British Journal of Aesthetics 40 (2000) 1, Special Issue 1960 2000.
36 17 Wilhelm Dilthey: Die Einbildungskraft des Dichters. Bausteine für eine Poetik,
37 In: Philosophische Aufsätze, ed. by W. D. Pierer, 1887, p. 103: “Ja diese deut-
sche Ästhetik hat in Frankreich und England den Fall der alten Formen be-
38
ACHTUNGREschleunigt und die ersten ihrer selbst noch ungewissen Bildungen eines
39 neuen poetischen Zeitalters beeinflußt.”
40 18 See Weimar (fn. 4).
3. Methodology 31
1 writings) 19 and to the various approaches to the aesthetic components of

2 the ‘Bildungsgeschichte’ of the general public.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39 19 Most histories of aesthetics or aesthetical questions are characterised either by
40 their introductory status or by their focus on a special aesthetic topic; see above.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 II. Aesthetics and Academic Poetics
10
11 in Germany
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
II. Aesthetics and Academic Poetics in Germany 35
1 Kant’s Kritik der Urteilskraft, Hegel’s Philosophie des Schçnen – canonical

2 texts like these are well-known. However, many discussions in the
3 area of poetics and aesthetics go beyond the widely recognized philo-
4 sophical systems and are in fact prior to idealist philosophy: concepts
5 like the genius or the romantic vision of poetry originate from dispos-
6 able knowledge that can seldom be traced back to one thinker or text.
7 Furthermore, in the second half of the 18th century, universities estab-
8 lished distinct courses (‘collegia’) on aesthetics, often based not on the
9 ‘big texts’ (Baumgarten, Kant) themselves, but on manuals or commen-
10 taries, especially on Kant.1 In the course of the 19th century, this situa-
11 tion became even more complex: schools of aesthetics and poetics de-
12 veloped and sometimes competed with each other, their members sub-
13 scribing to specific approaches but also deviating from them. Therefore,
14 the following chapter focuses on general methodological tendencies as
15 they are expressed not only in major canonical texts, but first and fore-
16 most in minor writings on aesthetics and academic poetics.
17 As regards the long 19th and early 20th centuries, seven main meth-
18 odological tendencies can be observed: Firstly, at the beginning of the
19 19th century eclecticism was still dominant. Philosophy was governed
20 by an ‘esprit de système’ rather than by systematic thought. Popular phi-
21 losophers directed their aesthetic ideas toward the educated public, to a
22 public that constituted the audience of theatre plays and literature. Late
23 18th-century philosophers aimed at the moral, as well as the aesthetic,
24 perfection of this particular audience (chapter 1). In turn (secondly), aes-
25 theticians and poeticians felt the need to establish severe criteria accord-
26 ing to which matters of taste were to be judged, an attempt heavily dis-
27 puted by Kant and subsequent transcendental approaches to the subject
28 (chapter 2).
29 A third tendency can be called the historical approach. This had al-
30
ready become fashionable in the 18th century as an opposition to Johann
31
Christoph Gottsched’s poetics, which had been criticized as being clas-
32
sicist and normative. In contrast to Gottsched’s approach, Johann Georg
33
Hamann, and most notably Johann Gottfried Herder, aimed at explain-
34
ing poetry from its historical origins, proposing a poetics which moved
35
away from rules and unified forms. Many scholars took up this impulse,
36
carrying it further in favour of romantic ideas (August Wilhelm Schle-
37
38
1 See the helpful contribution by Thomáš Hlobil: Aesthetics in the Lecture Lists
39 of the Universities of Halle, Leipzig, Würzburg, and Prague (1785 – 1805). In:
40 Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert 29 (2005) 1, pp. 13 – 50.
36 II. Aesthetics and Academic Poetics in Germany
1 gel). One of these ideas was ‘poiesis’. ‘Poiesis’ can briefly be explained as
2 a new reading of Aristotle’s idea of ‘poiesis’ which however goes be-
3 yond Aristotle in that poetry is regarded as the essential ‘poiesis’, the
4 main act of creation which happens through art. This renewed idea
5 of ‘poiesis’ was still relevant around 1900, contributing to an ongoing
6 development: the further opening of new scholarly horizons for the
7 study of poetry. In this case poetics became enriched with metaphysical,
8 anthropological and psychological knowledge (chapter 3).
9 A fourth tendency incorporated poetics into various metaphysical
10 systems. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling inspired a whole cohort
11 of contemporary philosophers to build on his logostheological approach.
12 The resulting aesthetics and poetics became renowned through their
13 triadic systems which not only shaped genre theory (chapter 4) but
14 also inspired pre-empirical approaches to the study of poetics. Similar
15 observations apply to Hegel’s aesthetics and the works which followed
16 in his footsteps. Yet Hegel’s approach led into the vast territory of post-
17 idealist aesthetics and poetics, the fifth poetological tendency of the 19th
18 century. The reason for this development lies in Hegel’s philosophy it-
19 self: although speculative, Hegel’s Vorlesungen ber die schçnen Knste
20 aimed at historiographical and detailed, comprehensive depictions of
21 poetry itself. His pupils expanded on these depictions, introducing psy-
22 chological knowledge of the time into the study of poetry (chapter 5).
23 Pre-empirical and empirical poetics, the sixth tendency of 19th-cen-
24 tury aesthetics and poetics, received a considerable impulse from spec-
25 ulative aesthetics. Schelling, for instance, had some impact on Moriz
26 Carriere who was one of the first to propose a pre-empirical aesthetics.
27 From the Hegelian school it was Friedrich Theodor Vischer who, fas-
28 cinated with the poet’s psyche, paid tribute to emerging psychological
29 studies as well as to formalism ( Johann Friedrich Herbart, Robert Zim-
30 mermann). The often repeated idea that 19th-century aesthetics suffered
31 from a considerable shift from the speculative to the psychologist or em-
32 pirical branch can be proven to be wrong. Rather, a field of empirical
33 accounts rich in itself originated from a combination of both. In the
34 1980s, this field was still mainly associated with Wilhelm Scherer and
35 Wilhelm Dilthey. But many names need to be added, among them
36 the little-known teacher Heinrich Viehoff and the popular writer Ri-
37 chard Müller-Freienfels who disseminated psychological poetics (chap-
38 ter 6).
39 Some works, notably those of Scherer und Eugen Wolff point to a
40 seventh tendency which is best described as methodological pluralism.
1 This tendency characterised the field of aesthetics and poetics between

2 1890 and 1910, which then included almost all fields of knowledge in
3 the study of poetry. Two major poetological works (Ernst Elster, Hu-
4 bert Roetteken) aimed at facing this challenge by providing a compre-
5 hensive poetics which integrated most of these perspectives. Elster in-
6 vented a new term for the result: “Literaturwissenschaft” (‘literary sci-
7 ence’). Yet it is striking that both of them, Elster and Roetteken, ac-
8 cepted a simplifying premise: poetry is regarded as the principle form
9 in which the sensitive individual expresses himself or herself, a belief
10 that, from the second half of the 18th century on, was enforced through
11 romanticism and became a kind of poetological dogma (chapter 7).
12 In contrast to these approaches, the eighth tendency of aesthetics
13 and poetics proved to be more focused. Furthermore, it tended toward
14 a criticism of the poetological dogma to which Elster and Roetteken
15 subscribed: ‘Geisteswissenschaft’, the new tendency, promoted the in-
16 fluence of the intellect in poetry and beyond, in order to close the
17 gap between the natural sciences and the humanities. The methods
18 used to reach this novel correlation of the natural sciences and the hu-
19 manities still testify to the richness of approaches prevalent around 1900:
20 epistemology (Emil Ermatinger), formalism (Oskar Walzel) as well as ty-
21 pology (Hermann Hefele) can be named as main ways to understand po-
22 etry within the context of various fields of knowledge (chapter 8).
23 This exclusive, as well as inclusive, approach, which seems to restrict
24 poetry to the intellectual and psychological experience of the poet, pro-
25 voked contemporary thinkers. As a consequence, one of them, Theodor
26 Alexander Meyer, risked providing another new account inspired by the
27 psychology of peoples and the philosophy of language. Meyer opposed
28 context-driven accounts of poetry and the psychologism often inherent
29 in them. Meyer’s claim is simple: poetry should be understood in its
30 own right. The resulting work focuses partly on the heritage of 19th-
31 century formalism, as well as on a pre-emption of 20th-century Russian
32 formalism (chapter 9), which itself profited from the tenth tendency of
33 poetics and aesthetics: phenomenology and ontology (chapter 10).
34 It is not by mere accident that these formalist tendencies had a long
35 life after 1945: during the Nazi period, Fascist approaches (thirteenth
36 tendency) discredited context-driven poetics to a large extent, the rea-
37 son being their ideological use of concepts like ‘the people’ or ‘race’.
38 Astonishingly enough, it was Fascist poeticians (Karl Justus Obenauer,
39 Heinz Kindermann) who sympathized with Elster’s term “Literaturwis-
40 senschaft”, claiming that their ideological accounts provided ‘hard sci-
38 II. Aesthetics and Academic Poetics in Germany
1 entific knowledge’. At the same time, serious (non-Fascist) scholars like

2 Günther Müller limited their poetics to formal analysis for which they
3 invented the term ‘morphology’ (chapter 13). Consequently, German
4 studies after 1945 moved back to these formalist and work-focused ac-
5 counts which seemed to guarantee neutrality as well as a decent ground-
6 ing in a safe and well-tested tradition (chapter 12).
7 Nevertheless, a couple of context-related tendencies did survive the
8 Nazi period: anthropology and existentialism. They had a considerable
9 impact on poetics up until the 1950s and 60s. Borrowing extensively
10 from Edmund Husserl’s and Martin Heidegger’s ontologist and phe-
11 nomenologist approaches, the study of poetics concentrated on ‘funda-
12 mental concepts’ (“Grundbegriffe”). The best known representative for
13 this account (which in fact goes back to Theophil Spoerri) was Emil
14 Staiger. With his adaptation of Heidegger, Staiger was already being
15 praised in the 1930s as a rising star of literary theory. From his reading
16 of Heidegger he derived ‘fundamental concepts’ of the human condi-
17 tion which he transferred to style and genre in order to link the study
18 of poetry to general anthropology (chapter 11).
19 This alliance ended in the late 1950s/ early 1960s. A new methodo-
20 logical pluralism arose, which to some extent made use of eclectical vir-
21 tues and reached its peak in the 1980s. The reasons for this development
22 are manifold: on the one hand, German literary theory appeared to be
23 stagnant, old-fashioned and dominated by powerful old men (e. g. Staig-
24 er), all of them adhering to general and uncontested anthropological and
25 subjective, in part also formalist, beliefs. This status quo required the in-
26 troduction of new accounts such as Russian structuralism, American lit-
27 erary sociology or a refined literary criticism. It is to his credit that an
28 outstanding scholar such as Max Wehrli provided a treatise which not
29 only reflects this status quo but also develops it further (chapter 14).
30 On the other hand, beyond Wehrli, the student movement with its
31 various intentions stormed the esoteric, yet important field of literary
32 theory. Some scholars responded to this challenge with the help of
33 left-wing ideology in order to come to terms with the Nazi past, includ-
34 ing the Nazi-influenced past of German literary theory. Other, ideolog-
35 ically more moderate colleagues, opted for a new ‘scientification’ of lit-
36 erary theory. They changed not only the name ‘poetics’ but also general
37 methodological premises in favour of “Literaturwissenschaft”, hoping
38 for a non-ideological treatment of literature and thereby constituting
39 a new wave of scientification of German literary criticism. Still, the
40 novelty of this “Literaturwissenschaft” needs to be contested in the
1 light of the history of poetics which was deemed to be old-fashioned

2 (chapter 15).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4 1. Eclectic Poetics: Popular Philosophy (1770 – 1790)
5
6
7 ‘Though not independent, they shine through a characteristic majesty of
8 mind’ writes the historian Heinrich Luden (1780 – 1847), professor at
9 Jena University, about late 18th-century popular aesthetic thinkers.1
10 Luden, therefore, calls them ‘eclectics’ (“Eklektiker”).2 His notion
11 ‘eclectics’ refers to German thinkers like Kant’s role model Johann Ni-
12 kolaus Tetens (Philosophische Versuche ber die menschliche Natur, 1777),
13 the philosophical physician Ernst Platner (Philosophische Aphorismen,
14 1776 – 1782) as well as to thinkers of other tongues: to the Swiss philos-
15 opher and diplomat Jean-Pierre de Crousaz (Trait du beau, 1714), to
16 Charles Batteux (Principes de la littrature, ou Cours des belles lettres,
17 1774/ Einleitung in die Schçnen Wissenschaften, 1774), Denis Diderot (Ar-
18 ticle “Beau” in the Encyclopdie, vol. 2, 1752/ Abhandlung vom Schçnen,
19 in: Philosophische Werke des Herrn D., 1774), Xaver Bettinelli (Dell’entu-
20 siasmo nelle belle arti, 1769/ ber den Enthusiasmus der schçnen Knste,
21 1778), Henry Home, Lord Kames (Elements of Criticism, 1770/ Grund-
22 ACHTUNGREstze der Kritik, 1771), Alexander Gerard (Essay on taste, 1759/ Versuch
23
ber den Geschmack, 1766) and Edmund Burke (Enquiry into the Origin
24
of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful, 1770/ Philosophische Untersuchungen
25
ber den Ursprung unserer Begriffe vom Erhabenen und vom Schçnen, 1773).
26
These authors share various methodological assumptions: all of
27
them direct their ideas toward a ‘theory of the beautiful sciences and
28
arts’ (“Theorie der schönen Wissenschaften und Künste”), inspired by
29
the French notion of ‘belles lettres’. Their writings focus on general
30
questions such as the role of beauty and poetry, authorship, taste and
31
genre. Baumgarten, Meier and later Kant, provide the dominant philo-
32
sophical frameworks for such an enterprise, their philosophical systems
33
being widely recognized as groundbreaking. Still, these authorities are
34
heavily criticized for a considerable lack of focus on the arts in particular,
35
36
on practical thinking in general and, correspondingly, for involving a
37
1 Heinrich Luden: Grundzüge ästhetischer Vorlesungen zum academischen Ge-
38
brauche. Göttingen: Danckwerts 1808, § 6, p. 5: “Wenn nicht unabhängig,
39 doch in eigenthümlicher Hoheit des Geistes glänzend.”
40 2 Ibid.
1. Eclectic Poetics: Popular Philosophy (1770 – 1790) 41
1 high level of abstraction.3 Furthermore, the description of aesthetic sen-

2 timent as the ‘lower faculty’ strikes contemporaries such as Moses Men-
3 delssohn as being inappropriate for a field which claims a right on its
4 own.4 As a consequence of these criticisms, most popular aestheticians
5 avoid identification with particular philosophical positions; rather,
6 they borrow their ideas from different contexts and remodel them in
7 order to reach their public: students, an educated civil audience, all of
8 them critical consumers of aesthetics and poetics.5
9 In the German context, it is the outspoken author, composer and
10 musician Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart (1739 – 1791) who ex-
11 presses this popular tendency clearly, addressing himself to the non-aca-
12 demic merchant, ‘who wants his comprehension to go beyond his ho-
13 rizon and to encounter in leisurely hours pleasant and useful forms of
14
knowledge’.6 In order to recommend their thinking for aesthetic enter-
15
tainment, popular eclectic aestheticians invent literary forms, for in-
16
stance letters. The later Archbishop of Mainz and Ratisbon, Carl The-
17
odor von Dalberg (1744 – 1817), for example, includes a dialogue with
18
Count Firmian, minister in Milan, in his Grundstze der Aesthetik (1791),
19
an analytical approach to applied aesthetics.7 Still, few aestheticians are as
20
witty as the Erfurt, and later Viennese, editor Friedrich Just Riedel
21
22
3 This aspect is most explicitly dealt with by Doris Bachmann-Medick: Die äs-
23
thetische Ordnung des Handelns: Moralphilosophie und Ästhetik in der Pop-
24 ularphilosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart: Metzler 1989, pp. 1 – 38.
25 4 Moses Mendelssohn: [rev.] Georg Friedrich Meiers Auszug aus den Anfangs-
26 gründen aller schönen Künste und Wissenschaften (1758). In: Bibliothek der
27 schönen Wissenschaften und der freyen Künste 3 (1758) 1, pp. 130 – 138.
5 The aspect of active consumption is nicely highlighted by Kames and Gerard
28
and could also be developed from the study of Eschenburg, Eberhard or
29 Engel. See Maureen Harkin: Theorizing popular practice in eighteenth century
30 aesthetics: Lord Kames and Alexander Gerard. In: Aesthetic Subjects, ed. by
31 Pamela R. Matthews and David Mc Whirter. Minneanapolis, London: Univ.
32 Press of Minnesota 2003, pp. 171 – 189.
6 Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart: Kurzgefaßtes Lehrbuch der schönen Wis-
33
senschaften für Unstudierte […]. Leipzig [i.e. Münster]: [Perenon] 1777, p. 1:
34 “der seine Verstandesthätigkeit bey müßigen Stunden über seine Sphäre erhe-
35 ben und sich mit angenehmen und nützlichen Kenntnissen berühren will.”
36 7 Carl von Dalberg: Grundsätze der Aesthetik deren Anwendung und künftige
37 Entwickelung. Erfurt: Keyser 1791, p. 12, passim. Dalberg proposes several aes-
thetic laws (on the strength of the feeling of beauty, duration of the feeling of
38
beauty etc.) and claims that they all help in politics as well. The dialogue with
39 the count, dealing with a picture by Guido Reni (“Petrus”), serves as some kind
40 of proof of Dalberg’s assumptions.
1 (1742 – 1785) who in his Theorie der schçnen Knste (1767) mocks his
2 own method (‘neither purposeful nor methodologically sufficient’) as
3 well as the content of his book (‘mere compilation’) in a most appealing
4 and sympathetic way that seems to be forgotten by the end of the 18th
5 century.8
6 Summarizing these features, Luden is correct in calling the relevant
7 cohort of thinkers ‘eclectics’. Taking into account popular cultural con-
8 texts such as theatre,9 literary criticism and the growing book market,
9 the eclectics pursue didactical aims. The greatest number of them pre-
10 supposes that the knowledge about the beautiful arts enhances human-
11 ity. In the German-speaking countries this presupposition is often un-
12 derlined with rational psychology, mainly the idea of perfection of
13 the individual, and the emerging ‘teachings of the experiences of the
14 soul’ (“Erfahrungsseelenlehre”) which explore emotions, sentiments
15 and attitudes in theoretical, as well as literary, form. Non-German writ-
16 ings show slightly different fields of reference: they primarily allude to
17 rhetoric, eloquence, moral philosophy and anthropology.
18
Inspired by anthropological and psychological questions, popular
19
philosophy inquires into the origin of the arts and compares them. As
20
a result of these comparisons, literature is mostly deemed to be superior
21
to painting or music and therefore said to deserve special attention.10
22
Consequently, literature mostly constitutes the focus of popular aesthet-
23
ics. Among them, those writings devoted to poetry (not only to genre
24
theory) will be discussed in the following chapter.
25
Though not entirely focused on literature, Johann Georg Sulzer’s
26
‘opus magnum’ Allgemeine Theorie der schçnen Knste is one of the
27
most influential popular aesthetics. Despite receiving harsh criticism im-
28
mediately after its publication in the 19th century, Sulzer has often been
29
30
seen as the founding father of a systematical popular aesthetics and po-
31
etics. This reputation also goes back to his 1763 reflections on the op-
32
posing nature of sentiment and reason, which were designed to over-
33
come the Baumgarten tradition and might be envisaged as the ‘discov-
34
35 8 See mainly the preface of Friedrich Just Riedel: Theorie der schönen Künste
36 und Wissenschaften: Ein Auszug aus den Werken verschiedener Schriftsteller.
37 Jena: Cuno 1767, *3 verso.
9 See Johann Jacob Engel: Ideen zu einer Mimik. Berlin 1785/86. (2 vols.)
38
10 Charles Batteux: Einschränkung der schönen Künste auf einen einzigen
39 Grundsatz. Hildesheim: Olms 1770. (2 vols.) and Christian Ludwig von Hage-
40 dorn: Betrachtungen über die Mahlerey. Leipzig: Fritsch 1762.
(a) The Moralizing Standard Work: Johann Georg Sulzer 43
1 ery’ of the ‘Other of reason’.11 Yet this dichotomous thought is dis-

2 missed in Sulzer’s Allgemeine Theorie, in which he opts for a complemen-
3 tary function of both faculties (a). This late work of Sulzer’s especially,
4 inspired other popular philosophers to focus on aesthetics: Johann Au-
5 gust Eberhard, Johann Jacob Engel and Johann Joachim Eschenburg,
6 some of them carefully observing the literary scene and aiming at a
7 new foundation of literary criticism (b).
8
9
10 (a) The Moralizing Standard Work: Johann Georg Sulzer
11 Allgemeine Theorie der schçnen Knste (1771 – 1774)
12
13 Modernist reception regards Sulzer’s Allgemeine Theorie der schçnen
14 Knste as a belated, traditional, conventional, yet comprehensive dic-
15 tionary of 870 entries in four volumes12 in which all the arts are judged
16 by their moral purpose.13 The work was edited and enlarged four times
17 (with an additional abbreviation under the title Theorie der Dichtkunst,
18 1788/89) 14 and can be regarded as the end or the climax of the psycho-
19 logical and moral accounts of 18th-century aesthetics. As a consequence,
20 it is a reference book for late 18th-century aestheticians or poeticians.15
21
22
11 See the thorough analysis of Sulzer’s writings by Wolfgang Riedel: Erkennen
23
und Empfinden. Anthropologische Achsendrehung und Wende zur Ästhetik
24 bei Johann Georg Sulzer. In: Der ganze Mensch: Anthropologie und Literatur
25 im 18. Jahrhundert, ed. by Hans-Jürgen Schings. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler
26 1994 (Germanistische Symposien; Berichtsbde. XV), pp. 410 – 439, p. 416.
27 12 On the form of classification see Hans Erich Bödeker: Konzept und Klassifika-
tion der Wissenschaften bei Johann Georg Sulzer (1720 – 1779). In: Schweizer
28
im Berlin des 18. Jahrhunderts, ed. by Martin Fontius and Helmut Holzhey.
29 Berlin: Akademie 1996, pp. 325 – 339.
30 13 One need only consult the judgements quoted by Cornelia Klinger: “Johann
31 Georg Sulzer”. In: Ästhetik und Kunstphilosophie von der Antike bis zur Ge-
32 genwart, ed. by Julian Nida-Rümelin and Monika Betzler. Stuttgart: Kröner
1998, pp. 766 – 770.
33
14 The abbreviation is prepared by Albrecht Kirchmayer, teacher in rhetoric; see:
34 Johann Georg Sulzer: Theorie der Dichtkunst: Zum Gebrauch der Studirenden
35 bearbeitet von Albrecht Kirchmayer [….]. 2 parts. Munich: Lentner 1788/89.
36 – An almost complete list of the Sulzer-editions and reprints is given in Johan
37 van der Zande’s comprehensive article: Johann Georg Sulzer‘s “Allgemeine
Theorie der Schönen Künste”. In: Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert 22 (1998) 1,
38
pp. 87 – 101, p. 101. It only lacks the reprint of the first edition, Biel 1777.
39 15 See the contributions in Jean-François Goubet and Gérard Raulet (eds.): Aux
40 sources de l’esthétique: Les débuts de l’esthétique philosophique en Allemagne.
1 However, Sulzer’s aesthetic theory fell victim to the new critical re-
2 gime of Goethe, Schiller and their romantic counterparts, all claiming to
3 found poetics on the new principle of autonomy. Sulzer’s high reputa-
4 tion even after the advent of romanticism and the German classic may
5 serve as a proof for the thesis that the Allgemeine Theorie was still regarded
6 as an impressive work even in Eduard Mörike’s and Friedrich Theodor
7 Vischer’s times: “Besides its misconceptions and errors, obsolete parts
8 and trivialities it contains occasional instructive and even acute re-
9 marks.”16 Mörike recommends Sulzer to Vischer, thereby winning the
10 young theologian over to the study of aesthetics. Another 100 years
11 later, Oskar Walzel in 1937 observes a considerable enthusiasm for Sulz-
12 er that is directed against the aesthetics of autonomy, in short, against
13 Sulzer’s enemies.17 In turn, Walzel pleads for a more differentiated pos-
14 itive evaluation of Sulzer’s account, and provides such an evaluation in a
15 detailed reading of Sulzer’s Allgemeine Theorie.
16 Some of the peculiarities of Sulzer’s Allgemeine Theorie might be ex-
17 plained by his Swiss-German origin and intellectual focus. Sulzer
18 (1720 – 1779) 18 studied theology in Zurich as well as mathematics, phi-
19 losophy and literature, wrote a physicotheological treatise Versuch einiger
20 moralischer Betrachtungen ber die Werke der Natur (1741, ed. by the Berlin
21 pastor A.F.W. Sack) which might have been the fruit of his close rela-
22 tionship to the physicotheologian Johann Jacob Scheuchzer, translated
23 Scheuchzer’s Itinera Alpina (Magdeburg 1743), through his contacts to
24 Leonard Euler and Maupertuis became a professor of mathematics at
25 the Joachimsthaler Gymnasium in Berlin (1747), wrote for the ‘mem-
26 oires’ of the Berlin Academy and travelled to Switzerland (1750)
27 where he met his tutor and friend Johann Jakob Bodmer. Sulzer
28
29 Paris 2005 (Edition de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme 2005 (Collection
30 Philia)).
31 16 Eduard Mörike an Friedrich Theodor Vischer, Ochsenwang bei Kirchheim,
32 26th February 1832. In: Briefwechsel zwischen Eduard Mörike und Friedrich
Theodor Vischer, ed. by Robert Vischer. Munich 1926, pp. 48 – 57, p. 49:
33
“Es enthält neben viel Falschem, Obsoletem, Halbem und Trivialem doch zu-
34 weilen lehrreiche, sogar feine Bemerkungen.”
35 17 Oskar Walzel: Johann Georg Sulzer über Poesie. In: Zeitschrift für Deutsche
36 Philologie 62 (1937), pp. 267 – 303, p. 267.
37 18 Anna Tumarkin: Der Ästhetiker Johann Georg Sulzer. Frauenfeld 1933; Ar-
mand Nivelle: Kunst und Dichtungstheorien zwischen Aufklärung und Klassik.
38
Berlin 1960; Syliane Malinowski-Charles: Entre rationalisme et subjectivisme:
39 L’esthétique de Jean Pierre de Crousaz. In: Revue de Théologie et de Philos-
40 ophie 136 (2004), pp. 7 – 21.
1 seems to have started working on the Allgemeine Theorie der schçnen

2 Knste (1771 – 1774, 21792 – 1794) in 1753.19 After the publication of
3 this enormous work he was appointed professor of philosophy at the
4 ‘École militaire’ of the Prussian King (1765) and later director of the
5 philosophical class at the Berlin Academy (1775).
6 The Allgemeine Theorie can be characterised as a middle European
7 aesthetics which is influenced by French and British, but mainly by
8 Swiss and German works, notably the tradition of Baumgarten’s con-
9 cept of ‘aesthetica’.20 The French influence on Sulzer is broad: there
10 is, firstly, the role model of the dictionary, established by the French
11 Protestant Pierre Bayle, continued by the German Johann Heinrich
12 ACHTUNGREZedler and later, by Jacques Lacombe’s Dictionnaire portatif des Beaux-
13 Arts (1752) and Antoine Joseph Pernéty’s Dictionnaire portatif de peinture,
14 sculpture, gravure (1757). Yet Sulzer’s choice of the dictionary form could
15 be said to be original because he saw Lacombe’s work for the first time
16 only in 1756.21 The French line of dictionaries and encyclopaedias plays
17 yet another role: the Supplment l’Encyclopdie (1776/77) owes many
18 articles to Sulzer.22 Secondly, Sulzer also distances himself from ‘the
19 French’, from Voltaire and his ‘degenerated morals’ as well as from Ger-
20 man authors who, like Christoph Martin Wieland, Johann Wilhelm
21 Ludwig Gleim and Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, sympathise with the
22 French and the morally ‘dangerous’ artistic tendency of the Rococo.23
23 Astonishingly, it is supposed that just these authors, notably Gleim
24 and Wieland, contributed some articles to the Allgemeine Theorie
25 which was, in turn, seen as a partially collective work.24 This fact points
26
to a certain double morality of the Allgemeine Theorie: the opponents are
27
part of the work that is designed to criticize them. In addition to this,
28
many key articles simply reformulate moral statements and some even
29
conceal Sulzer’s preference for moralistic literature. The article “Dich-
30
ACHTUNGREter”, for instance, does not mention Albrecht von Haller, one of Sulzer’s
31
most adored moral authors. Furthermore, Sulzer, adhering to Baum-
32
33
19 Van der Zande: Sulzer’s “Allgemeine Theorie” (fn. 14), p. 91.
34 20 See Elisabeth Décultot: Éléments d’une histoire interculturelle de l’esthétique:
35 L’exemple de la “Théorie générale des beaux-arts” de Johann Georg Sulzer. In:
36 Revue germanique internationale 10 (1998), pp. 141 – 160; van der Zande:
37 Sulzer’s “Allgemeine Theorie”(fn. 14), p. 99.
21 Van der Zande: Sulzer’s “Allgemeine Theorie” (fn. 14), p. 91.
38
22 Décultot: Sulzer (fn. 20), p. 143, p. 145.
39 23 Ibid., p. 147 – 155.
40 24 Van der Zande: Sulzer’s “Allgemeine Theorie” (fn. 14), pp. 92 – 97.
1 garten, ignores a moralizing treatise on ‘belles lettres’ which had had a

2 huge impact on Swiss thinking: Jean Pierre de Crousaz’s Trait du
3 Beau (1714).25 The reason for this neglect might have been Crousaz’s
4 confession to a belief in natural theology which contradicts Wolffian
5 thought, in that Crousaz assumes that a natural geometrician governs
6 the world.
7 Yet the moralizing impetus of the Allgemeine Theorie is in fact re-
8 vealed through careful reading. The preface of the Allgemeine Theorie at-
9 tributes simply two faculties to man: ‘mind’ (“Verstand”) and ‘moral
10 sentiment’ (“sittliche[s] Gefühl”) the purpose of which is to allow peo-
11 ple to enjoy the fruits of life unrecognizable through reason alone.26
12 This statement does not attempt to moralize a ‘previously immoral’ aes-
13 thetics. Nor is it enough to be perceived as a final tribute to the Scottish
14
Enlightenment. Along with Shaftesbury,27 Adam Smith and others,
15
Sulzer claims that the beautiful may evoke sympathy for the good and
16
antipathy for the bad.28 But in addition to this, he stresses the comple-
17
mentary nature of sentiment and reason and does not claim that they are
18
equal or that sentiment is (as it is for Baumgarten) to be regarded as the
19
minor version of reason.
20
In order to prove these claims, the two articles of the Allgemeine The-
21
orie relevant in the context of this study will be discussed: ‘aesthetics’
22
23
(“Aesthetik”) and ‘art of poetry/poetics’ (“Dichtkunst/Poetik”). “Aes-
24
thetik” provides a general account of the field of study, largely influ-
25
enced by Baumgarten. He is introduced as the first to have developed
26
27
25 On Crousaz Sandra Richter: Unsichere Schönheit: Der Ursprung der Ästhetik
28
aus der Kritik des Skeptizismus. In: Unsicheres Wissen. Skeptizismus und
29 Wahrscheinlichkeit, 1550 – 1850, ed. by Carlos Spoerhase, Dirk Werle and
30 Markus Wild. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2009 (Historia Hermeneutica
31 7), pp. 159 178. Crousaz thought of beauty as being preestablished by God
32 and rediscovered through natural theology – as Wolff and his successors did
not accept natural theology it is likely that Crousaz was forgotten because of
33
this element of his aesthetics. Still, Sulzer should have been aware of such a
34 moralizing publication had he been interested in a moralized aesthetics.
35 26 Johann Georg Sulzer: Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste in einzelnen,
36 nach alphabetischer Ordnung der Kunstwörter aufeinanderfolgenden, Artikeln
37 abgehandelt. Leipzig 1771, vol. 1, pp. IIIf; Friedrich Springorum: Über das
SittACHTUNGREliche in der Ästhetik Johann Georg Sulzers. In: Archiv für die gesamte Psy-
38
chologie 72 (1929), pp. 1 – 42.
39 27 Walzel (fn. 17), p. 302; Décultot (fn. 20), p. 151.
40 28 Sulzer: Allgemeine Theorie (fn. 14), p. IV.
1 the area in a philosophical way and to have named it.29 Following

2 Baumgarten’s thinking, aesthetics is explained as ‘philosophy of the
3 beautiful arts’ (“Philosophie der schönen Künste”) or as a theory
4 which derives ‘the rules of the beautiful arts from the nature of taste’
5 (“die Regeln der schönen Künste aus der Natur des Geschmacks herlei-
6 tet”).30 The relevant field of study lacks a systematic method; still, some
7 necessary steps will be identified to cover the theoretical part of aesthet-
8 ics: firstly, the intention and the essence of the arts is to be stated, sec-
9 ondly, the origin of the sentiments of the soul is to be shown and third-
10 ly, genres of ‘pleasant and unpleasant objects’ (“angenehmen und unan-
11 genehmen Gegenstände”) will be identified.31 The practical part of aes-
12 thetics is to grasp the different kinds of beautiful arts, the nature of gen-
13 ius, the genre of the specific arts as well as the rules for art. As a result,
14 such a carefully developed aesthetics should be able to finalize the inten-
15 tions of philosophy and ethics, that is, to teach one how to enjoy art and
16 its use. In short: the paragraph summarises post-Baumgartian aesthetics
17 but goes beyond it through its focus on the arts themselves.
18 Similar observations can be made for the paragraph on “Dichtkunst/
19 Poetik.” The section is written in order to help gifted writers. There-
20 fore, it expresses a brief summary of an aesthetics of production. The
21 reason for this purpose is explained by the lack of comparable models
22 of poetry,32 states the author, an astonishing opinion if one takes the
23 large amount of previous treatises on the matter into account. Still,
24 claiming originality, Sulzer recommends examining firstly, the character
25 of poetry, secondly, the means poetry uses in order to achieve its pur-
26 pose, thirdly, the character of the poet and fourthly the concept of the
27 poem. The rest of the paragraph contains only some brief remarks on
28 Aristotle and, most notably, on Horace, of whom Sulzer writes that
29 he speaks in the ‘tone of a legislator’ (“Ton eines Gesetzgebers”),33 a sur-
30
31
32
29 Sulzer: Allgemeine Theorie (fn. 15), pp. 20 – 22, p. 20; on the closeness to the
33
Baumgarten-tradition Annie Lamblin: Sulzer, genèse et réception de sa “Thé-
34 orie générale des Beaux-Arts”. In: Le texte et l’idée 18 (2003), pp. 39 – 72.
35 30 Ibid., p. 20.
36 31 Ibid., p. 22.
37 32 Ibid., p. 258: “Obgleich sehr viel zu dieser Theorie dienendes geschrieben ist,
so fehlt es noch an einem Lehrgebäude der Dichtkunst.”/ ‘Although much has
38
been written that supports this theory, what is still missing is a systems of doc-
39 trines on the art of poetry.’
40 33 Ibid., p. 259.
1 prising remark if one considers the satirical nature of the Epistula ad Pi-
2 sones. 34
3 Yet this surprising remark again highlights Sulzer’s normative po-
4 etological intentions within the general framework of post-Baumgartian
5 popular aesthetics. Sulzer aims at what has been termed ‘double morali-
6 ty’: on the one hand, Sulzer directs himself against literary tendencies
7 which appear as morally problematic and focus on the illustration of
8 the morally good or bad, on the other hand, the norms or rules Sulzer
9 proposes remain vague, profit from the deliberative genre of the ency-
10 plopaedia and point to an aesthetics of production rather than toward
11 developing one. Contemporaries and posterity fail if they accuse Sulzer
12 of having promoted an entirely preachy aesthetics.
13 A few years later, the Allgemeine Theorie was subject to a philosoph-
14 ical revision which, beyond the general criticism of Sulzer’s theory,
15 aimed at adapting it to current speculation. Gotthilf Samuel Steinbart
16 (1738 – 1809), professor of philosophy and theology at Frankfurt
17 Oder, in his own Grundbegriffe zur Philosophie ber den Geschmack
18 (1786) criticizes Sulzer for having restricted his aesthetical knowledge
19 to small lexicon articles, but does not hesitate to repeat a good deal of
20 them, e. g. the references to Aristotle, Batteux and Baumgarten in the
21 paragraph on ‘aesthetics’.35 Like Sulzer, Steinbart holds the view that
22 the beautiful arts cause a kind of pleasure which is directly linked to mo-
23 rals. Still, Steinbart goes beyond Sulzer in two methodologically relevant
24 respects: firstly, aesthetic pleasure (and its morals) are grounded in a kind
25 of ‘neurophysiology before neurophysiology’. It is the recipient’s nerv-
26 ous and sensual system that determines his perception of art, and art, in
27 turn, appears to be distinct from non-artistic objects which require less
28 nervous attention. Furthermore, the arts themselves can be differentiat-
29 ed according to physical and non-physical features, all of them presup-
30 posing various kinds of nervous activity. This differentiation leads to an
31 unusually broad spectrum of arts.36 Among the physical arts, Steinbart
32 mentions sculpture, painting, as well as the art of etching, embroidery,
33 and fashion. These are contrasted with non-physical arts, e. g. rhetoric
34 and poetics.
35
36
37
34 The contemporaries Sulzer names only briefly are Boileau and Pope.
38
35 Gotthilf Samuel Steinbart: Grundbegriffe zur Philosophie über den Ge-
39 ACHTUNGREschmack. Frankfurt, Leipzig [without publisher] 1786, p. 22.
40 36 Ibid., p. 4.
(b) Popular Aesthetics as a Part of “Erfahrungsseelenlehre” in 1783 49
1 Secondly, the perception of these various arts requires art to be ex-

2 traordinary; art needs to prove its ‘more vivacious visions and stronger
3 impressions of the perfect and beautiful’ (“lebhaftere Vorstellungen und
4 stärkere Eindrücke von den Vollkommenen und Schönen”).37 Develop-
5 ing these thoughts further, Steinbart promotes a ‘science of taste’
6 (“Geschmackswissenschaft”).38 This science of taste is characterised by
7 its focus on the features of the beautiful and practical arts, as well as
8 by its interest in the sensual preconditions of the recipient. Morals
9 come later, as a result of the agreeable effects of aesthetic pleasure. It
10 seems that Steinbart, on the one hand, embraced the Sulzer tradition
11 but, on the other hand, did not invest much thought in legitimating
12 his morally optimistic view. In this respect Steinbart seems to stand rath-
13 er in Johann Gotthilf Lindner’s shoes than in Sulzer’s. Lindner (1729 –
14 1776), a Northern German pastor, writer and friend of Johann Georg
15 Hamann and Herder, in his Kurzer Inbegriff der Aesthetik, Redekunst
16 und Dichtkunst (1771/72), explains poetry as the art of imitating nature
17 by perfectly sensible beautiful speech – be it in order ‘to please or to
18 move’ (“zu ergötzen oder zu bewegen”).39
19
To conclude, Sulzer’s double morality offered his contemporaries
20
many possibilities for rewriting and reinventing his popular aesthetics
21
and poetics. Steinbart was one of the first to respond to the challenge.
22
He relies on Sulzer’s practical and moralizing impulse and adds neuro-
23
physiological speculation. Astonishingly, a considerable number of sim-
24
ilar writings were published in 1783.
25
26
27
(b) Popular Aesthetics as a Part of “Erfahrungsseelenlehre” in
28
29
1783: Johann Joachim Eschenburg, Johann August Eberhard
30
and Johann Jacob Engel
31
32 Johann Joachim Eschenburg (1743 – 1820), Johann August Eberhard
33 (1738 – 1809) and Johann Jakob Engel (1741 – 1802) all contributed fur-
34 ther to the reduction of morals in aesthetics and all considered contem-
35 porary art, mainly theatre. Their more or less ‘empirical’ aesthetics were
36
37 37 Ibid., p. 122.
38 Ibid., p. 23.
38
39 Johann Gotthelf Lindner: Kurzer Inbegriff der Aesthetik, Redekunst und
39 Dichtkunst. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum 1971 (Athenäum Reprints), Ch. 5,
40 1st section, § 1, pp. 204 f.
1 inspired by, or at least related to, this particular artistic experience. Ac-
2 cording to Eschenburg, Eberhard and Engel, aesthetics is to be regarded
3 as a part of “Erfahrungsseelenlehre”, thereby decisively moving away
4 from Wolff’s and Baumgarten’s rational aesthetics which were still pres-
5 ent in Sulzer’s work. Yet neither Eschenburg nor Eberhard nor Engel
6 neglect the findings of rational psychology.
7 Because of these similarities, Eschenburg stresses the closeness of his
8 aesthetics to Eberhard’s and Engel’s works: ‘the German public may
9 have hopes for the ownership of an aesthetics by the deserving Professor
10 Eberhard and a poetics by my very dear friend Professor Engel.’40
11 ACHTUNGREEschenburg, the son of a Lübeck merchant, attended the famous Ham-
12 burg Johanneum ‘Gymnasium’, studied in Leipzig with Christian
13 Fürchtegott Gellert, Johann August Ernesti and in Göttingen with
14 Christian Gottlob Heyne and Christian Friedrich Michaelis. He was ap-
15 pointed ‘Hofmeister’ (court tutor) and later professor at the practically
16 oriented ‘Collegium Carolinum’ in Brunswick.41 The ACHTUNGREEntwurf einer The-
17 orie und Literatur der schçnen Wissenschaften (11783, 51836) is the sum of
18 lectures on the topic, which Eschenburg gave during the twelve years
19 of his professorship. It comes as no surprise that the Entwurf still bears
20 the pedagogical tone of lectures addressed to students, ‘whose talent
21 one wishes to develop more, whose feeling of beauty and the good
22 one wishes to train and to refine.’42
23 In Eschenburg’s case, the audience not only includes German, but
24 also English, students. Hence the attention Eschenburg pays to British
25 literature and scholarship. Eschenburg collects ‘world literature’ and
26 gives an account of the texts deemed to be the most valuable in his Bei-
27 ACHTUNGREspielsammlungen zur Theorie und Literatur der schçnen Wissenschaften
28
29 40 Johann Joachim Eschenburg: Entwurf einer Theorie und Literatur der schönen
30 Wissenschaften. Hildesheim, New York: Olms 1976 (Documenta Semiotica;
31 series 3), not pag. [*2 verso]. “[…] da das deutsche Publikum zum Besitz
32 einer Aesthetik von dem verdienstvollen Hrn. Prof. Eberhard, und einer Poetik
von meinem sehr werthen Freunde, Hrn. Prof. Engel, ganz nahe Hoffnung
33
hat.”
34 41 See Fritz Meyen: Johann Joachim Eschenburg 1743 – 1820: Professor am Col-
35 legium Carolinum zu Brunswick. Kurzer Abriß seines Lebens und Schaffens
36 nebst Bibliographie. Brunswick 1957 (Brunswicker Werkstücke 20); Manfred
37 Pirscher: Johann Joachim Eschenburg. Ein Beitrag zur Literatur- und Wissen-
schaftsgeschichte des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts. PhD-thesis. Münster 1960.
38
42 Eschenburg (fn. 40), not pag. [*2 recto]: “deren Talent man mehr zu entwick-
39 eln, deren Gefühl des Schönen und Guten man mehr zu üben und zu verfei-
40 nern wünscht.”
1 (1788 – 1795), one of the first attempts to publish an ‘international’

2 canon of literature, designed to replace the reference library and praising
3 Wieland as the ‘classical’ poet – a judgement that upset Wieland’s fellow
4 Weimar authors. The Beispielsammlung has often been regarded as one of
5 the founding documents of comparative literature,43 although Eschen-
6 burg simply inherits ‘supranational’ early modern ‘historia litteraria’
7 and develops it further with a focus on literature, thereby following
8 the example of the popular religious journalist Johann Christoph (Chris-
9 tian) Stockhausen (1725 – 1784) who published four editions of his Crit-
10 ischer Entwurf einer auserlesenen Bibliothek fr die Liebhaber der Philosophie
11 und der schçnen Wissenschaften (11767, 41771).44 Still, the internationality
12 characterises Eschenburg’s Entwurf. It should be seen as one of the key
13 documents for a study of poetics that goes beyond the national level. It
14 therefore deserves a prominent place in the history of poetics.
15 Without adhering to a specific method, Eschenburg focuses on the
16 characteristics, the use and the history, of the beautiful sciences and the
17 arts, as well as on the forces of the soul. He begins with an explication of
18
aesthetics that is close to Baumgarten and Meier, as Eschenburg defines
19
aesthetics as the sensible recognition of the beautiful. The arts operate
20
through sensibly perfect presentation on our outer and inner aesthesia
21
(“Empfindungsvermögen”).45 They produce ‘aesthetical thoughts’ (“äs-
22
23
43 Roger Paulin: Johann Joachim Eschenburg und die europäische Gelehrtenre-
24 publik am Übergang vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert. In: Internationales Archiv
25 für Sozialgeschichte der Literatur 11 (1986), pp. 51 – 72; Michael Maurer: Auf-
26 klärung und Anglophilie in Deutschland. Göttingen, Zurich: Vanderhoeck &
27 Ruprecht 1987 (Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Historischen Instituts Lon-
don 19), pp. 292 f; Achim Hölter: Johann Joachim Eschenburg: Germanist und
28
Komparatist vor dem Scheideweg. In: Germanistik und Komparatistik, ed. by
29 Hendrik Birus. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 1995 (Germanistische Symposien
30 Berichtsbände 16), pp. 571 – 592; Hermann Korte: Eschenburgs europäischer
31 Lektürekanon. Ein Kapitel aus der Frühgeschichte moderner Kanonbildung
32 um 1800. In: Literarische Kanonbildung, ed. by Heinz Ludwig Arnold and
Hermann Korte, text + kritik 9 (2002), pp. 101 – 117.
33
44 To give the complete title Johann Christoph Stockhausen: Critischer Entwurf
34 einer auserlesenen Bibliothek für die Liebhaber der Philosophie und schönen
35 Wissenschaften. Zum Gebrauch akademischer Vorlesungen. 4th rev. ed. Ber-
36 lin: Haude & Spener 1771 (1st ed. 1767). Stockhausen himself refers to huge
37 scholarly publications such as Pierre Bayles “Dictionnaire historique et cri-
tique”, Daniel Morhofs “Polyhistor” and a number of well-known works of
38
the ‘respublica litteraria’; ibid., pp. 134 f, passim. – Stockhausen’s book was
39 even used for teaching purposes at Leipzig University; Hlobil (fn. 1), p. 23.
40 45 Eschenburg (fn. 40), p. 8.
1 thetische Gedanken”) – true or at least probable, necessary, clear, witty,

2 rich, manifold, great and sublime thoughts that occupy the recipient’s
3 soul and lead to his perfection.46
4 As a consequence of these elaborations, Eschenburg does not adhere
5 to rational psychology but, in a chapter on the ‘forces of the soul’ (“See-
6 lenkräfte”), he adopts the findings of contemporary ‘psycho medicine’
7 (Tetens, Platner’s Aphorismen) as well as the theory of genius (Gerard’s
8 Versuch ber das Genie). The ability to feel beauty in all the arts and sci-
9 ences is called ‘aesthetical taste’ (“ästhetischer Geschmack”) – a term Es-
10 chenburg does not derive from Baumgarten but from more empirical
11 writings like Gerard’s Essay on Taste (1759/ Gesprch ber den Geschmack,
12 Breslauische Beiträge I, 1766).47 Taste needs to be trained; therefore,
13 Eschenburg conceives a whole paragraph on the use of the learning
14 and practice of the beautiful arts (inspired by du Bos’ Rflexions
15 critiques sur la posie et sur la peinture) and Christian Fürchtegott Gellert’s
16 Von dem Einflusse der schçnen Wissenschaften auf das Herz und die Sitten:
17 ‘They [the beautiful arts] serve to train and hone the senses and the
18 imagination, to the cultivation and nourishment of taste, to the facilita-
19 tion of the social and attentive pleasure of men. They make as well the
20 artist’s mind as the one of the initiate more perfect; they simplify by
21 imitation of human attitude and action the study of the human heart;
22 and thereby have the most beneficial influence on the heart; hone
23 the moral sense, and make us more willing to exercise our duties
24 more willingly and better disposed.’48
25
26
27 46 Ibid., pp. 26 – 29.
47 Only late in 1795, does Eschenburg introduce taste as a criterion to distinguish
28
the new ‘classical’ literature from the old ‘baroque’ literature, a diffuse distinc-
29 tion that does not meet the complexity of the earlier texts; see Michael Maurer:
30 Johann Joachim Eschenburg und das Barock: Ein Beitrag zur Problematik der
31 Kontinuität vom 17. zum 18. Jahrhundert. In: Europäische Barock-Rezeption,
32 ed. by Klaus Garber in relation to Ferdinand van Ingen, Wilhelm Kühlmann,
Wolfgang Weiß. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1991 (Wolfenbütteler Barock-For-
33
schungen 20), part 1, pp. 337 – 349, pp. 340 f.
34 48 Eschenburg (fn. 40), p. 9: “Der Nutzen, den eine gründliche Erlernung und
35 zweckmäßige Ausübung der schönen Künste und Wissenschaften gewähren
36 kann, ist wichtig und vielfach. Sie dienen zu Übung und Verfeinerung der
37 Sinne und der Einbildungskraft, zur Bildung und Nahrung des Geschmacks,
zur Entwickelung der Thätigkeit und Fähigkeiten des Geistes, zur Beförderung
38
des geselligen und theilnehmenden Vergnügens unter den Menschen. Sie ma-
39 chen den Geist des Künstlers sowohl, als des Kenners, vollkommner; erleich-
40 tern durch Nachahmung der menschlichen Gesinnungen und Handlungen
1 Eschenburg strives for an aesthetics grounded in morals. In accord-

2 ance with Hutcheson, his British adherents and Sulzer, the education of
3 the moral sense is the ultimate reason for aesthetics.
4 Eschenburg’s genre theory complements these general reflections on
5 the function of aesthetics. Poetics and rhetoric (like music and dance) 49
6 both – and rather traditionally – fall under the heading of ‘beautiful’ or
7 ‘oral arts’; they are to be distinguished from the ‘creative arts’ (drawing,
8 painting, the art of etching, sculpture, stone-carving, architecture and
9 horticulture).50 The detailed characterisation of poetry is more surpris-
10 ing.51 Eschenburg recognises only two genres: the epic and the dramat-
11 ic, which are divided by the criterion of speech. In epic poetry (which
12 includes lyric poetry) the poet speaks himself; in dramatic poetry, in-
13 vented characters talk.52 Epic poetry in itself includes differentiations:
14 ‘A poem is therefore an act of speech which gives the ideas that it de-
15 notes the highest and most functional degree of sensible force.’53 Poetry
16 and prose can be distinguished as regards, firstly, the level of sentiments
17 expressed, secondly, form (verse vs. non verse), thirdly, the rhetorical
18
use of words and phrases and fourthly, the purposes of poetry. In con-
19
trast to poetry which aims at the entertainment of fantasy, prose aims at
20
the persuasion of reason and will through clarity, correctness and thor-
21
oughness of thought.54
22
23
das Studium des menschlichen Herzens; und haben dabey den wohlthätigsten
24 Einfluß auf das Herz; verfeinern das moralische Gefühl, und machen uns zur
25 Ausübung unsrer Pflichten williger und geneigter.”
26 49 Eschenburg possessed an impressive library on music and dance and served as a
27 mediator in both fields; Laurenz Lütteken: Die musikalische Bibliothek Johann
Joachim Eschenburgs: Ein Rekonstruktionsversuch. In: Das achtzehnte Jahr-
28
hundert 20 (1996) 1, pp. 45 – 72.
29 50 Eschenburg (fn. 40), p. 5.
30 51 Georg Jäger: Das Gattungsproblem in der Ästhetik und Poetik von 1780 bis
31 1850. In: Zur Literatur der Restaurationsepoche, ed. by Jost Herman and
32 Manfred Windfuhr. Stuttgart: Metzler 1970, pp. 371 404, p. 374 f.
52 Eschenburg’s Beispielsammlung corresponds this differentiation to a large ex-
33
tent; Korte (fn. 43).
34 53 Eschenburg (fn. 40), p. 35: “Ein Gedicht ist folglich eine Rede, welche den
35 Vorstellungen, die sie bezeichnet, den höchsten und zweckmäßigsten Grad
36 sinnlicher Kraft ertheilt.”
37 54 Ibid., p. 36: “Dieser [Zweck] ist bey der Poesie die mögliche Sinnlichkeit und
Lebhaftigkeit der Vorstellungen, und die Unterhaltung der Phantasie durch die-
38
selben; bey der Prose aber die Klarheit, Bestimmtheit, Richtigkeit und Gründ-
39 lichkeit der Vorstellungen, und die dadurch zu bewirkende Ueberzeugung des
40 Verstandes und Lenkung des Willens.”
1 Other aspects emanate from these distinctions and can be applied to

2 poetry and prose as follows from their purpose:
3 ‘Poetic genius consists predominantly of those abilities of the soul
4 which require an end in itself: a ready receptiveness for sensual impres-
5 sions, a lively and strong emotion, a vivid and productive imagination,
6 combined with a mature ability of judgement and taste.’55
7 The abilities of the poet have to be adjusted according to the pur-
8 pose of his writing. As far as prose is concerned, it might well be that a
9 high degree of knowledge is required, yet knowledge and rules do not
10 suffice. Eschenburg quotes Horace “natura fieret laudabile carmen an
11 arte”,56 and points to Shakespeare whom he edited and defended against
12 Voltaire.57
13 The same ‘functional view’ is true for poetic matter. It comprises
14
‘every object which is capable of the sensibly perfect presentation
15
through speech’.58 As the new poetic matter, if carefully measured, chal-
16
lenges the aesthetical and moral abilities of the recipient, it is to be re-
17
garded highly. Consequently and together with Henry Home and Rie-
18
del’s Theorie der schçnen Knste, Eschenburg praises the new: ‘Pleasing
19
and touching to the senses is also the new, unexpected and unusual.’59
20
Eschenburg’s book soon reached a canonical status among German
21
aesthetical treatises; yet fifty years after its publication it had to face criti-
22
23
cism. As a consequence, Moritz Eduard Pinder (1807 – 1871), a famous
24
Berlin philologist and librarian, in 1836 rewrites the Entwurf in favour of
25
classificatory and idealizing elements. Eschenburg’s morals have been
26
27 55 Ibid., p. 39: “Poetisches Genie besteht in einem vorzüglichen Maasse derjeni-
gen Seelenfähigkeiten, welche die Erreichung des Endzwecks erfordert: in
28
einer behenden Empfänglichkeit sinnlicher Eindrücke, in einem lebhaften
29 und starken Gefühl, in einer reichen und fruchtbaren Einbildungskraft, verbun-
30 den mit reifer Beurteilung und Geschmack.”
31 56 Ibid., p. 41; Horaz: Sämtliche Werke. Lateinisch und deutsch, ed. by Hans
32 Färber, Munich: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1993, v. 408, p. 568.
57 On this dispute and its influence on the German literary public see Anneliese
33
Klingenberg: Leipzigs Stimme im Streit Eschenburgs mit Voltaire. In: Von
34 der Elbe bis an die Seine: Kulturtransfer zwischen Sachsen und Frankreich
35 im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by Michel Espagne, Matthias Middell. Leipzig:
36 Universitätsverlag 1993 (Deutsch-Französische Kulturbibliothek 1), pp. 117 –
37 123.
58 Eschenburg (fn. 40), p. 36: “Poetischer Stoff ist daher jeder Gegenstand, welch-
38
er der sinnlich vollkommenen Darstellung durch die Rede fähig ist.”
39 59 Ibid., p. 22: “Ergötzend und rührend für die Sinne ist ferner das Neue, Uner-
40 wartete, und Ungewöhnliche.”
1 made a mockery of, claims Pinder. In turn, Pinder focuses on the de-
2 scription of genre and the relation of the arts, simplifying, but also en-
3 riching, the text. A simplifying example can be seen in Pinder’s treat-
4 ment of the explanation of aesthetics Eschenburg derives from Baum-
5 garten and Meier. Eschenburg (according to Pinder’s revision) reduces
6 aesthetics to the explanation of the ‘theory of the beautiful arts of
7 speech’ that is part of a ‘doctrine of the art as such’.60 In contrast to
8 this, Pinder himself adds new sources, e. g. Blair’s Lectures on Rhetoric
9 and Belles Lettres (1783), Gotthilf Samuel Steinbart’s Grundbegriffe zur
10 Philosophie ber den Geschmack (1785), Karl Philipp Moritz’ ber die bil-
11 dende Nachahmung des Schçnen (1788), Bouterwek’s Aesthetik (1806,
2
12 1815), Friedrich W.J. Schelling’s Ueber das Verhltnis der bildenden
13 Knste zu der Natur (1808), Giovanni Battista Talia’s Saggio di Estetica
14 (1822), Luigi Pasquali’s Istituzioni di Estetica (1827), Kant’s Critique of
15 Judgement and Hegel’s lecture on ‘belles lettres’ (edition by the art histor-
16 ian Heinrich Gustav Hotho, Berlin 1835).61 The result of Pinder’s at-
17 tentive reception of contemporary aesthetics and poetics is twofold:
18 firstly, it leads to an aesthetics of autonomy which considerably changes
19 Eschenburg’s original attempt. As Pinder claims, poetic art is ‘a free ex-
20 pression of an ideal object present in mind which arises from an inborn
21 drive’.62 Secondly, the claim of autonomy becomes applicable to the
22 genre theory, in this case the distinction of poetry and prose: whilst po-
23 etry is said to be autonomous art which has its purpose in itself, prose is
24 judged as expressive art which aims at teaching, enlightening and per-
25 suading reason.63
26 Yet these new tendencies of aesthetical thinking were soon to be
27 surpassed. As Sulzer’s case shows, the new critical regime of Weimar
28 and Jena was poised to take over aesthetical issues.64 In contrast to
29
30 60 Johann Joachim Eschenburg: Entwurf einer Theorie und Litteratur der schönen
31 Redekünste. 5th, fully corr. ed. by Moritz Pinder. Berlin: Nicolai 1836, p. 1.
32 61 On Hotho Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert: Heinrich Gustav Hotho: Kunst als
Bildungserlebnis und Kunsthistorie in systematischer Absicht – oder entpoliti-
33
sierte Version der ästhetischen Erziehung des Menschen. In: Kunsterfahrung
34 und Kulturpolitik im Berlin Hegels, ed. by A.G.-S. and Otto Pöggeler.
35 Bonn: Bouvier 1983, pp. 229 – 261.
36 62 Eschenburg/Pinder (fn. 60), p. 23: “[Dichtkunst ist] eine freie, aus innerem
37 Drange hervorgehenden Entäusserung eines im Geiste vorhandenen idealen
Gegenstandes […].”
38
63 Ibid., p. 24: “[…] dahingegen Poesie ihren Zweck in sich trägt, um ihrer selbst
39 willen da ist.”
40 64 See Paulin (fn. 43), pp. 52 f, pp. 64 f.
1 these tendencies whose representatives claimed to be more innovative

2 than their predecessors, Eberhard and Engel adhered to the old poetic
3 and popular traditions of thinking, modifying them slightly. Eberhard
4 studied theology in Pietist Halle, became a teacher and pastor in Halber-
5 stadt and later in Berlin. In 1778, he was appointed professor of philos-
6 ophy at Halle University (succeeding Georg Friedrich Meier on Chris-
7 tian Wolff’s chair). He became a member of the Berlin academy (1786),
8 published literature as well as philosophical treatises and edited several
9 philosophical journals (Philosophisches Magazin, 1788 – 1792; Philoso-
10 phisches Archiv, 1793 – 1795). As Schleiermacher’s teacher and as a friend
11 of Lessing, Friedrich Nicolai and Mendelssohn, Eberhard was critical of
12 Kant and August Wilhelm Schlegel.
13 Eberhard’s critique of Kant amounted to a famous dispute.65 In
14 1788, Eberhard publicly attacked Kant, claiming that transcendental
15 philosophy had already been included in Leibniz’s system, the argument
16 being weak but provocative. As a consequence, many contemporaries
17 engaged in the debate which gives an interesting insight, not only
18 into the long history of Leibnizian and Wolffian thought, but also
19
into the history of the universities: it might well be that Eberhard’s
20
main reason for attacking Kant was not the heritage of Leibniz’s system,
21
but the reputation, as well as the financial situation, of his own institu-
22
tion – unlike up-and-coming Jena, Halle was losing students and tuition
23
fees.66
24
In the field of aesthetics, Eberhard gives a more positive and less po-
25
lemical impression. Already in his Theorie der schçnen Knste und Wissen-
26
schaften (1783) he displays some astonishing knowledge about the least
27
known treatises on the issue. He even mentions forgotten works by
28
the Swiss scholar Jean Pierre de Crousaz (Trait du Beau, 1714) and
29
by the French writer Yves-Marie André (Essay sur le Beau, 1759),
30
31
both of whom had nothing to do with Leibniz or Wolff.67 Crousaz,
32
65 On the dispute see the recent publications by Manfred Gawlina: Das Medusen-
33
haupt der Kritik: Die Kontroverse zwischen Immanuel Kant und Johann Au-
34 gust Eberhard. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 1996. See also the new edition of
35 the material which is criticized for its low quality in many areas: Marion
36 Lauschke and Manfred Zahn (eds): Immanuel Kant: Der Streit mit Johann Au-
37 gust Eberhard. Hamburg: Meiner 1998 (Philosophische Bibliothek 481); Mi-
chael Oberhausen: [rev. of Lauschke, Zahn]. In: Kant-Studien 92 (2001) 2,
38
pp. 249 – 254.
39 66 Oberhausen (fn. 65), p. 254.
40 67 See Richter: Unsichere Schönheit? (fn. 25).
1 on the contrary, opted for an aesthetics grounded in natural theology, an

2 approach that is contradictory to Wolff and therefore ignored even by
3 Sulzer who should have known Crousaz’s work.
4 Eberhard combines both accounts, the Wolffian and the natural the-
5 ologist one. He bridged the gap between the two approaches with the
6 help of the concept of perfection, used by Wolff as well as by Crousaz.
7 The latter argues that nature, as well as artistic beauty, is perfect as God
8 is responsible for both. Eberhard adopts this point of view but deletes
9 the religious context: according to him, it is the purpose of the beautiful
10 arts to promote aesthetic pleasure. This, in turn, originates in the obser-
11 vation of perfection, of a perfect work of art which enables us to observe
12 our own perfection.68 It is not by mere accident that Wolff’s theoretical
13 reflection on the ‘analogon rationis’, sensual perception, is added to the
14 picture: the beautiful arts are responsible for establishing ‘sensually per-
15 fect knowledge’ (“sinnlich vollkommene Erkenntniß”).69 Furthermore,
16 Eberhard takes in ambitious romanticism when focusing on literature
17 and defining the poem as ‘sensually perfect speech’ (“sinnlich vollkom-
18 mene Rede”),70 an expansion of the traditional 18th-century concept of
19 the poem that differs only a little from that of the brothers Schlegel.
20 It fits well into this pre-romantic, or rather late-enlightened, picture,
21 that Eberhard’s systematically ambitious Theorie, his Handbuch der Aesthe-
22 tik fr gebildete Leser aus allen Stnden (1803), serves as a popular aesthetics
23 in the form of letters. Daughter Lady Drivers writes to her father, Sire
24 Rößler. Eberhard aims at creating an intimate and noble atmosphere al-
25 though the book addresses a wider audience: all those citizens who en-
26 joyed a thorough and privileged education taught themselves in the cir-
27 cles of well-read persons and collected some knowledge in foreign and
28 old literature.71 Forming literary circles, literary knowledge and more or
29 less close contact to educated people plays a huge role in Eberhard’s
30 concept of aesthetic ‘Bildung’. In addition to this, Eberhard argues
31 that Germany is a culturally retarded nation: Germans do not have
32 such a distinguished national taste as the French, the Italians and the
33 English, and it is not by mere accident that daughter Drivers compiles
34
35 68 Johann August Eberhard: Theorie der schönen Künste und Wissenschaften
36 zum Gebrauche seiner Vorlesungen. 3rd corr. ed. Halle: Waisenhaus 1790, p.
37 14, § 14.
69 Ibid., pp. 3 f, § 5.
38
70 Ibid., pp. 161, § 142.
39 71 Johann August Eberhard: Handbuch der Aesthetik für gebildete Leser aus allen
40 Ständen. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum 1972 (Athenäum Reprints), p. III.
1 her letters during a winter journey. She saw many theatre plays and
2 wishes to learn how to judge them.
3 The fictional occasion is concrete and embedded in particular social
4 circumstances: daughter Drivers wants to prove herself worthy of cul-
5 tivated company such as her British husband. Yet she does not ask
6 her husband himself but her German father, still the authority in the
7 area of art. The communicative situation proves this interpretation: fa-
8 ther Rößler adopts an almost Socratic position – he asks questions, wait-
9 ing for his daughter to answer, whilst being himself however the stron-
10 ger partner in the discussion.
11 In order to inform her about basic material he tells her about his
12 method and comes up with an astonishing argument: he attacks German
13 philosophy but confirms some of its principles. According to the father,
14 German philosophers move around in ‘empty rooms of speculation’ and
15 do not set up clear criteria in order to evaluate works of art.72 In contrast
16 to them, Jean-François de La Harpe in his Lyce ou Cours de Littrature
17 ancienne et moderne (16 vols., Paris 1799 – 1805) and Johnson in his
18 The Lives of the English Poets provide accounts which are far better for
19 use in criticism. Unlike in Eschenburg’s work, foreign aesthetics not
20 only form an important source from which one might wish to borrow
21
but they also become authoritative. Yet father Rößler legitimates his
22
view with a classical German premise which is reminiscent of Baum-
23
garten: ‘that the principles of aesthetics have the same degree of evi-
24
dence as the principles of other sciences’;73 reason lies in the pre-exis-
25
tence of its objects which now need to be explained, e. g. the sky was
26
there before astronomy and so was beauty before the invention of aes-
27
thetics. Although a work of art is not a natural fact but a human artefact,
28
an artist was not allowed, nor able, to take more than appropriate liber-
29
ties in creating it. Therefore, every work of art is governed by nature,
30
reason and value.
31
It is not so much a moral but a didactical purpose which is attributed
32
to art: Sulzer’s dictionary was ‘well-intentioned but unaesthetical’,74
33
overburdened with moral reflections and the incorrect attempt to re-
34
duce art to morals. Rather, art should demonstrate humanity in all social
35
36
classes through ‘refinement of the mind and the heart’,75 not by the
37
72 Ibid., pp. 10 f.
38
73 Ibid., pp. 17 – 19.
39 74 Ibid., p. 289: “gutgemeint[], aber unästhetisch.”
40 75 Ibid., p. 39.
1 ‘prodesse’ of the sciences but with the help of the ‘delectare’. This elab-
2 oration seems to constitute a move away from Eberhard’s morals, yet it
3 turns out that it fits nicely with the Wolffian adherent Eberhard who in
4 his Sittenlehre der Vernunft (1781) argues in favour of a moral, ontolog-
5 ically grounded ideal of human perfectibility.76
6 The proof for the closeness of the Sittenlehre and the Handbuch is
7 given by Rößler’s reaction to an intervention by Lady Drivers’ husband.
8 Being British, the husband adopts a type of Burkian view and advocates
9 strength, greatness as well as the sublime when it comes to ways in
10 which aesthetic sentiments can be evoked. Rößler disagrees, stressing
11 the difference between a sublime aesthetics and aesthetical morality (“äs-
12 thetische Sittlichkeit”).77 According to Rößler (and again, it seems as if
13 he defends Eberhard’s point of view) the sublime is a most problematic
14 category as it can be caused by horrifying events and terrible ‘plays’ of
15 nature, floods or earthquakes. According to Rößler, aesthetic morality
16 allows only limited degrees of strength and greatness. He wishes to high-
17 light the cultivating effect of pleasure: ‘the interest [in the arts] has
18 reached its peak where pleasure is the most vivid.’78 It is astonishing
19 how far Rößler’s argument corresponds to post-Burkian British aesthet-
20 ics: Kames as well as Gerard address themselves to a young and female
21 audience; they express their doubts about the concept of the sublime
22 and argue in favour of sympathetic imitation.79
23 Having discussed Eschenburg and Eberhard, Engel’s Poetik reads as if
24 its author aims at developing both approaches further. As was common
25 at the time, Engel studied theology, and received his Doctorate from
26
Rostock University. In 1766, he, like Eschenburg, was appointed as a
27
‘Hofmeister’ in Leipzig where he enrolled again, this time for history,
28
law and languages. Having acquired some reputation he received a pro-
29
fessorship at the famous Joachimsthaler Gymnasium in Berlin where
30
Sulzer had lectured and became the teacher of the brothers Humboldt
31
at the same time. Engel, however, did not pursue academia only:
32
33
76 Friedrich Vollhardt: Die Kritik der anthropologischen Begründung barocker
34 Staatsphilosophie in der deutschen Literatur des 18. Jahrhunderts ( J.M. v.
35 Loën und J.A. Eberhard). In: Europäische Barock-Rezeption, ed. by Klaus
36 Garber in relation to Ferdinand van Ingen, Wilhelm Kühlmann, Wolfgang
37 Weiß. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1991 (Wolfenbütteler Arbeiten zur BarockACHTUNGREfor-
ACHTUNGREschung 20), part 1, pp. 377 – 395, pp. 394 f.
38
77 Eberhard (fn. 71), pp. 251 – 285.
39 78 Ibid, p. 421.
40 79 Harkin (fn. 5), p. 176.
1 from 1787 to 1794 he served as a director of Berlin’s court theatre, be-

2 came a member of the Berlin academy, wrote literature and collaborated
3 with Friedrich Nicolai’s Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek. In addition to
4 this, he enjoyed friendships with the painter Adam Friedrich Oeser
5 and Goethe.
6 Engel’s poetological attempt is twofold: he aims at establishing a na-
7 tional poetics which serves as a guide to national taste, and, in order to
8 provide such a guide, he avoids the wish to write another new aesthetic
9 treatise focusing instead on genre theory and limiting his efforts to the
10 area of poetics. The reason for this twofold attempt lies in the deficits
11 Eschenburg and Eberhard had remarked on earlier: there is a methodo-
12 logical, as well as a historical, need to provide such a poetological guide
13 which defines clear concepts, designed to be applied in criticism. Con-
14 temporary criticism, so Engel’s premise goes, is nothing but subjective.
15 As a consequence, Engel writes about a duty he fulfils, the duty to give
16 an introduction to ‘the tasteful lecture of the best national poets’ in
17 order to train mind and taste by reading and evaluating works written
18 in the mother tongue.80
19 The addressees of Engel’s Poetik are students, not the whole educat-
20 ed public as in Eschenburg and Eberhard’s works. On the students’ tal-
21 ent and ability the fate of the national culture depends, and their devel-
22 opment, in turn, depends on a strong and vivid national culture as well
23 as on role models. As a result of this education, a young man should be
24 able to express himself in the language of his people and talk ‘correctly
25 and forcefully and acutely’ (“richtig und kräftig und fein”).81 Engel’s
26 ideally educated young man does resemble the traditional ‘homo rhet-
27 oricus’ but has to display some more talent and creativity. He is designed
28 to be ‘a future virtuoso’ (“ein angehender Virtuose”) who learns to de-
29 velop, think and talk from the master, by listening, reading and imitat-
30 ing.82 Engel almost formulates a highly artistic ideal of poetological ed-
31 ucation, focused on the individual and his talents, training by the masters
32 and aiming at useful, but above all, masterly, expression.
33
34
35
36
37
80 Johann Jacob Engel: Poetik. Schriften, 10th part. Reuttlingen: Mäcken 1807,
38
p. IV.
39 81 Ibid.
40 82 Ibid., pp. VIIIf.
1 Still, the method to be applied in the Poetik is to be ‘analytical’ and

2 follows the form of a philosophical lecture:83 Engel expands these gen-
3 eral concepts first and gives examples later. Furthermore, he adheres to
4 Eschenburg’s and Eberhard’s view that poetics is ‘a part torn off from
5 the study of experience’.84 Like Eberhard (and unlike Eschenburg), En-
6 gel’s genre theory is characterised by two basic genres only: the ‘histor-
7 ical’ and ‘pragmatical’ (also termed: ‘narrative’) which comprise drama
8 and epic and lyric poetry. The tertium comparationis of the genres is
9 action, speech being of secondary importance only.
10 Genre theory inspires Engel to move beyond Eschenburg and Eber-
11 hard. Engel vehemently adopts positions also defined by Hugh Blair and
12 later by romanticism, by Novalis and Friedrich Schlegel. They all opt for
13 an enthusiastic and strong understanding of lyric poetry. Engel polemi-
14 cizes against the idea that the outer world is to play a role in the explan-
15 ation of poetry and its genres. According to Engel, lyric poetry cannot
16 be measured in ‘realist’ terms.85 He develops the traditional distinction
17 of poetry and prose further: in contrast to prose which aims at truth, po-
18 etry presents fictional worlds, is richer in forms and expression (meta-
19 phors, tropes) and therefore more ‘advantageous’ (“vorteilhaft”) and
20 ‘gleaming’ (“glänzend”) than prose.86 Poetry attracts attention, enforces
21 impressions, is easier to memorize,87 reaches all gifts of the senses and
22 the mind and flatters the ear, serves the imagination and enables the
23 heart to be inflamed by every kind of emotion.88 In turn, the poetical
24 genius has particular ‘forces of the soul’ (“Seelenkräfte”) and a specific
25 ‘ability to generate ideas of a high degree of vivacity’.89 As a conse-
26 quence, the author of lyric poetry becomes the role model for the stu-
27 dent who is to be trained in a most artistic manner.
28
29
30
31 83 Ibid., p. VII. On Engel’s method see Alexander Košenina: Johann Jakob Engels
32 sokratische Lehrmethode am Joachimsthaler Gymnasium zu Berlin (1776 –
1802). In: Johann Jakob Engel: Philosoph für die Welt, Ästhetiker und Dichter,
33
ed. by A.K. Hannover-Laatzen: Wehrhahn 2005, pp. 189 – 204.
34 84 Engel: Poetik (fn. 80), p. VII: “ein abgerissener Theil der Erfahrungsseelen-
35 lehre”.
36 85 Ibid., p. XII.
37 86 Ibid., pp. 2 – 6.
87 Ibid., p. 7.
38
88 Ibid., p. 11.
39 89 Ibid., p. 16: “Poetisches Genie ist […], die Fähigkeit, Ideen von einem hohen
40 Grade der Lebhaftigkeit hervorzubringen.”
1 To conclude, popular aesthetics offers a wide variety of poetological

2 accounts which differ in regard to their dealings with the Wolff-tradi-
3 tion as well as with moral philosophy. Whilst Sulzer subscribes to the
4 Wolff-tradition in combination with the Scottish Enlightenment,
5 ACHTUNGREEschenburg, Eberhard and Engel move away from Wolff and Baum-
6 garten. Eschenburg still views aesthetics as moral education but refers
7 to British role models, who stress the relevance of the new, as well as
8 the sensitive, function of poetry. In contrast to Eschenburg, Eberhard
9 aims at developing the notion of perfection (as it is in Wolff’s work)
10 and natural theology. Furthermore, being critical of the Burkian sub-
11 lime, Eberhard embraces British aesthetics (Kames, Gerard) as well as
12 an almost pre-romantic concept of poetry. He also invents literary
13 forms. In contrast to both, Engel opts for a refined national literary criti-
14 cism which is grounded on mastership (‘Meisterschaft’). Attempting a
15 guide to taste, he wishes to educate the young literary and critical vir-
16 tuoso who is inspired by a strong concept of poetry.
17 Kant builds on this analysis of taste but criticizes the whole study of
18 aesthetics as conceptually inappropriate. In contrast to him, his succes-
19 sors advocate a harmonization of Kantian and pre-Kantian positions
20 in the popular tradition.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4 2. Transcendental Poetics and Beyond:
5 Immanuel Kant’s Critical Successors (1790 – 1800)
6
7
8
Wilhelm Traugott Krug (1770 – 1842), extraordinary professor of phi-
9
losophy at the University of Frankfurt at Oder, expresses it clearly:
10
Baumgarten was correct in conceiving aesthetics as a science of taste
11
analogous to the philosophical disciplines;1 yet things should not stop
12
there. Kant is to thoroughly revise Baumgarten’s reflections, to reject
13
14
the notion of aesthetics, to focus on the faculty of judgement and the
15
preconditions of judgement – with some reference to beauty, the sub-
16
lime and taste.2 Consequently, Kant’s revolutionary Critique inspires a
17
countless number of works which imitate or disseminate it.
18 Some works are simply designed to deliver an introduction to Kant’s
19 ‘aesthetics’ and will be excluded from the following presentation: Chris-
20 tian Wilhelm Snell (1755 – 1834), former student of Gießen University
21 and later professor at the lyceum in Idstein, was the first to publish a
22 Lehrbuch der Kritik des Geschmacks, mit bestndiger Rcksicht auf die Kanti-
23 sche Kritik der sthetischen Urteilskraft (1795) on Kant’s Critique, a book
24 which was widely used for aesthetic ‘collegia’ at the universities Halle
25 (by Kant expert Ludwig Heinrich Jakob, 1759 – 1827), Leipzig (by
26 the aesthetician Karl Heinrich Heydenreich, 1764 – 1801) and Würz-
27 burg (by Bonaventura Andres, 1744 – 1822).3 Still, Snell’s manual in-
28 cludes astonishing remarks on its addressees: it is neither designed for
29 universities nor for schools but rather for ‘more mature young men’
30
31
32 1 Wilhelm Traugott Krug: Versuch einer Systematischen Enzyklopädie der schö-
nen Künste. Leipzig: Hempel 1802, § 10, p. 33.
33
2 On the “Critique of judgement” see the most recent studies by Gary Benham:
34 Kant and the Ends of Aesthetics. London: Macmillan 2000; Rudolph Gasché:
35 The Idea of Form: Rethinking Kant’s Aesthetics. Stanford: Stanford Univ.
36 Press 2003.
37 3 Thomáš Hlobil: Aesthetics in the Lecture Lists of the Universities of Halle,
Leipzig, Würzburg, and Prague (1785 – 1805). In: Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert
38
29 (2005) 1, pp. 20 – 33; on Heydenreich see also Manfred Frank: Selbstgefühl:
39 Eine historisch-systematische Erkundung. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 2002,
40 pp. 21 f, 179 – 189.
64 2. Transcendental Poetics and Beyond
1 (“reifere Jünglinge”).4 The outstanding characteristics of this audience

2 are announced whilst the institutional aspect of education is ignored en-
3 tirely. Matters of taste cross institutional boundaries because of their na-
4 ture. As if this revolutionary point of view requires authority, Snell re-
5 ports faithfully on Kant’s understanding of beauty as well as on the sub-
6 lime. Snell takes a step back from the master when it comes to the arts.
7 As Kant’s Critique provides only a few remarks on them, Snell aids his
8 argument with Eschenburg’s and Eberhard’s reflections in order to dis-
9 play some knowledge at least on poetry.5
10 Other faithful reporters risk additional deviation from Kant. Chris-
11 tian Friedrich Michaelis (1770 – 1834), for instance, professor of philos-
12 ophy in Leipzig who regularly offered a course on aesthetics,6 in the first
13 part of his Entwurf der Aesthetik, als Leitfaden akademischen Vorlesungen ber
14 Kant’s Kritik der Urtheilskraft (1796), fulfils the tasks of a commentary as
15 well; yet in the second (short) part, he develops some of his own ideas.
16 As Michaelis perceives the same lack of a theory of the arts in Kant as
17 Snell, Michaelis focuses on the theory of the arts, promoting the devel-
18 opment of aesthetics as a philosophical discipline. Therefore, he high-
19 lights the autonomy of literature and contrasts it with rhetoric, rhetoric
20 being regarded as a ‘serious engagement which has an external pur-
21 pose’,7 a distinction which became classical during the late 18th and
22 early 19th centuries.
23 Michaelis’ Entwurf is reminiscent of Karl Philipp Moritz’s ber die
24 bildende Nachahmung des Schçnen (1788): before Kant, Moritz had plead-
25 ed for the purposelessness of art. In contrast to Kant, he claimed that the
26 ‘free play of the imagination’ does not reside in the observing subject
27 but in art itself,8 thereby turning art into metaphysics. Both Moritz
28
29 4 Christian Wilhelm Snell: Lehrbuch der Kritik des Geschmacks mit beständiger
30 Rücksicht auf die Kantische Kritik der ästhetischen Urtheilskraft ausgearbeitet
31 […]. Leipzig: Johann Gottfried Müller 1795, p. II.
32 5 Snell (fn. 4), p. X, passim.
6 Hlobil (fn 3), p. 26.
33
7 Christian Friedrich Michaelis: Entwurf der Aesthetik als Leitfaden bei akademi-
34 schen Vorlesungen über Kant’s Kritik der ästhetischen Urtheilskraft. Augsburg:
35 Späth 1796, p. 34, § 63: Wilhelm Traugott Krug’s “Beredsamkeit” or “Rede-
36 kunst” is deemed to be a “freies Spiel der Einbildungskraft” but “ernsthafte Be-
37 schäftigung […] die ihren bestimmten Zweck ausser sich hat.”
8 Friedrich Vollhardt: Das Kunstwerk als ein “in sich selbst Vollendetes”: Zur
38
Entstehung und Wirkung der Autonomieästhetik in Deutschland. In: Kongreß
39 Junge Kulturwissenschaft und Praxis: Kreativität und Leistung – Wege und Irr-
40 wege der Selbstverwirklichung, ed. by Konrad Adam. Köln 1986 (Veröffentli-
(a) Critical Poetics and Popular Critique 65
1 and Michaelis display thoughts which might have been ‘in the air’ of
2 pre- and post-Kantian Germany: According to Michaelis – who is closer
3 in this respect to Moritz than to Kant – poetry is to be explained as ‘the
4 art to execute a free play of the imagination like a business of mind’,9 the
5 ‘like’ expressing the equality of poetry to the ‘serious business’ of reason.
6 Following Moritz’s thinking and, to some extent, Kant’s, Michaelis le-
7 gitimates the privileged role of poetry through autonomy: the poetic
8 play has its purpose in itself – an understanding of art which has its pred-
9 ecessors in Riedel, as well as in the popular philosopher Johann Gotthelf
10 Lindner (Kurzer Inbegriff der sthetik, Redekunst und Dichtkunst, 1771/
11 2).10 Snell does not go so far. According to him, ‘serious engagement’
12 (“ernsthafte Beschäftigung”) is not the goal of poetry but rather its ‘sec-
13 ondary aim’ (“Nebenzweck”). Poetry serves as a ‘play of sensibility’
14 (“Spiel der Sinnlichkeit”), thereby augmenting reason to some minor
15 extent. Snell opts for a more trivial version of an aesthetics of autonomy.
16 The accounts discussed in the following chapters carry the deviation
17 from Kant further.
18
19
20 (a) Critical Poetics and Popular Critique:
21 Johann Heinrich Gottlob Heusinger (1797)
22
23
In contrast to Eberhard and Engel, Johann Heinrich Gottlob Heusinger,
24
Christian August Heinrich C. Clodius and Joseph Hillebrand rely on
25
Kant to a large extent. Still, they do not follow his transcendental phi-
26
losophy of judgement; they aim at combining popular philosophy with
27
28
chungen der Hanns Martin Schleyer Stiftung 20), pp. 79 – 85, pp. 80 f; Frie-
29 drich Vollhardt: Selbstreferenz im Literatursystem: Rhetorik, Poetik, Ästhetik.
30 In: Literaturwissenschaft, ed. by Jürgen Fohrmann, Harro Müller in collab.
31 with Susanne Landeck. Munich: Fink 1995, pp. 249 – 272, pp. 271 f.
32 9 Michaelis (fn. 7), p. 34, § 64: “Die Dichtkunst lässt sich erklären als die Kunst,
ein freies Spiel der Einbildungskraft wie ein Geschäft des Verstandes auszufüh-
33
ren. Der Dichter gebraucht Worte (den Gedankenausdruck) als Mittel zu sei-
34 nem Zweck, einem unterhaltenden Spiele der Einbildungskraft mit ästhetischen
35 Ideen.” Compare Snell (fn. 4), p. 292, § 128.
36 10 Johann Gotthelf Lindner: Kurzer Inbegriff der Aesthetik, Redekunst und
37 Dichtkunst [1771/1772]. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum 1971 (Athenäum Re-
prints), (2 vols.), 3. ch., §.2., p. 148: “Schön ist, was sinnlich gefällt, und
38
wie Riedel den Zusatz macht, ohne interessirte Absicht, auch dann, wenn
39 wir es nicht besitzen […].”/ ‘Beautiful is that which is sensually pleasing,
40 even if, as Riedel adds accidentally, we do not possess it.’
1 Kant’s new approach, thereby applying aesthetics to literary problems

2 and, of course, risking manifold contradictions.
3 Heusinger (1767 – 1837) received his Dr phil as well as his venia leg-
4 endi from Jena University, becoming a professor at the cadet corps in
5 Dresden in 1807 (until 1831). Among school books, novels and philo-
6 sophical treatises he published a handbook on aesthetics. His Handbuch
7 der Aesthetik (1797) considers Kant’s Critique of Judgement in the first
8 part, while the second part of the Handbuch expands on genre theory
9 in a way which is close to Eberhard and Engel.11 From Sulzer, Heusing-
10 er inherits the moral orientation of popular philosophy. Driven by di-
11 dactical visions comparable to Engel, Heusinger develops a popular aes-
12 thetics for ‘amateurs’ (“Dilettanten”).12 Heusinger examines methods of
13 professional literary critique (as executed by Wieland and Garve), stress-
14 ing that this kind of critique is governed by principles which are not ac-
15 cessible to a general public.13 In turn, Heusinger perceives a lack of prin-
16 ciples amongst the reading public, the amateurs. They should be helped
17 by his Handbuch and be enabled to find criteria for poetic judgement.
18 Heusinger’s ideal readership therefore covers a larger audience than
19 Engel; Heusinger addresses the whole unprofessional reading public.
20 Heusinger provides a critical poetics in favour of true popular cri-
21 tique. He claims to be the first one to publish such a popular aesthetics:
22 ‘The studies of Henry Home, Hugh Blair, du Bos, Pouilly are deemed
23 to be too aphoristic and incoherent to have led to general principles
24 about the pleasurable enjoyment of beauties of art.’14 As a remedy
25 against this critical contingency, Heusinger recommends Kant’s Critique
26 of Judgement. Heusinger to a large extent reports Kant’s ideas: the doc-
27 trine of the differentiation of the beautiful and the sublime, as well as the
28
29
30
31 11 Georg Jäger: Das Gattungsproblem in der Ästhetik und Poetik von 1780 bis
32 1850. In: Zur Literatur der Restaurationsepoche, ed. by Jost Hermand and
Manfred Windfuhr. Stuttgart: Metzler 1970, pp. 371 404, p. 374.
33
12 Johann Heinrich Gottlob Heusinger: Handbuch der Aesthetik oder Grundsätze
34 zur Bearbeitung und Beurtheilung der Werke einer jeden schönen Kunst als der
35 Poesie, Malerei, Bildhauerkunst, Musik, Mimik, Baukunst, Gartenkunst etc.
36 etc. Für Künstler und Kunstliebhaber. 2 parts. Gotha: Perthes 1797, I, p. IV.
37 13 Ibid., I, p. X.
14 Ibid., I, p. XVII: “Die Untersuchungen eines Home, Hugo Blairs, Du Bos,
38
Pouilly, sind aber insgesammt zu aphoristisch und unzusammenhängend, als
39 daß sie auf allgemeine Grundsätze über das Wohlgefallen an Kunstschönheiten
40 führen könnten.”
(a) Critical Poetics and Popular Critique 67
1 differentiation between the judgement of taste and the judgement of art,

2 which requires more than taste.
3 Heusinger, being aware of Kant’s sceptical attitude towards aesthet-
4 ical judgements a priori, applies Kant’s ideas to aesthetics by giving rules
5 for identifying a most pleasing work of art. Thereby he goes far beyond
6 Kant, contradicting his original aim to clarify the conditions of aesthet-
7 ical judgements. However, according to Heusinger, a work of art must
8 fulfil three criteria: firstly, a work of art must be ‘pleasant’ (“ange-
9 nehm”) to the recipient, secondly, the work of art must correspond
10 to the things the artist will present (fulfil the requirements of reason
11 and objectivity, as perfect as possible etc.) and thirdly, a work of art
12 must enhance the ‘morality of one’s mind-set’ (“die Sittlichkeit der Ge-
13 sinnung”).15 In short: ‘perfection, morality and adoptability’ (“Vollkom-
14 menheit, Sittlichkeit und Annehmlichkeit”) are intentionally united in a
15 work, so that they create pleasure, as shown in the Laokoon-sculpture.
16 A long paragraph on the relation of the arts attacks the popular and
17 progressive romantic idea of the superiority of poetry over other arts.
18 According to Heusinger, poetry should be understood in the framework
19 of rhetoric. ‘The poem is a speech that should please’,16 writes Heusing-
20 er, sticking to the tradition of rhetoric. He continues with a classifica-
21 tion of three sub-genres:17 firstly, lyrical poetry which is said to present
22 sentiments (song, ode, hymn, elegy, heroide), secondly, didactical poet-
23 ry which presents concepts (epigram, fable, allegory, satire, didactical
24 poem) and thirdly historical poetry which presents incidents (poetical
25 narrative, novel, heroic poem, dramatical poem). Heusinger also defines
26 criteria to qualify different arts. Amongst these criteria he names the
27 tools to present objects as well as the relevant art’s relation to reality.18
28 Thereby, Heusinger’s aesthetics and poetics still draw on 18th-centu-
29 ry approaches: on moral philosophy, British criticism and Kant. The re-
30 sult is reminiscent of Eschenburg, Eberhard and Engel, yet the transcen-
31 dental reflection develops popular philosophy further. This develop-
32 ment proceeds into early 19th-century speculation through the work
33 of Clodius.
34
35
36
37
15 Ibid., I, pp. 86 – 88.
38
16 Ibid., II, p. 4: “Das Gedicht ist also eine Rede, welche gefallen soll.”
39 17 Ibid., II, pp. 9 – 12.
40 18 Ibid., I, pp. 297 f.
1 (b) Systematical and Empirical Poetics on a Cosmological

2 Basis: Christian August Heinrich C. Clodius (1804)
3
4 Clodius stands in a family tradition of the poetic profession. His father
5 Christian August Clodius was appointed professor of poetics in 1782
6 and was a scholar of the erudite type Goethe tended to parody. In con-
7 trast to his more traditional father, the young Clodius (1772 – 1836) cor-
8 responds to the ideal of an 18th-century genius:19 in 1787 he studied phi-
9 lology, jurisprudence and philosophy (Kant) in Leipzig, published a vol-
10 ume entitled Gedichte (1794), received his venia legendi for a work
11 called De poseos generibus (1795) and became a professor of practical phi-
12 losophy (1810), sporadically teaching aesthetics.20 Clodius translated La-
13 fontaine’s fables (1803), wrote a philosophical novel inspired by Rous-
14 seau (Fedor, der Mensch unter Brgern, 1805) and edited Klopstock’s be-
15 quested papers (1821). Clodius’ philosophical master piece Gott in der
16 Natur, in der Menschengeschichte und im Bewußtsein (1818 – 1822), his
17 long poem on Eros und Psyche (postum 1839) and, last but not least,
18 his Entwurf einer systematischen Poetik (1804) revealed an astonishing phil-
19 osophical development which is typical for early 19th-century thinkers:
20 Clodius started off as a Kantian, became increasingly critical and polem-
21 ical towards Kant’s formalism, opted for a moderate reasonable ‘reli-
22 gionism’ (“Religionismus”),21 regarded religion as being identical with
23 awareness, aimed at restituting physicotheolgy and conceived an histor-
24 icotheology. Kant’s critique of reason was transformed into a limited be-
25 lief in reason which should enable thinkers to pay tribute to the un-
26 bridgeable gap between the ideal and the real – a typical contemporary
27 point of view.
28 In his Entwurf, Clodius soberly states that philosophy omits the em-
29 pirical fields of knowledge. There is a want of ‘fortunate experiments in
30 the empirical’ (“glückliche Experimente im Empirischen”) in order to in-
31 novate.22 Yet he observes a tendency which promises new discoveries:
32 ‘Our poets philosophise and our philosophers become poetical.’23 Phi-
33
34 19 Carl von Prantl: “Clodius, Christian August”. In: Allgemeine Deutsche Bio-
35 ACHTUNGREgraphie, vol. IV, pp. 334 f.
36 20 Hlobil (fn. 3), pp. 24 f.
37 21 Carl von Prantl: “Clodius, Christian August” (fn. 19), p. 335.
22 C.A.H. Clodius: Entwurf einer systematischen Poetik, nebst Collectaneen zu
38
ihrer Ausführung. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel 1804. (2 vols.)
39 23 Ibid., vol. 1., p. IX: “Unsere Dichter philosophieren und unsere Philosophen
40 werden poetisch.”
(b) Systematical and Empirical Poetics on a Cosmological Basis 69
1 losophers use the tacit knowledge of poetry and, in turn, poets make
2 creative use of philosophical ideas. Still, this tendency represents only
3 a preliminary stage of the kind of poetics Clodius wishes to propose:
4 his poetics aims at a combination of ideal philosophical principles a pri-
5 ori, with the proofs a posteriori from ‘Erfahrungsseelenlehre’ and poet-
6 ry. The Entwurf is to be understood as the first of numerous 19th-century
7 attempts to formulate such an idea: inheriting Baumgarten’s and Meier’s
8 concept of poetics and aesthetics incorporated into rational psychology,
9 Sulzer’s, Eschenburg’s, Eberhard’s and Engel’s various ways of connect-
10 ing ‘Erfahrungsseelenlehre’ and poetics, poetics now becomes part of a
11 transcendental, as well as an emerging empirical, psycho-philosophy
12 ( Johann Friedrich Herbart).
13 The Entwurf unfolds this revised connection of poetics, psychology
14 and philosophy: dealing with general poetics in the first book, Clodius
15 expands on beauty, language and genre as well as on the relation of po-
16 etry and poetics. His second book focuses on special poetics, which
17 means genre theory. This distinction of two poetological books finds
18 many imitators throughout the 19th century. One result of the genre-re-
19 lated part is a relevant contribution to the genre of the opera. It is val-
20 uable in two aspects: firstly, Clodius emerges as one of the many con-
21 tributors who highlight the notion of the ‘romantique’ in music theory;
22 secondly, his reflections prove that the opera is still viewed as a mixed
23 genre involving literature and music (and not as the execution of ‘abso-
24 lute music’).24
25 Clodius’ system is based on the idea of beauty which he, rather as-
26 sociatively, following Confucian cosmogony (the division of two prin-
27 ciple forces called yin and yang), Pythagoras’ vision of a fourfold source
28 of nature and Kant’s categories,25 divides into two, four and eight pic-
29 tures. They are said to have a wonderful relation to the four ideas of rea-
30 son and forces of the soul. Through this combination, Clodius displays
31 his systematic, yet slightly obscure creativity. He aims at reconciling en-
32 lightenment with rising mysticism by securing the fruits of the enlight-
33
34
35
36
37 24 Ulrich Tadday: Christian August Heinrich Clodius’ “Entwurf einer systemati-
schen Poetik” von 1804 und die Anfänge einer Ästhetik der romantischen
38
Oper. In: Die Musikforschung 51 (1998), pp. 25 – 33, p. 33.
39 25 Baronin Wolff (ed.): Die Goldenen Verse des Pythagoras. Munich-Planegg:
40 Barth 1926.
1 enment and awakening ‘the mood for devotion in the minds’ (“Stim-
2 mung zur Andacht in den Gemütern”).26
3 At the peak of the system stands an ‘absolutely necessary real being’
4 (“absolut notwendige[s] reale[s] Wesen”) also called God. This being el-
5 evates man and forces him by a ‘natural drive’ (“Naturtrieb”) to act in a
6 way that makes him recognize his existence.27 As a consequence, action
7 and existence gain a higher purpose. Ideality can be seen as ‘a notion-less
8 purposefulness’ (“begrifflose Zweckmäßigkeit”) – an experience of the
9 divine, of religious belief which is more or less cosmological.28 In turn,
10 this cosmological religion guarantees the truth of the whole system: it
11 allows man to interpret the world in a philosophical and scientific
12 way. Belief is but a striving for ‘aesthetical evidence’ (“ästhetische Evi-
13 denz”) of the wisely ordered world.29
14 It follows that it is reflexivity which attributes man a most important
15 place on earth: he is different from animals because he perceives himself
16 as a part of God’s nature, thereby emancipating himself from nature or
17 pure instinct and embracing awareness. Art is a practice which recogniz-
18 es this capability. Two types of art express different degrees of aware-
19 ness: ‘conditional art’ (“bedingte Kunst”) and ‘unconditional’ (“unbedingte
20 Kunst”) or free art.30 The latter is most interesting as it is through free art
21 that the artist or genius penetrates the frontiers of his individual nature
22 and realizes the ideal. Poetry is such a free or ‘playing art’ (“spielende
23 Kunst”) – as Clodius claims with Moritz and Michaelis in mind, with-
24 out, of course, naming them.31 Yet Clodius combines the notion of po-
25 etry which is autonomous in itself with the subject-centred account in
26 Schiller’s letters ber die sthetische Erziehung des Menschen (1795): Each
27 ‘unconditional’ action is regarded as an autonomous play that is, accord-
28 ing to Schiller, characterised by a unifying, law-giving spirit, far detach-
29 ed from the sphere of the bare necessities.32
30
31
32
26 Clodius (fn. 22), vol. 1, p. XIV.
33
27 Ibid., p. XV.
34 28 Ibid., p. XVIII.
35 29 Ibid., p. XVIII.
36 30 Ibid., I. ch., § 2, p. 5.
37 31 Ibid., § 2, p. 6, fn. 2.
32 Friedrich Schiller: Über die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen in einer Reihe
38
von Briefen (27th letter). In: F. Sch.: Werke und Briefe in zwölf Bänden, ed.
39 by Otto Dann et al., Frankfurt a. M.: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag 1992, vol. 8,
40 pp. 667 – 676.
(b) Systematical and Empirical Poetics on a Cosmological Basis 71
1 Still, Clodius adheres to the transformation of poetry into metaphy-

2 sics. This follows from the emphatic concept of poetry as a ‘creative art’
3 (“schöpferische Kunst”).33 Clodius describes poetry as non-mimetical,
4 meaning that it does not imitate something that previously existed.34
5 Guided by some primitive popular criticism of Aristotle, Clodius attacks
6 the Greek philosopher, claiming that he was wrong in declaring mimesis
7 as poetry’s principle; according to Clodius, mimesis is only a rudimen-
8 tary beginning of art.35 As in many 19th-century theories of poetics,
9 rhetoric is disqualified as a non-free, mimetical art, whereas poetry is
10 said to produce the ideal through the creative use of language. Poetry
11 goes beyond the more mimetical arts as it presents the ‘creative force’
12 (“schaffende Kraft”) itself.36
13 This emphatic notion of poetry also calls for a clear distinction be-
14 tween the object and its theory: poetics as it is abstracted from existing
15 works of poetry. ‘Poetics is theory of poetry in general and of the indi-
16 vidual genres in particular, simultaneously the epitome of rules that are
17 to be prohibited for poetical works […].’37 Poetics classifies poetry but
18 not only that. It also provides norms and rules which may guide the
19 writer. This claim, however, does not lead back to a ‘poetics of rules’
20 (‘Regelpoetik’); rules are to be understood as hypotheses from rational
21 psychology. It follows that these rules are not strict rules but rather neg-
22 ative statements on what to do (e. g. how to use language) and what to
23 avoid (e. g. thinking in an inconsistent way). The creator-type poet is
24 thought of in the same way.
25 It is the task of the aesthetic philosopher to explain whether or not a
26
poetic work fulfils its duties. He has to investigate the relation of beauty
27
to every spiritual force and examine the characteristics of beauty, as well
28
as the essence of beauty and its necessary sub-genres.38 The goal of free
29
art is to realise the ideal beauty that can never be attained.39 Therefore,
30
the aesthetic philosopher informs his audience about the degrees of
31
beauty that can be achieved theoretically or that are realised in a con-
32
33
33 Clodius (fn. 22), vol. 1, I. ch., § 2, p. 6, fn. 3.
34 34 Ibid., § 2, p. 6, fn. 3.
35 35 Ibid., § 2, p. 8, fn. 6.
36 36 Ibid., § 3, p. 14.
37 37 Ibid., § 5, p. 34: “Poetik ist Theorie der Poesie überhaupt und der einzelnen
Dichtungsarten insbesondere, zugleich ein Inbegriff verbietender Regeln für
38
die poetischen Kunstwerke […].”
39 38 Ibid., II. ch., § 9, p. 215.
40 39 Ibid., § 2, p. 36.
1 crete work of art: the ‘lower beauty’ (“niedere Schöne”) which refers to
2 the sensitive man who feels the ideality of nature and turns to grace, the
3 naive, the lovely.40 In contrast to this and similar to Kant’s thought,
4 ‘higher beauty’ (“höhere Schöne”) occurs if man harmonizes spirit
5 and nature in sublime art.41
6 Like Heusinger, Clodius combines ‘Erfahrungsseelenlehre’ and tran-
7 scendental philosophy. In contrast to Heusinger, he advocates a strong
8 idea of poetry which is marked by the notions ‘free play’ and ‘uncondi-
9 tional’. Furthermore, Clodius aims to make poetological thinking sacred
10 again by adopting the cosmological speculation current at the time. The
11 latter tendency was soon to be reversed by a man who was destined for
12 the priesthood: Joseph H. Hillebrand (1788 – 1871).42
13
14
15 (c) Towards a Realistic Poetics: Joseph Hillebrand (1827)
16
17 With the support of the local government, Hillebrand studied classics
18 and oriental languages in Göttingen, acted as a priest and teacher in Hil-
19 desheim and converted to Protestantism because of disagreement with
20 his church’s dogma. Like so many of his colleagues he was appointed
21 ‘Hofmeister’; he also received a chair in philosophy at Heidelberg Uni-
22 versity as Hegel had left for Berlin. In 1822, Hillebrand moved to Gie-
23 ßen to take up the responsibilities of a chair as well as the directorship of
24
the ‘Gymnasium’. In 1847, this popular teacher and colleague was elect-
25
ed to become a liberal member (and soon president) of the political
26
chamber of Hessia. Therefore, he was dispensed from his academic of-
27
fice and forced to retire.
28
Although his writings tend towards schematic orders and use some
29
capricious terminology, they are inspiring and idealist. Among his pub-
30
lications are the Germanikus (1817) on leading personalities of the
31
Roman Empire, Ueber Deutschlands National-Bildung (1818) as well as a
32
treaty on education, idealist novels (Eugenius Severus, 1819; Paradies
33
und Welt, 1822) and elaborations on the history of literature (Aesthetica
34
literaria classica, 1828; Die deutsche Nationalliteratur seit dem Anfange des 18.
35
36
Jahrhunderts besonders seit Lessing bis auf die Gegenwart, 1845, 21850,
37
40 Ibid., § 6, p. 65.
38
41 Ibid.
39 42 Carl von Prantl: Hillebrand, Joseph H. In: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie,
40 vol. XII, pp. 415 – 417.
(c) Towards a Realistic Poetics: Joseph Hillebrand (1827) 73
3
1 1875). Furthermore, Hillebrand’s philosophical writings provide inter-
2 esting information on the system of knowledge relevant at the time in-
3 cluding pneumatics, cosmology, somatology, anthropology and cultural
4 history. Propdeutik der Philosophie (1819), Grundriß der Logik (1820), Die
5 Anthropologie als Wissenschaft (1822) and Universalphilosophische Prolegome-
6 na (1830) represent a position which arbitrates between Hegel and Her-
7 bart’s psychologism.
8 Hillebrand’s Lehrbuch der Literar-Aesthetik (1827) is conceived as an
9 academic poetics, addressing university teachers as well as students. It
10 is derived from lectures on general and literary aesthetics Hillebrand
11 had given over ten years. Like Clodius, Hillebrand distinguishes general
12 from special poetics; in contrast to Clodius he also expands on rhetoric
13 and style. Less original than Clodius, Hillebrand claims that the main
14 task of literary aesthetics or poetics (or, in the broad sense, theory of
15 the beautiful arts of rhetoric) is the scientific observation of the beautiful
16 as it is expressed in language and speech. In his definition of the beau-
17 tiful and its application to poetry lies Hillebrand’s original achievement
18 and, through this definition and its application, he becomes a forerunner
19 of realism.
20 The beautiful can be, according to Hillebrand, evaluated from two
21
different angles: firstly, it can be judged formally, referring to its ‘ability
22
to provide pleasure’ (“Wohlgefälligkeit”), ‘ability to be observed’ (“An-
23
schaubarkeit”) and ‘harmony’ (“Harmonie”). The criterion of harmony
24
is restricted to characteristics which correspond to ‘manifoldness, unity,
25
proportion, […] regularity’ (“Mannichfaltigkeit, Einheit, Verhältnismä-
26
ßigkeit […], Regelmäßigkeit”).43 Secondly, beauty can be measured ac-
27
cording to its ‘aesthetical effect’ (“ästhetischer Effekt”), be it the ‘vital-
28
isation of feeling’ (“Belebung des Gefühls”), the ‘engagement of the
29
mind’ (“Beschäftigung des Verstandes”), the ‘engagement of imagina-
30
tion’ (“Beschäftigung der Einbildungskraft”) or the ‘arousing of the
31
consciousness of reasonable and higher independent action’ (“Erwe-
32
ACHTUNGREckung des Bewußtseyns vernünftiger und höherer Freythätigkeit”).44
33
Despite the fact that all beauty strives towards the metaphysical and
34
ideal, it needs a realistic grounding: ‘Every beauty must have its basis
35
36
in some reality.’45 The reason for this is the claim that truth is an essential
37
43 Joseph Hillebrand: Lehrbuch der Literar-Aesthetik. Mainz: Kupferberg 1827,
38
(2 vols.), vol. 1, §§ 4 – 6, pp. 5 – 7.
39 44 Ibid., §§ 7 – 11, pp. 8 – 10.
40 45 Ibid., § 23, p. 19.
1 criterion for beauty; arbitrary and abstract depictions cannot be beauti-

2 ful.
3 Yet the relations of beauty and reality can be manifold. Amongst the
4 legitimate relations are the sublime as Kant describes it, ‘grace’ (“An-
5 muth”), ‘the naïve’ (“das Naive”) and ‘the moving’ (“das Rührende”).46
6 In contrast to Clodius, Hillebrand does not recognise a distinction be-
7 tween ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ beauty; he appreciates all its expressions.
8 The definition of poetry is modified according to these claims and
9 features. Among the more common-sensical notions is the idea that
10 the literary arts have ‘a word-language’ (“Wortsprache”) as their medi-
11 um of expression and can therefore express the conditions, as well as the
12 development, of the ‘inner nature’ (“innere Natur”) of men.47 The new
13 aspects again contain the claim that art has to refer to reality: ‘Poetry in
14
general is the creative reincarnation of the real, that is free individual
15
presentation of an ideal built according to the elements of reality.’48
16
In contrast to Clodius who states that poetry is but a mere creation of
17
the new, Hillebrand argues in favour of a recombination of elements al-
18
ready given in reality. There is no such thing as a first and unique cre-
19
ation in poetry. On the contrary, firstly, poetry must be linked to an ob-
20
ject, be it a feeling or a scene of life. Secondly, poetry must correlate
21
content and form as perfectly as possible. Thirdly, poetry has to illustrate
22
23
reality through a vivid and free expression. Fourthly, ‘the essence of po-
24
etry is not concerned with its purpose’ (“Dem Wesen der Poesie ist ihr
25
Zweck gleich”).49 And this purpose is to stimulate and enrich spiritual
26
and psychological life. This type of poetry strives for the expression of
27 the ideal through realism.
28 To conclude, through the work of Kant’s successors in transcenden-
29 tal philosophy, popular aesthetics was reimported into poetics. Kant’s
30 philosophy of judgement became a practical doctrine which provided
31 definitions of poetry either within the framework of rhetoric (Heusing-
32 er) or beyond it, adopting the contemporaneous anti-mimetic aesthetics
33 of autonomy (Clodius, Schiller), making poetics sacred again (Clodius)
34 or considering an almost realist point of view (Hillebrand). Further-
35
36 46 Ibid., §§ 19 – 21, pp. 14 f.
37 47 Ibid., § 64, p. 49.
48 Ibid., § 124, p. 91: “Poesie überhaupt ist schöpferische Wiedergeburt des Wir-
38
klichen, also freie individualisierende Darstellung eines nach den Elementen der
39 Wirklichkeit gebildeten Ideals.”
40 49 Ibid., § 126, pp. 93 f.
(c) Towards a Realistic Poetics: Joseph Hillebrand (1827) 75
1 more, as occurred in popular aesthetics, some of Kant’s pupils focused

2 on the reading public and aimed at establishing criteria for aesthetic
3 judgement (Heusinger).
4 The transcendental approach did not survive long even though it
5 was memorized and reinvented at various times during the 19th and
6 early 20th centuries (e. g. through Neo-Kantianism). Things were differ-
7 ent with the emphatic notion of poetry as well as with the practical and
8 critical attempts of popular philosophy and the Kant-adepts. Their writ-
9 ings can be regarded as main stream and as shaping the following poeto-
10 logical tendencies as well.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4 3. Historical and Genetic Poetics:
5 Johann Justus Herwig (1774),
6
7 August Wilhelm Schlegel (1801 – 1803/1809 – 1811)
8 and Johann Gottfried Herder’s Heritage
9
10
11 In early 20th-century poetics Johann Gottfried Herder (1744 – 1803) was
12 regarded as the innovator who, beyond Goethe’s and Schiller’s classicist
13 reign, revitalised and theoreticised poetics with his ‘historical and ethno-
14 graphical points of view’ (“geschichtlichen und ethnographischen Ge-
15 sichtspunkten”).1 This judgement is most intriguing as it highlights
16 the enormous relevance of a poetological thinker who, through the
17 dominance of speculative philosophy even in aesthetics, was largely for-
18 gotten by the beginning of the 19th century.
19 Indeed, it is history and the people that attract Herder’s attention.
20
Having studied in Königsberg with Kant and Hamann, Herder became
21
one of the leading writers in late 18th-century Weimar. Yet because of
22
his critique of Kant in Kalligone (1800) he argued with Goethe and
23
Schiller. Furthermore, Herder opposed Sulzer’s Allgemeine Theorie:
24
‘Sulzer’s dictionary has appeared; the first part is, however, utterly
25
below my expectations. None of the critical articles on literature are
26
of use, neither are most of the mechanical ones, only the psychological
27
articles are of use, but even in those one finds the most meandering and
28
29
dour idle talk, as well as partisanship, all of which shine through the
30
whole work.’2
31
32
1 Rudolf Lehmann: Deutsche Poetik. Munich: Beck 1908 (Handbuch des deut-
33
schen Unterrichts an höheren Schulen, 3rd vol, 2nd part), pp. 10 f; see also
34 Lehmann: Poetik. 2nd corr. and augm. ed. Munich: Beck 1919, pp. 10 f.
35 2 Johann Gottfried Herder: Briefe, ed. by Wilhelm Dobbek and Günter Arnold,
36 Weimar 1977, (9 vols.), vol. 2, p. 106 (letter to Merck 16th Nov. 1771): “Sul-
37 ACHTUNGREzers Wörterbuch ist erschienen; aber der erste Teil ganz unter meinen Erwar-
tungen. Alle litterarisch-kritischen Artikel taugen nichts, die meisten mechani-
38
schen nichts, die psychologischen sind die einzigen, und auch in denen das
39 langACHTUNGREwieACHTUNGRErigste, darbendste Geschwätze, sowie Landsmannschaft und Parteilich-
40 keit aus dem ganzen Werke leuchtet.”
3. Historical and Genetic Poetics 77
1 At first sight, the harsh evaluation of Sulzer’s dictionary is astonish-

2 ing because Herder profits considerably from sources Sulzer and his
3 contributors use, in short, from 18th-century anthropological and histor-
4 ical approaches (Montesquieu and the Scottish Enlightenment for exam-
5 ple). Still, Herder, in his writings on aesthetics – Von deutscher Art und
6 Kunst (1770/71), the texts on the epigram (1786), idyll (1801) and di-
7 dactic poem (1801) – offers different, often more complex and more in-
8 novative material or thoughts than Sulzer.3
9 To characterise Herder’s approach only briefly: he directs his ideas
10 against classicism, strict norms and teleological concepts of history. Opt-
11 ing for an almost transcendental conception of aesthetics,4 historical
12 ‘natural’ standpoints and fluid values, Herder highlights the relevance
13 of the particular people and its poetry. At the same time he pleads for
14
the identity of means and purpose, of the dispersal of the good.5 As a
15
consequence, he, following the work of Hamann and others, explores
16
relatively uncharted poetic territory: the poetry of the people. Despite
17
the fact that one of his favourite poems, the Ossian fragments, proved
18
19
20
21 3 Robert E. Norton: Herder’s aesthetics and the European enlightenment. Itha-
22 ca, London: Cornell Univ. Press 1991; Hans Adler: Die Prägnanz des Dunklen.
Gnoseologie – Ästhetik – Geschichtsphilosophie bei Johann Gottfried Herder.
23
Hamburg: Meiner 1990 (Studien zum achtzehnten Jahrhundert 13); Wolfgang
24 Proß (ed.): Werke. Johann Gottfried Herder. Munich, Vienna: Hanser 1984/
25 87, (2 vol.); Ralph Häfner: Johann Gottfried Herders Kulturentstehungslehre.
26 Studien zu den Quellen und zur Methode seines Geschichtsdenkens. Hamburg:
27 Meiner 1995 (Studien zum achtzehnten Jahrhundert 19); Ralf Simon: Das Ge-
dächtnis der Interpretation: Gedächtnistheorie als Fundament für Hermeneutik,
28
Ästhetik und Interpretation bei Johann Gottfried Herder. Hamburg: Meiner
29 1998 (Studien zum achtzehnten Jahrhundert 23); Ulrike Zeuch: Umkehr der
30 Sinneshierarchie: Herder und die Aufwertung des Tastsinns seit der frühen
31 Neuzeit. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2000 (Communicatio 22), to name only a
32 few recent research works on an author who currently inspires many discus-
sions.
33
4 Friedhelm Solms: Disciplina aesthetica. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta 1990; Friedrich
34 Vollhardt: [rev.] Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert 16 (1992), pp. 70 – 74.
35 5 Jürgen Fohrmann: Literaturgeschichte als Stiftung von Ordnung: Das Konzept
36 der Literaturgeschichte bei Herder, August Wilhelm und Friedrich Schlegel. In:
37 Historische und aktuelle Konzepte der Literaturgeschichtsschreibung: Zwei
Königskinder? Zum Verhältnis von Literatur und Literaturwissenschaft, ed.
38
by Wilhelm Voßkamp and Eberhard Lämmert. Tübingen 1986 (Akten des
39 VII. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses: Kontroversen, alte und neue,
40 ed. Albert Schöne), pp. 75 – 84, pp. 78 f.
78 3. Historical and Genetic Poetics
1 to have been a forgery,6 Herder’s Ossian interpretation informs the

2 reader about his poetic approach: in contrast to the ideal of perfection,
3 Herder advocates authenticity and closeness to the life and expressions
4 of the (simple) people as revelations of God’s own nature.
5 This historical spirit seems to have been in the air if one takes into
6 account an astonishing, non-speculative but historiographical account of
7 poetics in which Herder is not mentioned at all: Johann Justus Herwig’s
8 Grundriß der eleganten Litteratur (1774), written as a tool to help with his
9 lectures and also used by Johann Joachim Schwabe (1714 – 1784) who
10 taught aesthetics in Leipzig.7 Herwig himself (1742 – 1801) was a Lu-
11 theran pastor before he became a professor of ‘belles lettres’ at Würzburg
12 University. Translating from Greek, French, Italian and English, he fo-
13 cused on religion and literature (e. g. in his Journal fr Freunde der Religion
14 und Litteratur, 1776 – 1781). Rejecting the French Revolution he was a
15 renowned defender of the monarchy.8
16 Herwig’s poetological Grundriß follows a threefold structure: firstly,
17 the ‘critical history’ of poetry and the beautiful arts is presented, second-
18 ly, Herwig sums up his (rather basic) theoretical assumptions in order to
19 apply them, thirdly, to the arts.9 In order to develop his project Herwig
20 draws on the work of his colleagues Johann Ernst Christian Schmid
21 (Gießen), Johann Joachim Schwabe and Christian Cay Lorenz Hirsch-
22 feld who seem to be willing to promote similar histories of the arts.10
23 Following their interests (and indeed his own), Herwig draws a simplis-
24 tic, yet surprisingly representative picture of the development of litera-
25 ture in Greece, China, Israel, Italy, Spain, France, England and Germa-
26 ny. This picture can be seen as an alternative draft to Hamann and
27 Herder’s criticism of 18th-century (German) literature, yet it pays tribute
28 to Macpherson’s Ossian as well.
29
30 6 Wolf Gerhard Schmidt: Homer des Nordens und Mutter der Romantik’: James
31 Macphersons “Ossian und seine Rezeption in der deutschsprachigen Literatur.
32 Berlin, New York 2003/04. (4 vols.)
7 On Schwabe Thomáš Hlobil: Aesthetics in the Lecture Lists of the Universities
33
of Halle, Leipzig, Würzburg, and Prague (1785 – 1805). In: Das achtzehnte
34 Jahrhundert 29 (2005) 1, pp. 23 f.
35 8 See Herwig’s books: An Teutschlands Bürger von allen drey christlichen Re-
36 ligionen über die französische Freiheitstyranney (1793); Entwurf einer genealo-
37 gischen Geschichte des Hauses Hohenlohe (1796).
9 Johann Justus Herwig: Grundriß der eleganten Litteratur. Zum Gebrauche
38
seiner Vorlesungen. [s.l.] Rienner 1774, [unpag.], content. The book is dedi-
39 cated to the bishop of northern Bavaria.
40 10 Ibid., [unpag], Vorbericht.
1 Herwig’s ordering principle is chronology; the focus lies on the ex-

2 traordinary example as well as on genre. General tendencies are seldom
3 identified. With regard to the ancients, Herwig adheres to simplifying
4 explanations such as: ‘the Hebrew had the advantage of the recognition
5 of God and therefore their letters developed quickly’.11 As far as con-
6 temporary literature is concerned, Herwig restricts himself to mention-
7 ing names and helps the reader with further references, for instance to
8 Friedrich Just Riedel’s Briefe ber das Publikum (1768). Of course, he
9 might have elaborated on all this in the course of his lectures as his
10 lists read like a collection of famous 18th-century authors. Among the
11 epic authors he names are Bodmer, Johann Peter Uz, Johann Jakob
12 Dusch, Ewald Christian von Kleist, Klopstock and Wieland, among
13 the dramatic ones Gellert, Lessing, Joachim Wilhelm von Brawe, Chris-
14 tian Felix Weiße, Tobias Philipp Freiherr von Gebler, Heinrich Wil-
15 helm von Gerstenberg, Johann Benjamin Michaelis, Johann Christian
16 Brandes, Johann Ludwig Schlosser, and among the poets (those of
17 whom are not mentioned in Riedel) Denis Kretschmann, Karl Masta-
18 lier, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, Johann Gottlieb Willamov.12
19 Yet the historical and the theoretical parts do not have much in
20 common although Herwig postulates that both areas must go hand in
21 hand: ‘the theorist is necessarily to become a practician as well’.13 The
22 English are regarded as the role models for this double-sided approach
23 as they, in contrast to the theory-centred scholarly approaches, extract
24 their theories from the observation of art.14 Still, Herwig’s theoretical
25 reflections strike the reader as being basic and naïve. He highlights
26 the role of the recipient to a great extent. It is the recipient who judges
27 beautiful and ugly in art according to his own impressions.15 The one
28 theoretical thought which is designed to link Herwig’s theory with
29 his historical observations is developed very little: ‘all peoples, also the
30 wild, have the seeds of the art of poetry in their soul.’16
31 In Herder’s work, a particular people’s poetry is explained by com-
32 mon 18th-century features such as climate, morals and traditions. These
33
34 11 Ibid., p. 19: “Das Hebräische hat den Vorteul der Wahrnhemung Gottes und
35 entwickelte sich daher schnell […].”
36 12 Ibid., p. 212.
37 13 Ibid., p. 9: “Der Theorist muß also nothwendig auch ein Praktiker werden.”
14 Ibid., p. 11.
38
15 Ibid., p. 313.
39 16 Ibid., p. 13: “Alle Völker, auch die Wilden, haben den Samen der Dichtkunst
40 in ihrer Seele.”
1 features apply to all literatures of the world, and, in turn, they can all be
2 compared with each other. The comparison follows the usual pattern of
3 rise and fall, later used in Edward Gibbon’s famous The History of the De-
4 cline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776 – 1788),17 Herwig’s as well as
5 Herder’s criterion being the closeness of poetry to its people. Yet, in
6 contrast to Herwig and with regard to Germany, Herder diagnoses
7 the lack of a golden literary age – the explanation emanates from his
8 premises: counter to England and France, Germany suffers from the dis-
9 persal of its people. A new cultural unity would be required, a unity
10 which could help to reflect the qualities of all nations in one.
11 It is, to some extent, Friedrich Schlegel who steps in, promoting
12 cultural unity in a most ironic and refined way. Jürgen Fohrmann out-
13 lined Schlegel’s main thoughts which both embrace and reject Herder in
14
several respects: firstly, the development of the romantic as a literary and
15
critical project, secondly, the plea for a new mythology which should
16
serve as a future cultural centre, thirdly, the later tendency to focus
17
on literary nation-building as an expression of heroic creation of mean-
18
ing and self-definition.18 In contrast to his younger brother Friedrich,
19
August Wilhelm Schlegel appears to be more philological and absorbed
20
by a restrained focus on the reconstruction of literature only, moving
21
away from inspiring speculation.19 Yet Fohrmann’s decisive view
22
draws on the late Bonn lectures (1818/19) and leaves out the earlier,
23
24
more inspired Schlegel. It is this Schlegel who should be discussed here.
25
August Wilhelm von Schlegel’s (or with his French name, Auguste
26
Guillaume de Schlegel, 1767 – 1845) 20 lecture series are praised as the
27
‘first attempt for a historically founded general poetic’ (“erster Versuch
28 zu einer historisch begründeten Gesamtpoetik”) 21 by early 20th-century
29 poetological historiography. The former professor of German at Jena
30 University (1798) gave the relevant lectures on the doctrine of the
31
32 17 See John G.A. Pocock: Barbarianism and Religion. Vol. 1: The Enlighten-
ments of Edward Gibbon (1737 – 1794). Cambridge Univ. Press 1999.
33
18 Fohrmann: Literaturgeschichte (fn. 5), p. 81, 84.
34 19 Ibid., p. 83.
35 20 Harald Schmidt: Schlegel, August Wilhelm. In: Internationales Germanisten-
36 lexikon 1800 – 1950, ed. by Christoph König, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter
37 2003, vol. 3., pp. 1596 – 1598; see also the proceedings of the recent confer-
ence “Der Europäer August Wilhelm Schlegel. Romantischer Kulturtransfer
38
– romantische Wissenswelten”, Dresden 6/3 – 8/3/2008 (Organisation:
39 York-Gothart Mix, Jochen Strobel).
40 21 Lehmann 1908 (fn. 1), p. 12; Lehmann 1919 (fn. 1), p. 12.
1 arts (‘Kunstlehre’) as well as on the history of classical and romantic lit-

2 erature as a private scholar in Berlin (Vorlesungen ber schçne Litterature
3 und Kunst, 1801 – 1804).22 The context of Schlegel’s lectures is not
4 only an astonishing fact but also a signal: it was in Berlin before the Frie-
5 drich Wilhelms University was founded where scholars adhering to the
6 Romantic Movement expressed the thoughts they polemically directed
7 against ‘enlightened rationalism’, perceived as being dominant in most
8 of the academic faculties.23 Still, Schlegel soon left Berlin for Vienna
9 where he prepared his works Ueber dramatische Kunst und Litteratur
10 (1809 – 1811), translated into French (1813), English (1815), Italian
11 (1817) and many other languages.24 Furthermore, he was befriended
12 by the members of early Jena romanticism as well as by Goethe, Schiller,
13 Tieck and Schleiermacher. Between 1804 and 1817 Schlegel was ap-
14 pointed tutor by Madame de Staël, travelled to Italy, Switzerland,
15 France, Denmark, Sweden and England, became secretary of the Swed-
16 ish crown prince in 1813, rejected a professorship in Berlin (1818) and
17 accepted another one at Bonn University. Schlegel might be one of the
18 most honoured German professors as he received the Swedish Wasa
19 medal, the Russian Wladimir medal, the English Guelfen medal and
20 was honoured with the membership of several academies and of the
21 “Ordre pour le mérite”.
22 When Schlegel conceived his lectures his international experience
23 was still in its infancy, yet the wish to develop a more than ‘German’
24 doctrine of the arts (and especially of poetry) is clearly expressed in all
25 of them. Displaying a broad range of historical knowledge, the Berlin
26 lectures inform the audience extensively about the principles of poetry,
27 and can, with some reason, be called a first attempt to provide an his-
28 torical poetics,25 an attempt which builds on Herder’s earlier approaches
29
30 22 Wolfgang Frühwald: Der Zwang der Verständlichkeit: August Wilhelm Schle-
31 gels Begründung romantischer Exoterik aus der Kritik rationalistischer Poeto-
32 logie. In: Die literarische Frühromantik, ed. by Silvio Vietta. Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht 1983, pp. 129 – 148, p. 132.
33
23 Ibid., pp. 131 – 133.
34 24 See Manfred Engel and Jürgen Lehmann: The Aesthetics of German Idealism
35 and its Reception in European Romanticism. In: Nonfictional Romantic
36 Prose: Expanding Borders, ed. by Steven P. Sondrup and Virgil Nemoianu
37 in collab. with Gerald Gillespie. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins 2004
(Coordination Committee for Comparative History of Literature in European
38
Languages 2001 – 2005), pp. 69 – 96, pp. 86 f.
39 25 As a consequence, the Berlin lectures have often served as a starting point for
40 theoretical reflection; see Edgar Lohner: August Wilhelm Schlegel. In: Deut-
1 but embraces the history of poetry in a way which makes literary history
2 itself become a theory. Schlegel turns the usual relation of literary theory
3 and poetics on its head.
4 Following Herder (at least in part), Schlegel recognises three main
5 theoretical opponents to his work: Baumgarten (and popular philosophy
6 of the so-called moralising Sulzer type), Burke and Kant. All of them are
7 deemed to be wrong because of their narrow definition of the beautiful
8 and misleading methodological presumptions. Baumgarten and popular
9 philosophy suffer from Wolff’s disregard of aesthetic expressiveness.26
10 Moreover, science and art cannot be treated in the same way; science
11 requires a rigorous and systematic method whilst art is either beautiful
12 or just not art – a strong vote for a separate aesthetical method that
13 should not adhere to the ‘more geometrico’ principle.27 Yet Burke’s
14 ‘empirical system’ (“empirisches System”) is equally wrong as it restricts
15 itself to ‘imperfect inductions’ (“unvollkommene Induktionen”) by
16 providing the average of a quantity of cases.28 In addition to this, Burke’s
17 deduction of the beautiful is ‘coarse’ (“grob”): he explains its effects as a
18 mechanical process only, which does not recognize human liberty,29 re-
19 ducing human beings to the status of animals.30
20 Kant’s transcendental approach proves to be the most innovative,
21 philosophical and convincing, with one exception: the definition of
22 the beautiful which Schlegel calls ‘meager and restrained’ (“mager
23 und beschränkt”).31 It renders Kant’s whole Critique incoherent. In con-
24 trast to Kant, Schlegel holds the view that the definition of the beautiful
25 cannot be divided from the sublime as well as from taste. Schlegel’s ex-
26 ample is the sublime: the beautiful needs to be grounded on the sublime
27 and its boundlessness. One should think of the story (and possibly Cor-
28
29 sche Dichter der Romantik: Ihr Leben und Werk, ed. by Benno von Wiese.
30 Berlin: Schmidt 1971, pp. 135 – 162; contesting the validity of Schlegel’s con-
31 cepts Klaus Lindemann: Theorie – Geschichte – Kritik: August Wilhelm
32 Schlegels Prinzipienreflexion als Ansatz für eine neue Literaturtheorie? In:
Zeitschrift für Deutsche Philologie 93 (1974), pp. 560 – 579.
33
26 August Wilhelm Schlegel: Vorlesungen über Ästhetik I (1789 – 1803). With
34 commentary and afterword ed. by Ernst Behler in collab. with Frank Jolles
35 (Kritische Ausgabe der Vorlesungen I). Paderborn: Schöningh 1989, pp. 182 f.
36 27 Ibid., p. 224.
37 28 Ibid.
29 Cf. Richard Shusterman: Somaesthetics and Burke’s Sublime. In: British Jour-
38
nal of Aesthetics 45 (2005) 4, pp. 323 – 341.
39 30 Schlegel, (fn. 26), pp. 226 – 228.
40 31 Ibid., p. 231.
1 reggio’s painting) of Zeus and Io, Hera’s servant who is transformed

2 into a cow. According to Schlegel, this story is essential and brutal –
3 and not just nice (as Kant would claim).
4 Against all these thinkers Schlegel sets the romantic idea of ‘poiesis’
5 which, in this case, following the work of his brother Friedrich Schlegel
6 and his playful as well as ironic Gesprch ber die Poesie (1800), is to be
7 translated as ‘creative fantasy’.32 Consequently, A.W. Schlegel under-
8 stands aesthetics as ‘doctrine of art or poetics’ (“Kunstlehre oder Poe-
9 ACHTUNGREtik”) because the ‘free creating effectivity of fantasy (gr. poiesis)’
10 (“freye schaffende Wirksamkeit der Fantasie”) motivates every art.33
11 Such a poetics should prove firstly, that art is necessary to the develop-
12 ment of mankind and secondly, that it is autonomous.34 Schlegel’s at-
13 tempt, which relies on a specific understanding of the Greek notion
14 ‘poiesis’ (making, doing, creating), proves to have enormous conse-
15 quences for the conception of poetics as a whole. According to Schlegel,
16 poetics covers the area of aesthetics; he replaces the term ‘misused’ by
17 Baumgarten and attacked by Kant and changes the study of art into a
18 study of the production, as well as the products, of creative fantasy.
19 This enterprise relies on the assumption that only human beings possess
20 creative fantasy, a ‘self-acting principle’ (“selbstthätiges Prinzip”) that
21 enables us to understand existence and to develop complex inventions.35
22 Schlegel’s anthropological reason is language: contrary to pure animal-
23 istic sounds, language serves as ‘thought-organon’ (“Gedanken-
24 Organ”) 36 and enables man to develop higher cognitive or spiritual
25 competences.
26 With this proposal, Schlegel moves markedly away from earlier
27 writings on aesthetics, even those of the second half of the 18th century.
28 Schubart, for instance, explained the notion of ‘poiesis’ in a strict way:
29
30 32 András Horn: Das Schöpferische in der Literatur: Theorien der dichterischen
31 Phantasie. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 2000; Volkhard Wels: Zur
32 Vorgeschichte des Begriffs der ‘kreativen Phantasie’. In: Zeitschrift für Ästhetik
und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 50 (2005) 2, pp. 199 – 226.
33
33 Schlegel (fn. 26), p. 186.
34 34 Ibid. – The strong historical as well as anthropological claim Schlegel makes
35 amounts to more than an ‘ex negativo’-definition of art as Lindemann states
36 (fn. 25), p. 562. In addition to this, the notion that art is autonomous is proven
37 with the assumption of the self-governed, independent principle of ‘poiesis’,
even if this assumption is not as convincing from today’s perspective as Linde-
38
mann‘s (fn. 25), p. 564.
39 35 Schlegel (fn. 26), p. 398.
40 36 Ibid., p. 399.
1 poiesis is an artificial word for the recombination of given material.37

2 Schlegel’s understanding marks a new position in the history of aesthet-
3 ics and poetics. Poiesis legitimises Schlegel’s historiographical poetics,38 a
4 holistic understanding of poetics. As ‘poiesis’ is an anthropological fea-
5 ture and applies to all human creatures, no culture nor period is exempt
6 from creating art. All periods are equally important. As a consequence,
7 the true method of poetics is synthetical (not analytical as Kant claims),
8 uniting the theory, critique and history (the genesis) of the beautiful arts,
9 going back to the natural human origin of poetry. Yet the prehistory of
10 Schlegel’s notion of ‘poiesis’ in the sense of ‘creative fantasy’ is unclear.39
11 ‘Poiesis’ in Schlegel’s sense can only vaguely be traced back to Quintil-
12 ian’s imaginative orator40 or Neo-Platonic thought.41 The novelty of the
13 concept goes hand in hand with a polemic against old-fashioned rhetor-
14 ic-influenced 19th-century aesthetics and poetics to a huge extent. These
15 aesthetic and poetological texts inherit Schlegel’s methodological ap-
16 proach as well.
17 Schlegel explains his method with the typically romantic and aporet-
18
ic idea of ‘infinite’ (“unendlich[e]”) poetry.42 Poetry understood in this
19
way cannot be defined analytically. Through ‘the medium of poetry’
20
(“das Medium der Poesie”) the human spirit emerges as poetry partic-
21
ipates in the ‘universal spirit’ (“Universal-Geist”).43 ‘The poetic’ (“das
22
23
37 Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart: Kurzgefaßtes Lehrbuch der schönen Wis-
24 senschaften für Unstudierte […]. Leipzig [i.e. Münster]: [Perenon] 1777, p. 19:
25 “Poesie ist, wie alle Kunstwörter, griechischen Ursprungs und heißt wörtlich:
26 Eine Zusammensetzung schon vorhandener Materialien.”
27 38 Lindemann (fn. 25, p. 565) doubts whether there is such a single justifying prin-
ciple.
28
39 For a convincing attempt to prove that the notion of ‘creative fantasy’ cannot
29 be traced back to the psychological doctrine of the ‘facultates’ see Wels (fn. 32).
30 40 On the pausible heritage of Quintilian’s imaginative rhetor see Hans Peter
31 Herrmann: Naturnachahmung und Einbildungskraft. Bad Hamburg [et al.]:
32 Gehlen 1970, p. 171; Dietmar Till: Transformationen der Rhetorik – Unter-
suchungen zum Wandel der Rhetoriktheorie im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Tü-
33
bingen: Niemeyer 2004, pp. 376 f; Wels (fn. 32), pp. 213 f.
34 41 On the prehistory of ‘creative fantasy’ as regards Neo-Platonism see E.N. Ti-
35 gerstedt: The Poet as Creator: Origins of a Metaphor. In: Comparative Liter-
36 ature Studies 5 (1968) 4, pp. 455 – 488; Dietmar Till: Affirmation und Subver-
37 sion: Zum Verhältnis von ‘platonischen’ und ‘rhetorischen’ Elementen in der
frühneuzeitlichen Poetik. In: Zeitsprünge: Forschungen zur Frühen Neuzeit
38
4 (2000) 3, pp. 181 – 210.
39 42 Schlegel (fn. 26), p. 387.
40 43 Ibid.
1 Poetische”) expresses itself in every art; poetry refers to all kinds of ar-
2 tistic invention.44
3 Still, it is literature that fulfils a specific condition imposed on ‘po-
4 etry’: to presuppose language,45 and it is lyric poetry that fits best into
5 Schlegel’s descriptions.46 To explain this phenomenon ‘genetically’
6 (“genetisch”) means to take into account its different steps of develop-
7 ment – from the first ‘motion of the instinct’ (“Regung des Instinktes”)
8 to the ‘perfect artistic intention’ (“vollendeten Künstlerabsicht”).47 The
9 idea of progress functions as a means to help the explanation: ‘it is al-
10 ways the progress from the need for free play.’48 Art proceeds from
11 one step to the next, starting with the human predispositions and devel-
12 oping them further. The result is called a ‘natural history of art’ (“Na-
13 turgeschichte der Kunst”),49 a poetics which is distinct from its prede-
14 cessors as it stresses the dynamics and the relevance of artistic develop-
15 ments.
16 The way this kind of ‘natural history’ runs is, of course, more or less
17 speculative: poetry proceeds in potentials. It finds its peak in religion.
18 Poetry becomes ‘the interpreter, the translator of this heavenly revela-
19 tion […], a language of the Gods’.50 Mythology is the true ‘poetic
20 world view’ (“poetische Weltansicht”).51 Therefore, Schlegel highlights
21 that it is the step from ‘natural poetry’ (“Naturpoesie”) to ‘artistic poet-
22 ry’ (“Kunstpoesie”) which is to be called progress in poetry.52 ‘Natural
23 poetry’ refers firstly to elementary poetry in the form of original lan-
24 guage, secondly, to the distinction of poetic succession by an external
25 law of form (rhythm) and thirdly, to combining of poetic elements
26 into a whole world view.53 ‘Artistic poetry’ begins with the differentia-
27
28
44 Ibid.
29 45 Ibid., p. 388.
30 46 Lyric poetry is set against prose and defined as unique in its creation of words,
31 flexions and grammar. Schlegel (fn. 26), p. 405 f.
32 47 Schlegel (fn. 26), p. 391.
48 Ibid., p. 402: “[…] es ist immer der Fortgang vom Bedürfnisse zum freyen
33
Spiele.”
34 49 Ibid., p. 391.
35 50 Ibid., p. 388: “So ist sie [die Poesie] der Gipfel der Wissenschaft, die Deuterin,
36 Dollmetscherin jener himmlischen Offenbarung, […] eine Sprache der Göt-
37 ter.”
51 Ibid.
38
52 Ibid., p. 391.
39 53 Ibid., p. 393: “1) Elementarpoesie in der Gestalt der Ursprache; 2) Absonde-
40 ACHTUNGRErung der poetischen Successionen in unserm Innern […] durch ein äußeres Ge-
1 tion of genre, explained with the help of the dualism of ‘objectivism’

2 and ‘subjectivism’: ‘The epic is the purely objective in the human spirit.
3 The lyric is the purely subjective. The dramatic is the penetration of
4 both.’54 This differentiation of genre reaches its peak in romantic poetry,
5 which strives for the infinite, for ‘boundless progressivity’ (“gränzenlose
6 Progressivität”).55
7 Schlegel’s Viennese lectures Ueber dramatische Kunst und Litteratur
8 continue and specify this general approach with a focus on drama.
9 What is particularly interesting and – to some extent – new in these lec-
10 tures is, firstly, Schlegel’s stress on critique and issues of evaluation. Al-
11 ready in the Berlin lectures he had highlighted the relevance of critique
12 – without, of course, proposing a comprehensive concept as scholars
13 have regretted.56 With regard to the different traditions and cultures
14
of drama, in this book, he introduces the ‘torch of criticism’ (“Fackel
15
der Kritik”) 57 that is to be used as a means not only to enlighten the his-
16
tory of drama but also to comparatively examine ‘the artistic value’
17
(“Kunstwerth”) of dramas produced in different periods and by different
18
peoples.58 The purpose of this attempt is the positive evaluation of ro-
19
mantic drama – a type of drama which decisively opts for the standpoint
20
of modernity and neglects the simple ‘imitatio veterum’. Set against
21
Greek drama, it shines in a most promising modern, yet blinding,
22
23
light: in contrast to the Greek ideal of harmony, Romantic drama stress-
24
es the necessity of paradoxes as everything can amount to contradic-
25
tions.59 Romantic drama challenges the audience. Yet it provides
26
what Schlegel calls the ‘essence of being’ without which drama would
27 be irrelevant – the ‘root of our there-being’ (“Wurzel unsers Da-
28 seyns”) 60 or the ‘root of human there-being’ (“Wurzel des menschli-
29 chen Daseyns”) 61 which is religion. It is this second, new aspect of his
30
31 setz der Form nämlich den Rhythmus; 3) Bindung und Zusammenfassung der
32 poetischen Elemente zu einer Ansicht des Weltganzen, Mythologie.”
54 Ibid., p. 462: “Das Epische ist das rein objektive im menschlichen Geiste. Das
33
Lyrische das rein subjektive. Das Dramatische die Durchdringung von beyden.”
34 55 Ibid.
35 56 Lindemann (fn. 25), p. 561, passim.
36 57 August Wilhelm Schlegel: Ueber dramatische Kunst und Litteratur: Vorlesun-
37 gen […]. Heidelberg: Mohr & Zimmer 1809, vol.1, p. 4.
58 Ibid., p. [III].
38
59 Ibid., pp. 12 f.
39 60 Ibid., (fn. 57), p. 6.
40 61 Ibid., (fn. 57), p. 19.
1 Viennese lectures that shows the extent to which they participate in the
2 general romantic turn toward Catholicism.
3 To sum up, A.W. Schlegel’s poetics arises from literary history
4 which is a revolutionary step in the history of poetics, made possible
5 by Herder before. In A.W. Schlegel’s work the attempt to write a po-
6 etological natural history of literature is executed with romantic enthu-
7 siasm which makes the historical account even more comprehensible. It
8 is however problematic at the same time, the reason being the ahistorical
9 and aporetic concept of ‘poiesis’.
10 Yet it was not only early 19th-century poetological historians, but
11 also his contemporaries who appreciated Schlegel’s account of poetry
12 as given in the lectures. Philipp Mayer’s Theorie und Literatur der deutschen
13 Dichtungsarten (1824) is one of the best examples of the contemporane-
14 ous admiration for Schlegel. Mayer (1798 – 1828), a little-known Pra-
15 gue-German pedagogue, studied law in Vienna, admired literature
16 and therefore conceived of a poetics in his leisure time. Still in 1824,
17 he seems to have been influenced by Schlegel’s Viennese lectures, there-
18 by promoting a specific regional, as well as cosmopolitan, type of poet-
19 ics. According to Mayer, Schlegel’s works (as well as the works of his
20 brother) contain not only all disposable knowledge about the poetics
21
of all peoples, but also the right method for revealing it. In order to ex-
22
plain August Wilhelm Schlegel’s genetic approach, Mayer simplifies it:
23
lyric poetry e. g. is said to be ‘the perfect expression of poetic senti-
24
ments’.62 The simplification of Schlegel’s lectures is justified by Mayer’s
25
goals: he – in the long tradition of popular philosophy (especially Eber-
26
hard) and school poetics – wishes to introduce the youth to the national
27
works of art and to teach them how to express their thoughts according-
28
ly.63
29
Beyond these pedagogical attempts, Schlegel’s concept of ‘poiesis’
30
becomes canonised, e. g. in Ignaz Jeitteles’ Aesthetisches Lexikon, publish-
31
ed in 1839, the same year in which Jeitteles receives an honorary doc-
32
torate from Jena University, Schlegel’s former home university. The
33
Prague-born journalist and author Jeitteles (1783 – 1843) was close to
34
the popular classicist author August Gottlieb Meißner but soon
35
36
moved to Vienna where he supported the Pre-March movement.
37
62 Philipp Mayer: Theorie und Literatur der deutschen Dichtungsarten: Ein
38
Handbuch zur Bildung des Stils und des Geschmacks. Nach Hilfsquellen bear-
39 beitet. Wien: Gerold 1824, (2 vols.), vol. 2, p. 4.
40 63 Mayer (fn. 62), vol. 1, p. V.
1 Like Schlegel, Jeitteles defines poetry in the broad sense as ‘the manu-
2 facturing of the ideal, the mother of all arts’ (“Hervorbringung des Ide-
3 als, die Mutter aller Künste”) and poetry as a ‘productive force’ (“pro-
4 duktive Kraft”),64 again referring to Schlegel.65 The same is true for
5 Schlegel’s notion of poetics; as Jeitteles writes, poetics is identical
6 with aesthetics, the theory of art.66 Taking into account Jeitteles’ enthu-
7 siastic view of poetry it is astonishing that he stops with A.W. Schlegel
8 and does not integrate other romantic and speculative approaches into
9 his dictionary, for instance logostheology and the poetic treatises in-
10 spired by Schelling. Yet Jeitteles might have wanted to restrict his dic-
11 tionary to worldly speculation, expressing through this exclusion a fash-
12 ionable scepticism as far as Schelling’s logostheological concepts are
13 concerned.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 64 Ignaz Jeitteles: “Poesie”. In: I.J.: Aesthetisches Lexikon enthaltend: Kunstphi-
37 losophie, Poesie, Poetik, Rhetorik, Musik, Plastik, Graphik, Architektur, Ma-
ACHTUNGRElerei, Theater. Hildesheim, New York: Olms 1978 (Repr. of the Vienna-
38
Ed. 1839), pp. 191 – 193, p. 191.
39 65 Ibid., p. 192.
40 66 Jeitteles: “Poetik”. In: I.J.: Aesthetisches Lexikon (fn. 64), p. 193.
1
2
3
4 4. Logostheological Poetics Beyond Friedrich
5 Wilhelm Joseph Schelling: Friedrich Ast (1805),
6
7 Joseph Loreye (1801/1802, 21820)
8 and Johann Jakob Wagner (1839, 21840)
9
10
11 Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775 – 1854), having studied with
12 Hegel and Hölderlin in Tübingen, soon moved to Jena where he be-
13 came acquainted with the regional romanticism (espoused by the broth-
14 ers Schlegel and Novalis), finding appointments later in Bavaria and
15 Berlin. It is not by mere accident that the philosophy of art is central
16 for the early Schelling (System des transzendentalen Idealismus 1800; post-
17 humously edited lectures Philosophie der Kunst, Jena 1802/03, repeated
18 in Würzburg 1804/05, the academy speech ber das Verhltnis der bilden-
19 den Knste zu der Natur 1807):1 philosophy of art automatically points to
20
areas which cannot be explained by referring to reason only. And true
21
philosophy, according to Schelling, involves going beyond the limited
22
area of reason in order to try and attain wisdom.2 Against transcendental
23
philosophy, Schelling revitalises the tradition of the ‘philosophia peren-
24
nis’ which is characterised by the fact that it conceives of philosophy as
25
receiving. According to ‘philosophia perennis’ or Neo-Platonic trinitar-
26
ian thought, originality does not matter much.3 Rather, ‘philosophia
27
perennis’ aims at a kind of wisdom which is superior to human reason.
28
29
30 1 Manfred Frank and Gerhard Kurz (eds.): Materialien zu Schellings philosophi-
31 schen Anfängen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1975; Werner Beierwaltes: Einlei-
32 tung zu F.W.J. Schelling: Texte zur Philosophie der Kunst. Stuttgart: Reclam
1982; Manfred Frank: Einführung in die frühromantische Ästhetik. Frankfurt a.
33
M.: Suhrkamp 1989; Bernhard Barth: Philosophie der Kunst. Göttliche Ima-
34 ACHTUNGREgination und ästhetische Einbildungskraft. Freiburg, Munich: Alber 1991; Wil-
35 helm G. Jacobs: Geschichte und Kunst in Schellings “System des transcenden-
36 talen Idealismus”. In: Der Streit um die Grundlagen der Ästhetik 1795 – 1805,
37 ed. by Walter Jaeschke. Hamburg: Meiner 1999, pp. 201 – 213.
2 Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann: Philosophia perennis: Historische Umrisse
38
abendländischer Spiritualität in Antike, Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit. Frank-
39 furt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1998, pp. 716 f.
40 3 Ibid., pp. 702 – 704.
90 4. Logostheological Poetics Beyond Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling
1 The human being might participate in this kind of wisdom through

2 ‘clairvoyance’, a state that occurs when falling asleep, being half-con-
3 scious, or, as Schelling calls it, being magnetic, imbued with a polarizing
4 force.4
5 In aesthetics, this particular type of philosophy claims that art enables
6 mankind to regain prereflexive unity or original identity and to reach
7 areas before or beyond consciousness. Schelling provides a processual
8 synthesis in order to prove this claim: in contrast to nature which creates
9 unconsciously but becomes conscious, artistic creation begins con-
10 sciously but ends unconscious, contributes to a higher necessity and ex-
11 presses eternal revelation, thereby finalising the system of kowledge.5
12 Art not only differs from nature but also becomes a ‘mirror of the
13 whole world’ (“Spiegel des Weltganzen”).6 Consequently, art represents
14
the absolute and expresses mythology; in turn, the absolute is regarded
15
as a true work of art.7
16
The mythological quality of art is especially characteristic of poetry
17
which becomes the leading art. Following the trinitarian order Schelling
18
presupposes three arts: the real, the ideal and the indifferent. Poetry is
19
said to grasp the essence of art through language, i. e. the general. Schel-
20
ling appeals to the old Aristotelian notion. Again, relying on Aristotle,
21
Schelling regards tragedy as the ultimate form of art, the reason being
22
23
that it is directed towards truth whilst lyric poetry appears to be subjec-
24
tive and the epic to be idealist only. Classicist value judgements corre-
25
spond to this reasoning: Schelling prefers Calderón de la Barca’s trans-
26
parency to Shakespeare’s unfathomability.8 Yet Schelling’s reflections
27 on art change over time. According to his late view, philosophy presents
28 the ‘original image’ while art presents the ‘counter image’.
29
30 4 Ibid., pp. 716 f.
31 5 F.W.J. Schelling: Werke, ed. Manfred Schröter. Munich: C.H. Beck
32 1927 1954. vol. 2, p. 613; Heinz Paetzold: Ästhetik des deutschen Idealismus:
Zur Idee ästhetischer Rationalität bei Baumgarten, Kant, Schelling, Hegel und
33
Schopenhauer. Wiesbaden: Steiner 1983, p. 123.
34 6 Lars-Thade Ulrichs: Das ewig sich selbst bildende Kunstwerk: Organismus-
35 theorien in Metaphysik und Kunstphilosophie um 1800. In: Internationales
36 Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus/ International Yearbook of German Ideal-
37 ism 4 (2006), pp. 256 290, p. 277.
7 F.W.J. Schelling: Werke (fn. 5), suppl. vol. 1, p. 475.
38
8 Paul Guyer: Freedom of Imagination: From Beauty to Expression. In: Interna-
39 tionales Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus/ International Yearbook of Ger-
40 man Idealism 4 (2006), pp. 312 334, p. 323.
4. Logostheological Poetics Beyond Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling 91
1 Some of his pupils take up these aesthetic and poetological impulses:

2 Friedrich Ast conceives an aesthetics of autonomy, combined with _log-
3 ostheology. In contrast to Ast, Joseph Loreye converts from Kant’s views
4 to those of Schelling but remains scepticial as far as Schelling’s religion is
5 concerned. Contrary to him, Johann Jakob Wagner constructs his own
6 cosmology, thereby inspiring many contemporary writers.
7 Ast (1778 – 1841), professor of classical philology at Landshut (later
8 Munich) University from 1805, an inspiring but quiet university teach-
9 er, is among the most popular of Schelling’s successors. The famous
10 20th-century germanist Peter Szondi esteemed his aesthetical critique
11 of hermeneutics, Ast being the first to formulate the hermeneutic cir-
12 cle.9 Klaus Weimar’s assessment of Ast is more critical. He regards
13 Ast’s doctrine of circular understanding as a mere intellectual accident
14
which originated from an error in reasoning.10
15
Apart from Ast’s accidental yet helpful invention and his study on
16
Plato, he published a book on issues relevant in our context: the System
17
der Kunstlehre oder Lehr- und Handbuch der Aesthetik zu Vorlesungen und
18
zum Privatgebrauche entworfen (1805), later followed by a Grundriß der Aes-
19
thetik (1807). The title of the system already sets a slightly pedagogical
20
tone, a tone Ast later regretted as it failed to express the original spirit
21
of poetry – poetry understood in the sense of Friedrich and August Wil-
22
23
helm Schlegel.11 This concept of poetry is further developed with the
24
help of emphatic and highly-charged concepts borrowed from Schel-
25
ling. Ast proposes a philosophical system that is founded in itself and
26
aims at absolute unity (like all free, lively, harmonic systems). His far-
27 reaching methodological premise is that the ideal and real worlds are
28 one. Art, philosophy and religion have a common source: the absolute
29 that is the eternal universe itself.12 In turn, the theory of art becomes the
30
31 9 See the critical appraisal by Denis Thouard: Critique et herméneutique dans le
32 premier romantisme allemand: Textes de F. Schlegel, F. Schleiermacher, F. Ast,
A.W. Schlegel, A.F. Bernhardi, W. Dilthey introduits, traduits, annotés. Paris:
33
Septentrion 1996, pp. 288 f.
34 10 Klaus Weimar: Historische Einleitung zur literaturwissenschaftlichen Herme-
35 neutik. Tübingen: Mohr 1975, p. 111, p. 115.
36 11 Ast knew Friedrich Schlegel from Jena and Schlegel had an enormous impact
37 on Ast’s hermeneutics as well; see Weimar (fn. 10), pp. 111 f.
12 Friedrich Ast: System der Kunstlehre oder Lehr- und Handbuch der Aesthetik
38
zu Vorlesungen und zum Privatgebrauche entworfen. Leipzig: Hinrichs 1805,
39 § 9, p. 9: “das ewige und lebendige Universum selbst, durch seine Liebe; le-
40 ACHTUNGREbendig durch die unendliche Fülle seines Wesens […].”
1 ‘reflection of the godly spirit’ (“Wiederscheine des göttlichen Geistes”).

2 Godly spirit reveals itself in the ‘history of the formation’ (“Bildungsge-
3 schichte”) of art,13 displaying a complete harmony between epochs of
4 art, elements of art and its philosophical elements. As a consequence,
5 art is understood as the perception and expression of absolute and ut-
6 most harmony of the indefinite and the definite, the philosophy and
7 the knowledge of the definite in the indefinite.14
8 But not only that, art is also conceptualized as the concrete sphere
9 where the divine shows itself. The general is represented in the specific,
10 the specific in the general.15 Therefore, the only true art is that which
11 aims at the absolute. The absolute might be reached, to put it in tech-
12 nical terms, if art proves to have its purpose in itself. Ast follows Schel-
13 ling’s work in combining the aesthetics of autonomy prevalent at the
14 time with logostheology. Like Schelling, Ast refuses to educate artists
15 through his aesthetics but rather conceives of his aesthetics as explaining
16 the essence of art and its special forms.16
17 Still, even the essence of art comprises some simple reflections on its
18 periods and genres. Ast, like many idealists, adheres to the trinitarian
19 succession: the first period of art is dominated by ‘authority’ (Aristotle,
20 Horace) the second one by empiricism (the English: Burke, Henry
21 Home) and rationalism (Baumgarten and his pupils, Kant, Lessing)
22 and the third one by genius (Winckelmann, Herder, Friedrich and Au-
23 gust Wilhelm Schlegel). Obviously, this trinity is not so much derived
24 from the development of art itself as from the development of poetics
25 and aesthetics. Things are different regarding the forms of art. As far
26 as this issue is concerned, Ast astonishingly gives up trinitarian reflec-
27 tions and suggests four general forms of art: firstly, sculpture – as he
28 writes – expresses essentiality, reality, the divine principle or organism;
29 secondly, music stands for individuality, ideality – the human principle
30 or ‘emotive mind’ (“Gemüth”).17 Thirdly, Ast speaks of ‘orchestraic’
31 (“Orchestik”) as the unity of sculpture and music in the real – or the
32 harmonic life; fourthly, he introduces the contemporaneous popular
33 notion of all-encompassing poetry into his system: poetry is regarded
34
35 13 Ibid., p. V.
36 14 Ibid., § 1, p. 3: “die Anschauung und Darstellung der absoluten Harmonie des
37 Unendlichen und des Endlichen, die Philosophie und die Erkenntniss des End-
lichem im Unendlichen”.
38
15 Ibid., § 1, p. 3.
39 16 Ibid., § 11, p. 11.
40 17 Ibid., § 101, pp. 109 – 111, p. 110.
1 as the unity of sculpture and music in the ideal – the absolute life and
2 spirit.18 As in the writings of the brothers Schlegel, poetry is thought
3 of as the ‘totality of art’ (“Totalität der Kunst”);19 it is only in poetry
4 that the arts build an absolute and original unity.20
5 The reason for this lies in the instrument of poetry: language. Lan-
6 guage with its beautiful harmonic relation of consonants and vowels ex-
7 presses ‘that which is sensually perceived and observed’ (“das sinnlich
8 Wahrgenommene[] und Angeschaute[]”),21 the goal of this enterprise
9 being ‘euphony’ (“Wohlklang [Euphonie]”).22 It is astonishing that Ast
10 promotes such a goal and does not adhere to aspects of content; yet
11 his preference might be explained by the fact that he strongly believes
12 in the aesthetics of autonomy and wishes to demarcate the territory of
13 poetry. ‘The free poetic’ (“das frey Poetische”) 23 is essential to him,
14 not imitation (‘imitatio veterum’), a polemic that shows how close
15 Ast is to the brothers Schlegel.
16 Yet his systematic reflections stem from Schelling’s model. This can
17 be illustrated from Ast’s trinitarian distinction of poetic genre. Ast pre-
18 sumes that three eternal forms of ‘formation’ (“Bildung”) are given:
19 magnetism (religion of nature), electricity, the expression of speciality
20 in difference (poetry of nature) and process (philosophy of nature).24
21 The ‘free poetic’ corresponds to these eternal forms: firstly, with the
22 help of the organ of fantasy, events and stories are depicted (epos). Sec-
23 ondly, the organon of sensation covers imagination and sensation (lyric
24 poetry); the third genre, instead, comprises both previously mentioned
25 genres. They necessarily contradict each other; drama, the third genre,
26 unites them with the help of the organon of reason and spirit.25 This
27 order is remarkable because it proposes a rather essential notion of fan-
28 tasy that has not much in common with the romantic concept of ‘crea-
29 tive fantasy’.
30 Loreye (1767 – 1844) writes less radically as he was not entirely con-
31 vinced by Schelling’s approach. According to Loreye, poetry can only
32 serve as a copy of the absolute in the real but cannot be identical
33
34 18 Ibid., § 101, pp. 109 – 111.
35 19 Ibid., § 101, pp.109 – 111, p. 111.
36 20 Ibid., § 120, p. 120.
37 21 Ibid., § 112, pp. 121 f.
22 Ibid., §§ 114 – 116, pp. 123 – 126.
38
23 Ibid., § 118, p. 128.
39 24 Ibid., § 166, pp. 168 f.
40 25 Ibid., § 166, pp. 166 f.
1 with the divine itself. Loreye studied in Straßburg, was a professor at the
2 lyceum Rastatt (‘Lyzealprofessor’) for poetics and rhetoric and was later
3 appointed Director of the lyceum (from 1818). Being a member of the
4 anti-romanticist ‘Vossische Club’ (named after Johann Heinrich Voss),
5 Loreye was a writer himself, focusing on topics such as loneliness. As
6 a professor, Loreye published a treatise on rhetoric and ‘Chrestomatik’
7 (1809), a commentary on Horace’s odes (1815) and a Theorie der Dicht-
8 kunst, the latter being first published in 1801/02 and later republished in
9 a revised edition (1820). Both editions present the oeuvre as an ‘enter-
10 taining manual’ (“unterhaltendes Lehrbuch”) against the dogmatic ideas
11 of the ‘schoolmasterly tyranny’ (“Schultyrannen”) in poetics.26
12 Yet the book is highly ambitious. The first edition is reminiscent of
13 popular aesthetics and concentrates on the discussion of Kant, with a
14 certain focus on the morals expressed in the Critique of Judgement: beauty
15 is not a quality of objects but denotes the subjective recognition which is
16 not contingent. Subjective recognition is (like in Kant’s work) necessa-
17 rily grounded in human nature as well as in the ‘contingent conditions’
18 (“zufällige Bedingungen”) of human life such as birth, education and
19 climate.27 Loreye does not adhere to Kant’s natural explanation only,
20 he adds non-natural reasons. As a consequence, aesthetical judgements
21 are generally accepted in a double, natural and non-natural sense.
22 Although Loreye expresses some original ideas in the general part of
23 the first version of his poetics, it remains weak in more specialized as-
24 pects. Despite aiming at an empirical and innovative description of
25 genre, Loreye restricts his definition of the poem to the phenomenon
26 that pleases in ‘pure imagination’ (“der blossen Vorstellung”).28 In addi-
27 tion to this, Loreye adheres to the traditional romantic concept of the
28 ‘poeta vates’, prescribing only one general rule for the poet: he should
29 always grasp ideas that are worth his ‘holy character and profession’
30 (“heiligen Charakter und Berufe”).29
31 The second edition is more inspiring in both general and specific as-
32 pects. It expresses a decisive turn from Kant to Schelling, leading to a
33
34 26 Joseph Loreye: Theorie der Dichtkunst durch lateinische und teutsche Muster
35 beleuchtet. Tübingen: Cotta 1801/1802, (2 vols.), vol. 1, p. III; with similar
36 expressions J.L.: Theorie der Dichtkunst, nebst einer lateinischen und teutschen
37 Chrestomathie. 2nd, fully corr. ed. Stuttgart, Tübingen: Cotta. 1820, (2 vols.),
vol. 1, p. VIII.
38
27 Ibid., vol. 1, §§ 38 – 41, p. 8.
39 28 Ibid., vol. 1, § 105, p. 30.
40 29 Ibid., vol. 1, § 114, p. 31.
1 considerable scientification of Loreye’s poetics. He begins with an over-

2 view of aesthetic theory since 1750. Reviewing the three schools of aes-
3 thetic theory, he criticizes Baumgarten for observing beauty as a quality
4 of the object and Kant for his divisive reflections on beauty on the one
5 hand, art on the other. Schelling, founder of the third school, is said to
6 provide the solution. His ‘definite Idealism’ (“Definitiv-Idealismus”)
7 shows the identity of beauty and art and depicts art as the perfect
8 copy of the absolute in the real world. In doing so, it satisfies the artist’s
9 sense of art: ‘Schelling strolled into the sanctuary on the arm of the old
10 arts and myth’.30
11 Despite this stress on unity Loreye moves away from the romantic
12 notion of ‘poetry’ in the brothers Schlegel’s sense. The reason for this
13 move might be that he, in this respect, adheres rather to popular philos-
14
ophy or is not entirely convinced by the new and popular concept. Ac-
15
cording to Loreye, ‘poetry’ refers to articulated tones, alluding to Less-
16
ing’s understanding of poetry as a successive and reflexive art. As in the
17
first edition, yet more refined, Loreye stresses that true poetry requires
18
choice: the poet has more options than other artists, therefore his orien-
19
tation should be the ‘harmony of all forces’ (“Harmonie aller Kräfte”).31
20
The only organ that helps him in this respect is the soul: ‘The word that
21
comes from the soul cannot be prosaic, it has to be a poem; in this high-
22
er life consists the nature of poetry.’32 Yet poetry allows for different
23
24
types of genre:33 firstly, ‘works of the poetic emotion’ (“Werke des
25
dichterischen Gefühls”) such as song, ode and sonnet, secondly,
26
‘works of the poetic will’ (“Werke des dichterischen Willens”),
27
novel, drama and opera and thirdly, ‘mixed poetic works’ (“gemischte
28 poetische Werke”) such as discourse and letter.
29 In contrast to Loreye, Wagner (1775 – 1841) demonstrates his sym-
30 pathy for unifying thought and moves away from Schelling only insofar
31 as he develops his own cosmology. One of the reasons for this intellec-
32 tual closeness might have been the institutional background of both
33 thinkers: Wagner studied with Johann Gottlieb Fichte in Jena, one of
34 the few philosophers who did not provide his own account of aesthetics
35
36
37 30 Ibid., vol. 1, §§ 4 – 6, p. 2: “Schelling wandelte an der Hand der alten Kunst
und der Mythe in das Heiligthum.”
38
31 Ibid., vol. 1, § 152, p. 44.
39 32 Ibid., vol. 1, § 155, p. 44.
40 33 Loreye 1820 (fn. 26), vol. 2, passim.
1 although he often referred to it implicitly.34 His aesthetically interested

2 pupil Wagner became Extraordinarius of philosophy at Würzburg Uni-
3 versity as a colleague of the intellectually dominant Schelling. Wagner
4 offered courses on aesthetics, often under the new heading ‘philosophy
5 of art’,35 and joined the Würzburg ‘world-governing society’ (“weltre-
6 gierende Gesellschaft”). He was regarded as a popular speaker, his public
7 including ladies.36 Johann Jakob Wagner thought of himself as the ‘true
8 interpreter’ of Schelling.37 Wagner was the author of idealist as well as
9 ‘weltanschauliche’ writings, e. g. Strahlen deutscher Weltanschauung (1839)
10 as well as Dichterschule (1840, 21850). The Dichterschule is designed to be
11 an ‘Organon’ of poetics, a scientific ‘school of poets’ (“Dichterschule”).
12 Wagner highlights this claim so much because he regards the ‘school of
13 poets’ as the ‘true education of life’ (“wahre Schule des Lebens”).38 It is
14
not by mere accident that Wagner impressed writers such as Friedrich
15
Rückert and August von Platen who both studied with him.39
16
17
34 Fichte published only one text indirectly concerned with aesthetics: “On the
18
Spirit and the Letter in Philosophy”. This text cannot stand the comparison
19 with ambitious works of Kant’s and Hegel’s. Fichte’s work is rather a rejection
20 of Schiller’s “Letters on aesthetic education”, directed against Schiller’s appro-
21 priation of Kant with a few hints on his own view on autonomous aesthetic
22 theory. See Claude Piché: The Place of Aesthetics in Fichte’s Early System.
In: New Essays on Fichte’s Later Jena “Wissenschaftslehre”, ed. by Daniel
23
Breazeale and Tom Rockmore. Evanstin: Northwestern Univ. Press 2002,
24 pp. 299 – 316; Petra Lohmann: Die Funktionen der Kunst und des Künstlers
25 in der Philosophie Johann Gottlieb Fichtes. In: Grundlegung und Kritik:
26 Der Briefwechsel zwischen Schelling und Fichte 1794 – 1802, ed. by Jörg Jant-
27 zen, Thomas Kisser and Hartmut Traub. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi 2005
(Fichte Studien 25), pp. 113 – 132; Hartmut Traub: Über die Pflichten des äs-
28
thetischen Künstlers: Der § 31 des Systems der Sittenlehre im Kontext von
29 Fichtes Philosophie der Ästhetik. In: Die Sittenlehre J.G. Fichtes 1798 –
30 1812, ed. by Christoph Asmuth and Wilhelm Metz. Amsterdam, New York:
31 Rodopi 2006 (Fichte-Studien 27), pp. 55 – 106.
32 35 Thomáš Hlobil: Aesthetics in the Lecture Lists of the Universities of Halle,
Leipzig, Würzburg, and Prague (1785 – 1805). In: Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert
33
29 (2005) 1, p. 33.
34 36 Heinze: Wagner, Johann Jak. In: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. vol. 40.
35 Berlin 1971 (Repr. 1st ed. 1896), pp. 510 – 515.
36 37 Stefano Palombari: Weltgesetz und Tetrade: Struktur und Besonderheit der
37 Philosophie des Johann Jakob Wagner. In: Rückert-Studien. Jahrbuch der
Rückert-Gesellschaft 10 (1996), pp. 13 – 46, p. 29.
38
38 Johann Jakob Wagner: Dichterschule. Ulm: Stettin 1840, p. III, p. VIII.
39 39 Claudia Wiener: Johann Jakob Wagner – Dichter-Lehrer wider Willen. In:
40 Rückert-Studien: Jahrbuch der Rückert-Gesellschaft 10 (1996), pp. 7 – 12.
1 World view is what governs and motivates Wagner’s poetics. World

2 view in Wagner’s case means a poetic ‘Kosmogonie’:
3 ‘The world is full of life, which expresses itself and its powers in the
4 sound and the warmth of a mineral, in magnetic and chemical opera-
5 tions, and even in the mechanical actions of fall and percussion.’40
6 This poetic world view is said to be understood by everybody, to be
7 grounded in human nature.41 Yet it is only a poetic genius who can ar-
8 range the poetic world in a new way, thereby becoming an ‘alter deus’.
9 Wagner develops a kind of graduation theory on the process of poetic
10 productivity. It is perceived as a ‘play of subjectivity and objectivity’
11 (“Subjektivitäts- und Objektivitätsspiel”), of repetition and variation.42
12 As poetry is understood as the ‘sheath’ (“Hülle”) 43 of the idea, its
13 main task is to turn ideas into bodily form for perception by the spirit
14 through the living word.44 Wagner’s cosmogony reflects extensively
15 on this understanding as it justifies itself as a means for enabling poetry
16 to grasp a first and physical idea of the development of the world.
17 Still, poetry is not the final intellectual practice relevant in the cos-
18
mos, which Wagner seeks to enlighten. In the philosophical tetrads he
19
conceives, poetry figures as the leading art which includes genre poetics,
20
prosodics and metrics. Poetry is the result of sculpture, painting and
21
music. But as far as all intellectual styles (as he calls them) are concerned,
22
poetic style is regarded only as the simplest style among pragmatic, rhet-
23
oric and philosophical styles.45 Philosophical style, instead, appears as the
24
most abstract one, restricting itself to pure schemes and to morality.46 It
25
might have been the (often naïve or all too playful looking) tetrads that
26
led to the forgetting of Wagner even in the history of philosophy. In
27
addition to this, it might also have been the fact that Wagner, to
28
some degree, subordinated his thought to Schelling’s.
29
Another thinker responds to Schelling’s challenge, relying on him
30
31
mainly methodologically: Friedrich Schleiermacher. When Schleier-
32
40 Wagner (fn. 38), § 1, p. 3: “Die Welt ist voll Lebens, welches im Mineral in
33
Klang und Wärme, in magnetische und chemischen Regungen, ja selbst in
34 den mechanischen Wirkungen des Falles und Stoßes thätig hervortritt […].”
35 41 Ibid., § 72, p. 62.
36 42 Ibid., §§ 29 – 31, pp. 27 – 29.
37 43 Ibid., § 65, p. 77.
44 Ibid., § 12, pp. 10 f: “Verleiblichung der Ideen für die geistige Anschauung
38
[…] durch das lebendige Wort.”
39 45 Ibid.
40 46 Ibid.
1 macher, in his Vorlesungen ber die Aesthetik (until 1825), praises Schel-
2 ling’s account of aesthetics, he obviously stands in a well-established tra-
3 dition that, in 1805, had already reached school-level with Loreye’s
4 publication. Yet Schleiermacher appreciates Schelling only for the sim-
5 ilarities of their approaches. According to Schleiermacher, they both de-
6 part from similar methodological assumptions. Schelling, Schleierma-
7 ACHTUNGREcher states, derives art from physics, whilst he himself regards art as a
8 part of ethics and aesthetics as a discipline that is subordinated to ethics.47
9 Reflecting carefully on method, Schleiermacher makes two interesting
10 and revealing statements: firstly, that no concept of art has yet been ac-
11 cepted.48 Secondly, that in the field of aesthetics, practice has always
12 preceded theory.49 Inspired by these general observations, Schleier-
13 macher proposes an aesthetics of production: through art the individual
14 expresses his genuine sentiments which create a specific aura. Conse-
15 quently, art opposes both accidental subjective feeling, as well as think-
16 ing. Artistic subjectivity claims a right on its own.50
17 It is astonishing that, in contrast to Schelling (who found many ad-
18
mirers including Ralph Waldo Emerson and Heidegger), Schleierma-
19
ACHTUNGREcher’s innovative aesthetics received so little recognition in 19th-century
20
aesthetics and poetics. In poetics it is mainly Benedetto Croce who, fas-
21
cinated with Schleiermacher’s ‘subjective approach’ pays tribute to
22
23
47 Friedrich Schleiermacher: Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik: Aus Schleierma-
24 ACHTUNGREcher’s handschriftlichem Nachlasse und aus nachgeschriebenen Heften, ed. by
25 Carl Lommatzsch. Berlin: Reimer 1842 (Repr. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter
26 1974), p. 44.
27 48 Schleiermacher (fn. 47), p. 15: “[…] der Begriff der schönen Kunst [… ] steht
noch nicht fest […].”
28
49 Ibid., p. 30: “[…] daß die Praxis in diesem Gebiete immer vor der Theorie ge-
29 wesen, und daß man erst von dem Zusammenschauen analoger Thätigkeiten
30 und Producte dazu gekommen ist, den allgemeinen Begriff aufzustellen.” As
31 well as on p. 34: “Daß die Kunstwerke eher da sind, als die technischen und
32 wissenschaftlichen Vorschriften darüber, versteht sich allerdings von selbst
[…].”
33
50 Thomas Lehnerer: Selbstmanifestation ist Kunst: Überlegungen zu den syste-
34 ACHTUNGREmatischen Grundlagen der Kunsttheorie Schleiermachers. In: Internationaler
35 Schleiermacher-Kongreß Berlin 1984, ed. by Kurt-Victor Selge. Berlin, New
36 York: de Gruyter 1985 (Schleiermacher-Archiv I,1), pp. 409 – 422; Sarah
37 Schmidt: Plädoyer für eine Betrachtung der ‘Mittelzustände’ vernünftiger Tä-
tigkeiten oder das künstlerische Denken als innere Geselligkeit. In: Christen-
38
tum – Staat – Kultur: Akten des Kongresses der Internationalen Schleierma-
39 ACHTUNGREcher-Gesellschaft in Berlin, März 2006, ed. by Andreas Arndt, Ulrich Barth
40 and Wilhelm Gräb, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2008, pp. 613 – 636, p. 6.
1 him.51 This relative neglect of Schleiermacher in poetics could be ex-

2 plained by the fact that post-idealist approaches soon began to dominate
3 aesthetics and poetics.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39 51 For this remark I wish to thank Sarah Schmidt; see also Guyer (fn. 8), p.
40 330 333.
1
2
3
4 5. Post-Idealist Poetics
5
6
7 Post-idealist aesthetics draws on the ‘big philosophers’: on Kant and
8 Hegel mainly, in a few cases also on romantic philosophy. The leftwing
9 thinkers Theodor Mundt and Ludolf Wienbarg, for instance, both rely
10 on romanticism.1 Yet both did not provide academic treatises on poetics
11 and will therefore be excluded here.2 For similar reasons, Jean Paul’s aes-
12 thetics will be exempt from the discussion: even if his Vorschule der Aes-
13 thetik (1804) was one of the principal sources of inspiration for post-ide-
14 alist aestheticians and served to enhance humour in aesthetic matters, his
15 Vorschule is more an artistic commentary on aesthetic thinking as well as
16 on the genre of the philosophical aesthetic itself, than an academic trea-
17 tise.3
18 The accounts to be described here all fit into the scholarly type of
19 post-idealist authors and poetics: Friedrich Bouterwek, attacking
20 Kant, conceives an empirical idealist poetics which is characterised by
21 some witty hedonism (a). In contrast to Bouterwek, Wilhelm Wacker-
22 nagel reinforces religion in poetics and stresses the relevance of a Chris-
23 tian (Protestant) morality. Some Catholic scholars follow his example
24 (b). Yet the decisive move in poetics comes only later, with Friedrich
25 Theodor Vischer. Building on Hegel (and Jean Paul) he is one of the
26 first to combine speculative with contemporaneous formalist and psy-
27 chological thinking, thereby opening up new horizons for the study
28 of poetics (c). Rudolf Gottschall, following in Vischer’s footsteps,
29 adds a practical field which characterises poetics according to its rele-
30
31
32
1 See the description of both by Petra Hartmann: Geschichtsschreibung für die
33
Gegenwart: Theodor Mundt und Ludolf Wienbarg. In: Forum Vormärz For-
34 schung: 1848 und der deutsche Vormärz 3 (1997), pp. 43 – 54.
35 2 For a more detailed discussion of both see Author: Poetiken: Poetologische
36 Lyrik, Poetik und Ästhetik von Novalis bis Rilke. Berlin, New York: de
37 Gruyter 2004, pp. 184 – 201.
3 On the following see Götz Müller: Zur Bedeutung Jean Pauls für die Ästhetik
38
zwischen 1830 und 1848 (Weisse, Ruge, Vischer). In: G.M. (ed.): Jean Paul im
39 Kontext: Gesammelte Aufsätze. With a bibliography ed. by Wolfgang Riedel.
40 Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 1996, pp. 7 – 28, pp. 10 – 16.
(a) An Empirical Idealist Poetics: Friedrich Bouterwek Aesthetik (1806) 101
1 vance for literature and the public: literary criticism, made famous
2 through popular aesthetics (d).
3
4
5 (a) An Empirical Idealist Poetics: Friedrich Bouterwek
6 Aesthetik (1806)
7
8 Friedrich Bouterwek (1766 – 1828) joined the ‘Collegium Carolinum’
9 in Brunschwick and took courses in law. Influenced by Eschenburg,
10 he soon switched to the study of philosophy, aesthetics and literary his-
11 tory at Göttingen University (with, among others, Christian Gottlob
12 Heyne and Georg Heinrich Feder). In 1797, Bouterwek was appointed
13 professor of philosophy in that very place and wrote literature. An ad-
14 herent to Kant in his youth, the middle-aged Bouterwek opted for Frie-
15
drich Heinrich Jacobi and the idea of defeating scepticism, whilst later
16
considering himself as a moderate rationalist.4
17
Today, Bouterwek’s aesthetics is almost forgotten, maybe because
18
he decisively dismissed the popular idealism of the time and its schools
19
due to their incoherence and contradictions: on the one hand, Bouter-
20
wek pursued empirical goals; on the other hand, he stated that his oeu-
21
vre was driven by metaphysics. Still, the lack of attention payed to Bou-
22
terwek’s aesthetics does not correspond to its contemporaneous esteem:
23
24
The Aesthetik achieved three editions, some of them rewritten to a con-
25
siderable extent, with changes that even affect the cover print.5
26
The first cover shows a civilized Pan or Bacchus with a scarf around
27
the genitals, playing two flutes in order to excite the public. Opposite
28 Pan, a young holy man is sitting down, behind him stands a lady, dressed
29 up and with a lyre behind her back. The cover is entitled ‘Distaste and
30 Taste’ (“Ungeschmack und Geschmack”). The second edition trivializes
31 and sexualizes the scene, renouncing the title: Pan loses his scarf and
32 plays one great flute probably for the young man (who has lost his aur-
33 eole) and the severe looking lady who lays her hand down on the young
34 man’s shoulder.
35
36 4 On Bouterwek Fritz Jurczok: Friedrich Bouterwek als Ästhetiker. PhD-thesis
37 Halle 1949; Jürgen Fohrmann: Das Projekt der deutschen Literaturgeschichte:
Entstehung und Scheitern einer nationalen Poesiegeschichtsschreibung zwi-
38
schen Humanismus und deutschen Kaiserreich. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler
39 1989, pp. 85 f, p. 121.
40 5 See addendum.
1 These tendencies of reconfiguration do not directly correspond to

2 the book’s content, yet they indicate some radicalizations which are
3 true for the theory as well. The first version of the book starts with
4 some vehement polemics which, in the second and following editions,
5 become more precise and lead to an original aesthetics. The first edition
6 criticizes ‘the new metaphysics of art’ (“die neue Kunstmetaphysik”)
7 that is Kant’s transcendental philosophy of aesthetical judgement as ‘a
8 colossal tastelessness’ (“eine ungeheure Geschmacklosigkeit”),6 a notion
9 which is indeed picked up on in the cover print. Kant’s Critique of Judge-
10 ment, so Bouterwek’s criticism goes, stops half-way. The reason is Kant’s
11 definition of beauty. Bouterwek judges Kant’s consideration of beauty
12 as ‘purposefulness without purpose’ (“Zweckmäßigkeit ohne Zweck”)
13 in an ambivalent way. According to Bouterwek, this ‘purposefulness
14 without purpose’ – as inspiring as it sounds – would, in Kant’s version,
15 only allow for the arabesque;7 some kind of ‘adventurous conception’
16 (“abentheuerliche Vorstellung”).8
17 In contrast to Kant, Bouterwek praises the ‘old empiric method’
18 (“alte Empirie”), systems that are derived from the ‘Erfahrungsseelen-
19 lehre’ and popular philosophy. Despite not being entirely satisfied
20 with their work, Bouterwek nonetheless sees Herder and Jean Paul as
21 role models.9 In the first edition of Bouterwek’s Aesthetik, the author
22 aims at developing their approaches further, mainly through a careful
23 and eclectic adaptation of Platonist aesthetics: beauty is explained as a
24 relation of the perfect, the true and the good.10 Bouterwek stresses
25 that for ancient Greek beauty means ‘a liberal heroism, united with
26 the physical assets and attractiveness of a perfect hero.’11 This hedonistic
27
version of Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s understanding of ‘kalokaga-
28
thia’, the harmony of outside beauty and inner morality, undermines the
29
classicist view by stressing a kind of ideological liberalism as well as the
30
attractive nature of the male body. Bouterwek, playing with impropri-
31
ety, recommends this heroic understanding to his contemporaries, com-
32
33
6 Fr[iedrich] Bouterwek: Aesthetik. Leipzig: Martini 1806, (2 vols.), vol. 1, p. V.
34 7 Fr[iedrich] Bouterwek: Ideen zur Metaphysik des Schönen: In vier Abhand-
35 lungen. Eine Zugabe zur Aesthetik. Leipzig: Martini 1807, pp. 53 – 55.
36 8 Ibid., p. 49.
37 9 Bouterwek 1806 (fn 6), vol. 1, p. VI.
10 Bouterwek 1807 (fn. 7), pp. 47 – 49.
38
11 Ibid., p. 62: “Das Schöne für sie [die Griechen] war ein liberaler Heroismus,
39 vereinigt mit den körperlichen Vorzügen und Reizen eines vollkommenen
40 Helden.”
(a) An Empirical Idealist Poetics: Friedrich Bouterwek Aesthetik (1806) 103
1 bining it with another provocation – to step away from the ‘useless’ no-
2 tion of ‘purposefulness without purpose’.
3 From the second edition of his Aesthetik onwards, Bouterwek also
4 stresses another aspect in order to develop contemporary aesthetics fur-
5 ther: assumptions regarding ‘the original needs of the human ‘Geist’’
6 (“die ursprnglichen Bedrfnisse des menschlichen Geistes”) or of the ‘imme-
7 diate consciousness’ (“unmittelbaren Bewußtseyns”) which might lead
8 to a more appropriate idea of the theory of art.12 This aspect relies on
9 the premise that beauty must be ‘felt’ (“empfunden”) and on the distinc-
10 tion of three ‘class concepts’ (“Klassenbegriffe”) for such feelings: first,
11 the ‘physical’ (through organs), second, the ‘moral’ (love and respect),
12 third, the ‘intellectual’ feeling as the feeling of beauty can be either a
13 physical or a moral or an intellectual sentiment.13 In the second edition,
14 Bouterwek calls his methods ‘analysis of sentiment’ (“Analyse des Ge-
15 fhls”) and focuses on ‘psychological facts’ (“psychologische Facta”) in
16 which awareness is grounded.14
17 To conclude, Bouterwek’s aesthetics follows the same path as Heu-
18
singer, Clodius and Hillebrand but renounces transcendental philoso-
19
phy. The result is a kind of non-metaphysical, non-transcendental,
20
new Platonic and sensitive empirical idealism,15 expressed in the form
21
of a systematic poetics.16 It follows the same order as Clodius’ and Hill-
22
ebrand’s poetics: general aesthetics, the concept of beauty, of the sub-
23
lime and even of the comic, comes first. Particular aesthetics and beauty
24
in nature and the arts with a focus on poetics, come later.
25
Furthermore, even if Bouterwek rejects the rhetoric tradition at
26
first, his understanding of poetics adheres to it. Especially in the first ed-
27
ition, Bouterwek harshly distinguishes rhetoric from poetics, claiming
28
that rhetoric is not part of the beautiful arts while poetry is the ‘beautiful
29
rhetoric art in the true sense’ (“schöne Redekunst im eigentlichen
30
31
Sinne”).17 Only poetry, Bouterwek states with an emphatic turn to-
32
12 Bouterwek 1806 (fn. 6), vol. 1., pp. VIIIf, 21 [emphasis in original].
33
13 Ibid., pp. VIIIf, 21.
34 14 Fr[riedrich] Bouterwek: Aesthetik. 2nd, corr. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
35 Ruprecht 1815, (2 vols.), vol. 1, p. 18; see also Friedrich Boutwerk: Aesthe-
36 tik. 3rd, newly corr. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1825, (2
37 vols.), vol. 1, p. V.
15 Bouterwek uses the expression ‘empirical’ in order to describe his ‘way of anal-
38
ysis’; Bouterwek 1806 (fn. 6), vol. 1, p. 23.
39 16 Bouterwek 1806 (fn. 6), vol. 1, p. VII.
40 17 Ibid., p. 296.
1 wards autonomous aesthetics, has ‘its purpose in itself’ (“ihren Zweck in

2 sich selbst”).18 Rhetoric, however, means ‘negative poetics’ (“negative
3 Poetik”).19 The second edition withdraws this claim in a new chapter
4 ‘On poetry and rhetoric’ (“Über Poesie und Rhetorik”) and speaks of
5 rhetoric as ‘beautiful prose’ (“schöne Prosa”) and as possessing ‘a certain
6 prosaic beauty’ (“eine gewisse prosaische Schönheit”), although poetry
7 remains the true ‘beautiful rhetoric’.20 In order to draw a clear distinc-
8 tion Bouterwek introduces the concept of style. Style, as he sees it, does
9 not require aesthetic attraction and therefore allows one to distinguish
10 rhetoric from poetry.
11 In addition to this, poetry appears as the ‘art of the inner sense’
12 (“Kunst des inneren Sinnes”) and a ‘beautiful art of thought’ (“schöne
13 Gedankenkunst”).21 Like the brothers Schlegel, Bouterwek conceives
14 of poetry as the ‘original art’ (“Ur-Kunst”) because it means a ‘beautiful
15 work of fantasy’ (“schönes Werk der Phantasie”) that is every work of
16 art.22 Unlike Friedrich Schlegel, Bouterwek aims at avoiding a broad
17 definition of poetry. Yet he fails to establish a clear criterion; even
18 the material which constitutes poetry is not clearly defined. On the
19 one hand, language is only the ‘organ’ (“Organ”) of poetry but ‘speech-
20 less poetry’ is the true and original form of expression: ‘The poem as
21 poem has no existence but in thoughts’ (“Das Gedicht, als Gedicht,
22 hat kein Daseyn, außer in Gedanken”).23 This can be gleaned from
23 the fact that deaf and mute people can also read poetry, which means
24 that articulation is not necessary in order to understand it. Rhythm is
25 a ‘higher euphony’ (“höherer Wohllaut”) also understandable for
26 those who are deaf and mute.24 Nevertheless, traditional genres such
27 as lyric poetry can be distinguished from others: in lyric poetry, Bouter-
28 wek formulates rather naïvely, the nature of the poet expresses itself; it is
29 the most subjective form and directed toward song.25
30 Yet, naïvety is not the main feature of Bouterwek’s work. He pro-
31 vides in fact a sophisticated late-popular and pre-empirical aesthetics.
32 Subverting Winckelmann’s understanding of ‘kalokagathia’, Bouterwek
33
34 18 Ibid.
35 19 Ibid., p. 299.
36 20 Bouterwek 1815 (fn. 14), vol. 2, p. 14; Bouterwek 1825 (fn. 14), vol. 2, p. 14
37 21 Bouterwek 1806 (fn. 6), vol. 2, p. 301.
22 Ibid., p. 302.
38
23 Ibid., p. 303.
39 24 Ibid., p. 304.
40 25 Ibid., pp. 350 f.
(b) Religious Poetics 105
1 opts for a hedonistic aesthetics and poetics with a strong and emphatic
2 concept of subjective poetry. Still, this thought develops in different
3 steps which point in different directions: Bouterwek treats the aesthetics
4 of autonomy ambivalently. The same is true for his view of the rhetoric
5 tradition which he accepts only in the later stages of his work. Wacker-
6 nagel, on the contrary, provides a decisive classicist, and even religious,
7 poetics.
8
9
10 (b) Religious Poetics: Wilhelm Wackernagel’s Lectures
11 (1836/7) and Catholic Approaches
12
13 In his youth, Karl Heinrich Wilhelm Wackernagel (1806 – 1869) ad-
14 hered to the revolutionary demagogue Friedrich Ludwig Jahn (1778 –
15
1852) and, in turn, was refused academic appointments in Germany
16
throughout his early career.26 He studied classics and old German liter-
17
ature with August Boeckh and Karl Lachmann and, with the help of the
18
brothers Grimm, he received his Dr phil in Göttingen (1833). As a pro-
19
fessor for German language and literature in Basle (1835 – 1869) he,
20
being grateful to his new hometown and host country, rejected other
21
distinguished professorships in Berlin, Munich, Tübingen (where he
22
would have succeeded Ludwig Uhland), and Vienna. However, Wa-
23
24
ACHTUNGREckernagel managed to become the leading Germanist after Jacob
25
Grimm’s death. As a member of numerous academies and societies,
26
(among others the ‘Purposeless Society’ (“Zwecklose Gesellschaft”),
27
lead by Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben in Breslau (1827 – 1830),
28 he wrote literature himself. The scholar and devoted academic teacher
29 Wackernagel published a Geschichte der deutschen Litteratur (1848 –
30 1855), a monograph on Johann Fischart (1870, 21874) and edited Walter
31 von der Vogelweide (1833, translation by Wackernagel’s friend Carl
32 Simrock) as well as the famous Evangelische Gesangbuch (1854).
33 Wackernagel’s most famous publication might still be the posthu-
34 mously edited student-oriented 1836 lectures on Poetik, Rhetorik, Stilis-
35
36 26 Cathrin Bollberg: Wackernagel, Karl Heinrich Wilhelm. In: Internationales
37 Germanistenlexikon 1800 – 1950, ed. by Christoph König. Vol. 3. Berlin,
New York 2003, pp. 1965 – 1967; in great detail Kurt R. Jankowsky: Wilhelm
38
Wackernagel (1806 – 1869): A philologist in need of being rediscovered. In:
39 Multiple perspectives on the historical dimension of language, ed. by K.R.J.
40 Münster 1996, pp. 115 – 128.
1 tik. They found an editor only late in 1873 but experienced an interna-
2 tional reception and various reeditions until 2003.27 Wackernagel’s stu-
3 dent Ludwig Sieber (1833 – 1891), later chief librarian in Basle, used
4 Wackernagel’s manuscript with handwritten notes as a basis for the ed-
5 ition, admitting that the manuscript was far from complete, e. g. the
6 chapter on rhythm was added from the various course papers. In addi-
7 tion, examples from Wackernagel’s Deutsches Lesebuch are included in
8 the text which makes his poetic thought demonstrative and practical.
9 The lectures combine what had already become separated: poetics,
10 rhetoric and style. Wackernagel legitimates this combination in two dif-
11 ferent ways: the theoretical reason he gives refers to rhetoric and style
12 (in this case tropes and metaphors). They are both regarded as expres-
13 sions of truth which can, but do not need, to be beautiful. From a prac-
14
tical point of view, Wackernagel believed that he needed to reflect on
15
all areas of language: students of theology attended Wackernagel’s lec-
16
tures, and they required a minimum knowledge of rhetoric and style in
17
order to prepare good sermons.
18
Wackernagel grounds his lectures on a religious anthropology. God,
19
he claims, has three main qualities: ‘benevolence, omniscience, omnip-
20
otence’ (“Allgüte, Allweisheit, Allmacht”) that are reflected in his first
21
and beloved being that is man (Genesis 1,27: God created man in His
22
23
own image).28 Although man does not possess these qualities in full,
24
he may reach some degree of the good. If God is benevolent, man
25
should strive for morality (“Sittlichkeit”); if God is wise, man should
26
strive for knowledge (“Erkenntnis”) and if God is almighty, the corre-
27 sponding quality of man is his ‘drive towards art’ (“Kunsttrieb”).29 All
28 these qualities correspond to each other, although one quality can some-
29 times be stronger than another.
30 This is all the more necessary as beauty is defined by ‘unity in
31 manifoldness’: man is to demonstrate that he is made in God’s image
32 in that he displays the variety of virtues and values he is capable of.30
33 Wackernagel aims at proving this definition through etymology and
34 he opens up a new tradition for the German word ‘schön’. In contrast
35
36 27 As in many other cases, the international reception of Wackernagel remains a
37 field in need of further study.
28 Wilhelm Wackernagel: Poetik, Rhetorik und Stilistik, ed. by Ludwig Sieber.
38
Hildesheim, Zurich, New York: Olms 2003 (Bewahrte Kultur; Repr.), p 1.
39 29 Ibid.
40 30 Ibid., p. 2.
1 to Kant and Hegel who derive the word from ‘schauen’, Wackernagel
2 believes that ‘schön’ has its origins in the Old High German ‘vakar’
3 (which means beautiful) and which is related to the Greek paw}r,
4 thick or tight.31
5 But Wackernagel not only aims at a new, more or less religious and
6 Germanic definition of the beautiful. Like Bouterwek, Wackernagel in-
7 herits much from Eschenburg’s, Eberhard’s and Engel’s popular aesthet-
8 ics: through three forces of the soul man recognizes the beautiful. First-
9 ly, the ‘imagination’ (“Einbildungskraft”) either reproduces memories
10 or produces visions which are already in the world but have not been
11 expressed in the relevant way. Hereby, Wackernagel acknowledged
12 (along with Hillebrand) that man cannot generate the new on his
13 own. Still, Wackernagel (like Clodius) attacks Aristotle: his notion of
14 mimesis strikes Wackernagel as being too narrow. It describes only a
15 general tendency of human behaviour and not a specific characteristic
16 of art or poetry. Furthermore, it does not allow for modern genres to
17
be qualified as art, e. g. according to Wackernagel, the gospel cannot
18
be qualified as an imitative genre.32 Secondly, ‘emotion’ (“Gefühl”)
19
leads man to the good and to morality. Thirdly, ‘mind’ (“Verstand”) en-
20
ables man to recognize truth.33 Yet these three ‘powers of the soul’ do
21
not always work in the same way; epochal and individual differences
22
have to be taken into account.
23
These differences are in part caused by art itself. Wackernagel de-
24
fines art as téchne, “Kunst” deriving from “können”.34 Art appears as
25
a technique with a sense of the godlike creation inherent in it. In
26
short, art means the ‘beautiful objectivation of the subjectively per-
27
28
ceived beauty’ (“schöne Objektivierung des subjektiv angeschauten
29
Schönen”).35 Hence art can be spiritual (e. g. poetry) or sensual (e. g.
30
dance).
31
In the process of poetical conception, all three forces of the soul are
32 more or less at work. They reach their highest level if they act in mutual
33 agreement and in favour of ‘perfect unity’ (“vollkommener Einheit”),
34 ‘simplicity’ (“Einfachheit”) and “pure objective perception” (“reiner
35 objektiver Anschauung”) as in Hellenistic literature and, of course, in
36
37 31 Ibid., p. 3.
32 Ibid., p. 9, pp. 16 f.
38
33 Ibid.
39 34 Ibid., p. 5.
40 35 Ibid., p. 9.
1 Goethe’s work – a clear classicist value judgement.36 Excessive authors

2 like Tieck (Phantasus), Uhland, Matthisson and Hölty incline too
3 much towards fantasy; minor lyric poets like Schiller or Platen show
4 the contradictory tendency: they lay too much stress on reason and
5 combination.37 Minor poetical forms rely on humour (derived from
6 the notion ‘temperament’) and can be found in English satirical writing
7 (Shakespeare, Swift, Sterne). The most perfect poetic type of expression
8 is the sublime. It overwhelms and does not permit reasonable judge-
9 ments (Klopstock’s odes, Shakespeare’s King Lear, VI,6). Wackernagel
10 even excludes the ugly from poetry: Jean Paul’s Dr. Katzenbergers Badere-
11 ise cannot be called literature.38
12 Art (and this is true for literature as well) has a purpose which is
13 communication with the reader. Therefore, destructive texts like Dr.
14 Katzenberger are to be excluded from the canon of high-valued litera-
15 ture:
16 ‘Every art has in its sensual presentations of its perceptions a purpose,
17 which is this, and only this: that a soul that is arranged in similar ways as
18 the one of the artist, ingests the sensual presentations, so that this sensual
19 presentation, as it emerged from the mental perception of the artist, may
20 turn into a mental perception of its listener and viewer. With this, the
21 listener and viewer may return reproductively on the same path on
22 which the artist had come towards him, so that in the listener’s and
23 the viewer’s fantasy the fantasy of the artist may reflect and his emotion
24 together with those of the artist sound as a chord.’39
25
26
27 36 Ibid., p. 18.
37 Ibid., pp. 20 f.
28
38 Ibid., p. 26. See Günther Oesterle: Entwurf einer Monographie des ästhetisch
29 Häßlichen: Die Geschichte einer ästhetischen Kategorie von Friedrich Schle-
30 gels Studium-Aufsatz bis zu Karl Rosenkranz’ Ästhetik des Häßlichen als
31 Suche nach dem Ursprung der Moderne. In: Zur Modernität der Romantik,
32 ed. by Dieter Bänsch. Stuttgart: Metzler 1977, pp. 227 – 297; partially rev.
repr.: Friedrich Schlegels Entwurf einer Theorie des ästhetisch Häßlichen.
33
In: Friedrich Schlegel und die Kunsttheorie seiner Zeit, ed. by Helmut
34 Schanze. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1985, pp. 397 – 451
35 (Wege der Forschung 609); Francesca Iannelli: Das Siegel der Moderne: He-
36 gels Bestimmung des Hässlichen in den Vorlesungen zur Ästhetik und die Re-
37 zeption bei den Hegelianern. Munich: Fink 2007 (HegelForum).
39 Wackernagel (fn. 28), p. 30: “Jede Kunst hat nämlich bei der sinnlichen Dar-
38
stellung ihrer Anschauungen einen Zweck, nämlich diesen, und diesen allein,
39 dass eine Seele, welche der des Künstlers ähnlich organisiert ist, die sinnliche
40 Darstellung in sich aufnehme, dass diese sinnliche Darstellung, wie sie aus
1 Throughout these lectures, Wackernagel elaborates on an early ver-

2 sion of the theory of ‘reproductive fantasy’:40 Literary innovation lives
3 through ‘images of memory’ (“Gedächtnisbildern”) of ‘real’ events
4 which in turn are activated and combined by the ‘drive towards art’
5 (“Kunsttrieb”).41 The ultimate goal of art, he adds here, is that the fan-
6 tasy of the poet and that of the recipient are identical. One reproduces
7 the other. Consequently, ‘bad’ and ‘ugly’ literature is to be excluded as
8 it would irritate the reader in that it causes destructive feelings.
9 Moreover, poetics should observe how literature fulfils its commu-
10 nicative goal throughout the centuries. Its method should therefore be
11 ‘historical-philosophical’ and ‘natural historical’; poetics should, accord-
12 ing to A.W. Schlegel’s term, lead to a ‘natural history of poetry’.42 Un-
13 like Schlegel, Wackernagel’s ‘natural history of poetry’ is grounded in a
14
religious anthropology: man has inherited a certain drive towards art
15
that is the imagination, enabling man to reproduce fantasies for others.
16
As the drive towards art has always existed, and given first among other
17
talents, poetry is older than prose. Astronomy in verse form serves as a
18
proof.43 The poetic genres follow almost naturally from the old age of
19
poetry; they are ordered according to the forces of the soul. Lyric po-
20
etry, for instance, expresses emotion as ‘mental innerness’ (“geistige In-
21
nerlichkeit”) but combines the subjective with the objective.44 Al-
22
though this genre theory sounds rather Hegelian and traditional, it is
23
24
deeply rooted in Wackernagel’s religious aims which, in comparison
25
with contemporary aesthetics and poetics, make his lectures appear
26
slightly esoteric.
27
However, Wackernagel was not the only one to approach poetics
28 from a religious background. Catholic authors, especially Jesuits, be-
29 came equally active and created a whole tendency of religious aesthetic
30 thought. I shall give a brief account of their works which would require
31
32 einer geistigen Anschauung des Künstlers entsprungen ist, dem Hörer, dem Be-
schauer wiederum zur geistigen Anschauung werde, dass der Hörer, der Be-
33
schauer den gleichen Weg reproducierendend zurückverwandle, auf welchem
34 der Künstler ihm producierend entgegengewandelt ist, dass in seiner Phantasie
35 die Phantasie des Künstlers wiedererscheine, sein Gefühl mit dem des Künstlers
36 im Accord zusammenklinge.”
37 40 See Gunilla Eschenbach: Imitation und Parodie in George-Kreis (Ts.).
41 Wackernagel (fn. 28), p. 3.
38
42 Ibid., p. 16.
39 43 Ibid., pp. 35 f.
40 44 Ibid., p. 119.
1 further study and contextualization with regard to the relevant orders

2 and Universities.
3 Josef Jungmann (1830 – 1885), a Jesuit Professor at Innsbruck Uni-
4 versity, inspired by theological teaching requirements, conceived a two-
5 volume treatise re-edited three times by the prominent Catholic pub-
6 lisher Herder (Freiburg Breisgau). A first edition appeared under the
7 title Die Schçnheit und die schçne Kunst; from the second edition onwards
8 the book is simply called Aesthetik (1886). Its content (as well as its
9 order) does not strike one as being particularly Catholic: the first vol-
10 ume deals with general concepts, the second one with the beautiful
11 arts, especially rhetoric (which is, in contrast to most treatises, again in-
12 cluded in the beautiful arts) and poetry.
13 Yet the definition of beauty contains confessional elements: ‘good-
14
ness, love and enjoyment’ (“die Gutheit, die Liebe und der Genuß”) are
15
identified as the major characteristics of art,45 combining moral as well as
16
hedonistic strands of understanding, while beauty is seen as the ‘extra-
17
sensory composition of things, which one can only know and recognise
18
through reason’ (“übersinnliche Beschaffenheit der Dinge, welche nur
19
durch die Vernunft erkannt wird”).46 Jungmann refers to Thomas of
20
Aquinas’ authority in order to highlight some evidence for this defini-
21
tion. This is a correct and helpful reference: Thomas Aquinas indeed
22
23
held a strong view of (natural) reason which is, although inferior to
24
the revelation and fallible, capable of discovering a huge amount of
25
truth.47 In addition to this, it was Thomas who pleaded for a close con-
26
nection of beauty and the good. Beauty is said to help the good in two
27 ways: firstly, it enhances the cognition to find the good, the well-pro-
28 portioned. Secondly, beauty leads to tranquility, thereby stopping mo-
29 rally dangerous striving (‘appetitus’).48
30 A similar confessional definition or argument is to be found in Jung-
31 mann’s poetics. In the tradition of pre-19th-century rhetoric, Jungmann
32 revitalizes the idea that the main task of poetry is to stimulate emotions,
33 to move the audience.49 According to Jungmann, Hugh Blair and his
34 adherents are wrong when restricting poetry to verse form and classify-
35
36 45 Josef Jungmann: Aesthetik. 3rd, augm. and corr. ed. in 2 vols., Freiburg i. Br.:
37 Herder 1886, vol. 2, pp. 52 – 96.
46 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 23.
38
47 Thomas of Aquinas: Summa theologiae. Lugduni 1558, Ia, 1, art. 5, p. 5.
39 48 Ibid., qu. 5 a.4 ad 1 , p. 20.
40 49 Jungmann, vol. 2 (fn. 45), p. 430.
1 ing it as the language of emotions. Jungmann stresses that it is insuffi-

2 cient to take into account lyric poetry only (like Blair). Following Jung-
3 mann’s theory, poetry is subordinated to its rhetoric aim (‘movere’). Be-
4 yond morally trivial civil poetry which depicts real phenomena and he-
5 donistic poetry which aims at causing joy, there is foremost one type of
6 poetry which aims at moving the audience:50 religious poetry that ex-
7 presses the revelation and causes religious sentiments in readers, an
8 idea which Jungmann develops with reference to Thomas Aquinas,
9 Suarez and late 18th-century popular philosophy (beyond Blair). In
10 short: Jungmann’s poetics can be qualified as being religious insofar as
11 it revitalised the sublime in order to promote theological purposes. In
12 addition to this, it can be said to be Catholic as regard its sources, Tho-
13 mas Aquinas and Suarez.
14 Following in the footsteps of Jungmann, Catholics continued to
15 consider the topic of aesthetics and poetics, as one can see from Gerhard
16 Gietmann’s (1845 – 1912) school poetics Grundriß der Stilistik, Poetik und
17 sthetik (1897).51 Furthermore, Anton Kirstein, a Catholic professor of
18 philosophy who taught at the seminary in Mainz adopted a more secular
19 point of view. Although praising Jungmann for his account, Kirstein’s
20 sthetik der Natur und Kunst (1896) reads like other non-religious aes-
21 thetics, and reveals its Catholic tendency only when it comes to the
22 choice of composers (Palaestrina), references to St. Augustine, or to
23 the most honorable aim of aesthetics which is to praise God by enlight-
24 ening the beauties of his creation.52 Religious aesthetics like Wackerna-
25 gel’s and the Jesuit’s, inherit romantic mystic thought but also non-re-
26 ligious analytical and speculative aesthetics, combining them with tradi-
27 tional rhetoric knowledge. The result is striking in that it reunites fields
28 of study which since the invention of philosophical aesthetics had be-
29 come separated: rhetoric, poetics, aesthetics, style and homiletics. In
30 contrast to Wackernagel, Hegel and his pupils carry the separation of
31 the fields mentioned further.
32
33
34
35
36
37 50 Ibid., p. 405.
51 See the forthcoming study by Anja Zenk (preface).
38
52 Anton Kirstein: Entwurf einer Ästhetik der Natur und Kunst. Paderborn:
39 Schöningh 1896 (Wissenschaftliche Handbibliothek, 3rd series: Lehr- und
40 Handbücher verschiedener Wissenschaften 4), pp. 6 f.
1 (c) The Turning Point after Hegel and Beyond: Friedrich

2 Theodor Vischer (1846 – 1857) and the New Challenges
3 ( Johann Friedrich Herbart, Robert Zimmermann)
4
5 The reception of Hegel in aesthetics produced an uncountable number
6 of texts.53 To name only the most important students of Hegel who
7 worked in the area of aesthetics and soon emancipated themselves
8 from their master:54 Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand Solger (1780 – 1819) stud-
9 ied law in Halle (Saale) but also devoted himself to philosophical studies,
10 becoming a professor of philosophy and mythology at Berlin University
11 in 1811. Like many of his contemporaries, e. g. Hegel’s former student
12 Christian Hermann Weisse (1801 – 1866), Solger aimed at a unity of
13 revelation and speculation.55 Among his aesthetic writings are the re-
14 view on Schlegel’s Viennese lectures, Erwin. Vier Gesprche ber das
15 Schçne und die Kunst (1815) and Vorlesungen ber sthetik (1829). For Sol-
16 ger, irony as well as the difference between symbolic and allegoric art
17 became most important.56 Symbolic art develops ‘the idea’ in such a
18 way that it cannot be divided from its expression. In contrast to the sym-
19 bolic, allegoric art encompasses an activity of fantasy that goes beyond
20 the work in question and is concerned with its relation to something
21 else.57 Like Hegel, Solger dedicates a long paragraph to genre theory
22
23
53 Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert and Otto Pöggler (eds.): Welt und Wirkung von
24 Hegels Ästhetik. Bonn: Bouvier 1986 (Hegel-Studien); Karl Ameriks: Hegel’s
25 Aesthetics: New perspectives on its response to Kant and romanticism. In: Bul-
26 letin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 45 – 46 (2002), pp. 72 – 92.
27 54 See e. g. the debate about Solger Heinrich Clairmont: ‘Kritisiren heißt einen
Autor besser verstehn als er sich selbst verstanden hat.’ Zu Hegels Solger-Re-
28
zension. In: Die “Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik”: Hegels Berliner Ge-
29 genakademie, ed. by Christoph Jamme. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-
30 holzboog 1994 (Spekulation und Erfahrung: Abt. 2, Untersuchungen 27),
31 pp. 257 – 279.
32 55 Friedhelm Decher: Einheit von Offenbarung und Spekulation: Anmerkungen
zum mystischen Grundzug der Solgerschen Philosophie. In: Prima Philosophia
33
13 (2000) 3, pp. 231 – 241.
34 56 Jacques Collette: Enthousiasme et ironie: La dialectique artistique selon K.W.
35 F. Solger. In: Les études philosophiques Oct./Déc. 1992, pp. 487 498; Gio-
36 vanni Pinna: L’Ironia Metafisica: Filosofia e teoria estetica in Karl Wilhelm
37 Ferdinand Solger. Genova 1994; Matthias Kossler: ‘Leib’ und ‘Bedeutung’ in
der Ästhetik Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand Solgers. In: Jahrbuch der deutschen
38
Schillergesellschaft 43 (1999), pp. 278 304, pp. 281 f.
39 57 Wolfhart Henckmann: Symbolische und allegorische Kunst bei K.W.F. Solger.
40 In: Früher Idealismus und Frühromantik. Der Streit um die Grundlagen der
(c) The Turning Point after Hegel and Beyond 113
1 which is said to combine the spirit into a bundle: according to Solger,

2 the epic, objectivity and narration belong in one category, lyric poetry,
3 subjectivity and form in another whilst drama – the highest form – uni-
4 tes subjectivity and objectivity and expresses the passion of man in his-
5 tory.
6 Like Solger, Weisse, an unorthodox idealist who studied law, phi-
7 losophy, art and literature, replaced Hegel’s absolute spirit with
8 God.58 Although Weisse in his System der sthetik als Wissenschaft von
9 der Idee der Schçnheit (1830) stresses the importance of philosophical
10 schools and pays tribute to Hegel,59 he deviates considerably from his
11 teacher in understanding aesthetics as the ‘science of the idea of beau-
12 ty’.60 Following in Hegel’s footsteps, Weisse is one of the philosophers
13 who pays considerable attention to poetry which, according to Weisse,
14 is the most concrete and rich art. The reason for this evaluation lies in
15 language. Weisse regards poetry as the ‘creature as well as the phenom-
16 enon of the creative principle as such’ (“Geschöpf und Erscheinung des
17 schaffendem Prinzip als solchem”),61 in turn, spirit expresses itself in lan-
18 guage in renewed objectivity, aiming at the ‘creative ideal’ (“schöpferi-
19 sche[] Ideal”).62
20 Yet it would be too much to go into great detail as far as all these
21 Hegelian tendencies are concerned. I shall instead draw attention to
22 one particular work which is regarded as a product of Hegel’s school
23 and yet also goes beyond it: Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s six-volume
24 sthetik oder Wissenschaft des Schçnen (1846 – 1858).63
25
26
27 Ästhetik (1795 – 1805), ed. by Walter Jaeschke and Helmut Holzhey. Ham-
burg: Meiner 1990 (Philosophisch-literarische Streitsachen 1), pp. 214 – 240,
28
pp. 227 – 229.
29 58 On Weisse Franz Ludwig Greb: Die philosophischen Anfänge Christian Her-
30 mann Weisses. PhD-thesis Bonn 1943.
31 59 Christian Hermann Weisse: System der Ästhetik als Wissenschaft von der Idee
32 der Schönheit. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms 1966, (2 vols.), vol. 1, p. XII.
60 Ibid., vol. 1, § 2, p. 5.
33
61 Ibid., vol. 2, § 60, p. 228.
34 62 Ibid., p. 229.
35 63 Francesca Iannelli: Friedrich Theodor Vischer zwischen Hegel und Hotho: Ed-
36 ition und Kommentar der Notizen Friedrich Theodor Vischers zu Hothos Äs-
37 thetikvorlesung von 1833. In: Hegel-Studien 37 (2002), pp. 11 – 53; See also
Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert: Friedrich Theodor Vischer: “Der große Repe-
38
tent deutscher Nation für alles Schöne und Gute, Recht und Wahre”. In: “O
39 Fürstin der Heimath! Glükliches Stutgard. Politik, Kultur und Gesellschaft in
40 deutschen Südwesten um 1800, ed. by Otto Pöggeler, Christoph Jamme. Stutt-
1 Vischer was both a philosopher and a writer, popular for his parody
2 of Goethe’s Faust in Faust III (1862) and his witty novel Auch Einer
3 (1878).64 With his friends Eduard Mörike und David Friedrich Strauss
4 Vischer engaged in discussions on all kinds of intellectual issues, from
5 new trends in philosophy and literature to political events such as the
6 1848 revolution in which Vischer participated as a liberal politician.65
7 Being appointed professor at Zurich (1855, later in Stuttgart 1866) he
8 often left for Italy, praising the sensual atmosphere which corresponds
9 to the experience of ‘high art’. During these travels he searched for ma-
10 terial in order to prepare his comprehensive aesthetics which includes
11 painting, sculpture and music. The sixth volume is dedicated to litera-
12 ture and it is the focus of the following paragraphs, the general thesis
13 being that Vischer’s aesthetics marks a turning point in the history of
14 the method of aesthetics: Vischer promotes speculative aesthetics in
15 the Hegel-tradition and, in the late writings, an empirical aesthetics
16 that goes hand in hand with new developments in the area (e. g.
17 Lotze, Fechner).
18
19
20
21 gart: Klett-Cotta 1988, pp. 329 351. – The following remarks rely on previ-
22 ous publications in German, yet modify the issue considerably; Author: Poet-
iken, (fn. 2), pp. 164 – 172; Author: Von der Erfindung und den Grenzen des
23
Schaffens: Fallstudien zur Inventio-Lehre in Poetik und Ästhetik. In: Imagina-
24 tion und Invention, ed. by Toni Bernhart, Philipp Mehne. Berlin: Akad.-
25 Verl. 2006 (Paragrana, Supplement 2), pp. 217 – 242; Author: Anschaulichkeit
26 vs Sprachlichkeit: Die Künste in den poetologischen Debatte zwischen 1900
27 und 1960. In: Konzert und Konkurrenz: Die Künste und ihre Wissenschaften
im 19. Jahrhundert. Hildesheim: Olms, ed. by Oliver Huck and Christian
28
Scholl, S.R. (forthcoming).
29 64 Philip Ajouri: Erzählen nach Darwin: Die Krise der Teleologie im literarischen
30 Realismus. Friedrich Theodor Vischer und Gottfried Keller. Berlin, New
31 York: de Gruyter 2007, pp. 195 – 256; Alexander Reck: Friedrich Theodor
32 Vischer: Parodien auf Goethes Faust. Heidelberg: Winter 2007.
65 On Vischer’s bio-bibliography see Hilmar Roebling: Zur Kunsttheorie F.Th.
33
Vischers. In: Beiträge zur Theorie der Künste im 19. Jahrhundert. Vol. 1. ed.
34 by Helmut Koopmann, Adolf J. Schmoll so-called Eisenwerth. Frankfurt a.
35 M.: Klostermann 1971 (Studien zur Philosophie und Literatur des neunzehnten
36 Jahrhunderts 12/1), pp. 97 – 112; Gottfried Willems: Das Konzept der literari-
37 schen Gattung: Untersuchungen zur klassischen deutschen Gattungstheorie,
ACHTUNGREinsbesondere zur Ästhetik F. Th. Vischers. Tübingen 1981 (Hermaea 15);
38
Wendelin Göbel: Friedrich Theodor Vischer: Grundzüge seiner Metaphysik
39 und Ästhetik. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 1983 (Epistemata; Würz-
40 buger wissenschaftliche Schriften 15).
1 Vischer, in fact, while writing his Aesthetik was also rewriting it: the
2 ironic and self-critical Vischer of the 1860s and 1870s in his Kritik meiner
3 Aesthetik (1863/ 1873) exposed the faithful Hegelian scholar he was
4 when publishing the first volume of the Aesthetik in 1846. In the
5 1840s, Vischer had aimed to provide a metaphysically and logically
6 grounded theory of the beautiful which was designed to complement
7 Hegel’s lectures (in Hotho’s systematic revision) on the issue. Yet by
8 the 1860s Vischer had begun to observe that a synthetical aesthetics
9 would no longer be possible: aesthetic thinking seemed to change con-
10 tinuously. Reacting to the new trends and tendencies in aesthetics,
11 Vischer opted for a middle position between the extremes of formalism
12 and ‘Gehaltsästhetik’, speculation and empiricism; he revoked his cen-
13 tral doctrines such as his understanding of natural beauty as well as his
14 concepts of the sublime and the comical. At the same time, he enforced
15 his understanding of art and its perception as accidental event. Conse-
16 quently, his aesthetic writings should be seen as transitory texts which
17 together develop an aesthetics of contingency.66
18 Vischer’s specific poetological inventions include, among other is-
19 sues, firstly, his understanding of poetic humour, influenced by Jean
20 Paul,67 secondly, a particular explanation of fantasy and thirdly, a reas-
21 sessment of the understanding of poetry which is linked to the explan-
22 ation of ‘perception’ (“Anschauung”), the latter becoming a stumbling
23 block around 1900.68
24 Taking into account Hegel’s stress on the concept of fantasy, Vischer
25 chooses a confrontational approach which proves that he was already a
26 critic of Hegel (Hotho) by the time he wrote his Aesthetik:
27
28
29
30
31
32
66 Sandra Richter: Die Kontingenz der Kontingenzästhetik: Vischers ästhetische
33
Schriften als transitorische Dokumente. In: Papers of the Vischer-conference,
34 Stuttgart, June 2009.
35 67 Götz Müller: Zur Bedeutung Jean Pauls für die Ästhetik zwischen 1830 und
36 1848 (Weisse, Ruge, Vischer) [1977]. In: G.M., Jean Paul im Kontext. Würz-
37 burg 1996, pp. 7 – 28.
68 See the chapter on Meyer; see also: Gottfried Willems: Anschaulichkeit: Zur
38
Theorie und Geschichte der Wort-Bild-Beziehungen und des literarischen
39 Darstellungsstils. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1989 (Studien zur deutschen Literatur
40 103).
1 ‘The previous attempts to understand fantasy did not explain any-

2 thing. In contrast, we at least point in the direction where an explana-
3 tion is to be found.’69
4 Although Vischer originally refused to engage in the study of fantasy
5 as this seemed too trivial to him and indeed tended toward the false di-
6 rection of non-metaphysical aesthetics, he now attacks his teacher Hegel
7 (Hotho) for having failed to give a sufficient explanation of fantasy.
8 Vischer even claims to show a new way for future studies on the matter.
9 This new way can be characterised by an amalgamation of different ap-
10 proaches: anthropology, poetics, rhetoric, physiology, physics and psy-
11 chology. Vischer’s new way directs itself against two approaches in par-
12 ticular, which he appreciates but perceives as being one-sided and lim-
13 ited: subjectivism (Herder, Jean Paul) and formalism or exaggerated ob-
14
jectivism ( Johann Friedrich Herbart, Robert Zimmermann).
15
According to Vischer, fantasy is a ‘gift of humanity’ (“Gabe der
16
Menscheit”).70 However, not every individual participates in it to the
17
same extent. His anthroplogy of fantasy runs as follows: the normal
18
man possesses a ‘passive fantasy’ which enables him to ‘find’ matter.71
19
It is different with genius, a person who has an excellent memory and
20
is moved by passion, maybe caused by a specific physical condition
21
(black gall, nervous activity, mania).72 The genius’ fantasy is active,
22
23
grasping and depicting beauty. This kind of fantasy is the one that is
24
to be explained by aesthetics. Vischer asks what generates beauty? Na-
25
ture or the human being? He answers as follows:
26
‘The subject is capable of generating an image by perception, which
27 had to lay in the subject as a possibility or as an original image, which
28 becomes called into reality by the respective naturally beautiful object
29 and now remodels this object as an inner yardstick, so that that which
30 corresponds with the idea removes that which is not corresponding
31 and the object expands into the realm of pure beauty, whereby it can
32
33
69 Friedrich Theodor Vischer: Aesthetik oder Wissenschaft des Schönen: Zum
34 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Book VI: Kunstlehre Dichtkunst/Register. 2nd
35 ed., ed. by Robert Vischer. Munich: Meyer & Jessen 1922/23, (6 vols.), (1st
36 ed. 1846 – 1857), II, 3. chap., III. C, 1., p. 366: “[…] die bisherigen Versuche,
37 die Phantasie zu begreifen, haben nichts erklärt, wir aber weisen wenigsten auf
den Weg hin, wo die Erklärung liegen muß […].”
38
70 Ibid., § 379, p. 357.
39 71 Ibid.
40 72 Ibid., § 385, p. 390.
1 serve the spirit as a model, by which the spirit then may be able to dif-
2 ferentiate between the beautiful and the not beautiful.’73
3 The theory of the original image justifies Vischer’s idea that beauty
4 is generated by an ‘interaction between discovery and creation’
5 (“Wechselwirkung zwischen Finden und Schaffen”).74 The genius
6 finds original images in himself and uses them to compare and assess re-
7 ality. Finally, he wishes to create something new which resembles the
8 original image – a doublesided process.
9 On the one hand, Vischer refers back to poetics inspired by neo-
10 Platonic, as well as rhetoric, thought. He revitalises Scaliger’s concept
11 of the genius as a ‘second creator’.75 On the other hand, Vischer points
12 to the ‘inventio’-doctrine of classical rhetoric, in combination with the
13 Platonic image theory.76 Every artist should make use of a rich treasure
14 of original images, demands Vischer, thereby drawing on a typical 17th
15 -century rhetorical topos.
16 Seen from a poetic and rhetorical point of view, this artist’s psychol-
17 ogy sounds convincing. Yet it lacks proof. Vischer expects modern
18 physiology and psychology to fill the gap, once both fields have estab-
19 lished a reliable terminology and profound knowledge of the issue.
20 Vischer’s provisory physico-psychological result is as follows: at the be-
21 ginning stands the specific anthropological or even physical disposition
22 of the poet which is attracted by a certain event, an occasion, an idea.
23
24 73 Ibid., § 370: “Das Subjekt hat […] die Fähigkeit, zugleich mit der Anschauung
25 ein Bild zu erzeugen, das vorher als Möglichkeit oder Urbild in ihm angelegt
26 gewesen sein muß, durch den entsprechenden naturschönen Gegenstand im In-
27 nern zur Wirklichkeit gerufen wird und nu als inneres Richtmaß diesen umbil-
det, das der Idee gemäße in ihm erhöht und das Ungemäße ausscheidet, ihn zur
28
reinen Schönheit erweitert und dem Geiste überhaupt als das Muster dient,
29 durch das er Schönes und Nichtschönes unterscheidet. In Wahrheit ist dem-
30 nach das Subjekt der Schöpfer des Schönen, und die gesamte Naturschönheit
31 verhält sich zu dieser Schöpfung als Objekt in dem Sinne des Stoffs einer Tä-
32 tigkeit.”
74 Ibid., § 383, p. 358.
33
75 Ibid.
34 76 Through his complex reflections, Vischer might also provide a refined version
35 of Johann Jacob Breitinger’s statement that art has to search for its original im-
36 ages in nature; see J.J.B.: Critische Dichtkunst. Repr. of the 1740-edition, with
37 a commentary by Wolfgang Bender. Stuttgart 1966 (Deutsche Neudrucke;
Reihe Texte des 18. Jahrhunderts), vol. 1, p. 78; on Breitinger’s theory see Ga-
38
briele Dürbeck: Einbildungskraft und Aufklärung: Perspektiven der Philoso-
39 phie, Anthropologie und Ästhetik um 1750. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1998 (Stu-
40 ACHTUNGREdien zur deutschen Literatur 148), p. 80
1 ‘Association of ideas’ (“Ideenassoziation”), a term that goes back to

2 Herbart,77 and ‘apperception’ (“Apperzeption”) in a second step give
3 rise to known images. Thirdly, passions have to ‘cool down’ in order
4 to cause the final act: the ‘binding and separating activity of fantasy’
5 (“bindende und scheidende Tätigkeit der Phantasie”).78 It creates an
6 ‘image of the image’ (“Bild des Bildes”) which goes back to the original
7 image.79 It is this double sided approach of ‘inventio’ and ‘creatio’, the
8 interplay of nature and ‘the human new’ (which is, of course, to some
9 extent natural and already given) that has an enormous impact on aes-
10 thetics, even on Vischer’s opponent Robert Zimmermann.80 Further-
11 more, it is to be noted that it is Vischer who pleads for a combination
12 of methods and fields of study, ranging from anthropology, poetics and
13 rhetoric to physiology and psychology.
14 Vischer’s concept of poetry is born of these reflections. Like his
15 speculative predecessors from the Schelling and Hegel (Hotho) camp,
16 Vischer conceives of poetry in the context of a general theory of the
17 arts. Music is regarded as the most subjective art and ‘bildende Kunst’
18 as the most objective; poetry mediates between both, is subjective
19 and objective at the same time and therefore represents the totality of
20 the arts.81 As poetry is directed toward spirit, it devours all material mat-
21 ter and displays the highest form of fantasy, that is ‘fantasy that produces
22 poetry’ (“dichtende Phantasie”).82 This form of fantasy serves also as a
23 means of compensation as poetry lacks the inwardness that is audible
24 in music and the acurateness of creative arts: poetic fantasy creates
25 ‘the utterly new’ (“das schlechthin Neue”), that is the unification of
26 time and space.83 It is its material that allows poetry to progress in
27 such a way: language appears as the ‘vehicle’ (“Vehikel”) of inner im-
28 ages,84 a notion which had become famous through the works of
29
30
31
32
33
77 Walter Nowack: zur Lehre von den Gesetzen der Ideenassoziation seit Herbart
34 bis 1880. PhD-thesis Halle 1925.
35 78 Vischer (fn. 69), § 399, p. 430.
36 79 Ibid., § 398, p. 427.
37 80 See the relevant chapter.
81 Vischer, IV, § 837, p. 14.
38
82 Vischer, VI (fn. 69), § 835, p. 4.
39 83 Ibid., § 841, p. 29.
40 84 Ibid., § 836, p. 6.
1 Eduard von Hartmann,85 and was heavily criticized by the adherents of a

2 linguistic view of poetry.86
3 Unconcerned by these later views, Vischer expands on the linguis-
4 tic, as well as visual, quality of poetry, taking in traditional descriptions:
5 poetry appears as ‘oratory painting’ (“redende Malerei”) as Simonides
6 claims,87 but it cannot be restricted to simply copying. Loosely following
7 Lessing in his Laokoon, Vischer mentions the successive character of tone
8 that brings poetry close to music (although Vischer holds the view that
9 the poet can show coexistent things or actions).88 Being ‘liberal’ in his
10 aesthetics as well, accepting and elaborating on the beautiful as well as
11 the ugly, the sublime and the comic, the trivial (e. g. fashion) as well
12 as the highly developed, Vischer provides only a few vague ‘laws of
13 style’ (“Stilgesetz[e]”) in order to evaluate a beautiful work of poetry:
14 firstly, poetry should not be ‘gestalt-less’ (“gestaltlos”) but should rather
15 aim at the form of expression which music achieves.89 Secondly, poetry
16 should not add up every tiny detail as necessary in art.90 His genre theory
17 reflects on the issue in a similarly open minded way. The fact that this
18 genre theory is derived from physico-psychological reflections closes the
19 circle of his argument. Three types of fantasy correspond to three types
20 of genre: firstly, ‘creating fantasy’ (“bildende Phantasie”) leads to epic
21 poetry, secondly, ‘sentient fantasy’ (“empfindende Phantasie”) governs
22
lyric poetry, thirdly, true ‘poetic fantasy’ (“dichtende Phantasie”) pro-
23
duces dramatic poetry.91 As in Schelling and A.W. Schlegel’s theories,
24
dramatic poetry is regarded as the highest form of poetry since it synthe-
25
sises all aspects and types of poetry in one form. The system of the arts
26
repeats itself.
27
28
85 Eduard von Hartmann: Philosophie des Schönen. 2nd ed. with reference to the
29 bequest of E.v.H. ed. by Richard Müller-Freienfels. Berlin: Wegweiser-Verlag
30 1924 (1st ed. 1887), p. 691; E.v.H.: Grundriß der Ästhetik. Bad Sachsa: Haacke
31 1909 (System der Philosophie im Grundriß 8), p. 236. Von Hartmann belongs
32 to the advocats of an aesthetics ‘der Anschauung’ as well. In contrast to Vischer
he is mostly interested in the question of how to restrict the scope of interpre-
33
tations. Hartmann’s answer is clear: it is the intention of the author that deter-
34 mines the meaning of a text and the only task of the reader is to uncover this
35 intention in order to understand the text; see S.R.: Anschaulichkeit (fn. 63).
36 86 See the chapter on Meyer.
37 87 Vischer, VI (fn. 69), § 838, p. 16.
88 Ibid., § 838, p. 19; § 839, p. 21.
38
89 Ibid., § 846, p. 46.
39 90 Ibid., § 847, p. 50.
40 91 Ibid., § 895, p. 261.
1 Still, Vischer’s aesthetic ‘liberalism’ which advocates a middle posi-

2 tion between aesthetic extremes is founded on two basic assumptions:92
3 firstly, the belief in cosmic harmony which unfolds only accidentally. It
4 comprises an anthropology that is still grounded on Schiller’s notion of
5 the ‘whole human being’ (“ganze Menschen”). The modern human
6 being, struck by the problem of reflection, rediscovers nature, simplicity
7 and integrity through the arbitrary observation of art, a higher beauty.
8 Unlike in Hegel’s (Hotho’s) thought, ‘art in the highest sense’ is not
9 lost. On the contrary, art can regain its highest meaning as long as it re-
10 flects on the problem of modern reflexivity and enables the reader to
11 relocate his position in this complex world whilst enjoying art. As a con-
12 sequence, secondly, Vischer pleads for a renewed classicism in art that
13 also allows for non-classicist forms such as the satire. In the case of lit-
14
erature he favours authors like Goethe who neither tend to the extreme
15
of the fairy tale, nor to that of philosophical observations, but rather give
16
an impression of the ‘whole human being’ (“ganze Mensch”) through
17
moderate plots, more or less harmonious forms and, perhaps, some de-
18
gree of humour. It is through these harmonious presentations that the
19
reader observes beauty.
20
A borderline case such as that of Mörike is fascinating in this con-
21
text. Strauss and Vischer together in their letters carefully read and
22
23
judge the pieces of their friend, engaging in a harsh discussion with
24
him when fearing that he, adhering to romanticism and fairy tales,
25
fails to evoke the neo-classicist ideal.93 The result is not only a dispute
26
about poetic norms but also an almost broken friendship, one of the rea-
27 sons for this being that all three, conceiving of themselves as ‘whole
28 human beings’ cannot separate norms, poetic practice and critique
29 from the individuum. They adhere to the fatal connection of all these
30 aspects according to which a person proves to be misguided when writ-
31 ing in a way that is considered to be naïve or problematic.
32 Yet despite these rigid classicist norms, Vischer’s aesthetics proves to
33 be a liberal account, even in the aesthetic norms it accepts. The combi-
34 nation of speculative, formalist and empirical tendencies and the attempt
35 to avoid any exclusive philosophical position speaks for itself. Further-
36 more, the richness in artistic detail makes Vischer’s aesthetics a most val-
37 uable book, even for artists themselves. It is not by mere accident that
38
39 92 See Author: Poetiken (fn. 63), pp. 166 – 172.
40 93 Ibid., pp. 139 – 142.
(d) Literary Poetics: Rudolf Gottschall (1858, 61893) 121
1 Gottschall published his critical poetics a year after the final volume of
2 Vischer’s aesthetics appeared on the book market.
3
4
5 (d) Literary Poetics: Rudolf Gottschall (1858, 61893)
6
7 Although Rudolf Karl Gottschall (1877 – 1823; pseudonym Carl Ru-
8 dolf) conceived a scholarly poetological book, he was only an academic
9 by training, not by profession. Having studied law he became a journal-
10 ist (Ostdeutsche Zeitung, 1862 – 1865), edited the Bltter fr literarische Un-
11 terhaltung (1865 – 1888) and wrote and edited lyric, epic and dramatic
12 poetry. During his life he published more than twenty plays and more
13 than ten novels, most of them dealing with political events or person-
14 alities of public life. Writing literature, as well as every-day journalistic
15 texts, shaped his poetics and its development.
16 The main characteristic of Gottschall’s poetics is its closeness to lit-
17 erature. He aims to examine ‘latent poetics’ (“latente Poetik”),94 thereby
18 inheriting verse poetics in the tradition of Horace’s so-called Ars poeti-
19 ca. 95 Gottschall focuses on the self-reflexive moment in literature, giving
20 the relevant examples from authors like Lessing, Herder, Schiller,
21 Goethe and Jean Paul. Gottschall appreciates their critical activities, re-
22 gards them as representative of some kind of preliminary poetics and
23 complains that they have been largely neglected in the valuable aesthet-
24 ics of Schelling, Solger, Hegel, Weisse, Vischer, Rosenkranz, Kuno
25 Fischer and others. Gottschall aims to fill the ‘gap’ (“Lücke”) caused
26 by the metaphysical ‘ignorance’ of aesthetics.96 With this stress on the
27 mutual interference of criticism and poetics Gottschall is, of course,
28 not as original as he declares himself to be. He follows in fact in the
29 footsteps of popular philosophy, of Heusinger and Vischer. Like Heu-
30 singer, Gottschall strives for the institution of a thorough system of crit-
31 ical principles – principles which he finds eroded in his time.97 There-
32
33
94 Rudolph Gottschall: Poetik: Die Dichtkunst und ihre Technik. Vom Stand-
34 punkte der Neuzeit. Breslau: Trewendt 1858, p. IV.
35 95 On the “Ars poetica” and its reception see Sandra Richter: Außer Konkurrenz?
36 Die “ars poetica” des Horaz in Kommentar und Poetik des 16. und 17. Jahr-
37 hunderts. In: Welche Antike? Ed. by Ulrich Heinen [et al.] Wiesbaden (forth-
coming).
38
96 Gottschall, 1st ed. (fn. 94), p. IV.
39 97 Ibid., p. V: “Jetzt herrscht eine grenzenlose Verwirrung der kritischen Princi-
40 pien, ganz abgesehn vom Lobe der Kameraderie und den verschiedenen Aeu-
1 fore, avoiding any links with rule or normative poetics, he attributes to

2 himself the role of ‘interpreter’ (“Interpret”) of current poetry in order
3 to derive the relevant principles from literature itself.98
4 Gottschall published the first result of these attempts in 1858, re-ed-
5 iting and rewriting his Poetik over the course of the next five decades.
6 The book grew from one (1st and 2nd editions) to two volumes
7 (3rd–6th editions) and came to include most of the new literary and the-
8 oretical tendencies as well as new examples not only from German but
9 also from English and French poetry. Hence Gottschall’s Poetik is one of
10 the most informative sources about poetological developments from
11 1850 up to 1890. As it provides many innovative ideas and does not
12 lay stress on canonical knowledge, he explicitly warns that it is neither
13 intended as a school book nor suited for education.99
14
Gottschall, in his preface to the first edition, states that he relies on
15
three authors: Rosenkranz, Carriere and Vischer. Indeed he even want-
16
ed to wait for Vischer’s volume on poetics (6th vol. of his Aesthetik) to
17
be published before conceiving his own books.100 Vischer’s Aesthetik is
18
praised as ‘the key work of modern times’ (“Hauptwerk der Neuzeit”)
19
in aesthetics, although it suffers from a lack of literary examples and aes-
20
thetic “Feinschmeckerei”.101 In addition to Vischer, Gottschall estab-
21
lishes alliances with others as regards his reflections concerning the his-
22
23
24
25 ßerungen der Parteiwuth; große Talente werden durch kleinlich mäkelnde
26 Beurtheilung auf das Niveau der Mittelmäßigkeit herabgedrückt, der Glauben
27 an die dichterische Kraft der Gegenwart durch die grundlosesten Behauptungen
erschüttert.”/ An endless confusion of critical principals governs now, regardless
28
of the praise of comradeship and the various expressions of party-furore; great
29 talents are suppressed on the level of mediocrity by pedantic carping judge-
30 ments, belief in poetic force of the present times is unsettled by reasonless state-
31 ments.
32 98 Ibid., p. V.
99 Rudolpf Gottschall: Poetik: Die Dichtkunst und ihre Technik. Vom Stand-
33
punkte der Neuzeit. 3rd corr. and augm. ed. Breslau: Trewendt 1873, vol. 1,
34 p. XII.
35 100 Gottschall, 1st ed. (fn. 94), p. VI.
36 101 Rudolph Gottschall: Poetik: Die Dichtkunst und ihre Technik. Vom Stand-
37 punkte der Neuzeit. 2nd corr. and augm. ed. Breslau: Trewendt 1870, p. 18.
It is impossible to translate “Feinschmeckerei”. The noun refers to eating like
38
a gourmand. Gottschall transfers the noun to aesthetics and makes polemical
39 use of it: Vischer is accused of having written an aesthetic treatise for well-edu-
40 cated gourmands only, not for the reading public.
1 torical treatment of matters (Rosenkranz),102 the ‘true’ poetic interpre-

2 tation of poetry (Carriere Das Wesen und die Formen der Poesie) as well as
3 the definitions of beauty and art: beauty is but an idea, distinct from the
4 real world as well as from the claim to truth. Furthermore, beauty is ‘ex-
5 pressive’ (“anschaulich”), Gottschall writes, referring to Vischer’s aes-
6 thetics.103 Gottschall chooses his works of reference well: Johann August
7 Eberhard, for instance, is highly appreciated as he is said to have been
8 the first to give a clear account of the effects of beauty, although he
9 did not achieve a deeper grounding for aesthetics (as did Hegel and
10 his pupils later).104
11 By the second edition, most of Gottschall’s poetics is already set.105
12 Still, the volumes grow. When in the fifth edition (1882) the author’s
13 interest in detail explodes and almost destroys the book’s systematic
14 order, Gottschall is happy to be able to refer to Conrad Beyer’s compre-
15 hensive Deutsche Poetik (1882).106 Yet this does not spare him the duty of
16 discussing new poetological approaches. In the sixth edition he pays
17 tribute to Wilhelm Scherer’s Poetik (postum 1888), as well as to Eduard
18 von Hartmann’s sthetik (1886/87),107 stating that – unlike these new
19 accounts – his own Poetik has already acquired the favour of the public.
20 The tone of reservation becomes even more severe as far as the new po-
21 etic tendencies of the fin de siècle are concerned. Gottschall claims that
22 he, in his Poetik, preserves the eternal truths of beauty against the new
23
24 102 Gottschall refers to Rosenkranz’ “Die Poesie und ihre Geschichte” (1855), a
25 more or less historical outline of poetry which can be neglected here.
26 103 Gottschall 2nd ed. (fn. 101), p. 24. In his critical and polemical appraisal of
27 Gottschall’s “Poetik” (first edition only), Horst Enders highlights this reference
to Vischer and accuses Gottschall of having promoted a duality of sensuality and
28
reason, feeling and language; H.E.: Zur Popular-Poetik im 19. Jahrhundert:
29 “Sinnlichkeit” und “inneres Bild” in der Poetik Rudolph Gottschalls. In: Bei-
30 träge zur Theorie der Künste im 19. Jahrhundert. Vol. 1, ed. by Helmut Koop-
31 mann and J. Adolf Schmoll gen. Eisenwerth. Frankfurt a. M. 1971 (Studien zur
32 Philosophie und Literatur des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts 12/1), pp. 66 – 84,
pp. 71, passim. This accusation is not borne out by the facts as Gottschall
33
stressed that the beautiful can originate in thought and spirit as long as it is trans-
34 formed in such a way that it touches the senses; Gottschall 2nd ed. (fn. 101), p.
35 25.
36 104 Ibid., p. 11.
37 105 Therefore, quotes are taken from this edition.
106 Rudolph Gottschall: Poetik: Die Dichtkunst und ihre Technik. Vom Stand-
38
punkte der Neuzeit. 5th corr. ed. Breslau: Trewendt 1882, p. XIV.
39 107 Rudolph Gottschall: Poetik: Die Dichtkunst und ihre Technik. Vom Stand-
40 punkte der Neuzeit. 6th augm. and corr. ed. Bresleu: Trewendt 1893, pp. XXf.
1 erroneous doctrines, a statement that is problematic, as well as character-

2 istic of Gottschall’s poetics. His Poetik is one of the books of reference
3 for 19th-century poetics but loses its relevance with the new literary
4 movements which are, in part, directed against Gottschall’s principles.
5 By these principles I understand three ideas highlighted in Gott-
6 schall’s typically 19th-century poetics: firstly, the idea of the classical,
7 the middle position between poetological extremes, the stress on eternal
8 truths, a combination of realism and idealism which avoids simple re-
9 productions of reality or complex creations of ideal universes. This un-
10 derstanding of the classical is not identical with the one promoted by the
11 ‘Munich poet circle’ (“Münchener Dichterkreis”) although some fea-
12 tures are similar. Still, Gottschall often polemicizes against the circle’s
13 main poets and thinkers such as Emanuel Geibel and his mannered com-
14 pounds.108 Despite adhering to the idea of the classical, Gottschall tends
15 more towards realistic concepts of literature, avoiding the ‘cultivated’
16 version of the classic espoused by the Munich poet circle.
17
A second poetological principle demonstrated by Gottschall’s book
18
is the fact that most 19th-century poetics rely on metaphysical ideas of
19
beauty, poetry and genre. The result can briefly be described as percep-
20
tion aesthetics.109 As explained by a condensed version of Vischer’s
21
work which appears in Gottschall’s Poetik, poetry depicts ideas through
22
language, and language is the form which is superior to other arts. Lyric
23
poetry appears as the sensitive art of individual expression, drama com-
24
bines sensation and perception whereas epic poetry takes into account
25
perception and the objective.110
26
Astonishingly enough, a third principle of Gottschall’s poetics is
27
modernity (in a 19th century understanding of the word). This under-
28
standing is inspired by the French revolution and the German liberal
29
30
spirit of 1848. ‘Modern’ describes the national literature of the 18th
31
and 19th centuries: Gottschall requires poetry to be written in the spirit
32
of its time (‘timeliness’/ “Zeitnähe”) and its people; he therefore calls
33
his work a ‘modern poetics’.111 It is only with the Reformation that
34
modernity begins, with its stress on human character, conflicts and social
35 life. Through psychological analysis, modern humour and social aware-
36
37
108 Gottschall 2nd ed. (fn. 101), vol. I, p. 164.
38
109 See the chapter on Vischer.
39 110 Gottschall, 2nd ed. (fn. 101), vol. II, p. 3.
40 111 Gottschall, 1st ed. (fn. 94), vol. I, p. VI., p. 97.
1 ness, French writers make the most of it.112 As a consequence, Gottschall

2 polemicizes against fairy tales as well as against trivial and pre-individu-
3 alistic poetry. In harsh contrast to Wackernagel, Jean Paul is appreciated
4 as the modern role model who focuses on the individual human being.
5 The ‘modern ideal’ (“moderne Ideal”) is a synthesis that unites the plas-
6 tic (the clarity of form) and the romantic, (the deep inner richness of the
7 mind of the active, free and modern human being).113
8 In the course of the six editions of the Poetik these principles devel-
9 op considerably, and are adapted to the new trends. These changes can-
10 not be easily revealed because the table of content only mentions minor
11 innovations (such as the chapter on the old epic verse in the second ed-
12 ition) and the framing criteria are modified by expanding examples and
13 interpretation.114 After the second edition these modifications occur
14 only in the form of corrections of sentences, in cutting and introducing
15 passages.115 Yet they help to enforce or reduce seven tendencies that are
16 already set in the Poetik:
17 Firstly, the Poetik revises the theory of the sublime and grace. Gott-
18 schall combines and defends both: moving beauty is grace, a lovely and
19 untouchable thing beyond every concrete form. A new footnote in the
20 second edition of the Poetik discusses the opponents of this theory,
21 which is astonishingly said to be a theory of the sublime (Zeising, Car-
22 riere, in the sixth edition of the Poetik also Hartmann).116 In the tradition
23 of Kant, they all recommend magnanimity as a criterion for the sublime
24 and tend to downgrade grace which does not fulfil this criterion. In
25 contrast to them, Gottschall appreciates both, although he focuses on
26 the sublime as well. This can be proven from Gottschall’s estimation
27 of Byron whom he defends against the literary historian Georg Gervi-
28 nus. Unlike Gervinus, Gottschall stresses the force Byron attributes to
29 nature. Gottschalls calls the description of the Alps in Manfred ‘the gran-
30 diosest lyric poetry of the alpine world’ (“die grandioseste Lyrik der Al-
31 penwelt”) comparing it to Albrecht von Haller’s ‘bad’ poem Die
32 Alpen. 117
33
34 112 Gottschall, 2nd ed. (fn. 101), vol. I, p. 97.
35 113 Ibid., p. 128.
36 114 Ibid. p. XV: “Meine Prinzipien haben mir bei der kritischen Anwendung nie
37 versagt.”
115 The fifth edition, for instance, cuts a paragraph on ‘Lautsymbolik’ that is obvi-
38
ously no more important, Gottschall, 5th ed. (fn. 106), vol. I, p. 134.
39 116 Gottschall, 2nd ed., pp. 27 f; Gottschall, 6th ed. (fn. 107), vol. I, pp. 34 f.
40 117 Gottschall, 2nd ed. (fn. 101), vol. I, pp. 47 f.
1 A second tendency seems to contradict the general realist orientation

2 of Gottschall’s work. He disregards prose (e. g. Karl Gutzkow’s novels)
3 in comparison to verse form. The argument dates back to the ‘Meister-
4 sang’ and the brothers Grimm: were prose to serve poetic purposes, it
5 would need to use every technique that renders lyric poetry worthy –
6 rhythm, rhyme, metre, verse. The reason for this is not only to prevent
7 the ‘dangers’ of the Sturm und Drang as well as of the Göttinger Hain
8 but also to contribute to a better memorisation of the work in ques-
9 tion.118
10 The third tendency of the Poetik is caused by the growing relevance
11 of natural science even in poetry. Gottschall highlights his wish to dis-
12 tinguish poetry from scientific writing or ‘descriptive poetry’ in stating
13 that a herbarium is not poetry and natural depiction is entirely different
14
from true poetry. For instance, Gottschall understands Friedrich Wil-
15
helm August Schmidt of Werneuchen’s poem Dorfe Dçbritz, a result
16
of the author’s poetic descriptions of rural life, as a mere botanic regis-
17
tration, a poetic herbarium. Although natural science has achieved pub-
18
lic recognition this type of poetry cannot be accepted as high art.119
19
A fourth tendency again draws on new scientific movements, in this
20
case characterology, an area of knowledge that has been reinvented var-
21
ious times since Theophrastos of Eresos’ Charakteres ethikoi (ca. 319
22
23
B.C.).120 Gottschall expresses his highest esteem for Julius Bahnsen’s
24
new characterology Beitrge zur Charakterologie (1867), claiming that it
25
provides interesting insights for the study of literary characters.121 Gott-
26
schall’s interest in Dickens and his character writing demonstrates an ap-
27 plication of this area of knowledge.122
28 The fifth tendency might help to explain some of Gottschall’s inter-
29 est in characterology. From the first edition he has battled for the under-
30 standing of genius and continuously elaborates on this. Genius is said to
31 be the ‘inner revelation’ (“innere Offenbarung”) and the poetic work
32
33
118 Ibid., p. 77 f.
34 119 Ibid., p. 82.
35 120 See Sandra Richter: Charakter und Figur: Zur Rezeption der Charakterologie
36 des Theophrast von Eresos seit dem 16. Jahrhundert bis zu Wielands “Abderit-
37 en”. In: Medizinische Schreibweisen, ed. by Nicolas Pethes and S.R. Tübin-
gen: Niemeyer 2008, pp. 145 – 169 (Studien und Texte zur Sozialgeschichte
38
der Literatur 117), pp. 145 – 169.
39 121 Gottschall, 2nd ed. (fn. 101), vol. I, pp. 86 f.
40 122 Ibid., p. 138.
1 the ‘external revelation’ (“äußere Offenbarung”) of the idea.123 It fol-

2 lows that Gottschall pays due attention to the process of poetic creation:
3 the selection of the motif, ‘conception’ (in the sense of irrational and
4 almost biological “Zeugung”), the sketch (the rational element:
5 “Skizze”) and “composition” (dispositio/ elocutio).124 Gottschall even
6 refers to contemporaneous mysticism in order to examine genius: to
7 Franz Xaver von Baader.125 Like Baader, Gottschall stresses the inner
8 source and motivation of true poetic enthusiasm, but he distances him-
9 self when Baader (like Justinus Kerner) compares poetic enthusiasm to
10 somnambulism. Gottschall instead reintroduces Aristotle who, opposing
11 Plato, finds poetic talent in all moderate authors and summarises with
12 Horace (“natura fieret laudabile carmen an arte”) that level-headedness
13 has to be linked with enthusiasm in order to produce the best poetry.126
14 A more contemporary reference is Schopenhauer. Hegel explains in-
15 genuity by the overturn of quantity into quality. Schopenhauer grounds
16 his ideas on genius on Hegel in claiming that one should refer to the
17 most excellent works of a genius only to prove his inaccessible quality
18 and not to disqualify him through naming the imperfect artefacts.127
19 The sixth tendency deals with the downgrading of the Middle Ages
20 in order to stress the ingenious nature of the present times. Gottschall
21 opposes historicist writing which uses material from the Middle Ages.
22 His argument stems from a liberalism that – as in Vischer’s work –
23 had become Gottschall’s aesthetic confession: the middle ages are not
24 exemplary because they were dominated by physical expression. Scenes
25 such as the taming of Brunhild by Siegfried today prove to be nothing
26 but ‘vulgar and hackneyed’ (“abgeschmackt”).128 Thereby, Gottschall
27 devalues Hermann Lingg’s Vçlkerwanderung and the various rewritings
28
of the Nibelungen by Wilhelm Jordan, Ernst Benjamin Salomo Raupach,
29
Emanuel Geibel and Friedrich Hebbel.129
30
Gottschall’s vision of modernity as being detached from these dark
31
Middle Ages is developed further with reference to Gutzkow and the
32
33
123 Ibid., p. 82.
34 124 Ibid., pp. 130 – 154.
35 125 See Franz Xaver von Baader: Gesammelte Schriften zur philosophischen An-
36 thropologie, ed. Franz Hoffmann. Aalen: Scientia 1963 (F.X.v.B., Sämtliche
37 Werke I,4; Repr. Leipzig 1853), p. 138.
126 Gottschall, 2nd ed. (fn. 101), vol. I, pp 105 f.
38
127 Ibid., pp. 112 f.
39 128 Ibid., pp. 94 f.
40 129 Ibid.
1 novelist Benjamin Disraeli, First Earl of Beaconsfield (1804 – 1881), later

2 Conservative British statesman and Prime Minister. Together with both
3 writers, Gottschall, in his fifth edition, views modernity as the third
4 ‘congruum’ (“Kongruum”) of the ancient and the romantic periods.130
5 Gottschall inserts a long quote from Disraeli in order to legitimate the
6 high valuation of modernity. Disraeli reports a sublime political thought
7 when standing on the plane of Troja: the French Revolution is not of
8 minor importance compared to the siege of Troja, and Napoleon is a
9 character as interesting as Achilles. Therefore, Disraeli (Gottschall fol-
10 lowing him in this respect) wishes to introduce his own period as a
11 new one, comparable to ancient times.
12 This emphatic evaluation of modernity characterises Gottschall’s po-
13 etics which provides a sum of liberal 19th-century poetics. In the attempt
14 to promote a refined form of literary criticism, Gottschall takes in many
15 areas of knowledge, eager to be at the forefront of what will later be
16 called the literary and theoretical avantgarde. By his stress on modernity
17 and through his theoretical ambitions, he stimulates poets and poeticians
18 to explore the dynamics of modernity and contributes to developments
19 that abolish the liberal rules and norms he subscribes to: the literary and
20 critical movements around 1900 which, departing from liberalism, es-
21 tablish new literary and critical schools and enforce programmatic disa-
22 greements about literary norms. From an academic point of view, Gott-
23 schall’s merit lies in the dissemination of contemporaneous aesthetic and
24 poetic thinking, mainly in the attention he pays to pre-empirical and
25 empirical aesthetics.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40 130 Gottschall, 5th ed. (fn. 106), vol. I, pp. 111 f.
1
2
3
4 6. Pre-Empirical and Empirical Poetics since 1820
5
6
7 As the influence of Hegel’s thinking diminished, poetics began to focus
8 increasingly on formalist and empirical, physiological and psychological
9 aspects.1 Initiated by Herbart, Zimmermann and Vischer but executed
10 by Carriere, the adherents to the teaching of Fechner, Dilthey, Scherer
11 and others, the second half of the 19th century faced waves of innovation
12 in favour of an ‘aesthetics from below’ (“Ästhetik von unten”).2 These
13 waves lasted until Nietzsche’s time and he, even in his late writings, was
14 inspired by these approaches,3 concerning himself rather with the needs
15 of life than with speculation.4
16 Perhaps due to current trends towards a neuro-, bio- or cognitive
17 poetics, late 19th century empirical and psychological aesthetics have be-
18 come a field of interest in recent years. Still, few contributions have
19 been exclusively dedicated to these theories. The main study was writ-
20 ten by Christian G. Allesch in 1987; he focuses on the psychological
21 foundations of the rising empirical aesthetics.5 In the more narrow
22
23
24 1 On the differentiation of philosophical programmes at the time Klaus Christian
25 Köhnke: Entstehung und Aufstieg des Neukantianismus: Die deutsche Univer-
26 sitätsphilosophie zwischen Idealismus und Positivismus. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhr-
27 kamp 1986, pp. 109 – 167.
2 Gustav Theodor Fechner: Vorschule der Aesthetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Här-
28
tel 1876, vol. 1, pp. 2 f, p. 6; see also Annalise Kiemle: Anschauungen über das
29 Wesen des dichterischen Kunstwerks von 1750 – 1920. Berlin: Funk 1930, p.
30 35, passim; Wolfgang Höppner: Das “Ererbte, Erlebte und Erlernte” im
31 Werk Wilhelm Scherers: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Germanistik. Cologne
32 [et al.]: Böhlau 1993 (Europäische Kulturstudien; Literatur – Musik – Kunst im
historischen Kontext 5), p. 91.
33
3 Gregory Moore: Art and Evolution: Nietzsche’s Physiological Aesthetics. In:
34 British Journal for the History of Philosophy 10 (2002) 1, pp. 109 – 126.
35 4 With a discussion of current research Werner Stegmaier: Nietzsches Philoso-
36 phie der Kunst und seine Kunst der Philosophie: Zur aktuellen Forschung
37 und Forschungsmethodik. In: Nietzsche-Studien 34 (2005), pp. 348 – 374,
pp. 354 f.
38
5 Christian G. Allesch: Geschichte der psychologischen Ästhetik: Untersuchun-
39 gen zur historischen Entwicklung eines psychologischen Verständnisses ästhe-
40 tischer Phänomene. Göttingen [et al.]: Verl. für Psychologie 1987; see also
1 area of aesthetics and literary criticism, Georg Jäger has provided a fas-
2 cinating insight into the different tendencies of German and Austrian
3 aesthetics, the latter remaining faithful to Herbart and formalism even
4 after Herbartianism had passed its peak.6 In addition to Allesch, Gregor
5 Streim provided a first account of what he calls “empirical-inductive
6 poetics”.7 Together with Klaus Weimar, Streim considers empirical po-
7 etics to have led to a concurrence of poetics with literary history8 and to
8 have increased the interest in the psychology of the poet and in clear
9 scientific concepts. Still, empirical poetics is accused of failure when it
10 comes to method: empirical poetics centred on well-known speculative
11 categories, the reason being that its authors – due to a lack of instru-
12 ments and experience as well as the ignorance of psychiatry9 – were un-
13 able to coherently and consistently develop the experimental approach
14 they were aiming for.
15 Convincing as these considerations are, they benefit from further
16 development: the concurrence of poetics and literary history led to a
17 separation, differentiation, and, to some extent, coexistence of these
18 fields. Especially regarding empirical aesthetics and Fechner, new ques-
19 tions, concepts and solutions to poetological problems were provided,
20 which complement literary history. Taking into account these achieve-
21 ments as well as the preliminary state of experimental science it would
22 be too harsh a judgement if one were to state that Fechner and other
23
24 some remarks by Margeret A. Boden: Mind as Machine: A History of Cogni-
25 tive Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006. (2 vols.)
26 6 Georg Jäger: Die Herbartianische Ästhetik – ein österreichischer Weg in die
27 Moderne. In: Die österreichische Literatur: Ihr Profil im 19. Jahrhundert
(1830 – 1880), ed. by Herbert Zemann. Graz: Aked. Dr. u. Verl.-Anst. 1982
28
(Die österreichische Literatur. Eine Dokumentation ihrer historischen Ent-
29 ACHTUNGREwicklung), pp. 195 – 219; Céline Trautmann-Waller and Carole Maigné
30 (eds.): Formalismes esthétiques et héritage herbartien. Vienne, Prague, Mos-
31 cour, Hildesheim: Olms 2009.
32 7 Gregor Streim: Introspektion des Schöpferischen: Literaturwissenschaft und
Experimentalpsychologie am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts. Das Projekt der ‘em-
33
pirisch-induktiven’ Poetik. In: Scientia Poetica 7 (2003), pp. 148 – 170.
34 8 See also Rainer Rosenberg: Literaturwissenschaftliche Germanistik: Zur Ge-
35 schichte ihrer Probleme und Begriffe. Berlin: Akademie 1989, pp. 13 – 18;
36 Streim (fn. 7), p. 152.
37 9 Psychiatry seems to have moved into literature only; see Horst Thomé: Auton-
omes Ich und ‘Inneres Ausland’: Studien über Realismus, Tiefenpsychologie
38
und Psychiatrie in deutschen Erzähltexten (1848 – 1914). Tübingen: Niemeyer
39 1993 (Hermaea 70). Few exceptions which take in brain research confirm the
40 rule.
(a) Poetics as Life Science: Moriz Carriere (1854/21884, 1859) 131
1 scholars interested in psychological poetics failed methodologically.

2 They just proposed a first and fascinating attempt in the empirical direc-
3 tion.
4 It has often been stated that Dilthey initiated empirical poetics.10 Yet
5 this view is limited to the late 19th century only. It is rather Carriere
6 (and/or Vischer) who formulated a first comprehensive empirical at-
7 tempt (relying on Schelling, Vischer and others) with Lotze, Fechner’s
8 student, developing some aspects further (a). Taking into account the
9 intense reception of Fechner’s methodological impulse to consider aes-
10 thetics from below and his aesthetical principles, he, together with
11 Vischer, is to be regarded as the late 19th-century authority in the
12 field – an authority who has been underestimated due to the dominance
13 of the productive collaboration between Dilthey and Scherer (b, c).11
14 Furthermore, beyond the big names, minor thinkers like Heinrich
15 Viehoff and Richard Müller-Freienfels contributed considerably to
16
the development of empirical poetics. It is to Viehoff’s credit that he
17
clearly recognised the shift from rational to empirical psychology and
18
that he determined the position of poetics within this field. Müller-
19
Freienfels, being one of the most important mediators of empirical psy-
20
chology, actualised the field for reception in the early 20th century. In
21
addition to both, Eugen Wolff developed Scherer’s evolutionary ac-
22
count further (d).
23
24
25
(a) Poetics as Life Science: Moriz Carriere (1854/21884, 1859)
26
27
Carriere (1817 1895) is mainly recognized as the aesthetician of the
28
‘Munich poet circle’ with its appreciation of art as the highest form of
29
life and its opposition to mimesis in favour of a cosmological and Pla-
30
31
tonic model.12 Yet Carriere’s works have more to offer: inspired by
32
10 See e. g. Streim (fn. 7), p. 151.
33
11 On this collaboration Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller: Dilthey gegen
34 Scherer: Geistesgeschichte contra Positivismus. Zur Revision eines wissen-
35 schaftshistorischen Stereotyps. In: Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwis-
36 senschaft und Geistesgeschichte 74 (2000) 4, pp. 685 – 709.
37 12 Renate Werner: Ästhetische Kunstauffassung am Beispiel des ‘Münchner Dich-
terkreises’. In: Bürgerlicher Realismus und Gründerzeit, ed. by Edward
38
McInnes and Gerhard Plumpe. Munich: Hanser 1996 (Hansers Sozialge-
39 schichte der deutschen Literatur vom 16. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart 6),
40 pp. 308 – 342, p. 328, passim.
1 his teacher Friedrich Adolph Trendelenburg, Carriere wrote his doctor-

2 al thesis on the Aristotelian notion of teleology (Berlin 1838), moving
3 on to different kinds of writings in the fields of literature,13 religion, pol-
4 itics and philosophy, in his early years inspired by the liberal Pre-March
5 era.14 He became a popular private scholar of philosophy and literature
6 at Gießen University and was offered a professorship only late in 1887 at
7 Munich University. Being an adherent of Kant in his youth he soon
8 adopted Hegel’s thought, in combination with speculative theism
9 (Schelling, Franz Xaver von Baader) and developed his own position
10 which has been called ‘semipantheism’.
11 Carriere’s Die Poesie (1854/21884) and Aesthetik (1859) mark moves
12 away from the whole tradition of aesthetics and poetics which is domi-
13 nated by philosophical speculation. Whilst Aesthetik, a book which took
14 Carriere twelve years to write, lays down the main ideas and principles,
15 Die Poesie develops them, historicises and naturalizes them. The main
16 goal expressed in Aesthetik is to observe literature in the ‘coherency of
17 life’ (“Zusammenhange des Lebens”).15 The natural sciences are con-
18 ceived of as role models for such an enterprise, which aims to explain
19 the whole cosmos.16 In turn, philosophy is conceptualised as ‘life sci-
20 ence’ (“Lebenswissenschaft”);17 aesthetics and poetics attend it.
21 Even if Carriere’s work remains Platonic in some areas, he consid-
22 erably changes the rhetoric and the presentation of poetics, expanding
23 on approaches by Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Christian Hermann Weiße,
24 Hermann Ulrici, Johann Ulrich Wirth, Karl Rosenkranz, Heinrich Rit-
25 ter, Rudolph Hermann Lotze, Franz Hofmann, Heinrich Moritz Cha-
26 lyväus, Richard Rothe, Christian Carl Josias Bunsen, Adolf Zeising and
27 Ludwig Eckardt. Carriere does not expect to found a school of thought
28 but to stimulate free thinking and research. He fulfils this goal. No Car-
29
30 13 Carriere published on Achim von Arnim (1841), Shakespeare (1856 – 1858),
31 Schiller (1859) as well as on Bettina von Arnim (1887). He even wrote
32 poems himself; see the collection “Agnes. Liebeslieder und Gedankendichtun-
gen” (1883).
33
14 Wolfgang Bunzel: “Muth und Opferkraft für die Idee”: Briefe Moriz Carrieres
34 an Arnold Ruge und Theodor Echtermeyer (1839/41). In: Internationales
35 Jahrbuch der Bettina-von-Arnim-Gesellschaft 8/9 (1996/97), pp. 39 – 73.
36 15 Moriz Carriere: Aesthetik: Die Idee des Schönen und ihre Verwirklichung im
37 Leben und in der Kunst. 2nd rev. ed. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1873, (2 vols.), vol. 1,
p. X.
38
16 Carriere (fn. 15), I, p. XIII: “[…] wir müssen es machen wie die Naturforscher,
39 die das Bild des Kosmos durch die vereinte Kraft vieler entwerfen.”
40 17 Ibid.
1 riere-school is developed; rather some similar approaches evolve a little

2 later, with Lotze and Fechner. Fechner especially pleased Carriere with
3 his highly disputed Zend-Avesta (1850), a partly poetic attempt to give
4 an account of a new pantheist Zoroastrian Weltanschauung (before
5 Nietzsche). Carriere wrote one of the few positive reviews of the
6 Zend-Avesta remarking that the work corresponds to his own semipan-
7 theist ideas.18
8 Die Poesie attempts to sketch some initial outlines for a history of lit-
9 erature, guided by the ideas of an evolution of literature and ‘education
10 of the self, perfection of the self’ (“Selbstbildung, Selbstvervollkomm-
11 nung”).19 The historical part of Die Poesie is reminiscent of Herder
12 but is also well-informed by the historical science of language ( Jakob
13 Grimm, Franz Bopp, Max Müller) and the psychology of peoples (Hey-
14 mann Steinthal, Moritz Lazarus).20 Following Steinthal and Lazarus’
15 work and taking in Charles Darwin’s description of evolution, Carriere
16 extensively examines the origin and development of language.21 Poetry
17
18
18 Hans-Jürgen Arendt: Gustav Theodor Fechner: Ein deutscher Naturwissen-
19 schaftler und Philosoph im 19. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang 1999 (Dae-
20 dalus; Europäisches Denken in deutscher Philosophie 12), p. 133.
21 19 Carriere: Die Poesie: Ihr Wesen und ihre Formen mit Grundzügen der verglei-
22 chenden Literaturgeschichte. 2nd rev. ed. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1884, p. 7.
20 Carriere: Die Poesie (fn. 19), p. 16. On ‘Völkerpsychologie’ see Pierre Pénis-
23
son: Heymann Steinthal et la psychologie linguistique des peuples. In: Revue
24 germanique international 10 (1998), pp. 41 – 50; Céline Trautmann-Waller:
25 Aux origines d’une science allemande de la culture Linguistique et psychologie
26 des peuples chez Heymann Steinthal. Paris: CNRS Editions 2006.
27 21 Carriere: Die Poesie (fn. 19), p. 37. – Darwin is, of course, only mentioned in
the second edition of “Die Poesie”. Herder and Darwin became sources of ref-
28
erence which could be used against Hegel’s speculative philosophy. Carriere
29 was among the first to provide such an account in the area of poetics. Hermann
30 Hettner did the same in his “Geschichte der deutschen Literatur im 18. Jahr-
31 hundert”, vol. 1, p. XXVII); on Hettner see Wolfgang Höppner: Die Bezie-
32 hung von Dichter und Publikum als Grundverhältnis des literarischen Verkehrs.
In: Weimarer Beiträge 35 (1989) 1, pp. 208 – 232, pp. 211 f – The influence of
33
Charles Darwin has been studied well in the course of the last ten years. Cf.
34 Kurt Bayertz: Die Deszendenz des Schönen: Darwinisierende Ästhetik im Aus-
35 gang des 19. Jahrhunderts. In: Fin de sciècle: Zu Naturwissenschaft und Liter-
36 atur der Jahrhundertwende im deutsch-skandinavischen Kontext. Vorträge des
37 Kolloquiums am 3. und 4. Mai 1984, ed. by Klaus Bohnen, Uffe Hansen and
Friedrich Scmöe. Kopenhagen, Munich: Fink 1984 (Kopenhagener Kolloquien
38
zur deutschen Literatur 11; Text und Kontext Sonderreihe 20), pp. 88 – 110;
39 Kurt Bayertz: Biology and Beauty: Science and Aesthetics in Fin-de-sciècle
40 Germany. In: Fin de siècle and its Legacy, ed. by Mikuláš Teich and Roy Por-
1 is meant to be the revelation of the life essence and thoughts.22 Yet Car-
2 riere decisively moves towards psychology and omits the notions of idea
3 and spirit, embracing the language of the life sciences. Beauty is regard-
4 ed as ‘the full and flawless being, the perfection of life, the reconciliation
5 of contradictions’ (“Das Schöne ist das volle mangellose Sein, die
6 ACHTUNGRELebensvollendung, die Versöhnung der Gegensätze”);23 it ‘creates itself
7 in the feeling spirit’ (“erzeugt sich im fühlenden Geist”).24
8 However, it is more the claim for a new methodological foundation
9 of poetics than the execution of it which characterises Carriere’s ap-
10 proach. He aims to observe and collect data, questioning the cause
11 and reason of his beautiful objects – two methodological ideas which
12 are directed against the philosophy of history in the area of aesthetics.
13 Still, Carriere does not oppose the dialectic: according to him, a mature
14
reason knows how to overcome contradictions and to do justice to
15
being in its full meaning. The same relative traditionalism proves to
16
be true for Carriere’s inclination towards a late-idealist understanding
17
of the beautiful. A necessary condition of the beautiful is that it conveys
18
an idea,25 ideally a divine idea. Thus explication is driven by two move-
19
ments: an underlying Platonist, as well as an underlying Fichtean, ten-
20
dency. In accordance with Platonic thinking, Carriere defines the idea
21
as ‘divine thought of things’ (“göttliche[n] Gedanke[n] der Dinge”) 26
22
23
which requires an individual life to realise itself.27 The underlying Fich-
24
teanism points to the understanding of art which realises the idea. Fichte
25
claims that art itself embraces the transcendental point of view; Carriere
26
simplifies this thought: the spirit itself corresponds to the ideas and the
27 views of the artist and philosopher.28 It fits into the general picture that
28 Carriere subscribes to the aesthetics of autonomy as provided by Schil-
29 ler’s Briefe ber sthetische Erziehung des Menschen. 29
30
31 ter. Cambridge Univ. Press 1990, pp. 278 – 295; Peter Sprengel: Darwinismus
32 und Literatur: Germanistische Desiderate. In: Scientia Poetica 1 (1997),
pp. 140 – 182.
33
22 Carriere: Die Poesie (fn. 19), p. 13.
34 23 Ibid., p. 4: “Das Schöne ist das volle mangellose Sein, die Lebensvollendung,
35 die Versöhnung der Gegensätze.”
36 24 Ibid., p. 8.
37 25 Carriere: Aesthetik (fn. 15), I, p. 11.
26 Ibid., p. 18.
38
27 Ibid., p. 20.
39 28 Ibid., p. 26.
40 29 Ibid., p. 59.
1 Nevertheless some aspects of Carriere’s aesthetics sound almost pre-

2 naturalist: firstly, there is his epistemological solipsism (which predates
3 solipsism). We only discover ourselves – that is, our inner life; every-
4 thing outside our physical and mental boundaries needs to pass through
5 our senses. In addition to this, every phenomenon needs to be treated by
6 our brain. In turn, the world is but ‘the objectified sensation of our own
7 essence’ (“die objectivirte Empfindung unsers eigenen Wesens”).30
8 As a consequence, secondly, the idea of beauty is conceived in a sol-
9 ipsistic way: Carriere rejects all kinds of simplifying materialism when
10 claiming that the beautiful is mediated by our senses and our brain.
11 Beauty is only perceived when a feeling of pleasure – the notion of
12 pleasure referring back to Kant, Bouterwek and Jakob Friedrich Fries
13 – not only causes joy but also reveals some spiritual content. Therefore,
14 Carriere describes beauty as a double-sided entity, with exactly the same
15 words in Aesthetic as in Die Poesie: ‘the beautiful is the idea for the spirit,
16 an epiphany for the senses’ (“das Schöne ist Idee für den Geist, Erschei-
17
nung für die Sinne”).31
18
Thirdly, the framework for this half idealist and half materialist con-
19
cept of beauty is Carriere’s liberal and progressionist view of the natural
20
and spiritual world: at the very beginning, everything is reinvented by
21
an ‘inner driving force’ (“innere Triebkraft”) that combines everything
22
and creates it anew.32 “A=A”, writes Carriere, claiming that forces are
23
sustained in the universe and ordered by natural laws.33 Yet every nat-
24
ural and human being has to act according to these laws, thereby unfold-
25
ing his true nature. Art and beauty, for instance, improve through free-
26
dom and autonomy.
27
28
What follows is, fourthly, a formalist as well as idealist and sensualist
29
description of art and genre in general: nature shows its divine wisdom
30
in the ‘typical forms of individual life, which we call genres’ (“typischen
31
Formen des individuellen Lebens, welche wir Gattungen nennen”).34 As
32 nature unfolds itself in space and time, there are three arts which express
33 different combinations of the space-time relation: painting addresses
34 space, music addresses time and poetry deals with both categories.
35 This claim has been made by ‘trinitarian aesthetics’ in a more or less sim-
36
37 30 Ibid., p. 3.
31 Ibid., p. 9; Carriere: Die Poesie (fn. 19), p. 13.
38
32 Carriere: Aesthetik (fn. 15), I, p. 29.
39 33 Ibid., p. 34.
40 34 Ibid., p. 18.
1 ilar way although Carriere states that he has provided a more original
2 definition than his predecessors (Hegel, Friedrich Thiersch, Max Schas-
3 ler). Carriere’s definition of poetry indeed follows well-known exam-
4 ples but adds a physical surplus: for Schiller and Wilhelm von Humboldt
5 poetry is described as ‘art through language’ (“Kunst durch Sprache”) 35
6 but the word is regarded as animated through oscillations of air.36 The
7 poetic word reveals ‘the lively essence of the things and the thoughts
8 of the self-consciousness.’37 Consequently, poetry with its sub-genres
9 (epic, lyric poetry, drama) is (as usual) presented as the art which unifies
10 all others. Combining his explanation of beauty with his formalist in-
11 sights, Carriere concludes: beauty ‘is generally true and individually
12 real at the same time, is expressive in generally recognized norms, pro-
13 nounces and fulfils the law of life through its own free force.’38
14
This pre-empirical account of poetics does not provide entirely new
15
ideas about aesthetical phenomena. Yet it takes up different speculative
16
aesthetic tendencies as well as emerging natural science and helps to re-
17
vitalise the area of poetics which, after Hegel, suffered from a lack of
18
new orientations.
19
20
21 (b) Psychological Poetics: From Gustav Theodor Fechner
22 (1871/1876), Rudolph Hermann Lotze (1884) and Heinrich
23 Viehoff (1820) to Wilhelm Dilthey (1887) and Richard
24 Müller-Freienfels (1914/21921)
25
26 Unlike Carriere and his own former student Lotze in their first ap-
27
proaches towards a new aesthetics, Gustav Theodor Fechner (1801 –
28
1887) decisively proclaimed an empirical scientific aesthetics. He even
29
tried to win others over to his project – an approach which fits well
30
into his general world view described as scientific by Michael Heidel-
31
32
33
34 35 Carriere (fn. 19), II, p. 449, quoting Schiller: “Mein unermeßlich Reich ist der
35 Gedanke/ Und mein geflügelt Werkzeug ist das Wort!”
36 36 Ibid., p. 451.
37 37 Ibid., I, p. 588: “die Offenbarung des lebendigen Wesens der Dinge und der
Gedanken des Selbstbewußtseins durch das Wort oder die Poesie.”
38
38 Ibid., I, p. 55: “daß es allgemein wahr und individuell wirklich zugleich sei,
39 daß es ausdrucksvoll sei innerhalb allgemeingültiger Normen, daß es das Gesetz
40 des Lebens durch eigene freie Kraft rein ausspreche und klar erfülle.”
(b) Psychological Poetics 137
1 berger.39 Although Fechner did not focus on poetics, his work func-
2 tioned as a role model for poetological treatises as well. In the following
3 chapter, his aesthetics is examined and recognized as exemplary.
4 Fechner studied medicine in Leipzig but received his ‘Habilitation’
5 in physics and became a professor of physics (1834). In this role, he ex-
6 plored Galvanism and electronic processes. After overcoming a serious
7 illness he devoted himself to natural philosophy and aesthetics. Beyond
8 publications specialising in the natural sciences, he wrote satirical texts
9 such as Beweis, daß der Mond aus Jodine besteht (1821), Stapelia mixta. Hu-
10 moristische Aufstze (1824), Gedichte von Dr. Mises (1841), Elemente der
11 Psychophysik (1860) and additional elaborations on psychophysics
12 (1877, 1882). His aesthetic thought is spelled out mainly in Zur experi-
13 mentellen Aesthetik (1871) and Vorschule der Aesthetik (1876, 21897), the
14 result of his lectures on aesthetics from 1864/65.
15 Yet Fechner’s empiricism is half realised and half postulated. In his
16 Vorschule he declares that his forerunners include Hutcheson, Hogarth,
17 Burke, Frederik Anton von Hartsen, Karl Köstlin, Lotze, Hans Christian
18 Oersted, Zimmermann,40 Jean Paul, Arnold Ruge, Ludwig Eckardt
19 (1863/1864) and Alois Egger (1872) and distinguishes the old ‘philo-
20 sophical’ (or objective) aesthetics (Kant, Hegel, Schelling) from the
21 new ‘empirical’ (or subjective) aesthetics.41 Fechner’s argument against
22 objective aesthetics is a polemic against philosophical speculation. Ob-
23 jective aesthetics is said to result in vague and general concepts – in
24 Fechner’s florid description: ‘all our systems of philosophical aesthetics
25 appear to me like giants on feet of clay’ (“so scheinen mir alle unsre Sys-
26 teme philosophischer Aesthetik Riesen mit thönernen Füssen”).42 Un-
27
like these helpless giants, an aesthetics from below promises clear con-
28
cepts and reasons for approval and disapproval.
29
Consequently, Fechner focuses on the nature of approval and disap-
30
proval and, like Carriere before him, reasons about the sentiment of
31
pleasure, thereby introducing helpful new distinctions which concern
32
33
39 Michael Heidelberger: Die innere Seite der Natur: Gustav Theodor Fechners
34 wissenschaftlich-philosophische Weltauffassung. Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann
35 1993; M.H.: Fechners wissenschaftlich-philosophische Weltauffassung. In:
36 Fechner und die Folgen außerhalb der Naturwissenschaften: Interdisziplinäres
37 Kolloquium zum 200. Geburtstag Gustav Theodor Fechners, ed. by Ulla Fix
in collab. with Irene Altmann. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2003, pp. 25 – 42.
38
40 Fechner (fn. 2), pp. 2 f, p. 6.
39 41 Ibid., pp. 1 f.
40 42 Ibid., p. 4.
1 the relation of pleasure and the beautiful. Pleasure is said to be the ele-
2 mentary feeling from which both originate: pleasure and repulsion are
3 ‘simple determinations of our soul that cannot be analysed any further’;
4 they do not appear in reality but as functions or results of something.43
5 What pleases and causes pleasure is beautiful (the contrary would be
6 called ugly); hence beautiful is a practical category.44 ‘Beautiful in a gen-
7 eral sense’ is everything that has the characteristic to attract sensual “Ge-
8 fallen”.45 ‘Beautiful in a narrow sense’ is that which reaches beyond
9 mere sensual pleasure but is still within the area of the sensual.46 In
10 order to distinguish between both types of beauty, Fechner, like Car-
11 riere and Lotze, introduces a more or less idealist criterion. He cites
12 the aphorism inspired by Winckelmann: “dem Guten, Wahren, Schö-
13 nen” which indicates higher and more valuable forms of beauty.47 Fur-
14 thermore, Fechner presents this relationship in the following aphoristic
15 form which turns the order of the bourgeois household into the order of
16 the beautiful:
17 ‘The good is after all like the first man and the principal of the
18 house, who simultaneously takes care of present and future, near and
19 far; beauty is his blossoming wife, who looks after the present, always
20 considering the will of her husband; the pleasant is the child who amus-
21 es himself with the sensual pleasures of the play of the individual; the
22 useful is the servant, who lends his lordship a hand and who receives
23 his bread only according to how well he performed. The truthful
24 then joins the members of the family as preacher and teacher, as a
25 preacher in belief, as a teacher in knowledge; the truthful lends the
26 good his eyes, offers help to the useful and lets the beautiful see itself
27 in the mirror.’48
28
29
30 43 Ibid., p. 8.
31 44 Ibid., p. 13.
32 45 Ibid., p. 33.
46 Ibid., p. 15.
33
47 Ibid., p. 17, pp. 31 f.
34 48 Ibid., p. 32: “Das Gute ist nach Allem wie der ernste Mann und Ordner des
35 ganzens Haushaltes, der Gegenwart und Zukunft, Nahes und Fernes in Eins be-
36 denkt; das Schöne dessen blühende Gattin, welche die Gegenwart besorgt, mit
37 Rücksicht auf den Willen des Mannes, das Angenehme das Kind, was sich am
sinnlichen Genusse und Spiele des Einzelnen erfreut; das Nützliche der Diener,
38
welcher der Herrschaft Handleistungen thut und nur Brod erhält nach Mass-
39 gabe als er solches verdient. Das Wahre endlich tritt als Prediger und Lehrer
40 den Gliedern der Familie hinzu, als Prediger im Glauben, als Lehrer im Wissen;
1 Yet Fechner does not adhere to the mere aphoristic and paternalistic
2 explanation of the beautiful but develops a eudaimonist aesthetics ac-
3 cording to which ethical judgements are to some extent identical
4 with aesthetical judgements.49 Moreover, Fechner formulates helpful
5 and highly regarded principles of beauty,50 claiming that the analysis
6 of beauty should not be restricted to the work of art only.51 As a result
7 of these principles the main definition of art is this: stimulation a+ stim-
8 ulation b is worth more than a+b.52 Fechner emphasizes the common
9 characteristic of art which is that it carries some higher meaning.53 He
10 refrains from expressing a complete art theory, applying his principles
11 to painting mainly, giving only a few brief mentions of poetry. These
12 remarks make use of the Bodmer- and Breitinger-understanding ac-
13 cording to which poetry should preferably give an emotive depiction
14 of reality. According to Fechner, the lyric poetry of Homer and Goethe
15 can be regarded as exemplary whilst A.W. Schlegel’s sonnets can be
16 thought of as weak examples.
17 Yet before presenting his principles, Fechner again launches into a
18
polemic, in this case against Zimmermann. Zimmermann himself was
19
one of the first to suggest principles or even laws of aesthetics, grounded
20
in Herbart’s philosophy which Fechner detests.54 Fechner attacks Zim-
21
mermann’s laws, for instance, the ‘principle of so-called perfection’
22
(“Prinzip der sog. Vollkommenheit”) according to which the weak is
23
displeasing in comparison to the strong.55 This principle draws on Her-
24
bart’s claim that the tall is pleasing when considered next to the small,
25
the small displeasing when considered next to the tall. Fechner argues
26
that Herbart’s and Zimmermann’s principles are invented by mere acci-
27
dent and could be subverted by other reflections. Fechner himself, for
28
instance, would neither prefer the tall nor the small, neither giants
29
nor dwarfs when it comes to social groups. Yet Zimmermann’s princi-
30
31
ple is not refuted. Fechner’s only intention is to show that one should be
32
es leiht dem Guten das Auge, führt dem Nützlichen die Hand und hält dem
33
Schönen einen Spiegel vor.”
34 49 Fechner: Vorschule (fn. 2), p. 38.
35 50 Ibid., I 53 ff; II, 231 ff.
36 51 Ibid., p. 16.
37 52 Gustav Theodor Fechner: Die Elemente der Psychophysik. Leipzig: Breitkopf
& Härtel 1860. (2 vols.)
38
53 Fechner: Vorschule (fn. 2), p. 37.
39 54 Ibid., pp. 42 f.
40 55 Ibid., p. 43.
1 careful in proposing fundamental aesthetic principles as Zimmermann

2 did.
3 Therefore, Fechner suggests six principles, stressing the relatively
4 vague notion of principle as opposed to the relatively restrictive notion
5 of law. He aims rather to explain a few aesthetic observations, defending
6 the opinion that one cannot exhaust the whole area of aesthetics with
7 only one or two principles. Fechner’s principles can be grouped togeth-
8 er according to their relation to quality and quantity, to content and
9 form.56 The principles of ‘aesthetic threshold’ (“ästhetische Schwelle”)
10 and of ‘aesthetic assistance’ (“ästhetische Hülfe”) refer to quantity. Fech-
11 ner calls ‘aesthetic threshold’ the degree of our responsiveness to aesthet-
12 ic objects. Quality is not enough in this case; a certain quantity of sen-
13 sation must accompany quality in order to surmount the threshold. As
14
Hegel calls it: the turn from quality to quantity. The principle of ‘aes-
15
thetic assistance’ falls into the same category. In order to explain this
16
principle Fechner uses the example of verse in a foreign language: al-
17
though one might not understand it, one could nevertheless recognize
18
the beautiful pattern which governs it and which would be useless if
19
it were not denoting beauty. This is what is explained through the prin-
20
ciple of aesthetic assistance:
21
‘From the uncontentious meeting of conditions of pleasure, which
22
23
on their own produce little, a larger and oftentimes much greater result
24
of pleasure emerges than what would correspond to the actual measure-
25
ments of pleasure of the singular conditions.’57
26
The next three principles are formal or qualitative: the ‘unitary
27 combination of the manifold’ (“einheitliche Verknüpfung des Mannich-
28 faltigen”), the principles of ‘truth’, ‘uncontradictedness’ or ‘unanimity’
29 (“Wahrheit”, “Widerspruchslosigkeit” or “Einstimmigkeit”) and ‘clari-
30 ty’ (“Klarheit”). The principle of the ‘unitary combination of the mani-
31 fold’ is an old one, which draws on Horace as well as on Christian
32 Wolff. Yet Fechner’s version of the principle goes beyond ‘Verknüp-
33 fung’: he advocates harmony. Every moment has to correspond to the
34 other58 – as the next principle claims, all aspects of a work of art have
35
36 56 The principles are summed up ibid., p. 46.
37 57 Ibid., p. 51: “Aus dem widerspruchslosen Zusammentreffen von Lustbedingun-
gen, die für sich wenig leisten, geht ein grösseres, oft viel grösseres Lustresultat
38
hervor, als dem Lustwerthe der einzelnen Bedingungen für sich entspricht
39 […].”
40 58 Ibid., pp. 52 f.
1 to fit together unanimously.59 Still, the principle of truth also refers to

2 simpler things, for instance, to the assertion that a work of art cannot
3 be black and white at the same time. The attempt to reach such an am-
4 biguity would reduce the sensation of pleasure the recipient of art ex-
5 pects. It is the task of the principle of clarity to detect failures of art
6 such as ambiguity.60 The sixth principle, the ‘principle of association’
7 (“Associationsprincip”) comprises the whole psychological debate
8 about ‘association’ in the 19th century and Fechner claims that Herbart
9 was entirely incorrect in his work on this subject, and in fact discredited
10 the fruitful principle he himself wished to set up.61
11 Despite their ambitious aims and subtle tone of irony, Fechner’s aes-
12 thetic writings received only negative reviews, headed by Wilhelm
13 Windelband’s rejection of Fechner’s account.62 It was only later, mainly
14 through the enthusiasm of naturalism for empirical aesthetics that Fech-
15 ner achieved some positive prominence. Wilhelm Bölsche in particular
16 made positive reference to Fechner when reflecting on contemporary
17 aesthetics and conceiving a programmatic treatise on Die naturwissen-
18 schaftlichen Grundlagen der Poesie (1886).63 Bruno Wille even created a lit-
19 erary person of Fechner in his novels, fascinated by Fechner’s claims of
20 scientific rigour and exactness.64 Yet after Edmund Husserl’s critique of
21 the psychologist idea that recognition could draw on experience (Logi-
22 sche Untersuchungen, 1900), Fechner’s psychological aesthetics became
23 obsolete.65
24
25
26 59 Ibid., pp. 80 f.
27 60 Ibid., pp. 46 f.
61 Ibid., pp. 86 f.
28
62 Arendt (fn. 18), Fechner, Vorschule (fn. 2) pp. 199 f.
29 63 See also Wilhelm Bölsche: Hinter der Weltstadt: Friedrichshagener Gedanken
30 zur ästhetischen Kultur. Parts 1 – 3, Leipzig: Diederichs 1901; Gustav Theodor
31 Fechner: Die Tagesansicht gegenüber der Nachtansicht: Das Büchlein vom
32 Leben nach dem Tode. Selected and introduced by Wilhelm Bölsche. Berlin:
Deutsche Bibliothek [1919].
33
64 Monika Ritzer: Bild und Sinn: Fechners Ästhetik und ihre Rezeption im
34 19. Jahrhundert. In: Fechner und die Folgen außerhalb der Naturwissenschaf-
35 ten. Interdisziplinäres Kolloquium zum 200. Geburtstag Gustav Theodor Fech-
36 ners, ed. by Ulla Fix in collab. with Irene Altmann. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2003,
37 pp. 131 – 152, p. 143; see also Uta Kösser: Fechners Ästhetik im Kontext. In:
ibid., pp. 113 – 130.
38
65 Mitchel G. Ash: Psychologie und Deutschland um 1900: Reflexiver Diskurs
39 des Bildungsbürgertums, Teilgebiet der Philosophie, akademische Disziplin.
40 In: Konkurrenten in der Fakultät. Kultur, Wissen und Universität um 1900,
1 Still, in his lifetime, Fechner had many productive students, among

2 them Rudolph Hermann Lotze (1817 1881), the most influential Ger-
3 man philosopher in the second half of the 19th century.66 Having re-
4 ceived his doctorate in philosophy and medicine (Leipzig 1838) as
5 well as his ‘Habilitation’ in medicine (Leipzig 1839) and philosophy
6 (Leipzig 1840) he focused on philosophy but did not abandon his med-
7 ical interest. Rather, he created an inspiring book called Mikrokosmos
8 (1856 1864) on the relations of the human being to natural life in
9 which he – like Carriere and so many of his contemporaries – aims
10 to reconcile naturalistic explanation with idealist speculation (the late
11 Hegel-school, Fichte, Schelling). Later, Gottlob Frege and Bertrand
12 Russell were to share Lotze’s epistemological programme, the refutation
13 of the ‘algebraization of propositional logic’.67 Together with Herbart,
14
the empirical psychologist school founder Wilhelm Wundt and Franz
15
Brentano, Lotze opts for empiricizing psychology or ‘Erfahrungsseelen-
16
lehre’.68 The same conviction that he calls ‘teleological idealism’ guides
17
his statements on aesthetics and poetics.
18
Lotze’s Grundzge der Aesthetik (1884) in which he lays out his aes-
19
thetical and poetological thinking, stems from his lectures on the sub-
20
ject.69 Hence the methodological style and the fact that his aesthetics
21
sketches only an initial outline of a comprehensive future aesthetics.
22
23
Surprisingly, this initial outline is to some extent reminiscent of Car-
24
riere’s aesthetics, develops them further and provides what could be
25
called an advanced but typical mid 19th-century theoretical sketch.
26
27 ed. by Christoph König and Eberhard Lämmert. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer 1999,
pp. 78 – 93, pp. 86 f.
28
66 On Lotze’s biography see Reinhardt Pester: Hermann Lotze: Wege seines
29 Denkens und Forschens. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 1997.
30 67 Gottfried Gabriel: Einleitung. In: Hermann Lotze, Logik. Erstes Buch. Vom
31 Denken und Logik. Drittes Buch. Vom Erkennen. Hamburg: Meiner 1989,
32 pp. XI–XXXV; Kai Hauser: Lotze und Husserl. In: Archiv für Geschichte
der Philosophie 85 (2003), pp. 152 – 178, p. 156.
33
68 On Wundt, his school and his international impact Werner Thierrmann: Zur
34 Geschichte des Leipziger psychologische Instituts 1875 – 1945. Promotion A.
35 Leipzig 1981; Renate Topel: Die allgemeine Psychologie Wilhelm Wundts:
36 Wundt und Helmholtz. Zwei Beiträge zur Theorie der Sinneswahrnehmung.
37 Promotion B. Leipzig 1982; Michel Espagne: Wilhelm Wundt: La “psycholo-
gie des peuples” et l’histoire culturelle. In: Revue germanique internationale 10
38
(1998), pp. 73 – 91.
39 69 [Rudolph] Hermann Lotze: Grundzüge der Aesthetik: Dictate aus den Vorle-
40 sungen. Leipzig: Hirzel 1884.
1 Lotze’s main issues are the definition of the beautiful and the role of
2 poetry. He provides three definitions; the third is said to be the most
3 comprehensive and convincing one. The first definition views beauty
4 as caused by the ‘impression of pleasure’ (“Eindruck der Lust”).70 Like
5 Carriere, Lotze highlights the deficit of such a definition: pleasure is a
6 mere subjective criterion, reducing the definition of beauty to its effects
7 only and neglecting the various empires in which beauty reveals itself:71
8 the ‘empire of general laws’ (“das Reich der allgemeinen Gesetze”), the
9 ‘empire of true matters and forces’ (“das Reich der wirklichen Stoffe
10 und Kräfte”) and the ‘distinct and specific plan’ (“den bestimmten
11 und specifischen Plan”) which forms and assembles the matters and
12 forces. A second definition of beauty comprises all these elements and
13 attributes a spontaneous moment to beauty which is said to be ‘the im-
14
mediate emergence of a unity between these three powers which our
15
cognition is not able to unite itself.’72
16
But still, this addition strikes Lotze as incomplete. He therefore
17
adopts a more idealist tone: beauty corresponds to the ideal realised in
18
us and can be called ‘objectivation’ (“Objectivirung”).73 And as beauty
19
is spontaneous it can only be attributed to the ‘the moving world soul’
20
(“der bewegten Weltseele”) 74 in which joy and pleasure flourish.75
21
Consequently, the final definition of beauty comprises both the subjec-
22
23
tive and the objective side of beauty and makes the characteristic of the
24
movement more concrete, using the traditional Wolffian formula of
25
perfection:
26
‘[We] will call beauty the blissful enjoyment of the self, which ap-
27 proaches the whole in the world through the perfect and thorough co-
28 incidence of all real means of realisation with the content of what their
29 purpose [is said to be], and which may be disturbed in the individual
30 (the finite) by dissonant forces that may appear in any realisation of a
31 purpose (and they usually do appear), but which shows itself to the
32
33
70 Ibid., § 1, p. 5. Cf. Hermann Lotze: Ueber den Begriff der Schönheit. Göttin-
34 gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1845 (Printed from the Göttinger Studien), II.
35 71 Ibid., § 8, p. 10.
36 72 Ibid., § 9, p. 11: “[…] das unmittelbare Hervortreten einer Einheit zwischen
37 jenen drei Gewalten, welche unsere Erkenntnis völlig zu vereinigen nicht ver-
mag.”
38
73 Ibid., § 6, p. 8.
39 74 Ibid., § 12, p. 13.
40 75 Ibid., § 15, p. 15: “Genuß oder Lust ist nur im Beseelten möglich.”
1 beautiful objects in the infinite singular appearances in a concentrated

2 and almost perfect expression.’76
3 As might be expected, poetry plays a leading role in such an aesthet-
4 ics. According to Lotze, whilst other arts are restricted by their form,
5 poetry is the only art which is capable of depicting inner and outer
6 movements and addressing all three empires of beauty (space, time,
7 sound) adequately. Lotze draws an astonishing conclusion from this tra-
8 ditional appreciation for poetry: all science, history, moral and natural
9 philosophy become poetry when illustrating their content with sophis-
10 ticated details. Poetry cannot adhere exclusively to abstract notions but
11 needs to show the uncountable tender relations in which the meaning of
12 the individual lies: ‘In this meaning alone poetry has the purpose of
13 teaching, that is to teach what cannot be expressed otherwise.’77 Yet
14 these poets of science also have to follow the rules of poetry and not
15 give ‘poetryless exercises of gifted virtuosity’ (“poesielose Uebung[en]
16 geistreicher Virtuosität”).78
17 Whilst Fechner leaves room for improvement as far as the artistic
18 genres are concerned, Lotze to some extent focuses on poetics. Yet
19 his main contribution is a slightly more empirical and, in parts, astonish-
20 ing confirmation of the speculative assumption that poetry is the highest
21 art. Going beyond Lotze’s ideas, Heinrich Viehoff (1804 – 1886) be-
22 comes the strongest advocate of Carriere, Fechner and Lotze in the
23 area of poetics. Having studied philology, mathematics and natural sci-
24 ences in Bonn (with A.W. Schlegel), Viehoff did not take his Doctorate
25 but finished with a teacher’s exam, received several honours and deco-
26 rations and was a member of the Freie Deutsche Hochstift at Frankfurt
27 Main, the oldest German museum of literature and one of the oldest art
28 and literature research institutes (founded in 1859), with two main re-
29
30
31
32 76 Ibid., § 16, p. 16: “[Wir] werden Schönheit jenen seligen Selbstgenuß nennen,
der dem ganzen der Welt voraussetzlich wegen der vollkommenen Coincidenz
33
aller realen Verwirklichungsmittel mit dem Inhalt ihrer Zwecke zukommt, und
34 der in dem Einzelnen (dem Endlichen) zwar durch jene Dissonanzen gestört
35 werden kann, welche da in der Realisierung jedes Zweckes vorkommen kön-
36 nen und gewöhnlich in der That vorkommt, dagegen in etwelchen dieser end-
37 lichen, einzelnen Erscheinungen (den schönen Gegenständen) in einem con-
centrirten, der Vollkommenheit angenäherten Ausdruck sich zeigt.”
38
77 Lotze (fn. 69), § 69, p. 63: “In diesem Sinne hat die Poesie den Zweck des Leh-
39 rens, nämlich das zu lehren, was auf alle andere Weise unausdrückbar ist.”
40 78 Ibid., § 69, p. 63.
1 search areas: the Weimar classics and poetics.79 Viehoff finally became a
2 teacher and liberal politician in Düsseldorf as well as Erfurt (1850).
3 From around 1820 Viehoff focused on poetics, some of his thoughts
4 being published in the Archiv fr den Unterricht im Deutschen and the Ar-
5 chiv fr das Studium der neueren Sprachen. His poetological works can be
6 divided into two parts: the practical poetics, comprised in the Vorschule
7 der Dichtkunst (1860) and the theoretical poetics Die Poetik auf der Grund-
8 lage der Erfahrungsseelenlehre (1888), unfinished (lacking paragraphs on
9 idealism, realism and beauty) and published posthumously by Viehoff’s
10 son-in-law Viktor Kiy.
11 The practical poetics is designed to enable every man to develop his
12 talent to write poetry, giving extensive examples and training patterns
13 and referring back to A.W. Schlegel’s dictum that only those who are
14 trained in writing poetry should judge it. Viehoff’s theoretical poetics
15 transfers the ‘aesthetics from below’, mainly Lotze’s and Fechner’s the-
16 ories, to poetics and address an academic public.
17 Although Fechner is highlighted as his main source of inspiration,
18 Viehoff states that he differs from his predecessor in two respects: firstly,
19 in the way Viehoff identifies the facts of experience which are said to
20 constitute the basis of poetics,80 secondly, in accepting Carriere’s notions
21 of life, instinct and drive to live as fundamental principles in his own
22 aesthetics. These main ideas are laid out in the first volume of Die Poetik
23 which expands on the methodological basis of poetics. The second vol-
24 ume refers to genre theory, with a novel approach that accepts only two
25 main genres, the subjective (lyric poetry) and the objective (novel,
26 drama) with various sub-genres.81 Still, the second volume is only a
27 summary of renowned positions. Therefore, this volume should be ex-
28 cluded from the discussion.
29 It is in his first volume that Viehoff claims to represent the theoret-
30 ical avantgarde of the 1880s. His remarks put poetics in a theoretically
31 ambitious position comparable to that which Dilthey advocates, Dilthey
32 himself (if informed by Viehoff’s earlier publications) might even have
33 borrowed some of his thoughts from Viehoff, the little known teacher:
34
35 79 Kurt Abels: Viehoff, Heinrich. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon 1800 –
36 1950, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2002, vol. 3,
37 p. 1942 f.
80 Heinrich Viehoff: Die Poetik auf der Grundlage der Erfahrungsselenlehre in
38
zwei Bdn. Ed. with a biographical sketch by Viktor Kiy. Trier: Lintz 1888,
39 (2. vols.), vol. 1, book 2, § 24 f.
40 81 See Viehoff’s sketch in Viehoff (fn. 80), § 147, p. 463.
1 poetics is part of an aesthetics that belongs to ‘empirical psychology or

2 Erfahrungsseelenlehre’ (“empirische Psychologie oder Erfahrungssee-
3 lenlehre”),82 notes Viehoff, adhering to the new orientation of empirical
4 psychology and proposing an empirical poetics. Its method should be
5 inductive as well as deductive: the drive to live is to be regarded as a
6 basic principle of all creatures; all aesthetical and poetological phenom-
7 ena derive from it.83
8 Viehoff’s anthropological and ethical premise is reminiscent of Car-
9 riere, Lotze and Fechner as well: man strives to expand and enrich his
10 existence; he strives for the feeling of pleasure. Yet the search for the
11 feeling of pleasure is not egoistic and animal-like, rather its aim is the
12 happiness of mankind. Viehoff grounds this positive evaluation in a
13 kind of evolutionary eudaemonistic ethics of sympathy: feelings are
14 conceived as permanent processes of the soul with a subjective as well
15 as an objective character. Sensation is felt through the senses but trans-
16
ported into the brain and enriched by reason, other feelings, experience,
17
will and the ability to decide.84 In this process the egoistic instinct be-
18
comes converted into the sympathetic drive which is merely refined
19
egoism and guarantees the endless perfection of mankind.85
20
In order to prove this idea, Viehoff adopts and rejects Adam Smith’s
21
Theory of Moral Sentiments and his Wealth of Nations at the same time.
22
According to Viehoff, Smith was wrong in separating egoism from sym-
23
pathy as both can be empirically proven to be united in the ontogenesis
24
as well as the phylogenesis. The development from egoism to sympathy
25
applies to mankind only: men are different from animals and capable of
26
27
reasoning and communicating. Viehoff decisively argues against Social-
28
Darwinism and opposes that admirer of Darwin, Gustav Jäger (1832 –
29
1972), a Viennese anthropologist and zoologist. Jäger follows Darwin’s
30
idea that the first parents of men were animals, the proof being that the
31
animals and men all produce sounds. This theory was later adopted by
32 Wilhelm Scherer as well. Viehoff instead holds the view that firstly,
33 the parents of men were apes who were dumb, secondly, that men
34 could only produce sounds because of the Sylvic cleft of the Reil-island
35 in the brain.86 As a consequence, Viehoff proposes a formula according
36
37 82 Ibid., § 1, p. 3.
83 Ibid., § 1, p. 4.
38
84 Ibid., § 4, pp. 10 f.
39 85 Ibid., p. § 5, 14.
40 86 Ibid., § 7, pp. 19 f.
1 to which one can quantify the sum of happiness the individual enjoys. It
2 is a quotient of the quantity, duration and force of the attractions man
3 can grasp in his lifetime. In addition to this, the ‘measurement of pleas-
4 ure’ (“Lustwert”), the degree to which individual pleasure maximizes
5 the pleasure of mankind, and the ‘dignity of pleasure’ (“Lustwürde”),
6 the moral and artistic quality of pleasure, are to be counted in.87
7 Having found a kind of empirical evidence for his claim, Viehoff ex-
8 pands on the perfection of mankind in considering three areas of spiri-
9 tual life where egoism has been refined to sympathy: the ‘Empire of the
10 true, good and beautiful’ (“Reich des Wahren, Guten und Schönen”) –
11 a quote which is reminiscent of Fechner.88 But for Viehoff, the quote –
12 as far as truth is concerned – offers the chance to criticize his role model:
13 Fechner (and Gottschall) were wrong in attributing truth to reasonable
14 processes only. Viehoff argues that scientific truth is part of poetry and
15 sometimes one of its most noble topics. It is this argumentation which
16 later attracted many poeticians and sometimes led to separate chapters
17 on ‘poetry and science’ where the mutual exchange of scientists and
18 poets is shown.89
19 As far as the good is concerned, it is obvious that ethics and aesthet-
20 ics have to go hand in hand. Man has to strive for the ideal. Viehoff pro-
21 poses an ideal eudaemonistic ethics which attracted many opponents, for
22 instance Otto Liebmann (1840 – 1912), a professor of philosophy at
23 Straßburg und Jena Universities:90 Liebmann points out that moral
24 life is only achieved if the search for individual happiness is overcome.
25 Viehoff opposes this in saying that true eudaimonia presupposes sympa-
26 thy and the striving for a higher happiness of the whole of humanity.91
27 Individual egoism would be far from the eudaemonistic ideal.
28 Viehoff’s explanation of the beautiful builds on this reflection and
29 adds an aesthetics of autonomy, addressing the producer as well as the
30 product and the recipient. An ‘ideal picture of the beautiful’ (“Idealbild
31 des Schönen”) which initiates autonomous play and makes man reflect,
32 is required in order to strive for the best in art.92 The imitation of the
33 ideal has to take into account two aspects: firstly, the object, the
34
35 87 Ibid., § 8, pp. 20 f.
36 88 Ibid., § 15, p. 38.
37 89 See e. g. Werner Hahn: Deutsche Poetik. Berlin: Hertz 1879, Excurs on “Po-
esie und Wissenschaft”, pp. 46 – 49.
38
90 Otto Liebmann: Zur Analysis der Wirklichkeit. Straßburg 1876.
39 91 Viehoff (fn. 80), § 19, p. 47.
40 92 Ibid., § 23, pp. 62 – 65.
1 work of art, secondly, the subject or the recipient – as Vischer remarks,

2 beauty is ‘contact’ (“Kontakt”) between the object and the observing
3 subject.93 Consequently, the producer of art should ask how to form
4 an object which reaches the addressee.
5 This is a new account of poetics which refers back to Vischer’s ani-
6 mate post-Hegelian approach and correctly opposes the Herbart school
7 which focused on beautiful form: although it is helpful that Herbart and
8 his students tried to reduce aesthetics to a few cardinal truths, remarks
9 Viehoff (as does Fechner), their statements are often wrong or mislead-
10 ing. Zimmermann, for instance, is said to have believed the following
11 fundamental law: ‘the strong idea pleases next to the weak’ – which
12 could be falsified with regard to the Madonna painting in the Capella
13 Sistina. The child Jesus between the angels and the tall figures is not dis-
14 pleasing. In addition to this, formal aesthetics seems to have overstated
15 some formal principles and has provided mere accidental aesthetic
16 norms: some prefer the circle, the ellipsis (Winckelmann), the wave-
17 like undulation on one dimension (Hogarth) or the spiral line in space.94
18 Only empirical methods can help one out of this dilemma: Fechner
19 suggested several of them (the method of selection, the method of pro-
20 duction, the method of use) but Viehoff again aims to introduce a new
21 one: statistics. That means to study the laws of creation and effect in dif-
22 ferent works of art and to derive aesthetic laws from them.95 Even if
23 Viehoff’s method always amounts to one norm for beauty – the old
24 principle of unity in manifoldness – it is worth considering his empirical
25 aesthetics.
26 The centre of Viehoff’s aesthetics is dominated by reflections upon
27 fantasy: providing an emphatic interpretation of Quintilian’s remarks on
28 the energy-driven and, therefore, highly imaginative rhetor as well as an
29 interpretation of 18th-century psycho-medicine, Viehoff distinguishes
30 productive fantasy (which reinvigorates an external perception) from re-
31 productive fantasy (which is reminiscent of images created earlier).96 Yet
32
33
93 Friedrich Theodor Vischer: Kritische Gänge, ed. Robert Vischer. 2nd ed. Mu-
34 nich: Meyer & Jessen 1922, vol. 4, p. 224: “Das Schöne ist einmal nicht einfach
35 ein Gegenstand, das Schöne wird erst im Anschauen, es ist Kontakt eines Ge-
36 genstands und eines auffassenden Subjekts […].”; Cf. Viehoff (fn. 80), § 24, p.
37 69.
94 Viehoff (fn. 80), § 24, pp. 70 f.
38
95 Ibid., § 25, pp. 72 – 75.
39 96 On Quintilian’s understanding of the rhetor Hans Peter Herrmann: Natur-
40 ACHTUNGREnachACHTUNGREahmung und Einbildungskraft. Bad Hamburg [et al.]: Gehlen 1970, p.
1 fantasy is not limited to the artist only; the recipient is included in this
2 understanding of fantasy. Fantasy can play the same roles in the recipient
3 as it does in the artist. In short: the recipient becomes a kind of co-artist.
4 Both the artist’s and the co-artist’s fantasies are governed by firstly, the
5 ‘association of ideas’ (“Ideenassociation”), the immediate intertwining
6 of shapes and laws of the soul, explained by the English philosophers
7 Locke and Hume and by the Germans Herbart, Beneke and Lotze,97
8 and secondly, by ‘apperception’ (“Apperzeption”), a process in which
9 new objects are identified through present schemes, well-described by
10 Herbart, Steinthal and Hermann Siebeck.98
11 Twenty poetological principles are derived from these reflections.
12 They are not only observations but also suggestions concerned with
13 the question of how to activate the imagination.99 Yet most of these
14
principles stem from Fechner, Viehoff’s original contribution being
15
the fact that he applies Fechner’s principles to poetry. To give a selec-
16
tion of the most important principles:
17
18 (1) The principle of the economic application of aesthetic means and
19 tools. Fechner and Karl von Vierordt (Tübingen) explained this
20 with regard to Goethe’s Mignon song: nothing can be changed; ev-
21 erything is necessary and correctly placed. In Viehoff’s words: this
22 principle guarantees the utmost increase in pleasure. Yet he wishes
23 for a more coherent derivative of the principle than is provided by
24 Fechner and Vierodt.100 Richard Avenarius, for instance, had al-
25 ready developed a more coherent version of the economic applica-
26 tion principle; he called it the principle of the smallest measurement
27 of force, an idea which is close to Viehoff’s own thoughts on the
28 issue.101
29
30 171; Dietmar Till: Transformationen der Rhetorik – Untersuchungen zum
31 Wandel der Rhetoriktheorie im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer
32 2004, p. 376; Volkhard Wels: Zur Vorgeschichte des Begriffs der ‘kreativen
Phantasie’. In: Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 50
33
(2005) 2, pp. 199 – 226.
34 97 Viehoff (fn. 80), § 34, pp. 99 – 101.
35 98 Ibid., § 35, pp. 101 – 105; see Walter Nowack: zur Lehre von den Gesetzen der
36 Ideenassoziation seit Herbart bis 1880. PhD-thesis Halle 1925.
37 99 Viehoff (fn. 80), § 35, p. 108.
100 Ibid., § 55, pp. 186 f.
38
101 Richard Avenarius: Philosophie als Denken der Welt gemäß dem Prinzip des
39 kleinsten Kraftmaßes. Prolegomena zu einer Kritik der reinen Erfahrung. Leip-
40 zig: O. R. Reisland 1876.
1 (2) The principle of the aesthetic threshold: an impression must have a

2 certain degree of strength, necessary force and originality – per-
3 ACHTUNGREceivable to its addressees.102 In chemistry, Fechner remarks with a
4 certain sense of humour, this aesthetic principle fails as chemists
5 have most often destroyed their sense of smell.
6 (3) The principle of aesthetic assistance: this is illustrated by Chateau-
7 briand’s poem Jeune Fille et Jeune Fleur and Viehoff’s translation
8 which, he claims, underlines the beauty of the original. If two con-
9 ditions of pleasure (in this case: original and translation) meet, they
10 produce an additional increase in pleasure (a+b+x).103 In the case of
11 the poem, x refers to the rhythm and metre of the translation which
12 form a sort of music in order to improve the original.
13 (4) The principle of capacity: a work of art should not go beyond the
14 capacities and norms of its addressees as this can be dangerous, cause
15 misleading receptions and cost much in terms of energy on both
16 sides.
17 (5) The principle of exercise: this principle relies on the work of the
18 medical doctor Alfred Kußmaul (1822 – 1902), himself an author
19 and critic of the ‘Biedermeier’, and Wilhelm Wundt. It explains
20 the physiological and psychological developments that are produced
21 through exercise. According to this principle, attraction is only per-
22 ceived up to its peak. At the peak, awareness of the attraction van-
23 ishes – as can be shown from Heise’s Nchtliche Wasserfahrt bei Nea-
24 pel: “Eine heilige Stille schwebt auf den Wassern, nur / Durch ein-
25 tönigen Rudertakt unterbrochen.”104
26 (6) The principle of solving aesthetical conflicts: again, the example is
27 translation (from Sophocles to Longfellow). According to this prin-
28 ciple it is questionable whether or not it is aesthetically better to
29 translate in a way that is true to the original or in a way that is beau-
30 tiful. Both principles of translation often conflict. According to
31 Viehoff, the only correct solution is to follow the ‘tone of the
32 feel of the original’ (“Gefühlston des Originals”).105
33 (7) The principle of aesthetical reconciliation: a cause of repulsion is
34 balanced by pleasure – as could be observed from dialogical
35
36
37 102 Viehoff (fn. 80), § 56, pp. 194 – 196.
103 Ibid., § 56, pp. 196 – 200.
38
104 Ibid., § 57, pp. 207 f: ‘A holy silence levitates on the water, disrupted only
39 through the monotonous beat of rowing.’
40 105 Ibid., § 58, pp. 209 – 217.
1 poems like Rückert’s Die Zwei und der Dritte. When fantasy and wit
2 contradict each other, reason comes in as a third, reconciling ele-
3 ment.106
4 (8) The principle of the aesthetical ‘consequence’ (“Folge”) raises the
5 question of order.107 What to present first in order to awaken aes-
6 thetic pleasure – the more or the less beautiful? Viehoff’s answers
7 refer to everyday pedagogy: gifts to children should always start
8 with the smallest first.
9 To conclude, Viehoff’s contribution to poetics cannot be underes-
10 timated. Inspired by Vischer’s notion of fantasy he took on eudaimon-
11
istic ethics (as did Fechner) and decisively argued against Social Darwin-
12
ism. Building on Fechner’s principles he developed them further, focus-
13
ing on all sides of the process of literary communication: the author, the
14
text as well as the recipient.
15
In the 1890s, the empirical approach as represented by Fechner,
16
Lotze and Viehoff became popular among the many poetic treatises,
17
as is shown by Paul Heinze’s and Rudolf Goette’s Deutsche Poetik
18
(1891). Heinze (1858 – 1912), a little known scholar and poet, and
19
ACHTUNGREGoette (*1860), a literary historian and author of many successful bal-
20
21
lads, set themselves ambitious goals: to provide new definitions of beau-
22
ty and genre in the framework of an empirical poetics. Yet they never
23
quite achieve their goal as they use not so much an empirical as a meta-
24
physical vocabulary, alluding to Carriere, reducing beauty to a phenom-
25 enon which points to the laws of life.108 Moreover, they criticize Fech-
26 ner for failing to give clear distinctions, e. g. of simple and artistic im-
27 pressions of the senses109 – a distinction he never aimed to give. Further-
28 more, Heinze und Goette do not discuss a thinker who, from today’s
29 perspective, is most associated with the empirical and psychological ap-
30 proach: Wilhelm Dilthey.
31 It has often been stated that Dilthey opted for a dichotomy of the
32 natural sciences and the humanities, claiming that irrationality, under-
33 standing, soul, history and type and are to be found on the side of
34 the humanities whilst the natural sciences could be characterized by ra-
35
36 106 Ibid., § 59, p. 220.
37 107 Ibid., § 59, pp. 220 – 226.
108 Paul Heinze and Rudolf Goette: Deutsche Poetik: Umriß der Lehre vom
38
Wesen und von den Formen der Dichtkunst. Mit einer Einführung in das Ge-
39 biet der Kunstlehre. Dresden-Striesen: Heinze 1891. p. 43.
40 109 Ibid.
1 tionality, nature, development, law and explanation.110 It is to the credit

2 of recent research that this picture has been corrected by stressing that
3 Dilthey’s main interest is in the human being as a whole111 and by claim-
4 ing that Dilthey was not that committed to the dichotomy of the scien-
5 ces.112 These studies show that Dilthey’s work reflects the gap between
6 analytical or speculative approaches in philosophy and the factual
7 world.113
8 As regards Dilthey’s general considerations on the method of the
9 ‘Geisteswissenschaften’, I will argue that he is in favour of an inclusionist
10 view as far as the natural sciences are concerned. This interpretation can
11 be proven by Dilthey’s Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften (1883), his
12 first broad-scale attempt to define ‘Geisteswissenschaften’ as such.114
13 In this text Dilthey is concerned with a philosophical legitimization of
14 the ‘Geisteswissenschaften’ while his statements on their relation to na-
15 ture and the natural sciences oscillate enormously. It is only in the chap-
16 ter on the classes of statements in the ‘Geisteswissenschaften’ that Dilth-
17 ey’s argument becomes entirely clear: Methodologically, the ‘Geistes-
18 wissenschaften’ do not differ from the natural sciences. They also ex-
19 press facts and consider general laws of development – except in one as-
20 pect: the ‘Geisteswissenschaften’ add a surplus in formulating value
21 judgements and prescribing rules.115 Dilthey calls this the ‘practical’ as-
22 pect of the ‘Geisteswissenschaften’. He claims that all classes of state-
23
24 110 See Otto Friedrich von Bollnow’s early standard work: Dilthey: Eine Einfüh-
25 rung in seine Philosophie. Leipzig: Teubner 1936.
26 111 See the research report in Joachim Thielen: Wilhelm Dilthey und die Entwick-
27 lung des geschichtlichen Denkens in Deutschland im ausgehenden 19. Jahrhun-
dert. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 1999 (Trierer Studien zur Kultur-
28
philosophie 3), pp. 82 – 84.
29 112 See Frithjof Rodi: Drei Bemerkungen zu Diltheys Aufsatz “Die Entstehung
30 der Hermeneutik von 1900”. In: Revue Internationale de Philosophie 57/
31 226 (2003) 4, pp. 425 – 438, p. 425, passim.
32 113 Herein, I follow Werner Stegmaier’s approach; W.St.: Philosophie der Fluk-
tuanz: Dilthey und Nietzsche. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1992
33
(Neue Studien zur Philosophie 4); see also Arne Homann: Diltheys Bruch
34 mit der Metaphysik: Die Aufhebung der Hegelschen Philosophie im geschicht-
35 lichen Bewußtsein. Freiburg i. Br.: Alber 1995.
36 114 See Rudolf A. Makkreel: Dilthey: Philosoph der Geisteswissenschaften. Transl.
37 by Barbara M. Kehm. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1991, p. 51/engl. original:
Dilthey – Philosopher of the Human Sciences. Princeton Univ. Press 1975.
38
115 Wilhelm Dilthey: Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften [1883]: Versuch
39 einer Grundlegung für das Studium der Gesellschaft und der Geschichte. 4th
40 ed. Stuttgart: Teubner 1959, vol. 1, pp. 26 f.
1 ments need to come together in order to amount to a correct and fully-

2 fledged ‘geisteswissenschaftliche’ result.116 As a consequence, Dilthey’s
3 position can be summarised as an inclusionist view according to
4 which the natural sciences and the ‘Geiteswissenschaten’ – methodolog-
5 ically speaking – are part of the science of man.
6 Dilthey’s poetological oeuvre Die Einbildungskraft des Dichters. Bau-
7 ACHTUNGREsteine fr eine Poetik (1887) encompasses his inclusionist approach. It is a
8 rhetorically powerful sketch, close to the work of Fechner and Viehoff
9 but also inspired by other empirical approaches: already in the 1850s,
10 Dilthey had, together with Lazarus und Steinthal, taken into consider-
11 ation an empirical philosophy of history that refered back to Herbart
12 and his psychology of peoples.117 In his Berlin period, Dilthey discov-
13 ered positivism and empiricism, however, at the same time, Schleier-
14 macher and the notion of ‘Geist’ shaped the intellectual agenda.118 In
15 1860, on being appointed professor in Basle, Dilthey studied physiolo-
16 gy, psychophysics (with Johannes Müller and Hermann Helmholtz) and
17 familiarized himself with neurophysiology, later borrowing heavily from
18 Müller’s account of Goethe’s morphology.119 In Breslau, Dilthey con-
19 tinued his studies in psychology, and started to work on his project of
20 an empirical poetics, his corresponding partners being Graf Paul York
21 von Wartenburg and Scherer.120
22
23
24
25 116 Ibid., p. 27.
26 117 See the summary by Tom Kindt: Wilhelm Dilthey (1833 – 1911). In: Wissen-
27 schaftsgeschichte der Germanistik in Porträts, ed. by Christoph König, Hans-
Harald Müller and Werner Röcke. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2000,
28
pp. 53 – 68, pp. 55 f; in detail on Lazarus: Hans-Ulrich Lessing: Dilthey und
29 Lazarus. In: Dilthey-Jahrbuch für Philosophie und Geschichte der Geisteswis-
30 senschaften 3 (1985), pp. 57 – 83; the impact of Herbart on poetics and art
31 theory in general is evaluated by Céline Trautmann-Waller: Zwischen Kunst-
32 geschichte, Formalismus und Kulturanthropologie: Was hatte die Berliner Völ-
kerpsychologie über Kunst zu sagen? In: Konzert und Konkurrenz. Die Künste
33
und ihre Wissenschaften im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by Oliver Huck, Sandra
34 Richter and Christian Scholl [in print].
35 118 See Kindt: Wilhelm Dilthey (fn. 117), pp. 56 f.
36 119 Frithjof Rodi: Das strukturierte Ganze: Studien zum Werk von Wilhelm
37 Dilthey. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft 2003, pp. 89 – 106. The relevant
article is a modification of F.R.: Morphologie und Hermeneutik: Zur Me-
38
ACHTUNGREthode von Diltheys Ästhetik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1969.
39 120 On the close academic relations between Dilthey and Scherer see Kindt/Müller
40 (fn. 117).
1 ‘The poetics created by Aristotle is dead’,121 with these thunderous

2 words Dilthey announces the end of a poetological era. According to
3 him, this era had been shaped by a poetics of form and technique –
4 an astonishing evaluation as regards Artistotle’s poetics which in fact fo-
5 cused on morals and content. Yet it is possible that Dilthey, in his rhet-
6 orical wish to attack all poetics before empiricism and to introduce a
7 new poetics, simply mentioned the main authority in order to provide
8 a most convincing (though in fact polemical) framework for his diagno-
9 sis of literary practices. Today, there is ‘anarchy’ or more precisely ‘an-
10 archy of taste’ in the area of literature – a diagnosis which Dilthey re-
11 peats various times, blaming it on the inadequacy of Aristotle’s poet-
12 ics.122 Aesthetics and poetics are limited to academia only, having be-
13 come detached from the literary life in which an enormous variety of
14
form governs, responding to mass interest. Art has become ‘democratic’,
15
a horror for Dilthey. Poetics needs to be fenced in through the inven-
16
tion of a new poetics.123
17
According to Dilthey, this new poetics is not only an academic ex-
18
ercise but also something desired by the artists themselves.124 In the
19
chaos of forms, values and judgements, they search for truth – without
20
having the slightest idea where to find it. Aesthetical education, the old
21
project executed by Schiller, popular philosophy and Heusinger, is
22
Dilthey’s solution to this lack of poetics. Dilthey aims to reestablish
23
24
the ‘natural relation’ (“natürliche Verhältnis”) between art, aesthetic
25
judgement and the public, presupposing that such a relation exists and
26
intending to entirely renew poetics, rhetoric and logic. In short: Dilthey
27
wishes to reconcile the ‘trivium’ with his aim to promote humanism be-
28 yond the narrow bounds of higher education.
29 The method of such a poetics is ‘empirical’ (“empirisch”) 125 and
30 ‘comparative’ (“vergleichend”); it has to begin with ‘the analysis of
31
32 121 Wilhelm Dilthey: Die Einbildungskraft des Dichters: Bausteine für eine Poetik
(1887). In: Wilhelm Dilthey, Die geistige Welt. Einleitung in die Philosophie
33
des Lebens. 2nd half: Abhandlungen zur Poetik, Ethik und Pädagogik. Leipzig,
34 Berlin: Teubner 1924 (Wilhelm Diltheys Gesammelte Schriften 6), pp. 103 –
35 241, p. 103: “Die von Artistoteles geschaffene Poetik ist tot.”
36 122 Ibid., pp. 103 f.
37 123 Ibid., p. 105.
124 See Kurt Müller-Vollmer: Towards a Phenomenological Theory of Literature.
38
A Study of Wilhelm Dilthey’s “Poetik”. The Hague: Mouton & Co. 1963
39 (Stanford Studies in Germanics and Slavics 1), pp. 51 – 55.
40 125 Dilthey (fn. 121), p. 126.
1 the creative ability’ (“Analysis des schaffenden Vermögens”) of the poet

2 or the ‘fantasy of the poet’ (“Phantasie des Dichters”).126 Consequently,
3 the main question of this renewed poetics is anthropological and histor-
4 ical: the foundation of literature in human nature or the ‘psychological
5 structure’ (“psychologische Struktur”) and the historical circumstances
6 in which literature is developed or its ‘historical variability’ (“historische
7 Variabilität”) should be studied.127 Furthermore, ‘universal laws’ (“allge-
8 meingültige Gesetze”) are to be found which reveal the ‘original cell’
9 (“Urzellen”) and historical types of poetry128 and can serve as ‘rules
10 for creation and as norms of critique’ (“Regeln des Schaffens und als
11 Normen der Kritik”).129 Consequently, literary history and poetics com-
12 plement each other: ‘the side of’ (“neben”) the history of literature
13 which makes available examples and sources is joined by a ‘general sci-
14
ence of the elements and laws’ (“eine generelle Wissenschaft der Ele-
15
mente und Gesetze”).130 Such a poetics is analytical as well as normative,
16
deriving its norms from natural reality – a method which runs the risk of
17
committing the naturalistic fallacy.
18
It follows from these methodological reflections that not only poet-
19
ry, but also the poet and the way in which he creates his works, need to
20
be studied carefully. As a result, Dilthey proposes a poetics of content –
21
unlike the criticized poetics of form and technique associated with Ar-
22
23
istotle –which has its foundation in the poet himself. This becomes clear
24
through the observation of the notion of ‘experience’ (“Erlebnis”) high-
25
lighted by Dilthey as the source of poetry.131 It is the vivid experience,
26
the energy of spirit and heart and the force to generalise which together
27 build the ‘maternal earth’ (“mütterlichen Boden”) for true poetry and its
28 different historical types – Dilthey repeats ‘mütterlichen Boden’ various
29 times in order to underline the vitalist and quasi-biological element of
30 poetry, ‘its kernel-like content’ (“ihr kernhafter Inhalt”).132 The forms
31 of poetry (motives, fables, novels) are but a means for transforming ex-
32
33
126 Ibid., p. 130.
34 127 Ibid., pp. 108 f.
35 128 Ibid., p. 130.
36 129 Ibid., p. 107.
37 130 Ibid., p. 107; see also p. 132.
131 Karol Sauerland: Diltheys Erlebnisbegriff: Entstehung, Glanzzeit und Verküm-
38
merung eines literaturhistorischen Begriffes. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter
39 1972.
40 132 Dilthey (fn. 121), pp. 128 – 130.
1 perience.133 The biologist and content-oriented approach corresponds

2 to the general function Dilthey attributes to poetry: ‘that she enforces
3 and awakes our liveliness’ (“daß sie […] Lebendigkeit in uns erhält,
4 stärkt und wachruft”) in order to build a revitalised version of Schiller’s
5 human being, the ‘full, complete and healthy being’ (“volle, ganze, ge-
6 sunde Mensch”).134
7 It is the poet who is responsible for making and transforming expe-
8 rience in favour of the vital aesthetic education of his readers. Conse-
9 quently, he is attributed abilities which exceed the normal human be-
10 ing’s. The psychology of the extraordinary personality of the poet be-
11 comes a major part of Dilthey’s poetics. According to Dilthey, the
12 poet is different from ordinary men in the following respects, which re-
13 sult from his extraordinary ‘imagination’ (“Einbildungskraft”):135 firstly,
14 the poet possesses an intensity and manifoldness of the ‘images of per-
15 ception’ (“Wahrnehmungsbilder”),136 secondly, the poet’s sensual or-
16 ganisation is different (the sensitive ears and eyes, the enormous vocabu-
17 lary – Shakespeare for example had a command of 15 000 words –
18 Goethe could discuss questions ranging from anatomy to jurisprudence).
19 Thirdly, the poet acts ‘unintentionally’ (“absichtslos”) or autonomously
20 in Schiller’s words. Fourthly, the poet is possessed of an unusual clear-
21 ness, force and projection of ‘images of memory’ (“Erinnerungsbilder”)
22 as explained by Fechner. Fifthly, the poet has the energy and force to
23 rebuild psychological situations, actions and characters. Sixthly, the
24 poet appears to be an energetic ‘being imbued with’ images (“Besee-
25
26
27
28
133 Therefore, Rodi links Dilthey’s poetics with the notion of ‘inner form’ with
29 which Dilthey acquainted himself through Schleierrmacher, Friedrich Schlegel
30 and Humboldt; Rodi: Das strukturierte Ganze (fn. 119), pp. 116 f.
31 134 Dilthey (fn. 121), p. 131.
32 135 Rodi has shown that Dilthey not only derives his theory of the imagination
from Johannes Müller but to a large extent copies Müller on these issues;
33
Rodi: Das strukturierte Ganze (fn. 119), pp. 90 – 106. The most comprehensive
34 account of Dilthey’s notion of “Einbildungskraft” is to be found in Makkreel:
35 Dilthey (fn. 121) pp. 117 – 248.
36 136 On these “Wahrnehmungsbilder” see Jacob Owensby: Dilthey and the Narra-
37 tive of History. Ithaca, London: Cornell Univ. Press 1994, p. 141. Owensby
compares Dilthey’s view to the British associationists and stresses that in contrast
38
to the British, Dilthey does not regard images as self-enclosed and changeless
39 but as parts of a ‘mental whole’: ‘Poetic images function, then, to articulate
40 the unity of the individual’s psychic life.’
1 lung”), seventhly, the ‘urge’ (“Drange”) to write and eighthly, a poetic

2 fantasy which can transgress the borders of reality.137
3 In order to explain how the poetic imagination acts and produces
4 poetry, Dilthey distinguishes his poet psychology from the psychology
5 of the mentally ill. He also draws a distinction between the psychology
6 of the peoples like Lotze and Fechner when identifying psychic laws of
7 poetic creation.138 According to Dilthey, poetic creations are never en-
8 tirely new but rather recombinations of already-existing impressions, to
9 which new impressions can be added in the following ways:139 on the
10 level of recognizing and thinking, apperception is at work, on the levels
11 of will and of feeling ‘Bildung’ guides and disciplines the senses.
12 It is the level of feeling which Dilthey examines closely as it prom-
13 ises insights into the irrational nature of poetic creation. He distinguishes
14
several ‘circles of feeling’ (“Gefühlskreise”):140 firstly, the common sense
15
or the sensations which result from physiological processes and cause
16
pain or pleasure, secondly, elementary feelings that stem from sensations
17
under the condition of interest (pleasure and listlessness), thirdly, feel-
18
ings which result from perceptions, e. g. the perception of rhythm and
19
metre and fourthly, feelings that originate in the ‘thoughtful combina-
20
tion of our ideas’, e. g. in wit or humour.
21
It is the fourth group which guarantees satisfaction (“Wohlgefällig-
22
23
keit”) and, as a consequence, pleasure.141 The reason for this is to be
24
found in the principles which help to tie together our perceptions –
25
principles that are mainly borrowed from Fechner.142 Among the
26
older and general principles of ‘unity of interest’ (“Einheit des Interess-
27 es”), ‘the manifold from and within the unifold’ (“Viel aus Einem und
28 in Einem”), ‘unity in the manifold’, (“Einheit im Mannigfaltigen”) and
29 ‘adequateness of intellect’ (“Verstandesangemessenheit”),143 Dilthey ex-
30
31 137 Dilthey (fn. 121), p. 138: “[…] dichterische Phantasie gewährt uns nur ein
32 Wort, in welchem die Vorgänge selber verborgen bleiben.”
138 Ibid., p. 139: “Ich behaupte nun, daß das Leben der Bilder in dem Träumen-
33
den, dem Irren, dem Künstler von dieser Psychologie nicht erklärt werden
34 kann.”/ ‘I claim that the life of the images of the dreamer, the lunatic, the artist
35 cannot be explained by this kind of psychology’. The poet instead, writes with
36 the full energy of his healthy soul; Ibid., pp. 163 – 190.
37 139 Ibid., pp. 144 – 148.
140 Ibid., p. 153.
38
141 Ibid.
39 142 Ibid., pp. 157 – 163.
40 143 Ibid., p. 153.
1 plicitly and positively takes up Fechner’s ‘principle of something being

2 without contradiction’ (“Prinzip der Widerspruchslosigkeit”), his ‘prin-
3 ciple of clarity’ (“Prinzip der Klarheit”), the ‘principle of aesthetic
4 threshold’ (“Prinzip der ästhetischen Schwelle”), the ‘principle of asso-
5 ciation’ (“Prinzip der Assoziation”) 144 and the ‘principle of aesthetic rec-
6 onciliation’ (“Prinzip der ästhetischen Versöhnung”).145 Furthermore,
7 Dilthey dedicates a long paragraph to Fechner’s ‘principle of absolute
8 impact’ (“Totalwirkung”) and expands on the ‘principle of tension’
9 (“Prinzip der Spannung”):146 Fechner claims that if different types of
10 pleasure are added they maximise the total feeling of pleasure. Dilthey
11 instead, argues more carefully in claiming that this maximises the total
12 sum of elementary feelings. A similar differentiation guides Dilthey’s
13 thought on tension: it can originate from all kinds of inner drives and
14 thoughts.
15 In addition to this and maybe due to his attempt to lay out some first
16
ideas for a theory of poetics, Dilthey, unlike Fechner, focuses more on
17
the principles of poetic composition. He makes a strong claim for a po-
18
etics of experience which became famous: poetry, claims Dilthey, is
19
conceived by the urge to express experience (“Drang, Erlebnis auszu-
20
sprechen”).147 Again, he stresses the irrational, vital nature of poetic cre-
21
ation but also observes general laws which guide it: firstly, the principle
22
of a different emphasis of individual parts of the whole (“Prinzip einer
23
verschiedenen Betonung der Bestandteile”) which weighs every part of
24
the poetic work according to its importance for the whole. Secondly,
25
the principle of an utmost approximation to pure satisfaction (“Prinzip
26
der möglichsten Annäherung an reine Befriedigung”), the exclusion of
27
28
all artificial trumpery, added to produce pleasant effects. Thirdly, the
29
‘principle of forming the essential and meaningful’ (“Prinzip der Her-
30
ausbildung des Wesenhaften und Bedeutenden”) which highlights the
31
most important aspects of the creation.148
32 Dilthey glorifies his own poetic model when he states that the big
33 gap between Herder and Kant, between history and analysis, is closed
34 through the reflections and principles he himself proposes. Yet what
35 is striking and convincing is the thorough ‘analysis of human nature’
36
37 144 Fechner, Vorschule (fn. 2), I, p. 94.
145 Ibid., p. 238.
38
146 Ibid., p. 50.
39 147 Dilthey (fn. 121), pp. 190 – 197.
40 148 Ibid.
1 in which Dilthey grounds his account.149 He radically breaks with ide-

2 alised images of the poet and his creation as well as with Herbart’s wish
3 to confer high ethical ideas on poetry. Dilthey calls these ideas ‘shadow-
4 like abstract concepts’ (“schattenhafte Abstracta”).150 At the same time,
5 Dilthey (like Carriere and Lotze before him) keeps aspects of idealism
6 alive in stressing the natural foundation of ethical principles in the in-
7 stinctual will of the poet for truthfulness and the conservation of the
8 true self, a refined version of the old anthropological principle of the
9 ‘conservatio sui’. The poet’s expression is regarded as a sophistication
10 of the life-impulse toward an artistic perfection and unification of
11 lived experience.
12 It is no wonder that this high-aiming and high-achieving poetics
13 found its public. Dilthey’s early poetological programme has a strong
14 polemical bias. It thrives on a rhetoric which makes it appealing. In ad-
15 dition to this, there is a good deal of innovative substance in the text
16 itself: psychological aesthetics and poetics are taken into account and de-
17 veloped further. Building on the classicist norm of the ‘full, complete
18 and healthy being’, Dilthey provides an empirical, as well as normative,
19 poetics which focuses on the irrational nature of the poetic creation, on
20 the poet’s experience and the composition resulting from it. This poetics
21 unquestionably runs several risks: of confusing is and ought, and of
22 committing the naturalistic fallacy.
23 In 1896/97, psychological poetics was taught at a grammar school in
24 Vienna.151 In addition to this, Dilthey’s version of psychological poetics,
25 especially his strong concepts of experience and life, moved into litera-
26 ture: Dilthey and George established a friendly acquaintance and al-
27 though both promoted different ideas of life and art, they at least
28 dealt with similar themes, with life and will. Furthermore, they shared
29 an interest in the poet’s persona, especially Hölderlin.152 The latter inter-
30 est might have led George to style his own personality the way he did.153
31
32
149 Ibid., p. 157.
33
150 Dilthey (fn. 121), pp. 156 f.
34 151 See the clear, but not very inspiring summary of J. Obermann: Grundlinien der
35 psychologischen Ästhetik. In: Jahresbericht des K.K. Staatsgymnasiums im II.
36 Bezirk von Wien, Taborstr. 24 für das Schuljahr 1896/97, ed. by Gustav Wa-
37 niek. Vienna 1897, pp. 3 – 59.
152 Walter Müller-Seidel: Diltheys Rehabilitierung Hölderlins: Eine wissenschafts-
38
geschichtliche Betrachtung. In: Hölderlin und die Moderne: Eine Bestandsauf-
39 nahme, ed. by Gerhard Kurz, Valérie Lawitschka and Jürgen Wertheimer. Tü-
40 bingen: Attempto 1995, pp. 41 – 73, esp. pp. 63 – 73.
1 This connection with Dilthey’s 1887-poetics fascinated Richard

2 Müller-Freienfels (1882 – 1949), an almost professional traveller as well
3 as a lecturer and writer at the Trade School Berlin (‘Handelsschule Ber-
4 lin’). Müller-Freienfels became one of the most important mediators of
5 psychological poetics.154 He was responsible for many innovative in-
6 sights himself as he renewed psychological poetics through combining
7 it with other current trends in poetics (e. g. questions of race and social
8 status), rendering it practical and useful for the general public as well as
9 for critics or other professionals in the field. Therefore, Müller-Freien-
10 fels’ small volume Poetik was published twice (1914/21921) in the pop-
11 ular Teubner series “Aus Natur und Geisteswelt”. The two editions dif-
12 fer from one another little, although the second one is better arranged
13 and gives a more detailed list of research literature. They replaced a sim-
14 ilarly popular but older account of poetics: Karl Borinski’s Deutsche Po-
15 etik (1895), published in the widely read “Sammlung Göschen”.155 In
16 this small and handy book Borinski (1862 – 1922), a professor of Ger-
17 man literary history who focused on poetic theory, provided a represen-
18 tative sum of his research, highlighting the debate between naturalism
19 and idealism – with a considerable interest in the psychology and the ty-
20 pology of the poet.
21 Müller-Freienfels’ Poetik develops this interest further. He aims at
22
providing a psychological understanding of poetry and its impact,
23
with a double focus on the poet and the public – a focus that is already
24
present in the work of Viehoff and Dilthey who are astonishingly not
25
mentioned in Müller-Freienfels’ bibliography in the first edition.156
26
Like Dilthey, but tending more towards the Darwinist camp (reminis-
27
28
153 See Hans-Georg Gadamer: Stefan George (1868 – 1933). In: Die Wirkung Ste-
29 fan Georges auf die Wissenschaft: Ein Symposium, ed. by Hans-Joachim Zim-
30 mermann. Heidelberg: Winter 1985 (Supplemente zu den Sitzungsberichten
31 der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften; Philosophisch-Historische
32 Klasse 4), pp. 39 – 49; Lothar van Laak: “Dichterisches Gebilde” und Erlebnis:
Überlegungen zu den Beziehungen zwischen Wilhelm Dilthey und dem
33
George-Kreis. In: George-Jahrbuch 5 (2004/5), pp. 63 – 81.
34 154 On the reception of Dilthey’s poetics see the helpful overview by Müller-
35 Volmer (fn. 124, pp. 33 – 48) in which the author stresses the long life of
36 three concepts: ‘Spirit of the times’ (“Zeitgeist”), ‘World-View’ (Weltan-
37 schauung) and ‘Inner Experience’ (“Erlebnis”).
155 Karl Borinski: Deutsche Poetik. Stuttgart 1895 (Sammlung Göschen 40).
38
156 Dilthey comes in in the second edition: Richard Müller-Freienfels: Poe-
39 ACHTUNGREtik. 2nd, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig, Berlin: Teubner 1921 (Aus Literatur
40 und Geisteswelt 460), p. 42.
1 cent of Wilhelm Scherer) Müller-Freienfels is interested not only in the

2 psychological order and classification of literature and its genres, but also
3 looks for the causes that lead to the survival of genres – ‘struggle for ex-
4 istence’ (“Kampfe ums Dasein”) Müller-Freienfels writes, openly allud-
5 ing to Darwin.157 Müller-Freienfels explores the subsistence of style and
6 genre, as well as norms that are ‘a posteriori’ derived from reality.158
7 Therefore, he calls his approach ‘empirical literary science’ (“empirische
8 Literaturwissenschaft”).159 Its main goal is to determine – with the help
9 of Carriere, Viehoff and Dilthey – exactly what the nature of poetic
10 pleasure is (“poetische[r] Genuß”).160
11 Müller-Freienfels’ definition of poetry follows Dilthey’s but focuses
12 on the notion of experience itself: poetry is an art that operates through
13 language (a notion which refers to the Theodor Alexander Meyer dis-
14
cussion) 161 and evokes experiences of the soul (“seelische Erlebnisse”)
15
which enrich our lives.162 Yet Müller-Freienfels not only borrows
16
from Dilthey and others but, when it comes to the concrete historical
17
observation of poetry, also adds some new reflections as well, for in-
18
stance on trends in contemporaneous literature: Müller-Freienfels de-
19
scribes the increasing internalisation or psychologisation of poetry (“zu-
20
nehmende Verinnerlichung oder Psychologisierung der Dichtung”).163 Stefan
21
George’s komm in den totgesagten park und schau! and Richard Dehmel’s
22
23
Die stille Stadt are discussed as examples of a new type of sophisticated
24
indirect expression of feeling. These texts prove that contemporary
25
lyric poetry expresses feeling and experience in a more refined way
26
than Goethe.164 Examples like these are not only designed to help liter-
27 ary critics to perform, but also to demonstrate the extent to which Mül-
28 ler-Freienfels and his notion of a poetry based on experience differ from
29
30 157 Richard Müller-Freienfels: Poetik. Leipzig, Berlin: Teubner 1914 (Aus Natur
31 und Geisteswelt 460), p. III.
32 158 Ibid., p. 16.
159 Ibid., p. 17.
33
160 Ibid., p. IV.
34 161 See the chapter on Meyer. Müller-Freienfels takes up Meyer’s argument posi-
35 tively although he claims that one should not restrict poetry to language only.
36 Yet he is convinced that the more traditional position which judged poetry ac-
37 cording to the feeling it produced is inadequate. Müller-Freienfels 1914
(fn. 157), p. 89.
38
162 Ibid., p. 2.
39 163 Ibid., p. 49.
40 164 Ibid., pp. 70 f.
1 Dilthey. Müller-Freienfels indeed reinvigorates the term, applying it to

2 complex modern poetry.
3 Another fascinating invention by Müller-Freienfels is the typology
4 of poets that is highlighted in the second edition.165 Although this typol-
5 ogy still makes use of Dilthey’s emphasis on the greatness of the poet,
6 Müller-Freienfels discusses rather the conditions and expressions of a
7 poet’s greatness.166 Hippolyte Taine’s idea of the ‘milieu’, of race, mo-
8 ment and specific talent strike Müller-Freienfels as too narrow and
9 vague.167 He proposes using style as a tool to distinguish between differ-
10 ent types of poet.168 According to him, style expresses the ‘unity of ar-
11 tistic impact as such as it is to be found in a work’ (“Einheit der künst-
12 ACHTUNGRElerischen Wirkungen überhaupt, wie sie sich an einem Werke fin-
13 den”).169 The following types are mentioned:170
14 (1) The ‘poet of expression’ (“Ausdrucksdichter”) vs. the ‘poet of cre-
15 ation’ (“Gestaltungsdichter”): the ‘poet of expression’ is more in-
16 clined toward lyric poetry, like Goethe and Hebbel who express
17 their soulful experience, using the form of the symbol. The “Gestal-
18 tungsdichter”, like Sophocles, Calderon, Schiller, Poe, Balzac, Zola,
19 Maupassant and Platen instead, focuses on composition and matter.
20 (2) The poet who works following an archetype (“Modelldichter”) vs.
21 the poet who works according to fantasy (“Phantasiedichter”): the
22 “Modelldichter” is interested in the objective; on the contrary,
23 the “Phantasiedichter” (for example the women of the romantic pe-
24 riod) stresses the subjective.
25 (3) The ‘Optimists’ vs. the ‘Pessimists’: pessimists are often the more
26 sensitive poets whilst the ‘balancing optimism’ (“Ausgleichsoptimis-
27 mus”), e. g. of Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, tends to sound naïve.
28
29
30
31
32 165 Müller-Freienfels 1921 (fn. 156), pp. 15 – 42.
166 See Müller-Freienfels 1914 (fn. 157), p. 9.
33
167 Müller-Freienfels 1914 (fn. 157), pp. 22 f.
34 168 Types are understood here according to William Stern’s classifications: Die dif-
35 ferentielle Psychologie in ihren methodischen Grundlagen. Leipzig: Barth
36 1911. Type in Stern’s understanding means a psychological type: a dominant
37 disposition which can be ascribed to a group of human beings in a similar
way, without the group then necessarily being thoroughly distinguished from
38
others; see Müller-Freienfels 1914 (fn. 157), pp. 26 – 43.
39 169 Ibid., p. 13.
40 170 Ibid.
1 (4) The ‘sensitive’ (“Sensible”) vs. the ‘active’ (“Aktive”): this pair
2 draws a distinction between active poets like Schiller and sensitive
3 or nervous ones like Hauptmann or Hofmannsthal.
4 (5) The ‘seer of specifics’ (“Spezialseher”) vs. the ‘seer of types’ (“Ty-
5 ACHTUNGREpenACHTUNGREseher”): the “Spezialseher” like Goethe concentrates on details
6 whilst the “Typenseher”, like most naturalists, is busy with the de-
7 piction of types.
8 (6) The ‘popular poet’ (“Volksdichter”) vs. the ‘scholarly poet’ (“ge-
9 lehrte Dichter”): the ‘popular poet’ includes different sub-types
10 like the reflective poet (Heine); the ‘scholarly poet’ instead is out-
11 dated, representing the Renaissance and Baroque poets only.
12 A similar typology applies to the recipient of poetry; its ‘tertium
13
comparationis’ is now the way art is enjoyed:171
14
15
(1) The ‘teammate’ (“Mitspieler”) re-experiences that which is depict-
16
ed and puts himself in the character’s position.
17 (2) The ‘spectator’ (“Zuschauer”) is always conscious of the fact that he
18 only perceives art and keeps his distance.
19 Despite the criticism of ‘psychologism’ which began around 1900,
20 psychological poetics had a long after-life resulting from the experi-
21 ments in the Wundt-school, up to (and including) the work of Wolf-
22 gang Kayser.172 Like Müller-Freienfels’ account most approaches
23 aimed to combine psychological poetics with new accounts. Thereby,
24 they followed Müller-Freienfels’ tendency to combine psychological
25 approaches into a new formalist, emotive and epistemological agenda.
26 One of the most interesting books in this context is Emil Winkler’s
27 Das dichterische Kunstwerk (1924). Winkler (1891 – 1942), a professor of
28 romance studies in Innsbruck and Vienna who published on medieval
29 as well as contemporary lyric poetry, participates in the criticism of psy-
30 chologism but also provides a mixture of older psychologist and formal-
31 ist approaches (Th.A. Meyer). Winkler refers back to Müller-Freienfels,
32 e. g. takes up the theories on the team mate and spectator, as well as to
33 Viehoff’s analysis of the sensitive effect of poetry. Winkler combines his
34
theories of ‘emotive value’ (“Gefühlswert”) and apperception in 1929
35
with the analysis of style in order to create a new theory: the theory
36
37
38
171 Ibid., pp. 44 f.
39 172 See Wolfgang Kayser: Das sprachliche Kunstwerk. 4th ed. Bern: Francke 1956,
40 p. 333.
1 of ‘etymic values of language’ (“etymische Werte der Sprache”).173 This

2 theory is designed to examine the psychological conditions that are
3 ‘dormant’ in linguistic expression,174 an account which might have in-
4 spired Arno Schmidt’s ‘Etym-theory’ for which Schmidt received
5 some academic attention.175 Winkler develops his theory of ‘etymic val-
6 ues of language’ further with the help of Theodor Lipps’ Aesthetik: ac-
7 cording to Lipps and Winkler, each work is an ‘emotional […] symbol’
8 (“emotionelles […] Symbol”) 176 which can be understood by the recip-
9 ient. Winkler’s reading of a poetic work is, in turn, described not with
10 the help of the outdated term “Einfühlung” but in terms of an original
11 reader-psychology. Winkler almost invented the term ‘ideal reader’
12 when explaining that the reader has to be recognized as part of the
13 work when interpreting it – in the sense of the ‘consorting of my per-
14
sona with what is presented in the work of art’ (“Zusammenstimmen
15
meiner Persönlichkeit mit dem, was das Kunstwerk […] darbietet”).177
16
A similarly inspiring yet far more inclusive, in part also psychologist, ac-
17
count is presented by Wilhelm Scherer.
18
19
20
(c) Processual Poetics: Wilhelm Scherer (1888)
21
22
Scherer (1841 – 1886), one of the most influential Germanists in the 19th
23
century, wrote standard works on almost all fields of study. Although
24
having been regarded as the representative of ‘positivism’ he neither
25
aimed at a philosophical formulation of his ideas nor defended a purified
26
version of positivism. Rather, he was inspired by different English and
27
28
French positivist accounts, in combination with a certain romanti-
29
30
31 173 Hans Peter Althaus: Sprachtheorie und Belletristik. Die Etymtheorien von Emil
32 Winkler und Arno Schmidt. In: Sprachtheorie – Der Sprachbegriff in Wissen-
schaft und Alltag. Jahrbuch 1986 des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache, ed. by
33
Rainer Wimmer. Düsseldorf: Schwann 1987 (Sprache der Gegenwart 71),
34 pp. 191 – 205.
35 174 See also Wilhelm Schneider: Ausdruckswerte der deutschen Sprache. Leipzig,
36 Berlin: Teubner 1931, a book well-known to theorists close to Heidegger such
37 as Johannes Pfeiffer.
175 Althaus (fn. 173), pp. 196 – 199.
38
176 Emil Winkler: Das dichterische Kunstwerk. Heidelberg: Winter 1924 (Kultur
39 und Sprache 3), p. 6.
40 177 Ibid., p. 14.
(c) Processual Poetics: Wilhelm Scherer (1888) 165
1 cism.178 Scherer began to consider a poetological work in the 1870s; in

2 the summer semester of 1885 he lectured on poetics, the lectures being
3 a literary event in Berlin. It is from the lectures and notes of Scherer’s
4 students, that the fragment of the Poetik (1888) originates. The text
5 was posthumously published by Jewish-German scholar Richard Moritz
6 Meyer (1860 – 1914), one of Scherer’s most famous students, who wrote
7 one of the first biographies of Nietzsche, contributed intensively to
8 problems of literary theory and was fascinated with George very early
9 but was never offered a chair.179
10 Scherer’s Poetik is one of the richest and wittiest texts on poetics.
11 Furthermore, the Poetik represents a third big step in 19th-century poet-
12 ics after Vischer and Fechner (whom Scherer extensively quotes, po-
13 lemicising against Vischer): although Vischer proposed the right direc-
14 tion towards psychology and provided some excellent concrete observa-
15 tions in his ‘mediocre’ (“mäßige[m]”) book on poetics,180 he adhered to
16 speculation and failed in providing solutions to the problems he raised.
17 Fechner instead, as in the works of Viehoff and Dilthey, becomes some
18 kind of role model in Scherer’s Poetik. It is Fechner’s empirical account
19 that fascinates Scherer and, as a consequence, he himself suggests replac-
20 ing normative aesthetics with historical and empirical poetics. Today,
21 some of his accounts can still be regarded as relevant:181 for instance,
22 the conception of literature as ‘good’ (“Ware”) that refers to the histor-
23 ical school of German national economy (Wilhelm Roscher, Karl
24 Knies), the evolutionary foundation of poetics and the ‘protostructural-
25 ist’ approach to genre that views genre as system.182
26
27
28
29 178 See Hans-Harald Müller: Wilhelm Scherer (1841 – 1886). In: Wissenschaftsge-
30 schichte der Germanistik in Porträts, eds. König, Müller, Röcke (fn. 117),
31 pp. 80 – 94.
32 179 Wilhelm Scherer: Poetik [1888]. Mit einer Einleitung und Materialien zur Re-
zeptionsanalyse, ed. by Gunter Reiss. Tübingen: Niemeyer (dtv) 1977. On
33
Meyer Hans-Harald Müller: Richard Moritz Meyer – ein Repräsentant der
34 Scherer-Schule. In: Akten des X. Internationalen Germanistenkongresses
35 Wien 2000. In: Zeitenwende – Die Germanistik auf dem Weg vom 20. Ins
36 21. Jahrhundert, ed. by Peter Wiesinger. Bern: Lang 2003, vol. 11, pp. 225 –
37 230; on the origin of the “Poetik” see Höppner: Die Beziehung (fn. 21),
pp. 82 f.
38
180 Scherer (fn. 179), p. 46.
39 181 H.-H. Müller: Wilhelm Scherer (fn. 178), p. 91.
40 182 Höppner: Die Beziehung (fn. 21), pp. 218 – 222.
1 Still, it is characteristic of Scherer’s Poetik that he also takes up tradi-

2 tional notions in order to combine them into his new account. This is
3 true for his tentative rhetorical definition of poetics:
4 ‘Above all, poetics is the discipline of coherent speech; and in addi-
5 tion, it is the discipline of some employments of the incoherent, which
6 are closely related to those of the coherent.’183
7 Scherer’s method is far from providing definitions in a scholastic
8 manner. He focuses on phenomena in a complex area, approaching
9 them in an almost Socratic way, stressing the provisory nature of his Po-
10 etik. It is said to be a mere ‘outline’ (“Grundriß”).184 The reason for this
11 lies firstly in the area of aesthetics, of which poetics is a part. Aesthetics
12 itself is developing quickly and no firm system has been established:
13 Scherer regards Carriere’s Aesthetik to be stimulating because of its com-
14
parisons; Fechner’s Vorschule der sthetik is the most helpful work which
15
clearly advocates an ‘aesthetics from below’. Secondly, poetics, aesthet-
16
ics and philology have been driven apart and need to be reconnected:
17
‘Essentially, that task is yet to be achieved.’185 Against this background,
18
Scherer formulates his ‘programme’ (“Programm”):
19
‘[…] to completely (exhaustively) describe the poetic creation, the
20
real and the possible, in its process, in its results, in its effects.’186
21
What necessarily follows is methodological pluralism. Consequent-
22
23
ly, almost every contemporary methodological approach can be found
24
in Scherer’s poetics, its focus being on the poetic process.187 The follow-
25
ing remarks are designed to give an overview of the variety of ap-
26
proaches, questions and topics that are presented in the Poetik: 188
27
28
183 Scherer (fn. 179), p. 28: “Die Poetik ist vorzugsweise die Lehre von der gebun-
29 denen Rede; außerdem aber von einigen Anwendungen der ungebundenen,
30 welche mit den Anwendungen der gebundenen in naher Verwandtschaft ste-
31 hen.”
32 184 Ibid., p. 52.
185 Ibid., p. 48: “Die Sache ist wesentlich noch zu machen.”
33
186 Ibid., p. 49: “[…] die dichterische Hervorbringung, die wirkliche und die
34 ACHTUNGREmögliche, ist vollständig zu beschreiben in ihrem Hergang, in ihren Ergebnis-
35 sen, in ihren Wirkungen.”
36 187 Ibid., p. 52.
37 188 See as well Steffen Martus who combines Scherer’s approaches with current re-
search: “jeder Philolog ist eine Sekte für sich”: Wilhelm Scherer als Klassiker
38
des Umgangs mit Klassikern. In: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenver-
39 bandes. Klassiker der Germanistik. Local Heroes in Zeiten des Global Think-
40 ing, eds. Petra Boden, Uwe Wirth 53 (2006) 1, pp. 8 – 26, p. 17.
1 (1) Meta-rhetoric, -poetics, -aesthetics as well as methodology: looking

2 for an appropriate approach to poetics, Scherer informs the reader
3 about the beginning and the meaning of poetics since ancient times.
4 Although Scherer’s history is more a bibliographical account with
5 some hints on the content of the works, he stresses the relevance of
6 the ancients. He begins his aesthetic history with Homer, the person
7 who first thought about poetry, highlights the relevance of Aristotle
8 and touches upon Plato as well as Horace and others. Medieval and
9 early modern poetics are briefly mentioned but regarded as an appen-
10 dix of the ancients only. Scherer’s interest grows as regards Baumgarten
11 and the foundation of aesthetics. It is not by mere accident that Scherer
12 on the one hand polemicises against speculative poetics (Baumgarten,
13 Kant, Hegel, Vischer, Batteux, Marmontel, Burke) and on the other
14 hand appreciates Lessing’s as well as Herder’s literary and historical ac-
15 counts. Both are said to have paved the way for Fechner’s empirical
16 aesthetics and Scherer’s own empirical poetics.
17 (2) Rhetoric and poetics. Before entering the empirical camp, a threefold
18 relationship between rhetoric and poetics is still to be mentioned: (a)
19 Scherer discusses Aristotle as he provided the first (and still relevant)
20 theoretical framework for the understanding of poetry as a whole.
21 (b) Secondly, Scherer stresses the requirement of an all-encompassing
22 art and understanding of speech. One should, for example, distinguish
23 versified speech from other types. Although it suffices to understand
24 poetry as ‘lively speech’ (“lebendige Rede”) 189 rhetoric is still an im-
25 portant framework for poetics (c).190 In contrast to what might be as-
26 sumed due to the general 19th-century tendency of ‘de-rhetorisation’,
27 Scherer opts for the reinvention of rhetoric: the steps of the rhetor (‘in-
28 ventio’, ‘dispositio’, ‘elocutio’), for instance, are still useful and should
29 be adopted in favour of an empirical rhetoric. The ‘inventio’ could be
30 regarded as a part of the analysis of matter, the ‘dispositio’ as a part of a
31 renewed analysis of the connections from the inner form to the ‘outer
32 form’ (“äußere Form”);191 in turn, ‘elocutio’ becomes almost identical
33 with ‘outer form’ and covers language as well as metre.192
34
35 189 Scherer (fn. 179), p. 160.
36 190 Ibid., p. 27.
37 191 Scherer’s interesting idea in this regard is to overcome the problematic distinc-
tion between content and form – an idea that found many admirers up to Oskar
38
Walzel. Along with Wilhelm von Humboldt Scherer understands the ‘inner
39 form’ as a characteristic of things (“charakteristische Auffassung”); Scherer
40 (fn. 179), p. 150.
1 (3) Comparative functional and historical poetics: Relying on Darwin

2 (unlike Viehoff), Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnet Tyler, one of
3 Scherer’s main aims is to explore the origin of poetry.193 He provides
4 a twofold result which gives an evolutionary account of the history of
5 poetry as well as a biological and functional analysis of poetry. The first
6 stage of poetry was its separation from dance as an expression of joy,194
7 the second the separation from song195 or the imitation of birds who,
8 through singing, not only signal joy, but also the will to mate.196 A
9 third step of the evolution of poetry might have been the separation
10 from laughter but there is a lack of research on this issue so this step
11 is unproven. Yet as the tertium comparationis of all these steps is the
12 mode of expression, the symbolic act (“symbolische Handlung”) of sig-
13 nalling joy or other more or less physical sensations,197 the origin of po-
14 etry can be explained as follows:
15 ‘[…] poetry originates in joviality and seems to the majority of
16 human beings akin to pleasure and amusement. The large majority
17 seeks to find in poetry only pleasure through the depiction of pleasure.
18 Sad objects and events which cause true pain are probably avoided by
19 this majority. But we found out on our strenuous journey that poetry
20 serves not merely to detect or to console and comfort, but that it also is
21 something that serves to act on one’s will, it is also a form of stimula-
22 tion, a magic force with which those who employ it become capable
23 of directing human beings to good and evil, for they can through their
24 imagination exert power on the passions and deed of humans.’198
25
26
27 192 Ibid., p. 136.
193 Höppner (fn. 21), p. 104.
28
194 Charles Darwin: Ausdruck der Gemüthsbewegungen bei den Menschen und
29 Thieren. German by Gustav Carus. Stuttgart: Schweizerbart 1872, p. 222;
30 Scherer (fn. 179), p. 58; on Darwin’s aesthetics reflections see Lisa Sideris:
31 One Step Up, Two Steps Back: Aesthetics, Ethics and Savagery in Darwin’s
32 Theory of Evolution. In: Soundings. An Interdisciplinary Journal 84 (2001)
3 – 4, pp. 365 – 388.
33
195 Scherer (fn. 179), p. 18.
34 196 Darwin: Ausdruck (fn.194), pp. 84 f; Scherer (fn. 179), p. 58.
35 197 Scherer (fn. 179), p. 61.
36 198 Ibid., pp. 79 f: “[…] die Poesie entspringt aus der Heiterkeit und wirkt auf die
37 Mehrzahl der Menschen als Vergnügen. Die weit überwiegende Masse sucht in
der Poesie nur Vergnügen durch Darstellung von Vergnügen. Traurige Gegen-
38
stände, die wirklichen Schmerz erregen, werden ursprünglich von ihr wahr-
39 scheinlich gemieden, […]. Aber wir haben auf unserem mühsamen Weg zu-
40 gleich gefunden, daß die Poesie nicht bloß Ergötzlichkeit oder Trösterin, daß
1 Yet Scherer adheres to an underlying norm when it comes to the

2 higher functions of poetry. It is more or less detached from its bio-
3 logical origins:199 high poetry provides ‘delectation and amusement’
4 (“Vergnügung”), ‘instruction’ (“Belehrung”), ‘satisfaction of the
5 thirst for knowledge’ (“Befriedigung der Wißbegier”) and ‘impact
6 on the will’ (“Einwirkung auf den Willen”).200 The reason for
7 this higher development is that tradition and exercise have made po-
8 etry a powerful tool of communication.201
9 (4) Evaluative/Axiological poetics. The result of the higher development
10 of poetry is that people attribute a certain value to it or – as in the
11 church – use poetry’s power. Two main types of values can be dis-
12 tinguished: economic value or ‘exchange value’ (“Tauschwert”) and
13 ideal value.202 Economic value is a category recognised already in the
14 early ages of poetry, e. g. poet laureates expected material favours for
15 their poetry. Poetry was a good. After the invention of book printing
16 this tendency grew – and led to new organisations of book trade, e. g.
17 honorarium, and new forms of poetry, e. g. the Feuilleton of the
18 French journal Le Figaro which makes extensive use of poetry. Fur-
19 thermore, a new profession was established: critics who mediate be-
20 tween literature and the public, the German role model being Less-
21 ing. Although in the 19th century criticism had become less effective,
22 success played an important role for writers who were economically
23 dependent on remuneration; in short: the laws and institutions of the
24 res publica litteraria had fundamentally changed. Poets became serv-
25 ants of the public and (as Dilthey diagnosed) a democratic reign in
26 literature was established. Like Dilthey, Scherer highlights its negative
27 consequences: contemporary poets have to please everybody (not
28 only their patron). Yet this development has led to a differentiation
29 of the ideal values attributed to poetry:203 the ideal value corresponds
30 to the purposes of poetry (entertainment, instruction, edification), the
31 ethical function being the best example for the ideal value.
32
33
sie auch ein Mittel ist, um auf den Willen zu wirken, eine Erregerin, eine Zau-
34 bermacht, mit welcher der, der sie übt, die Menschen zum Guten und zum
35 Bösen lenken und durch ihre Phantasie auf ihre Leidenschaft und Thaten
36 ACHTUNGREwirken kann.”
37 199 Ibid., p. 16.
200 Ibid., p. 82.
38
201 Ibid., p. 80.
39 202 Ibid., pp. 84 – 94.
40 203 Ibid., pp. 94 – 100.
1 Scherer proposes a sort of typology in order to distinguish between

2 different kinds of ethic poetry: ‘direct’ ideal values are revealed in
3 Gellert’s fables which Scherer detests for openly displaying their
4 pedagogical intention, whilst ‘indirect’ values are presented in
5 Zola’s studies of vice and virtue. In contrast to both, Goethe ne-
6 glected the ethical function, thereby constituting the role model
7 for today’s poetics. Consequently, Scherer claims, contemporaries
8 should ask if poetry ought to have ethical effects at all. Scherer re-
9 stricts himself to naming the different worlds poetry might refer to –
10 with or without ethical intention: the outer or physical world, the
11 ethical, psychological or inner world and the third world, which is
12 everything from fantasy to fate. Today, poetry covers aspects similar
13 to science, notes Scherer: ‘The matter of poetry is thus on the
14 whole the same as that of science.’204 Nevertheless, poetry and sci-
15 ence are not identical. Poetry does not aim at complete observation
16 or analysis, and as Scherer stressed before: poetry is always a less
17 content-related, but a more structurally ambitious, exercise with
18 the imagination playing a strong part in it.
19 (5) Poetics of production.205 As Steinthal recognized, Scherer borrows
20 his general analytical terms from economic thinking – ‘nature, cap-
21 ital, work’ (“Natur, Kapital, Arbeit”) 206 but acknowledges some dif-
22 ferences between both areas: nature is more or less identical with
23 matter, capital means traditional forms and matters which the poet
24 uses. The work of the poet alludes to the ways in which he
25 makes use of traditions and (poetically) processes experience as
26 well as knowledge. Observing the history of the literary work,
27 Scherer highlights different types: he decisively dismisses the idea
28 of the lonely poet-genius and directs attention to works that result
29 from the division of labour, e. g. collective processes such as Ezzo’s
30 song about the miracles of Christ or Don Juans Ende by Paul Heyse,
31 a work which draws on different sources. In addition to this, Scher-
32 er points out the difficulties of working procedures and claims that
33 interrupted work is one of the most common contemporary forms.
34
35
36 204 Ibid., p. 139: “Das Stoffgebiet der Poesie ist also im Ganzen dasselbe wie das
37 Stoffgebiet der Wissenschaft.”
205 Ibid., pp. 101 – 124.
38
206 Heymann Steinthal: Wilhelm Scherer, Poetik. In: Zeitschrift für Völkerpsy-
39 chologie und Sprachwissenschaft 19 (1889), pp. 87 – 97, p. 88; Höppner
40 (fn. 21), p. 108.
1 Goethe’s Wilhelm Meister, for instance, originated in different phases

2 and parts. Nevertheless, continuous production is the only guaran-
3 tee for the unity of the work, a clear and classical value judge-
4 ment.207 Consequently, ‘creative forces of the soul’ (“schaffende
5 Seelenkräfte”) should be the main area of interest – as Vischer
6 had correctly claimed.208 Following Vischer’s advice, it is now
7 Scherer who makes use of various ‘empirical’ contributions of the
8 Zeitschrift fr Vçlkerpsychologie and defines fantasy as ‘reproduction
9 that transforms those who employ it’ (“die verwandelnde Repro-
10 duktion”).209 Yet as Jean Paul, Justinus Kerner and Vischer had pre-
11 viously stressed, the whole process of creating a poetic work is to be
12 seen as a process of fantasy – a claim which takes up Vischer’s points.
13 The same is true for Scherer’s attempt to explore the physical char-
14 acteristics of the genius: he follows Vischer’s eclectic addition of
15 Plato’s childish reflection assuming genius in the liver, Aristotle’s
16 idea that it may be discovered in the gall bladder and the association
17 of genius with the melancholic as well as the detection of ‘height-
18 ened excitability of the nervous system and a very lively fantasy’
19 (“gesteigerte Reizbarkeit des Nervensystems und eine sehr lebhafte
20 Phantasie”) in the body of the genius.210 And like Vischer, Scherer
21 concludes that these characteristics are not sufficient to define gen-
22 ius; the whole complex of how a poet deals with tradition, how
23 original he is, if he follows his fantasy or his judgement, if he is a
24 professional or a dilettante and his relationship to ethics, needs to
25 play a part in his evaluation.
26 (6) Poetics of reception. Scherer’s poetics of reception is as complex as
27 his poetics of production. He begins with some observations which
28 might be called group sociology and, going beyond these groups,
29 constructs a kind of average reader in order to explain the phenom-
30 enon of reception. This average reader commands ‘relishing forces
31 of the soul’ (“genießende Seelenkräfte”),211 analogous to the crea-
32 tive forces of the soul of the poet, of fantasy, taste, reason and judge-
33
34 207 Scherer (fn. 179), p. 108: “Das Wünschenswertheste, um die Einheit des
35 Werkes zu erzielen, ist anhaltendes Arbeiten […].”
36 208 E.g. Hermann Cohen: Die dichterische Phantasie und der Mechanismus des
37 Bewußtseins. In: Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 6
(1869), pp. 171 – 263; Scherer (fn. 179), p. 109.
38
209 Ibid.
39 210 Scherer (fn. 179), pp. 117 f.
40 211 Ibid., pp. 124 – 136.
1 ment. Yet this approach to the psychology of the reader does not
2 explain why a book is read or even successful. Scherer claims that
3 Fechner’s principles, although they are not entirely correct, provide
4 the most helpful account. Furthermore, Scherer directly alludes to
5 the ‘principle of being without contradiction’ (“Princip der Wider-
6 spruchslosigkeit”), the ‘principle of clarity’ (“Princip der Klar-
7 heit”) 212 and the ‘principle of aesthetic threshold’ (“Prinzip der äs-
8 thetischen Schwelle”) 213 to which he adds ‘comprehendability’
9 (“Verständlichkeit”) as a requirement for poetry.214
10 Scherer’s Poetik concludes in a somewhat open-ended manner, provid-
11 ing many fascinating insights into almost every area of poetic theory.
12 Yet, judged according to his own premises, he had formulated so few
13
expectations that he easily fulfilled them in a well-informed, clever
14
manner. Despite his empirical and non-normative intention Scherer’s
15
presentations are grounded in clear value judgements deriving from
16
Lessing or 19th-century post-Goethean classicism.
17
Due to the rich and fragmentary nature of Scherer’s Poetik its recep-
18
tion was complex. The verdict of positivism that made Scherer ‘a neg-
19
ative classicist’215 did not hinder colleagues and the public in their appre-
20
ciation of the work. Astonishingly, the most controversial aspect in the
21
22
history of the reception of Scherer was his eudaimonistic definition of
23
literature (“dem Vergnügen und der Belehrung”) and the ethical ac-
24
count he shared not only with Horace but also with Kant, Herbart, Car-
25
riere, Lotze, Fechner, Viehoff and Dilthey. For instance, Heinze and
26 Goette in their Deutsche Poetik mention Scherer’s plea for joy only in
27 a footnote and with the comment that this was, generally, not to be
28 taken seriously (“schlechterdings nicht ernst zu nehmen”).216 This
29 quote founded a tradition of reception up until the Nazi-period: Karl
30 Justus Obenauer, one of the leading Nazi Germanists, uses the same
31 quote to degrade Scherer and 19th-century poetics overall. Still, this is
32 only one stream of the reception of Scherer’s work. His Poetik is
33 cited as one of the most impressive and inspiring accounts not only in
34 Emil Staiger’s famous Die Zeit als Einbildungskraft des Dichters (1939)
35
36
37 212 Fechner, Vorschule (fn. 2), p. 80, p. 84.
213 Ibid., I, 49.
38
214 Scherer (fn. 179), p. 131.
39 215 Martus (fn. 188), p. 15.
40 216 Heinze/ Goette (fn. 108), p. 17.
(d) Evolutionary Poetics: Eugen Wolff (1899) 173
1 but also in Julius Petersen’s impressive encyclopaedia Die Wissenschaft

2 von der Dichtung (1944).
3
4
5 (d) Evolutionary Poetics: Eugen Wolff (1899)
6
7 Eugen Wolff (1863 – 1929) represented a new generation of scholars
8 who were critical of the Scherer school of thought which, unlike its
9 founding father, limited itself to philology. In turn, Wolff and his par-
10 tisans were criticized by well-established colleagues who were friendly
11 toward the Scherer-school philologists. For his theoretical ideas,
12 Wolff even faced a challenge to a duel by the slightly older Professor
13 Konrad Burdach (Halle).217 As a consequence and despite completing
14 his doctorate on Karl Gotthelf Lessing ( Jena 1886) and his ‘Habilitation’
15 on Johann Elias Schlegel in Kiel (1889),218 Wolff, like many other con-
16 temporaries, did not pursue a distinct academic career but established
17 close links to literary circles and became an author himself. Wolff
18 wrote in the spirit of Berlin naturalism, founded the literary circle
19
“Durch” and contributed to journals like the Akademischen Bltter. Bei-
20
trge zur Litteratur-Wissenschaft (1884 ff), and, as Ernst Elster and Hubert
21
Roetteken would later do, aimed to found an independent discipline
22
which, from the 1880s, became known as ‘Literaturwissenschaft’.219
23
Due to Wolff’s interest as a literary critic and his attempt to renew
24
poetics, his aim in the Poetik (1899) is ‘to ground the theory of poetry on
25
a comprehensive history of world poetry’.220 Although he does not
26
27
217 Dorit Müller: “Lufthiebe streibarer Privatdocenten”: Kontroversen um die the-
28
oretische Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (1890 – 1910). In: Kontrover-
29 ACHTUNGREsen in der Literaturtheorie/ Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf
30 Klausnitzer and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]: Lang 2007 (Publikationen der
31 Zeitschrift für Germanistik NF 17), pp. 149 – 169.
32 218 Christoph Deupmann: Eugen Wolff. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon,
ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2003, CD-Rom.
33
219 Klaus Weimar: Geschichte der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft bis zum Ende
34 des 19. Jahrhunderts. Paderborn: Fink 2003, pp. 138 f; on the notion of “Li-
35 ACHTUNGREteraturwissenschaft” and the gap between academic as well as literary genera-
36 tions Müller: “Lufthiebe streibarer Privatdocenten”. (fn. 217)
37 220 Eugen Wolff: Poetik. Die Gesetze der Poesie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwick-
lung: Ein Grundriß […]. Oldenburg, Leipzig: Schulzesche Hof-Buchhandlung
38
1899, V: “Das letzte Ziel meiner Betrachtung muß bleiben, die Theorie der
39 Dichtkunst auf einer umfassenden Geschichte der Weltpoesie aufzubauen
40 […].”
1 name Dilthey, Wolff’s programme is theoretically close to Dilthey’s ear-

2 lier Bausteine der Poetik. They differ in the execution in that Wolff makes
3 use of extensive references to contemporary literature, his book being
4 richer in concrete observations. It is not by mere accident that amongst
5 the preparatory works Wolff not only mentions his Prolegomena der lite-
6 ACHTUNGRErar-evolutionistischen Poetik (1890) but also his essays from the Zeitschrift fr
7 vergleichende Literaturgeschichte (new series, vol. 6, pp. 423 ff) and Tgliche
8 Rundschau (autumn 1897).
9 Like Dilthey, Wolff states that ‘poetics is the science of the laws of
10 poetry.’221 He stresses the inductive or empirical method he uses:222 the
11 ‘speculative-dogmatic poetics’ (“spekulativ-dogmatische Poetik”) of
12 Gottsched and Bodmer/Breitinger, the ‘empirical poetics’ (“empirische
13 Poetik”) of Scherer and the ‘psychological-inductive poetics’ (“psycho-
14 logisch-induktive Poetik”) of Dilthey – Wolff aims to go beyond their
15
approaches. He calls his account ‘poetics concerned with the history of
16
development’ (“entwicklungsgeschichtliche Poetik”) – a poetics that is
17
not limited to nature (as Scherer’s is – misleadingly – said to be) but in-
18
cludes the spiritual world as well. In contrast to Scherer’s ideas, Wolff
19
states that he does not simply transfer the term ‘Entwicklung’ from
20
the natural sciences to spiritual life and that he does not reduce poetry
21
to a ‘natural gift’ (“Naturgabe”) but regards it as a ‘gift of culture to hu-
22
manity’ (“Geschenk der Kultur an die Menschheit”).223 In order to
23
mark the difference between Dilthey’s, Scherer’s and his own poetics,
24
25
Wolff claims to refer back to Hegel. Hegel is introduced as the ancestor
26
of Wolff’s evolutionary approach – which, of course, renounces Hegel’s
27
metaphysical speculation. Contrary to Hegel, the new evolutionary po-
28
etics should rather show the empirical ‘principle of change’ (“Prinzip
29
der Wandlung”) that determines the development of poetry.
30 Consequently, poetry is defined with regard to hypotheses about its
31 development only: poetry has different forms of revelation (“Offenba-
32 ACHTUNGRErungsformen”) that should be explored by evolutionary poetics.224 Yet
33 not all poetry seems to be worth considering. With Paul de Lagarde’s
34 harsh racist words, ‘peoples without a history are not normal but the re-
35
36
37
221 Ibid., p. 1: “Poetik ist die Wissenschaft von den Gesetzen der Poesie.”
38
222 Ibid., pp. 7 – 10.
39 223 Ibid., p. VII.
40 224 Ibid, p. 20.
(d) Evolutionary Poetics: Eugen Wolff (1899) 175
1 sult of an illness,’225 Wolff refuses to deal with their poetry. He limits his
2 analysis to the poetry of the so-called cultured peoples, proposing the
3 following hypotheses of development: early poetry originated through
4 ‘deification’ (“Vergöttlichung”) as can be shown from the episode on
5 Nal and Damajanti in the Indian Mahabarata. 226 The next step is ‘heroo-
6 morphism’ (“Heroomorphismus”), heroism as expressed in Shake-
7 speare’s Othello. 227 ‘Physiomorphism’ (“Physiomorphismus”) followed.
8 As with Kriemhild in the Nibelungenlied physical relations illustrate the
9 development from the godlike to the civil.228 It is only lately that sub-
10 jectivity and abstraction have come to dominate literature. The psychol-
11 ogy of the poet, which is only a summary of psychological poetics, cor-
12 responds to this general history.229
13 To sum up, poetics not only applies to literary history but also means
14 applied literary history: it takes over the function of a literary encyclo-
15 paedia,230 for instance in Conrad Beyer’s voluminous Deutsche Poetik
16 (1882 – 1887).231 Furthermore, according to Wolff, poetics moves deci-
17 sively towards methodology,232 a role which had been played by the in-
18 troductory and theoretical parts of poetics before but is now expanded.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
225 Ibid., p. 28: “Ungeschichtliche Völker sind nicht das Normale, sondern die
34 Wirkung einer Krankheit.”
35 226 Ibid., p. 34.
36 227 Ibid., p. 39.
37 228 Ibid., p. 47.
229 See ibid. (fn. 220), pp. 53 – 57, pp. 241 – 250.
38
230 Weimar: Geschichte der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft (fn. 219), pp. 146 f.
39 231 See introduction.
40 232 Ibid.
1
2
3
4 7. Comprehensive Poetics
5
6
7 Unsatisfied with the objective tendency of empirical poetics, poetic
8 theory searched for new approaches. Some thinkers found them in
9 the poetic tradition. Hermann Baumgart in his Handbuch der Poetik
10 (1887) for instance, revitalised Aristotle’s and Lessing’s ideas of mimesis
11 (without linking them to rhetoric).1 Thereby, Baumgart (1843 – 1926),
12 professor of literary history in Königsberg, hoped to promote the idea of
13 the “unity of artistic imitation” (“Einheit der knstlerischen Nachahmung”)
14 in order to provide new guidelines for aesthetic judgement.2 Yet this
15 seemed like late 18th-and early 19th-century common sense and did
16 not help ambitious poetics further. Consequently, other thinkers
17 moved in different directions.
18 Ernst Elster and Hubert Roetteken both reinvented the psycholog-
19 ical account, stressing the irrational and subjective element of literature
20 and exchanging Fechner for a new authority: Wilhelm Wundt. Yet
21 they went beyond psychology in that they both discussed formalist top-
22 ics, their theories resulting in comprehensive though – at least in Elster’s
23 case – problematic accounts: Elster combines systematic poetological
24 approaches forming a new normative and emotionalist agenda which
25 is in some part anti-scientific (a). Contrary to him, Roetteken moves
26 back to empirical aesthetics and poetics, reintroduces the notion of
27 pleasure and advocates a vitalist account of poetics (b).
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 1 Dietmar Till: Poetik a. Grundlagen: ‘Rhetorisierte’ Poetik. In: Rhetorik. Be-
35 griff – Geschichte – Internationalität, ed. by Gert Ueding. Tübingen: Niemeyer
36 2005, pp. 144 – 151, p. 148.
37 2 Hermann Baumgart: Handbuch der Poetik: Eine kritisch-historische Darstel-
lung der Theorie der Dichtkunst. Stuttgart: Cotta 1887 (Repr. Hildesheim,
38
Zurich, New York 2003), vol. I, p. IV. Karl Tumlirz later opts for a similar the-
39 oretical mixture as Baumgart; see K.T.: Die Sprache der Dichtkunst. 6th ed.
40 Vienna: Tempsky, Leipzig: Freytag 1919 (1st ed. 1907), p. 7, passim.
(a) On the Way to a New Discipline Called ‘Literaturwissenschaft’ 177
1 (a) On the Way to a New Discipline Called

2 ‘Literaturwissenschaft’: Ernst Elster (1897)
3
4 Ernst August Eduard Jakob Elster (1860 – 1940) studied jurisprudence,
5 economics and philology at Jena, Berlin and Leipzig Universities
6 (with E. Sievers, W. Scherer and W. Wundt). Although Elster graduat-
7 ed in Leipzig (completing his Doctorate on Lohengrin and his ‘Habili-
8 tation’ on Schiller’s Don Carlos) he always looked beyond Germany’s
9 borders: he became a ‘Lektor’ in German at Glasgow University, in
10 1903 he refused the offer of a professorship in London and taught as a
11 guest professor at Cornell University (1914). From 1901 he served as
12
a professor at Marburg University and became its ‘Rektor’ in 1915/
13
1916.3 Elster was a member of several literary associations as well as of
14
the early Germanist association; his main research areas included mod-
15
ern German literature, Heine, comparative literature4 and literary theo-
16
ry, an area which he pushed decisively through his inaugural lecture at
17
Marburg University (Ueber die Elemente der Poesie und den Begriff des
18
Dramatischen).
19
Elster was the first Germanist to prominently adopt the new term
20
21
‘Literaturwissenschaft’ as conceived by the Berlin classicist Oskar
22
Froehde (1869 – 1916) who, in 1893, and against the ‘Altertums- und
23
Geisteswissenschaften,’ promoted his own psychology-based discipline
24
called ‘Literaturwissenschaft’.5 In Elster’s publications, ‘Literaturwissen-
25 schaft’ becomes a doctrine of principles. His main book bears the title
26 Prinzipien der Literaturwissenschaft (1897/1911) and covers the area
27
28
3 Kai Köhler: Elster, Ernst. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon 1800 – 1950,
29 ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York 2002, vol. 1, pp. 430 – 432.
30 4 Ernst Elster: Weltlitteratur und Literaturvergleichung. In: Archiv für das Studi-
31 um der Neueren Sprachen und Literatur 107 (1901), pp. 33 – 47; transl. E.E.:
32 World Literature and Comparative Literature (1901). In: Yearbook of compa-
rative and general literature 35 (1986), pp. 7 – 13.
33
5 Klaus Weimar: Geschichte der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft bis zum Ende
34 des 19. Jahrhunderts Paderborn: Fink 2003, p. 486; Holger Dainat: Von der
35 Neueren deutschen Literaturgeschichte zur Literaturwissenschaft: Die Fachent-
36 wicklung 1890 bis 1913/14. In: Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Germanistik im
37 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by Jürgen Fohrmann and Wilhelm Voßkamp. Stuttgart,
Weimar: Metzler 1994, pp. 494 – 537; Gregor Streim: Introspektionen des
38
Schöpferischen: Literaturwissenschaft und Experimentalpsychologie am Ende
39 des 19. Jahrhunderts. Das Projekt der ‘empirisch-induktiven’ Poetik. In: Scien-
40 tia Poetica 7 (2003), pp. 148 – 170, pp. 148 f.
1 which was formerly called ‘Poetik’.6 Taking into account the emotional
2 and normative views Elster introduces into the area, it is not by mere
3 accident that current research is sceptical of Elster’s approach: Klaus
4 Weimar calls it ‘a pure failure’ (“ein[en] reine[n] Fehlschlag”) 7 which
5 fulfils the function of a ‘prescriptive methodology’ only.8
6 In his Prinzipien der Literaturwissenschaft (1897/1911) Elster proclaims
7 the unification of the different, often one-sided, methods and views of
8 literature in order to develop a comprehensive ‘Literaturwissenschaft’
9 and to explore the whole area of ‘Literaturforschung’, a task not previ-
10 ously attempted, or indeed conceived of.9 As the key for such a unifying
11 project, Elster recommends Wundt’s experimental version of modern
12 psychology. It should help firstly, to analyse the different aspects of po-
13 etic thought, secondly, to provide sharp definitions of concepts and
14
thirdly, to explore literature without one-sidedness. Although this ap-
15
proach is reminiscent of empirical poetics, Elster stresses the differences:
16
his focus is on the history of literature which his ‘Literaturwissenschaft’
17
should support through a richness of examples and the implicit rejection
18
of Dilthey’s idea that poetics should serve as a logic of the humanities.10
19
Yet the order and content of Elster’s two volumes is not that new;
20
they present an enlarged, more or less historical poetics with astonishing
21
anti-scientific inclinations. To begin with, Elster announces an irrational
22
‘Weltanschauung’, the aesthetical worldview, implicitly referring to
23
24
Viehoff’s concept of the emotive measurement (“Gefühlswert”) and
25
Dilthey’s notion of life: the aesthetical worldview should stand in the
26
middle of ‘Literaturwissenschaft’ and outline ‘the emotive measure-
27
ments of life’ (“die Gefühlswerte des Lebens”),11 presupposing that its
28 object, that is literature, expresses ‘powerful, innermost life’ (“kräftige[s]
29 innere[s] Leben”).12
30 Elster’s definition of literature follows from this premise: ‘Literatur-
31 wissenschaft’ should consider every text which attracts “strong and
32 meaningful emotions” (“starke und bedeutsame Gefühle”) and which
33
34 6 Weimar: Geschichte der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft (fn. 5), pp. 146 f.
35 7 Ibid., p. 145.
36 8 Ibid., p. 147.
37 9 Ernst Elster: Prinzipien der Literaturwissenschaft. Halle a. d. S.: Niemeyer
1897, vol. 1, p. 1.
38
10 Ibid., p. 5.
39 11 Ibid., p. 15.
40 12 Ibid., p. 37.
(a) On the Way to a New Discipline Called ‘Literaturwissenschaft’ 179
1 functions largely through its form13 – like Fichte’s Reden an die deutsche
2 Nation and Alexander von Humboldt’s Kosmos. Even if the main area of
3 competence remains poetry, the ‘Literaturwissenschaftler’ is to further
4 develop a method which not only helps him to analyse poetry but
5 also the types of texts mentioned. Elster calls this new method ‘to-sens-
6 ing’ (“Anempfinden”). His example is Gretchen from Goethe’s Faust: a
7 criminologist would deal with her case considering it in terms of seduc-
8 tion; the ‘Literaturwissenschaftler’ should focus on her feelings. What
9 sounds like an innovative approach, which includes different texts and
10 not only ‘high literature’, is bought at a high price through a method
11 which seems to be insufficient and restricted to Elster’s emotional aes-
12 thetical worldview.
13 Yet the ‘poetical norms’ (“poetische Normen”) Elster wishes to
14
apply to literature implicitly quote from Fechner’s principles and from
15
Dilthey; if not, they underline Elster’s normative and irrational point
16
of view:14 firstly, the ‘norm of poetic importance and meaning’
17
(“Norm der poetischen Bedeutsamkeit”) which means that literature
18
needs to evoke emotional results from life, secondly, the ‘norm of the
19
novelty of the content of emotion’ (“Norm der Neuheit des Gefühlsin-
20
haltes”) which condemns the emergence of epigons, thirdly, the ‘norm
21
of diversification and enhancement of contrasts’ (“Norm der Abwech-
22
23
selung und der Konstraststeigerung”), e. g. Schiller who illustrated Wal-
24
lenstein’s character by contrasting him with Max, fourthly, the ‘norm of
25
the harmonious content of emotion’ (“Norm der Harmonie des Ge-
26
fühlsinhaltes”), fifthly, the norm of the poetic tuning of emotion
27 (“Norm der poetischen Abtönung der Gefühle”) in favour of the poetic
28 depiction, sixthly, the norm of the topical, national and popular content
29 (“Norm des zeitgemässen, nationalen und volksthümlichen Gehaltes”)
30 as represented in Goethe’s Iphigenie, seventhly, the ‘norm of the truth
31 of life’ (“Norm der Lebenswahrheit”) which advocates an adequate pre-
32 sentation of historical circumstances, eighthly, the ‘norm of the actual
33 content of life’ (“Norm des konkreten Lebensgehaltes”) which rejects
34 abstract and scientific digressions, ninthly, the ‘norm of moral percep-
35 tion’ (“Norm der moralischen Anschauung”) which requires a fixed
36 ethical standpoint on the part of the poet and leads to the disregard of
37 Heine and tenthly, the ‘norm of the unity of poetic shapes’ (“Norm
38
39 13 Ibid., p. 17.
40 14 Ibid., pp. 55 – 73.
1 der Einheit der poetischen Gebilde”) which refers back to Aristotle’s

2 poetic principles of a unity of space and time.
3 Yet in order not to downgrade Elster’s, in part, innovative approach,
4 it needs to be stressed that his approach to the poet is up-to-date as far as
5 the works mentioned are concerned. Elster polemically (and unfairly)
6 rejects all explanations of poetic fantasy: Vischer is said to fail because
7 of his metaphysical speculations,15 Carl Lemcke is also condemned be-
8 cause of his lack of logic. Scherer is presented like a theoretical idiot
9 who had no clue about literature, the poet and his driving force
10 which is fantasy.16 Ignoring the whole half-popular literature on fantasy
11 that was published after Dilthey,17 Elster derives his definition of fantasy
12 from Wundt:18
13 ‘Imagination means to think in images, a process which is directed
14 by a unifying idea – the key motif – that usually appears involuntarily;
15 it is then supported by the potency of association.’19
16 This is an interesting definition which highlights the closeness of
17 fantasy and thinking, (re)introduces the notion of the image and has a
18 considerable impact on future poetics.
19
Consequently, Elster’s chapter on aesthetical concepts develops
20
Wundt’s definition further. Separating subjective aesthetical concepts
21
(e. g. the naïve) from objective aesthetical concepts (e. g. the comic
22
and humour) and aesthetical apperception, Elster explores what, from
23
today’s perspective, could be called mind mapping through cognitive
24
metaphors. According to him, it is apperception which enables us to ob-
25
jectify individual experience without committing the mistake of ab-
26
straction.
27
Another innovative aspect in Elster’s Prinzipien is to be found in his
28
view of style to which he dedicates the whole second volume. Even if
29
the normative framework of his book is problematic, it allows for an un-
30
31
derstanding of style simply as the ‘relation of the poet to the content of
32
15 Ibid., p. 77.
33
16 Ibid., p. 84.
34 17 See for instance Max Darnbacher: Vom Wesen der Dichterphantasie. Stettin:
35 Norddeutscher Verlag für Literatur und Kunst 1921.
36 18 See Wilhelm Wundt: Ueber die Definition der Psychologie. In: Philosophi-
37 sche Studien 12 (1896), pp. 1 – 66, p. 23.
19 Elster 1897 (fn. 4), p. 93: “Die Phantasie ist ein Denken in Bildern, geregelt
38
durch eine meist unwillkürlich (durch die ‘Konzeption’) gewonnene, eine Ein-
39 heit schaffende Gesamtvorstellung, das Grundmotiv, und im einzelnen reichlich
40 unterstützt durch die Wirksamkeit der Association.”
(b) Back to Poetics: Hubert Roetteken (1902/1924) 181
1 life’ (“Verhältnis des Dichters zu dem Stoff des Lebens”) 20 which revi-
2 talises a theory of style that focused on form only. A similar argument is
3 true for Elster’s psychological explanation of types of writing which go
4 beyond strict genres – and which later have some effect on genre theory
5 as well: the pathetic, the Satiric, the tragic and the comic are derived
6 from our psychic needs. They are ‘typical forms’ (“typische Formen”)
7 of our fantasy and stimulate our feelings to a high degree.21 Roetteken,
8 appreciating the new impulse given by Elster, aims to espouse a produc-
9 tive rationalization of his emotive doctrines.
10
11
12 (b) Back to Poetics: Hubert Roetteken (1902/1924)
13
14 Hubert Roetteken (1860 – 1935) studied in Heidelberg, Berlin and
15 Straßburg. He received both his ‘venia legendi’ as well as his professor-
16 ship for history of German literature at Würzburg University, his re-
17 search spanning from Hartmann von Aue to Heinrich von Kleist. Be-
18 yond his historical works, the title of Roetteken’s theoretical master
19 piece Poetik. Erster Theil: Vorbemerkungen. Allgemeine Analyse der psychi-
20 schen Vorgnge beim Genuß einer Dichtung already calls for attention.
21 Building on Elster, Roetteken, who is not convinced by ‘Literaturwis-
22 senschaft’, reinvents the term ‘Poetik’. In addition to this, he subscribes
23 not to Elster’s normative account, but to the older notion of pleasure –
24 introduced by empirical aesthetics and poetics, his focus being on ques-
25 tions of the reception of literature. The result is a systematic and open-
26 minded, critical, eclectic, funny and lively up-to-date poetics.
27 Unlike Elster, Roetteken’s goal is to serve both the practical interest
28 of the literary historian, and the scholar who is interested in poetics as a
29 logic of the humanities.22 For both purposes he refers to psychology, in
30 this case an inspiring eclectic mixture of Fechner, Wundt, Hermann
31 Ebbinghaus (Grundzge der Psychologie, 1902), Oswald Külpe (Grundriß
32 der experimentellen Psychologie), Lipps’ contributions to the Zeitschrift fr
33 Psychologie, the controversial debate about Karl Lamprecht’s analysis of
34
35 20 Ibid., p. 45.
36 21 Ibid., pp. 238 f.
37 22 Hubert Roetteken: Poetik. Erster Teil: Vorbemerkungen. Allgemeine Analyse
der psychischen Vorgänge beim Genuß einer Dichtung. Munich: Beck 1902,
38
pp. 1 f. The second part of the Poetik originated from the same premises see
39 Roetteken: Aus der speziellen Poetik. Leipzig, Vienna: Fromme 1924 (Special
40 print from the periodical “Euphorion”, vol. 25), p. 3.
1 psychological factors in history23 and the ongoing discussion under the

2 heading of experimental or psychological aesthetics, for instance the
3 psychologist Karl Marbe’s (1869 – 1953) critique of Elster.24
4 Marbe argued that the analysis of the psychological is of no use to
5 the literary critic and attacks Elster’s notion of “Anempfinden”. Against
6 this critique, Roetteken defends psychology and claims that poetics
7 should not stop with a purely instinctive understanding of the psyche
8 only. Nevertheless, Roetteken shows a certain sympathy for the in-
9 stincts and provides a more refined version of Elster’s emotionalist ac-
10 count: Roetteken omits the term “Anempfinden” and stresses ‘re-expe-
11 riencing’ (“Nacherleben”) – which had to some extent already been
12 conceived by Vischer, Scherer and Wundt25 – as a way to understand
13 psychological life, positively referring to Simmel Probleme der Geschichts-
14
ACHTUNGREphilosophie and Hermann Ebbinghaus (Grundzge der Psychologie) 26 and
15
distancing himself from Lamprecht’s typological approach: whilst
16
Lamprecht explores psychological types and typical experiences, Roet-
17
teken argues in favour of individual ‘re-experiencing’.27 He gives two
18
reasons for his defence of individuality: firstly, the vital account of his-
19
tory and literature is to be preserved. ‘The historian should not be a stu-
20
dious hermit’ – a ballroom may be an ideal field of study for him.28 Sec-
21
ondly, Roetteken includes what Foucault later termed the ‘blind spot’
22
23
of the scholar: ‘Every human being has in fact its psychology or at
24
least fragments of such a psychology and it also inevitably breathes
25
26
27 23 Karl Lamprecht: Alte und neue Richtungen in der Geschichtswissenschaft.
Berlin: Gaertner 1896; K.L.: Die historische Methode des Herrn von Below.
28
Berlin: Gaertner 1899; K.L.: Die Kulturhistorische Methode. Berlin: Gaertner
29 1900.
30 24 Karl Marbe: [rev.] Ernst Elster, Prinzipien der Literaturwissenschaft. Erster
31 Band. Halle 1897. In: Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie
32 1898, pp. 327 – 343; Streim (fn. 7), pp. 165 f.
25 Gregor Streim: Introspektion des Schöpferischen: Literaturwissenschaft und
33
Experimentalpsychologie am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts. Das Projekt der ‘em-
34 pirisch-induktiven’ Poetik. In: Scientia Poetica 7 (2003), pp. 148 – 170,
35 pp. 158 f.
36 26 Cf. Hermann Ebbinghaus: Grundzüge der Psychologie. 1st to 3rd ed., ed. by
37 Ernst Dürr. Leipzig: Veit & Comp. 1913, vol. 2, pp. 232 – 262; Roetteken
1902 (fn. 22), pp. 19 f.
38
27 Roetteken 1902 (fn. 22), pp. 14 – 16.
39 28 Ibid., pp. 22 f: “Der Historiker soll kein Stubengelehrter sein, ein Ballsaal kann
40 unter Umständen ein vortreffliches Studierfeld für ihn abgeben.”
1 down the neck of the literary historian when he begins to work.’29 The
2 term “Nacherleben” therefore signals that one should refrain from the
3 idea that interpretation could shed all individual conditioning and inter-
4 ests.30
5 Yet in order to explain his notion of “Nacherleben”, Roetteken fo-
6 cuses on method and the requirement of objectivity: he proposes a two-
7 step interpretation. All interpretation should begin with examining de-
8 tails in the context of the whole. But in a second step, one should ob-
9 jectify the results as far as possible, ameliorate the observations and strive
10 for a complete interpretation. As poetics asks for a substrate of objecti-
11 fied results, every poetician should use the method of comparison, over-
12 look all different historical periods and works but order them according
13 to their similarities, to features they have in common and that could lead
14
to, or answer, poetological questions. For this purpose, Roetteken de-
15
velops a sophisticated doctrine of types: the notion of type does not
16
refer to an average set of characteristics; it is a category that relies on
17
quantity and individuality. Roetteken focused on ‘typical cases’ “typi-
18
sche Fälle”), the perpetually recurring core of individual cases.31 Refer-
19
ring to the examples of lyric poetry, Roetteken takes up Goethe’s no-
20
tion of the symbol which Roetteken considers to have been misused by
21
many aestheticians. Johannes Volkelt in his System der sthetik (1904),
22
23
for instance, expands on different non-Goethean, yet inspiring, types
24
of the symbol in which he grounds his notions of ‘simple and symbolic
25
empathy’ (“einfache und symbolische Einfühlung”).32
26
It fits into the general picture that Roetteken does not provide a sys-
27 tematic definition of poetry but an analytic one: firstly, poetry consists
28 of language and sounds, a feature Scherer mentioned before.33 Secondly,
29 language mediates meaning and meaning refers to external objects or in-
30
31 29 Ibid., p. 25: “So hat thatsächlich jeder Mensch seine Psychologie, oder wenigs-
32 tens Bruchstücke einer solchen, und auch dem Litterarhistoriker sitzt sie, wenn
er an seine Arbeit geht, unabwerfbar im Nacken.”
33
30 As a consequence, the concept of “Nacherleben” cannot be identified with the
34 traditional ‘uninterested pleasure’ (“interesselose Wohlgefallen”) as Streim sug-
35 gested (fn. 25), p. 169. Roetteken’s “Nacherleben” is never uninterested.
36 31 Roetteken 1924 (fn. 22), p. 25.
37 32 Johannes Volkelt: System der Ästhetik. vol. 1: Grundlegung der Ästhetik. 2nd,
rev. ed. Munich: Beck 1926, pp. 204 – 208.
38
33 Roetteken 1902 (fn. 22), pp. 40 – 42. In this context, Roetteken criticizes
39 Scherer for having also included arts like ballet into his analysis. Roetteken rath-
40 er adheres to texts.
1 cidents. This definition provokes the question of reception which lies at

2 the heart of Roetteken’s approach: how to understand this meaning?
3 According to Roetteken, every human being has a desire to capture
4 what he or she does not understand. Poetry often offers difficult aesthet-
5 ical precepts that we aim at exploring with the help of our psychological
6 abilities, for instance, fantasy. Referring to Fechner (2nd vol. of Elemente
7 der Psychophysik) and his funny example of the fat Hamlet rejected in
8 Goethe’s Wilhelm Meister,34 Roetteken concludes that a literary text
9 does not provide exact meanings but evokes impressions and emotions
10 in the reader. In order to characterize this process, Karl Groos introdu-
11 ces the term ‘inner imitation’ (“innere Nachahmung”) 35 and Wundt ob-
12 serves the variety of ‘images of memory’ (“Erinnerungsbilder”) in
13 human beings: taste, smell, pressure and temperature could be felt in en-
14
tirely different ways if they are felt at all.36 Roetteken alleviates Wundt’s
15
radical judgement:37 images of memory are possible and more likely to
16
be intersubjective if they are initiated by clear objects or concepts.
17
Yet Wundt has a point. Our memory and attention are not only af-
18
fected in different ways but also by different objects, the reason for this
19
being likes and dislikes.38 Yet memory and attention will both be proc-
20
essed in the same way: through what Roetteken terms fusion/ amalga-
21
mation (“Einschmelzung”), a further development of Robert Vischer’s
22
23
‘sensing’ (“Einfühlung”) and Volkelt’s ‘merging’ (“Verschmelzung”).
24
“Einschmelzung” means that the immense mass of emotions, impres-
25
sions (‘associative factors’/“assoziative Faktoren”) and sensations (‘direct
26
factors’/ “direkte Faktoren”) deriving from a literary text will loose their
27 characteristics and be combined into something new.39 The aesthetical
28 value of the result will be felt through pleasure and displeasure: in the
29 joy that is so necessary for our lives.40
30
31 34 Ibid., p. 53: “Wie Wilhelm Meister gelegentlich der Hamletaufführung auf die
32 Stelle hinweist, wo Hamlet fett und kurz von Atem genannt wird, antwortet
ihm Aurelie: Sie verderben mir die Imagination! Weg mit ihrem fetten Ham-
33
let!”
34 35 Karl Groos: Die Spiele der Menschen. Jena: Fischer 1899, p. 423; Roetteken
35 1902 (fn. 22), p. 66.
36 36 Wilhelm Wundt: Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie. 6th ed. Leipzig:
37 Engelmann 1908, vol. 1, p. 45, p. 406.
37 Roetteken 1902 (fn. 22), pp. 70 f.
38
38 Ibid, p. 94.
39 39 Ibid., pp. 174 – 193.
40 40 Ibid., p. 270.
1 Roetteken’s practical, as well as theoretical, poetics provides a re-

2 fined and rational approach to psychological poetics with a focus on in-
3 terpretation. Still, contemporaries felt that too much psychologism was
4 represented in it. ‘Geisteswissenschaftliche’ poetics responded to this
5 criticism.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4 8. Poetics and “Geisteswissenschaft”
5
6
7 In 1887, the young Dilthey contributed remarkably to the development
8 of an empirical poetics: he recommended poetics as a general science for
9 the humanities. Only two decades later, this function which he had in-
10 tended for poetics became the focus of a new project often perceived as
11 being detached from Dilthey’s previous account. An anonymous author
12 published an extensive book called Grundriß einer Methodologie der Geis-
13 ACHTUNGREteswissenschaften mit besonderer Bercksichtigung der Poetik (1908).1 In this
14 book, the author reformulates Dilthey’s aim in a particularly metaphys-
15 ical way, declaring poetics to be the basis of “Geisteswissenschaft” (‘in-
16 tellectual history’, ‘history of ideas’).
17 Following the approach of contemporary “Geisteswissenschaft” and
18 growing anti-psychologism,2 the anonymous author conceives poetics as
19 an oppositum to the natural sciences and radically positions it against
20 psychologism. He assumes that aesthetics cannot unite all three arts.
21 Every art form requires a different theoretical setting. This conviction
22 is explained with regard to poetics. Stating a regulative ‘axiom’ (or
23 ‘dogma’) that should govern research, the anonymous author adheres
24 to the triadic order of dialectics: his axiom means that dualism is always
25 reconciled in a third element.3 He finds his dialectic solution in Fichte’s
26 monism (the only existing subject is the I; the non-I is but a function of
27 the I) as well as in Schelling. According to Schelling (and the anony-
28 mous author); lyric poetry is seen as the ‘non-Self’ (“Nicht-Selbst”)
29
30 1 Anon.: Grundriß einer Methodologie der Geisteswissenschaften mit besonde-
31 ACHTUNGRErer Berücksichtigung der Poetik. Vienna: Manz 1908.
32 2 The best accounts of these developments are to be found in Matthias Rath: Der
Psychologismusstreit in der Philosophie. Freiburg i. Br., Munich: Alber 1994;
33
Martin Kusch: Psychologism: A case study on the sociology of philosophical
34 knowledge. London: Routledge 1995. Still, Stefano Poggi identifies sources
35 earlier than Kusch and dates the anti-psychologist argument back to the Hege-
36 lian Johann Eduard Erdmann (1860 s); Stefano Poggi: Am Beginn des Psycho-
37 logismusstreites in der deutschen Philosophie: Psychologie und Logik bei den
Herbartianern. In: Herbarts Kultursystem: Perspektiven der Transdisziplinarität
38
im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by Andreas Hoeschen, Lothar Schneider. Würzburg:
39 Königshausen & Neumann 2001, pp. 135 – 148.
40 3 Anon.: Grundriß (fn. 1), p. 10.
8. Poetics and “Geisteswissenschaft” 187
1 and as ‘unfathomable reality’ (“unergründliche Realität”) in contrast to

2 the epic (the ideal and identic I).4
3 Although the anonymous author is a little eccentric, his ‘method’
4 comprises all the key features of “geisteswissenschaftliche” poetics and
5 can therefore contribute to a better contextualisation of Dilthey’s
6 own, so-called ‘late’ approach – which is, in fact, not much different
7 from the one he conceived earlier. Under the heading of “Geisteswis-
8 senschaft”, even Dilthey himself is said to have turned away from his
9 early empirical interests in poetics, although he simply transferred to
10 the study of literature what he had already developed for the study of
11 philosophy.5 With the publication of Dilthey’s Das Erlebnis und die Dich-
12 tung (1906), Paul Kluckhohn praises the triumph of “Geisteswissen-
13 schaft” over other methods in the emerging literary science6 – a judge-
14 ment that expresses the feeling of the “Geisteswissenschaftler”. Through
15 his attempts, Dilthey is said to enhance the methodological state of the
16 humanities, to ‘scientificate’ the humanities and to increase their rele-
17 vance for the general public. Yet Dilthey is not simply the founder of
18
the “geisteswissenschaftliche” approach in poetics, but still a philosopher
19
interested in empirical developments.7 The “geisteswissenschaftliche”
20
picture of Dilthey might have been caused by the fact that so little of
21
his work was available on the general book market; in turn, Das Erlebnis
22
23
4 Ibid., p. 34.
24 5 Ulrich Herrmann: Materialien und Bemerkungen über die Konzeption und die
25 Kategorien der “Geistesgeschichte” bei Wilhelm Dilthey. In: Literaturwissen-
26 schaft und Geistesgeschichte, ed. by Christoph König and Eberhard Lämmert,
27 Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer 1993, pp. 46 – 57.
6 See Paul Kluckhohn: Geistesgeschichte. In: Reallexikon der deutschen Litera-
28
turgeschichte. 2nd ed. vol. 3. Berlin: de Gruyter 1958 p. 538; Manon Maren-
29 Grisebach: Methoden der Literaturwissenschaft. 10th ed. Tübingen: Francke
30 1970, p. 23.
31 7 Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller: Konstruierte Ahnen: Forschungspro-
32 ACHTUNGREgramme und ihre ‘Vorläufer’. Dargestellt am Beispiel des Verhältnisses der geis-
ACHTUNGREtesgeschichtlichen Literaturwissenschaft zu Wilhelm Dilthey. In: Literaturwis-
33
senschaft und Wissenschaftsforschung. DFG-Symposion 1998, ed. by Jörg
34 Schönert. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 2000, pp. 150 – 173; Hans Harald Mül-
35 ler: Die Lebendigen und die Untoten: Lassen sich Auseinandersetzungen zwi-
36 schen Wissenschaftskonzeptionen als ‘Kontroversen’ rekonstruieren? Am Bei-
37 spiel von Positivismus und Geistesgeschichte. In: Kontroversen in der Litera-
turtheorie/ Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer and
38
Carlos Spoerhase. Bern et al.: Lang 2007 (Publikationen der Zeitschrift für
39 Germanistik NF 17), pp. 171 – 182. See also the previous chapter on Dilthey
40 in this book.
1 und die Dichtung and the small volume of his printed work complicated
2 the appraisal of Dilthey’s fragmented writings.8
3 Beyond Dilthey and his reception as a “Geisteswissenschaftler”,
4 contemporaries and even advocates of “Geisteswissenschaft” such as
5 Karl Viëtor (1892 – 1951) attacked the typical “geisteswissenschaftliche”
6 lack of clear concepts and programmes as ‘a final flaring of a senile ideal-
7 ism’ (“das letzte Aufflackern eines senilen Idealismus”).9 Indeed, Hegel
8 and his idealist contemporaries had already provided historiography with
9 a vague notion of ‘Geist’. Whereas Hegel’s philosophy of history illus-
10 trates how the ‘absolute spirit’ is the origin and the result of all history,
11 19th-century historiographic accounts in his tradition limited themselves
12 to the reconstruction of philosophical schools or concepts, and as such
13 were attacked by Nietzsche for being ‘historicist’. It is only after
14
Nietzsche that a new generation of “Geisteswissenschaftler” emerged
15
who claimed to differ from their ancestors.
16
In literary studies, the core phase of this ‘new’ “Geisteswissenschaft”
17
spanned the years from around 1905 to the 1930s. It began with Wil-
18
helm Dilthey’s second book on poetological questions in 1906, pro-
19
duced impressive and comprehensive programmatic opera such as Frie-
20
drich Gundolf’s Shakespeare und der deutsche Geist vor dem Auftreten Less-
21
ings (1911) 10 and ended – strictly speaking – with Emil Staiger’s turn to-
22
23
wards interpretation and his polemics against the notion of experience,
24
which had been used until then as one of the main concepts of “Geist-
25
26
27
8 Paying particular attention to the American reception of Dilthey in this context
28
Gerhard Masur: Wilhelm Dilthey and the History of Ideas. In: Journal of the
29 History of Ideas 13 (1952) 1, pp. 94 – 107; see also Tobias Bube: Wilhelm
30 Dilthey und die Engländer: Die poetisch-historische Verhinderung eines inter-
31 kulturellen Transfers von gesellschaftlicher Urteilskraft. In: Jahrbuch Deutsch
32 als Fremdsprache 28 (2002), pp. 139 – 183.
9 Karl Viëtor: Deutsche Literaturgeschichte als Geistesgeschichte. In: Publica-
33
tions of the Modern Language Association 60 (1945), pp. 899 – 916; Max
34 Wehrli: Was ist/ war Geistesgeschichte? In: Literaturwissenschaft und Geistes-
35 geschichte, ed. by Christoph König and Eberhard Lämmert. Frankfurt a. M.:
36 Fischer 1993, pp. 23 – 37, p. 23.
37 10 On Gundolf, who cannot be considerated here as he did not write a poetolog-
ical treatise – Ernst Osterkamp: Friedrich Gundolf (1880 – 1931). In: Wissen-
38
schaftsgeschichte der Germanistik in Porträts, ed. by Christoph König, Hans-
39 Harald Müller and Werner Röcke. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2000,
40 162 – 175.
8. Poetics and “Geisteswissenschaft” 189
1 eswissenschaft”.11 Therefore, the intellectual approach in literary science

2 has often been deemed convincing from only a negative point of view:
3 “Geisteswissenschaft” opposed contemporary trends, which can be la-
4 belled as positivism, empiricism and psychologism. As a consequence,
5 “Geisteswissenschaft” thrived on the ideas supported by anti-positivist,
6 anti-empiricist and anti-psychologist movements: the notion of experi-
7 ence as mentioned above, the concepts of spirit, life and narrative struc-
8 tures that give the impression of coherence. In his insightful article on
9 Rudolf Unger’s introduction to Hamann und die Aufklrung (1925;
10 2
1963), Klaus Weimar closely examines these narrative structures; he
11 shows how metaphors of vegetation and vitalist and teleological visions
12 shape the procedural outlook which “Geisteswissenschaft” favours.12
13 Yet it would be too harsh a judgement and even false to reduce
14
“Geisteswissenschaft” to vague notions and the problematic use of nar-
15
rative structures. “Geisteswissenschaft” had a point when criticising psy-
16
chologism for committing a naturalistic fallacy. Although the accusation
17
of psychologism was ubiquitiously used in the first half of the 20th cen-
18
tury,13 the accusers rightly revealed a methodological problem. Psycho-
19
logical aesthetics and poetics such as the early Dilthey’s or Müller-
20
Freienfels’ derived aesthetic norms from natural properties of man. To
21
some extent and in different ways, they reduced the perception of liter-
22
ature to physical or psychological reactions of their readers.
23
24
It is to Rainer Kolk’s credit to have explored the ‘double chances’
25
made possible by “Geisteswissenschaft”: he claims that “Geisteswissen-
26
schaft” offered not only formulas for scientific self-reflection, but also
27
the ethical orientation required after Nietzschean attacks on bourgeois
28 ethics and Christianity.14 Despite “Geisteswissenschaft” being heteroge-
29 neous, it seems to have helped the humanities to regain an understand-
30 ing of themselves, the methods which they could use to solve the crises
31
32 11 I borrow the final date of this periodisation from Max Wehrli: Was ist/ war
Geistesgeschichte? (fn. 9) p. 29.
33
12 Klaus Weimar: Das Muster geistesgeschichtlicher Darstellung: Rudolf Unger’s
34 Einleitung zu “Hamann und die Aufklärung”. In: Literaturwissenschaft und
35 Geistesgeschichte, ed. by Christoph König and Eberhard Lämmert (fn. 5),
36 pp. 92 – 105.
37 13 See the number of accusers and the variety of arguments against psychologism
in Kusch (fn. 2), p. 99, pp. 101 – 121.
38
14 Rainer Kolk: Reflexionsformel und Ethikangebot: Zum Beitrag von Max
39 Wehrli. In: Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, ed. by Christoph
40 König and Eberhard Lämmert (fn. 5), pp. 38 – 45.
1 they faced when confronted with 19th-century positivism. Even if the

2 concept of “Geisteswissenschaft” remained unclear, it promoted the
3 idea of reshaping the humanities. In addition to that, the ethical element
4 helped to stress the value of this methodological and reflexive attempt.
5 In the course of the revaluation of all values “Geisteswissenschaft” re-es-
6 tablished the value relevance of ‘Bildung’: of education in its most eth-
7 ical sense.
8 Referring to Kolk’s observation, the following chapter will contest
9 the assumption that the “geisteswissenschaftliche” approach in literary
10 science did not provide anything but intellectual dust, covering the
11 fact that history is neither governed by ‘Geist’, nor developing teleolog-
12 ically. The heritage of “Geisteswissenschaft” has still, to this day, not
13 been sufficiently assessed. This fact supports the hope that one may
14 find clear silhouettes in the dark “geisteswissenschaftliche” fog. In
15 order to shed some more light on this darkened subject, I will consider
16 the methodological basis of “Geisteswissenschaft”: Dilthey’s famous
17 writing Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung serves as a starting point (a).
18 Thus, I will argue that, in poetics, “Geisteswissenschaft” not only pro-
19 moted the methodological relevance of epistemology (b), but also help-
20 ed to rediscover ancient aesthetic concepts, thereby leading towards a
21 new structural literary science (c). Furthermore, “Geisteswissenschaft”
22 often addressed issues which take into account the ‘whole’ human
23 being and aimed at speculative combinations of anthropology with ty-
24 pologies of literature (d).
25
26
27 (a) Renewed Historical Poetics: Wilhelm Dilthey (1906)
28
29 The preface dedicates Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung (1906) to the mem-
30 ory of Hermann Usener (1834 – 1905), a childhood-friend of Dilth-
31 ey’s.15 Usener was a professor at the universities of Greifswald and
32 Bonn, and a specialist in ancient history as well as religion. Although
33 the dedication may signal a new stage of reflection, the book is not
34 so much a turning point as a step back toward psychology, and forth to-
35 ward “Geistesgeschichte” at the same time. The introduction of Das Er-
36 lebnis und die Dichtung transforms Dilthey’s old ideas in order to legiti-
37 mize his key concept of experience in a new way. What is more: the
38
39 15 Wilhelm Dilthey: Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung. 16th ed. Göttingen: Van-
40 denhoeck & Ruprecht 1985, p. [5].
(a) Renewed Historical Poetics: Wilhelm Dilthey (1906) 191
1 introduction serves as a framework for texts, which Dilthey had publish-

2 ed in the 1860s and 70s.16 It follows that the texts, all of which were
3 revised marginally, were conceived in order to provide examples for
4 Dilthey’s first stage of poetological reflection: for his empirical poetics.17
5 Taking this context into account, Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung appears
6 in a new light. It can no longer be read as heralding the dawn of a new
7 poetics or as a founding document for the “geisteswissenschaftliche” ap-
8 proach. Rather, one ought to carefully observe the programme which
9 Dilthey indicates in his introduction and to what extent it differs from
10 his previous approach.
11 According to the new Dilthey, literature is shaped by the ‘genius of
12 nations’ (“Genie der Nationen”) as well as by individuals.18 Therefore,
13 literature develops ‘in typical steps’ (“in typischen Stufen”).19 Focusing
14 on German poetry and on some European texts as well, Dilthey calls
15 the first step the determination of the ‘common spirit’ (“Gemein-
16 geist”).20 Political and military communities expand their culture by tell-
17 ing, or writing about, myths, the lives of heroes or reporting on the cul-
18 ture’s typical actions and characters. The second step comprises a ‘sum-
19 mary of the whole hitherto development’ (“Zusammenfassung der gan-
20 zen bisherigen Entwicklung”) in knightly lyrics and epics, e. g. in
21 French narrative art, Wolfram’s Parzival, the Nibelungenlied, and Dante’s
22 Commedia divina. 21 Alluding to Hegel’s descriptions and terms, the me-
23 dieval spirit, according to Dilthey, is ‘objectified’ in epics: the poet’s
24 fantasy is dominated by the society’s spirit and its limited horizon;22 ‘fan-
25 tasy creates typically and conventionally’.23
26 The third step, the ‘period of great art of fantasy’ (“Epoche der gro-
27 ßen Phantasiekunst”) spans from the 14th to the middle of the 17th cen-
28 tury.24 It is the period of Petrarca, Lope de Vega, Cervantes, and Shake-
29
30 16 Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller: Konstruierte Ahnen (fn. 7), pp. 156 f.
31 17 Ibid., p. 157.
32 18 Dilthey: Das Erlebnis (fn. 15), p. 7.
19 Ibid.
33
20 Ibid.
34 21 Ibid.
35 22 Ibid.: “[…] derselbe allgemeine Geist, der sich in dieser Welt objektiviert hatte,
36 faßt sie nun in der Form der Epik auf.”/ ‘that general mind which had objec-
37 tified itself in this world, now captures it in epic form.’
23 Ibid, p. 8: “Die Phantasie schafft typisch und konventionell.”/ ‘Fantasy creates
38
typically as well as conventionally.’
39 24 Ibid: “Aus den Lebensbezügen selber, aus der Lebenserfahrung, die in ihnen
40 entsteht, unternahm sie [die Poesie] es einen Bedeutungszusammenhang aufzu-
1 speare, an era that is characterised by a new dynamic: the destruction of

2 the theological system and the rise of the modern sciences. According to
3 Dilthey, poetry from this point on begins to focus on life and experi-
4 ence. Poets manage to free themselves from history and tradition;
5 they no longer imitate the ancient role models (‘imitatio veterum’)
6 but rather compose. The individual depicts itself as the ‘alter deus’
7 and frees its imagination from a higher being for the benefit of beautiful
8 verse and exciting dramas.
9 The fourth step surpasses the third. In the 18th century, reason be-
10 comes an autonomous principle with truth as its goal. Mathematics,
11 the explanation ‘more geometrico’, is the method which governs new
12 thinking and inspires the regulation of language, rules of style and also
13 the taste in poetics. This combination of new thoughts and aims leads
14 to a ‘new type of poetry’ (“neuer Typus der Dichtung”).25 Literature
15 becomes an instrument for social movements, for law and solidarity,
16 guided by the new moral idea of perfectibility.26 Drama (in particular
17 comedy), and poetry (in particular the didactic poem), observe the mo-
18 rals and the social structures of the time and provide in-depth studies of
19 psychology, biography and individual development.27 Yet they express
20 individual feelings only in the form of universal emotions. In short:
21 the ‘reality sense’ (“Wirklichkeitssinn”) of the Enlightenment changes
22 the experience of the poets, who in turn modify their attitude toward
23 the objects and genres of poetry.28 Astonishingly, Hölderlin is intro-
24 duced as representative of such a highly developed poetry. This is an
25 original step which draws on Dilthey’s early study on Hölderlin.29
26
27
28
bauen, in dem man den Rhythmus und die Melodie des Lebens vernähme.”/
29 ‘From references to life themselves, from lived experience, which develops in
30 such references, poetry began to configure a context and connectivity of mean-
31 ings, in which one was to sense the rhythm and the melody of life.’
26 On perfectibility see Walter Sparn: Perfektibilität: Protestantische Identität
33
“nach der Aufklärung”. In: Theologie und Aufklärung. Festschrift für Gottfried
34 Hornig, ed. by Wolfgang E. Müller and Hartmut H.R. Schulz. Würzburg: Kö-
35 nigshausen & Neumann 1992, pp. 339 – 357.
37 28 Ibid., pp. 15 f.
29 Wilhelm Hoffner [Wilhelm Dilthey]: Hölderlin und die Ursachen seines
38
Wahnsinnes. In: Westermanns Monatshefte 22 (1867), pp. 15 – 165; Walter
39 Müller-Seidel: Diltheys Rehabilitierung Hölderlins: Eine wissenschaftsge-
40 schichtliche Betrachtung. In: Hölderlin und die Moderne: Eine Bestandsauf-
(a) Renewed Historical Poetics: Wilhelm Dilthey (1906) 193
1 In the case of Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung, the development of po-
2 etics follows a certain formula: progress of mind leads to a new poetry.
3 This formula, however, is conceived by Dilthey with the express inten-
4 tion of not encroaching Hegel’s philosophy of history and his school of
5 thought. According to Dilthey, events of mind, in contrast to Hegel,
6 have to be observed in individual ways. It is still the concept of experi-
7 ence (related to the notion of ‘life’) 30 that seems to indicate a layer un-
8 derlying intellectual history which characterises Dilthey’s new approach.
9 In addition to that, Dilthey does not adopt the traditional dialectic trias
10 of historical developments as executed by Hegel. Dilthey aims at a more
11 historical or realistic point of view, although he – like the history of phi-
12 losophy – seems to argue in favour of a teleological order of history:
13 Dilthey suggests that his four steps show a unilinear progress towards ex-
14 perience, universality and autonomous art, signaling the highest degree
15 of cultivation.
16 To conclude, Dilthey’s Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung continues his
17 earlier poetological studies on the imagination, not only by compiling
18 a selection of older articles but also by drawing on his psychological ap-
19 proach. Yet the new book does not show the same enthusiasm for a sci-
20 entification of poetics and for an empirical poetics as the older study. In
21 addition to this, the book provides the reader with a more developed
22 historiographical account which borrows considerably from Hegel. In
23 short, when comparing Die Einbildungskraft des Dichters and Das Erlebnis
24 und die Dichtung, a shift in focus from psychology to philosophy of his-
25 tory and not a general change of mind can be observed. It is this later
26
stage of Dilthey’s reflections which inspires Emil Ermatinger’s manifold
27
account of literary theory. In addition to this, Dilthey’s approaches be-
28
come summarized under the heading ‘Dilthey School’ and provide the
29
founding theories for one of the most important journals in German, the
30
Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fr Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte
31
(1923 ff).31
32
33
nahme, ed. by Gerhard Kurz, Valérie Lawitschka and Jürgen Wertheimer. Tü-
34 bingen: Attempto 1995, pp. 41 – 73.
35 30 On this complex and ambigous notion see Werner Stegmaier: Philosophie der
36 Fluktuanz. Dilthey und Nietzsche. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1992
37 (Neue Studien zur Philosophie 4), p. 166.
31 Christoph König: Individualität, Autonomie, Originalität. Zur Rezeption
38
Diltheys in den ersten Jahren der “Deutschen Vierteljahrsschrift”. In: Deutsche
39 Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 2 (1993),
40 pp. 197 – 220.
1 (b) On the Way to Epistemological Poetics:

2 Emil Ermatinger (1921)
3
4 Das dichterische Kunstwerk (1921, 21923, 31939) relies on Dilthey’s con-
5 cept of experience – a tradition attacked by Emil Staiger, Ermatinger’s
6 successor at Zurich University who received his predecessor’s chair de-
7 spite the latter’s protest.32 Still, Ermatinger was one of the most influen-
8 tial literary scholars in the 20th-century German-speaking countries and
9 beyond.33 He studied classics, history, philosophy, pedagogy and Ger-
10 man at Zurich and Berlin Universities and was awarded his first profes-
11 sorship at Zurich University in 1909. As an active scientist and politician
12 of science he contributed to many grand projects in the humanities – for
13 instance to the monumental “Deutsche Literatur in Entwicklungsrei-
14 hen” with its 20 volumes on the classical period edited by Ermatinger
15 from 1932 to 1936. The opus was headed by Heinz Kindermann,
16 one of the most prominent Nazi-Germanists; Ermatinger himself did
17 not refrain from his editorship during the Nazi period. On the contrary,
18 he revised his theoretical chef d’oeuvre Das dichterische Kunstwerk so that
19
its third edition contains anti-semitic attacks on Alfred Döblin. Despite
20
this anti-semitism Ermatinger acted as a guest professor at Columbia
21
University, New York (1939) and between 1939 and 1945 he was a
22
member of the Swiss-American Society for Cultural Relations.
23
In Das dichterische Kunstwerk, Ermatinger proposes an original refor-
24
mulation of a double sided poetics: a poetics with a historical-philolo-
25
gical, as well as a “geisteswissenschaftliche”, side. He criticizes poetics
26
in which only one of these approaches is executed, polemically stating
27
that historical-philological poetics is only confirming facts, whilst “geis-
28
ACHTUNGREteswissenschaftliche” poetics renounces historical examination. Erma-
29
tinger wishes to mediate between both, reconstructing poetry in a
30
way that is inspired by the history of philosophy, the concept of
31
inner form and the notion of experience. This notion is justified by
32
epistemological scepticism in the most astonishing manner.
33
Ermatinger is one of the first thinkers to introduce epistemological
34
35
scepticism into poetics. He holds the view that we do not know reality
36
as such. The world is always a creation of the individual; therefore, po-
37
32 See below.
38
33 Julian Schütt: Ermatinger, Emil. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon 1800 –
40 pp. 448 f.
(b) On the Way to Epistemological Poetics: Emil Ermatinger (1921) 195
1 etological attention needs to consider the creative individual with its di-
2 verging forces (illustrated with the help of Faust and Mephistopheles,
3 the forces of good and evil). In addition to this, experience comes
4 into play. Experience does not mean artistic experience as Hippolyte
5 Taine understands it. Taine uses the concept of ‘milieu’ in order to ex-
6 plain the experience of the poet through his biographical context. Ar-
7 guing against Taine, Ermatinger states that it would be ‘more beneficial’
8 (“ersprießlicher”) to talk about the quarrel of the ego with the world.34
9 Therefore, he distinguishes the ‘experience of thoughts’ (“Gedankener-
10 lebnis”), the ‘experience of matter’ (“Stofferlebnis”), and – as a synthesis
11 of the ‘experience of thoughts’ and the ‘experience of matter’ – the ‘ex-
12 perience of form’ (“Formerlebnis”).35
13 Ermatinger explains the ‘experience of thoughts’ as the mental
14
standpoint of the ego: it covers the development of a poet’s world
15
view, its essence and problems as well as different types of world
16
views. In contrast to the ‘experience of thoughts’, the ‘experience of
17
matter’ means the perception of the world by the poet: the finding of
18
matter for poetry, the essence of matter, the tradition of matters in lit-
19
erature and the fruitfulness of a peculiar matter.36 In order to unite both
20
types, the ‘experience of form’ is directed towards the inner form: ‘The
21
inner form of a work of poetry is a soulful life […]’,37 states Ermatinger
22
23
and combines formal with psychological study. He tries to overcome
24
the distinction between form and content by outlining the fact that
25
inner and outer forms influence each other so that they differ only in
26
some minor respects.
27 At this point, the “geisteswissenschaftliche” part of Ermantinger’s
28 approach can be deciphered: behind every work of art lie ‘universally
29 recognized, eternal values’ (“allgemeingültige, ewige Werte”),38 the es-
30 sence of all experience. They especially shape the ‘experience of form’ as
31 it is form that conveys and illustrates inner values. Therefore, experience
32 and its values differ as far as form, especially genre, is concerned. Lyric
33 poetry for instance is not marked by cognitive coherence and operates
34
35 34 Emil Ermatinger: Das dichterische Kunstwerk: Grundbegriff der Urteilsbildung
36 in der Literaturgeschichte. Leipzig, 2nd ed. Berlin: Teubner 1923, p. 29.
37 35 Ibid., p. 49.
36 Ibid., p. 138.
38
37 Ibid., p. 206: “Die innere Form des Dichtwerkes ist ein seelisches Leben […].”
39 / ‘The inner form of the work of poetry is an inner life’
40 38 Ermatinger (fn. 34), p. 59.
1 beyond space and time. It only knows the here and now; the experience
2 and the values lyric poetry fosters are limited to the subjective.39
3 Considering these differences of genre, a work of literature can be
4 characterised by its ‘expressiveness’ (“Anschaulichkeit”).40 Ermatinger
5 incorporates Theodor A. Meyer’s polemics against a poetics of expres-
6 siveness into his own account by misunderstanding Meyer as well as the
7 theories Meyer criticises: in Ermatinger’s work, expressiveness becomes
8 the general notion for the ‘individual psychic atmosphere’ (“individuelle
9 seelische Atmosphäre”) of a work of literature.41 Yet ‘expressiveness’
10 also refers in fact to more abstract aspects, to ideas and thoughts that
11 do not shape the individuality of a work but ‘objectify’ its meaning.
12 The reason for Ermatinger’s misunderstanding of Meyer is to be
13 found in Ermatinger’s main aim: he wishes to investigate types and
14 laws of experience in order to explore the resulting psychic atmosphere
15 in a literary work.
16 Despite this misunderstanding, Ermatinger’s theoretical reflections
17 soon acquired prominence, especially in Switzerland. One of the
18 most enthusiastic documents of reception is Ernst Georg Wolff’s sthetik
19 der Dichtkunst (1944). It was not by mere accident that his sthetik der
20 Dichtkunst was judged by Max Wehrli to be ‘overburdened’.42 Wolff
21 (1883 – 1962), a writer, composer and aesthetician, attempts to develop
22 a new systematic aesthetics on an epistemological basis. However, he is
23 so fascinated by Heidegger’s terminology and style that it is difficult
24 even to understand his theory. Wolff wishes to provide a new basis
25 for the judgement and critique of poetry. Therefore, he starts with gen-
26 eral observations on epistemology and it is in this context that he men-
27 tions Ermatinger as his chief witness. Ermatinger becomes a role model
28 for the combination of epistemology and aesthetics. He is said to be the
29 first thinker to have espoused an ‘epistemologically grounded aesthetics’
30 (“erkenntnistheoretisch fundierte Ästhetik”).43
31 Wolff is right in this respect: Ermatinger indeed introduces episte-
32 mological scepticism to poetics. What is later seen as a traditional, ideal-
33
34 39 Ibid., p. 171.
35 40 Ibid., p. 210.
36 41 Ibid.
37 42 Max Wehrli: Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft. Bern: Francke 1951, 2nd
ed. 1969 (Wissenschaftliche Forschungsberichte; Geisteswissenschaftliche
38
Reihe 3), p. 42.
39 43 Ernst Georg Wolff: Ästhetik der Dichtkunst: Systematik auf erkenntniskriti-
40 ACHTUNGREscher Grundlage. Zurich: Schulthess & Co. 1944, p. V.
(c) Bi-polar Poetic Formalism: Oskar Walzel (1926) 197
1 ist, unmodern approach had been highly innovative when it was first
2 conceived. This clash of judgements originates in the Dichterische Kunst-
3 werk itself: Ermantinger does not manage to adjust his work to new re-
4 quirements. He continues to judge modern poetry from the idealist
5 point of view, discovers a new idealism in expressionism and sets up a
6 canon of those poets closest to idealism (or expressionist idealism).
7 This canon comprises the works of Christian Morgenstern, Richard
8 Dehmel, Georg Trakl, Stefan George and Rainer Maria Rilke and
9 shapes ‘Swiss’ histories of literature until Robert Faesi (1883 – 1972)
10 and Emil Staiger (1908 – 1987). Such histories encountered their first
11 opponent in Ermatinger’s student Walter Muschg (1898 – 1965).
12 Muschg’s approach reads like an antithesis to Ermatinger and Faesi.44
13 In contrast to these late attacks, Oskar Walzel, as well as Wolff, testifies
14
to the innovative quality of Ermatinger’s theory.
15
16
17
(c) Bi-polar Poetic Formalism: Oskar Walzel (1926)
18
19
Ermatinger’s notion of inner form lives on in Walzel’s theoretical work
20
which dominates his second academic phase: Walzel (1864 – 1944) stud-
21
ied German in Vienna and Berlin with the philologist Jacob Minor as
22
well as with Wilhelm Dilthey. After some historical work on Friedrich
23
Schlegel (Dr phil) and Lessing (Habilitation), he was offered a professor-
24
ship in Bern (1897). In 1907 his theoretical phase began with a calling to
25
Dresden University where Walzel held a professorship for history of lit-
26
erature and art. A professorship at Bonn University (1921) as well as lec-
27
28
tures in Russia, England and Italy formed the fruits of his theoretical
29
achievements.45
30
At this time, various honours and academy memberships were con-
31
ferred on Walzel. Today, he is especially famous for small range con-
32
33
34 44 André Bucher: Zur Rezeption der klassischen Moderne in der Schweizer Ger-
35 manistik: Untersuchungen zu Ermatinger, Faesi, Muschg und Staiger. In:
36 Schreiben gegen die Moderne. Beiträge zu einer kritischen Fachgeschichte
37 der Germanistik in der Schweiz, ed. by Corina Caduff and Michael Gamper.
Zurich: Chronos 2001, pp. 65 – 83.
38
45 Peter Gossens: Walzel, Oskar. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon 1800 –
40 pp. 1980 – 1983.
1 cepts such as the ‘lyric I’ or ‘experienced speech’ (“erlebte Rede”).46

2 However, his larger theoretical works are on the verge of rediscovery.
3 These works are based on two premises: firstly, the work of poetry
4 has a being in its own right (as other works of art); a text should not
5 be reduced to a mere tool for the exploration of something else.47 Sec-
6 ondly, Walzel opts for a world view typical for his era: he expresses
7 doubts about ‘the negativity of materialism’ which is inspired by the nat-
8 ural sciences and pleads for a new optimism.48
9 Both premises are reflected in Walzel’s major theoretical works: Ge-
10 halt und Gestalt (1923) and Das Wortkunstwerk. The first of these focuses
11 on a single topic: the relation of content and form in a work of art. In
12 contrast to this, the second book deals with a variety of poetological as-
13 pects. Nevertheless, it is intended as a ‘coherent work’ (“geschlossenes
14 Ganzes”) that should not replace, but rather complement, current poet-
15 ics.49 It programmatically deals with the so-called ‘artwork of words’
16 (“Wortkunstwerk”).50 Its meaning is best expressed in the chapter
17 “Das Wesen des dichterischen Kunstwerks” (1924) which reexamines
18 the problem of Gehalt und Gestalt.
19 Concerning the question of the relation of content and form, Wal-
20 zel calls his approach an ‘approach to poetry informed by the history of
21 ideas’ (“ideengeschichtliche Betrachtung von Dichtung”).51 The history
22
of ideas was the ‘Aschenbrödl’ in literary research; now, it is said to be
23
glorified in many works. In Walzel’s case, ideas are to be identified with
24
the vision of the poet conceiving a work. This vision is – Walzel argues
25
against Plotinus (The Beautiful I 6, 1) – not identical with content or
26
with the work of art in total.52 On the contrary, the vision can be en-
27
28
46 Klaus Weimar: Oskar Walzels Selbstmißverständnisse. In: Mitteilungen des
29 Deutschen Germanistenverbandes 53 (2006), pp. 40 – 58, p. 44.
30 47 Ibid., p. 44.
31 48 Oskar Walzel: Das Wortkunstwerk: Mittel seiner Erforschung. Leipzig: Quelle
32 & Meyer 1926, p. XIV: “über die Verneinung des naturwissenschaftlichen Ma-
terialismus zu einem neuen bejahenden Weltbild zu gelangen.” / ‘to come to a
33
new, positive, affirmative world view by means of a negation of scientific ma-
34 terialism’
35 49 Ibid., p. XIII.
36 50 Ibid., p. XII.
37 51 Ibid., p. VII.
52 Walzel: Gehalt und Gestalt im Kunstwerk des Dichters. 2nd ed. Darmstadt:
38
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1957 (Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft;
39 1st ed. 1923 ff), p. 154. In the relevant chapter, Plotinus indeed focuses on form
40 and rejects the idea that ideas as such are beautiful.
(c) Bi-polar Poetic Formalism: Oskar Walzel (1926) 199
1 tirely different from its result. Therefore, Walzel distinguishes between

2 content, form and the work of art in total. Content means ‘the thought-
3 ful’ (“das Gedankliche”), recognising, will and – astonishingly – the
4 feeling represented in a work of art.53 It emanates from form (“Gestalt”).
5 In a close reading of Walzel Klaus Weimar shows that “Gestalt” is al-
6 most identical with the notion of text, given the fact that “Gestalt” re-
7 fers to all the sensual aspects of a poetic presentation.54
8 This reading, although text-centered and plausible, proves to be
9 ahistorical. Situating Walzel in the vast context of 19th- and early
10 20th-century poetics, his thought ought rather to be judged as faithful
11 to tradition, prolific and innovative. Walzel’s thought arises from a cri-
12 tique of two poetological traditions. Firstly, he attacks formalism which
13 he – more or less correctly – identifies with Theodor Lipps55 as well as
14
with Johannes Volkelt who is (correctly) said to have restricted the no-
15
tion of form to the surface of a work of art, only in order to be able to
16
distinguish between form and content.56 Secondly, Walzel highlights the
17
key problem of an aesthetics of content which – according to Walzel –
18
originates in Plotinus’ work and is taken up by Ermatinger. The key
19
problem of Plotinus’ and Ermatinger’s aesthetics is said to be the
20
focus on content and the neglect of form. Only a productive reception
21
of Plotinus such as Goethe’s unfolds the meaning of the aesthetic of
22
23
content, especially of Plotinus’ valuable notion of inner form. Walzel
24
– like George, Gundolf and Robert Boehringer57 – claims that it was
25
Goethe who discovered that every “Gestalt” requires a particular “Ge-
26
halt”.58
27 In contrast to both approaches, the formalist as well as the content-
28 related one, Walzel associates himself with Herbart and Robert Zim-
29 mermann in a rich historical survey which seems to have been informed
30 by the long tradition of organological thinking beyond Goethe and the
31 ongoing popularity of the “Gestalt”-concept in the work of Carl Gustav
32
33
53 Walzel: Das Wortkunstwerk (fn. 48), pp. 101 f.
34 54 Weimar: Oskar Walzels Selbstmißverständnisse (fn. 46), p. 56.
35 55 Theodor Lipps: Ästhetik, Psychologie des Schönen und der Kunst. Hamburg,
36 Leipzig: Voss 1903 ff, p. 2, pp. 95 f; Oskar Walzel: Gehalt und Gestalt (fn. 52),
37 p. 144.
56 Johannes Volkelt: System der Ästhetik. Munich: Beck 1905, vol. 1, p. 392;
38
Walzel: Gehalt und Gestalt (fn. 52), p. 145.
39 57 See Gunilla Eschenbach: Imitation und Parodie in George-Kreis (Ts.).
40 58 Walzel: Gehalt und Gestalt (fn. 52), pp. 157 f.
1 Carus, Ernst Mach and Christian von Ehrenfels.59 Walzel defends Her-
2 bart and Zimmermann against Vischer who judged Herbart and Zim-
3 mermann to be limited formalists.60 It is unclear to which aspects of
4 their works Walzel is alluding; it might well be Herbart’s and Zimmer-
5 mann’s historical, rather than their formalist interests. Walzel aims at a
6 new and self-reflexive solution to the problem of content and form.
7 Hence, he concludes his survey as follows: firstly, the problem of “Ge-
8 halt” and “Gestalt” should be seen from a historical perspective. A work
9 of art can only be interpreted adequately if one knows about the con-
10 temporary positions concerning this central aesthetical problem. Only
11 then will it become clear what the author wishes to express in his
12 work and how he wishes to be understood. Secondly, the historicising
13 of the problem of form and content admits the theoretical double bind
14
of the problem itself. Historicising the problem means to accept both
15
positions. Walzel opts for a ‘bi-polarity’ (“Zweipoligkeit”) of poetolog-
16
ical theory.61
17
It is this ‘bi-polarity’ that guarantees Walzel a place in contemporary
18
German poetics.62 The reception of his works began shortly after their
19
publication and was closely interwoven with the reception of Husserl
20
and Ingarden. Like Walzel, both these scholars asked how to analyse
21
the structures of an autonomous work of art such as a work of poetry.
22
23
In his doctoral thesis Hans Achim Ploetz (*1911) who graduated with
24
Eduard Spranger and Julius Petersen from Friedrich-Wilhelms-Univer-
25
26 59 Kevin Mulligan and Barry Smith: Mach and Ehrenfels: The Foundation of Ge-
27 stalt Theory, ed. by Barry Smith. Munich, Vienna: Philosophia 1988; Walter
Gebhard: Die Erblast des 19. Jahrhunderts: Organismusdiskurs zwischen
28
Goethes Morphologie und Nietzsches Lebensbegriff. In: Faszination des Or-
29 ganischen. Konjunkturen einer Kategorie der Morderne, ed. by Hartmut Eg-
30 gert, Erhard Schütz and Peter Sprengel. Munich: Iudicium-Verl. 1995,
31 pp. 13 – 36; Annette Simonis: Gestalttheorie von Goethe bis Benjamin: Dis-
32 kursgeschichte einer deutschen Denkfigur. Cologne, Weimar, Vienna: Böhlau
2001 (Kölner Germanistische Studien NF 2), pp. 201 – 204; Philip Ajouri: An-
33
fänge der Gestaltpsychologie bei Christian von Ehrenfels und Ernst Mach. In:
34 Scientia Poetica 11 (2007), pp. 122 – 136.
35 60 Walzel: Gehalt und Gestalt (fn. 52), p. 148.
36 61 Ibid.
37 62 The Russian reception was far broader. Already in 1922 a selection of Walzel’s
essays had been translated into Russian; following this edition Walzel became
38
an adored formalist; Alexander Nebrig: Walzel und die ‘Ausdruckskunst’:
39 Der Formdiskurs in Philologie und Avantgarde. In: Geschichte der Germanis-
40 tik. Mitteilungen 31/32 (2007), pp. 42 – 50, p. 47.
(d) Typological Poetics and the Relevance of the Creative 201
1 sity Berlin, documents this common interest. Ploetz’s Die Theorie der
2 Dichtung (1936) highlights the fact that Ermatinger, Spoerri, Walzel
3 and Ingarden answered the same question: what constitutes a literary
4 work? Furthermore, through the analysis of the work as such, they dis-
5 tance themselves from Scherer: It is not the genesis of the work or the
6 conditions of its production but rather its stucture, which is of poetolog-
7 ical interest. As Walzel explains, it is not the ‘becoming’ (“Werden”) of
8 the literary work, rather the work itself ought ‘to be grasped in its emer-
9 gence’ (“als Erscheinung zu fassen”).63 Despite this inspiring statement,
10 Walzel’s notion of ‘bi-polarity’ does not solve the problem of how to
11 grasp the poetic work. Ploetz criticizes Walzel’s notion as a problematic
12 a priori construction, which prevents the reader from observing the
13 structure of the literary work.64
14 Through Ploetz’s eyes, Walzel becomes a Pre-Ingardenian. It was
15 only Ingarden who, according to Ploetz and others, provided helpful
16 methodological reflections and tools: the structural analysis of language,
17 genre and style. The work of another little known thinker called Her-
18 mann Hefele tends toward a similar direction, however, Ingarden was
19 yet to appear on the poetological scene.
20
21
22 (d) Typological Poetics and the Relevance of the Creative:
23
Hermann Hefele (1923)
24
25
Hefele (1885 – 1936) was the son of a Catholic cleric and a Professor of
26
history at Braunsberg academy. His contributions cover a wide range of
27
topics (history and culture of the middle ages as well as the Renaissance)
28
and through their engaging style show him to be a scholar used to ad-
29
dressing a wider audience. He appears to have been a kind of Catholic
30
Friedrich Gundolf. Among Hefele’s books, Zur Psychologie der Etappe
31
(1918), Das Gesetz der Form (1919), Literatur und Dichtung (1922) and
32
mainly Das Wesen der Dichtung (1923) shall be discussed here.
33
Das Wesen der Dichtung stands as a striking example of an approach
34
which inherits much from “Geisteswissenschaft”. Already in the open-
35
36
ing words of the book Hefele states: ‘The question about the essence of
37
63 Walzel: Gehalt und Gestalt (fn. 52), p. 6; Hans Achim Ploetz: Die Theorie der
38
Dichtung: Kritische Beiträge zur gegenwärtigen Poetik. Inaug. PhD-thesis,
39 Friedrich-Wilhelms-University Berlin. Berlin: Triltsch & Huther 1936, p. 7.
40 64 Ploetz (fn. 63), p. 9.
1 poetry is only a partial problem within the larger context of all Geistes-
2 wissenschaft and its definition.’65 Therefore, Hefele aims to give neither
3 philological, nor historical, explanations. On the contrary, he perceives
4 poetry as ‘history in an elevated sense’ (“Geschichte im höheren
5 Sinn”).66 Various references to Gundolf and the early work of Heideg-
6 ger (before Being and Time) illustrate Hefele’s idea. Literature, for exam-
7 ple, is regarded as ‘individual expression of the creative personality’.67
8 Consequently, Hefele conceives of poetry as an area of human practice
9 that involves a certain degree of inspiration, fantasy, genius, or irration-
10 ality, a point of view particularly popular at the time. But Hefele also
11 differs from Gundolf’s popular approach; Hefele confesses himself to
12 be a devoted Catholic rationalist, with strong ties to the Italian Renais-
13 sance – different to the liberal Gundolf who sympathised with English
14 literature.
15 As is typical for a “Geisteswissenschaftler”, Hefele’s method is syn-
16 thetical and both rational, as well as intuitive. Through this double sided
17 account he criticizes other, more limited methods: historicism, as well as
18 positivism. His own account, he claims, will not fall into these traps. On
19 the contrary, it will select the essential aspects of poetry: Hefele aims at
20 understanding the ‘poetic creating itself’ (“dichterische[] Schaffen[]
21 selbst”). Therefore, he intends to exclude contingency and ‘irrelevance’
22 (“Belanglosigkeit”), e. g. remarks on the poet’s biographic life. Hefele
23 focuses on the ‘governing rules’ (“Gesetzmäßigkeit”) or ‘customary
24 processes inherent in such creations’ (“Typik des Verlaufs”).68 The re-
25 sulting methodological concept is formal: the literary work stands by it-
26 self, ready for eternity. ‘The complete(d) body of poetics’ (“der fertige
27 Körper der Dichtung”) denies the process of its creation. Such a poetic
28 artefact consists of an artistic language that is derived from every-day
29 language but refined. As a consequence, Hefele opposes a “Geisteswis-
30 senschaft” which ignores the formalist features of poetry, picking up the
31 fashionable polemics against the aesthetics of expressiveness (“Anschau-
32 lichkeit”).69
33
34 65 Hermann Hefele: Das Wesen der Dichtung. Stuttgart: Fr. Fromanns (H. Kurtz)
35 1923, p. 9: “Die Frage nach dem Wesen der Dichtung ist nur ein Teilproblem
36 aus dem großen Komplex aller Geisteswissenschaft und ihrer Begründung.”
37 66 Ibid., p. 10.
67 Ibid.: “individuale[r] Ausdruck der schöpferischen Persönlichkeit”.
38
68 Ibid., pp. 15 f.
39 69 See Sandra Richter: Anschaulichkeit vs. Sprachlichkeit. Ein paradigmatischer
40 Scheingegensatz in Poetik und Ästhetik (ca. 1850 bis 1950). In: Konzert und
(d) Typological Poetics and the Relevance of the Creative 203
1 Yet contradicting his own premises, Hefele, through formal analysis,

2 is mainly interested in the process of creation. He adheres to the heroism
3 of his time, inspired by Nietzsche and others. Like many other scholars,
4 for instance Herbert Cysarz,70 Hefele intends to develop a psychological
5 typology of the spiritual; he presents two mental types: ‘the romantic
6 man’ (“der romantische Mensch”) focuses on subjectivity and perceives
7 the whole cosmos as a mirror of the self, whereas ‘the classic man’ (“der
8 klassische Mensch”) is inclined toward the objective, toward eternal
9 laws that are independent of the individual human being.71 Both
10 types are said to be ‘basic forms of all political and cultural life’ (“Grund-
11 formen alles politischen und kulturellen Lebens”).72 As such they con-
12 tribute to the depicting of pure ideas in characteristic genres and literary
13 tendencies. Hefele’s poetics is obviously governed by an underlying Pla-
14 tonism combined with contemporary physical thinking, a feature that
15 becomes apparent with Hefele’s examinination of the ‘creative force’
16 (“schöpferische Kraft”).73 It is said to transform the perceived or expe-
17 rienced outside world in a form given by the ‘womb of its very own
18 (and innermost) idea’ (“Mutterleib der eigensten Idee”).74 Plato’s ideas
19 are incorporated into a physical creation.
20 It goes without saying that though Hefele’s poetics only seldom
21 transcends the level of speculation, it makes for a pleasant read, but re-
22 duces various aspects to highly generalised and restrictive statements. His
23 explanation of lyric poetry serves as an example. According to Hefele,
24 lyric poetry ‘occurs in the sphere of experience that originates in the
25 body and the bodily’ (“geschieht in der Erlebnisform des Körpers und
26 des Körperhaften”);75 the ‘will to the body’ (“Wille zum Körper”) rep-
27 resents the ‘inner form’ of lyric poetry.76 Its ‘organ’ (“Organ”) is the
28 sense of taste, its content and form is intense self-sufficient individual
29
30 Konkurrenz: Die Künste und ihre Wissenschaften im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by
31 Oliver Huck, Sandra Richter and Christian Scholl. Hildesheim [in print].
32 70 On the intellectual trend toward typological notions in the 1920s; Hans Ep-
stein: Die Metaphysizierung in der literaturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung
33
und ihre Folgen. Dargelegt an drei Theorien über das Literaturbarock. PhD-
34 thesis, Frankfurt a. M.: Eberlin 1929.
35 71 Hefele (fn. 65), p. 47.
36 72 Ibid., p. 47.
37 73 Ibid., pp. 79 f.
74 Ibid.
38
75 Ibid., p. 143.
39 76 Hefele (fn. 65), p. 175. – Hefele makes use of the Plotin notion of ‘inner form’,
40 thereby opting for a broad meaning of form and content.
1 experience – not extensive objective perceptions or public experience.77

2 Although Hefele opts for a rather broad understanding of form and con-
3 tent, this depiction obviously leads to a restrictive comprehension of
4 lyric poetry and of the other genres as well. Once again, lyric poetry
5 is limited to subjectivity – as it had been in the whole “geistesgeschicht-
6 liche” tradition Hefele criticizes.
7 He is not able to escape the Hegel and Vischer tradition – be it in
8 genre theory or with regard to the more general question of creation.
9 Although Hefele tries to propose a new method in order to investigate
10 creation, the result is nothing but speculation – speculation that is aston-
11 ishingly not derived from the analysis of poetic works but, again, from
12 generalisation. Hefele claims that all poetic analysis should lead to one
13 ultimate goal: to discover the meaning of ‘the creative’ and its effect.
14 It is not by mere accident that he suddenly focuses on the effect: The
15 highest value, meaning and purpose of poetry is to depict the ‘spiritual
16 conscience of the community, people and humanity’ (“ideelles Bewußt-
17 sein der Gemeinschaft, Volk und Menschheit”).78 Thus Hefele’s work
18 points in entirely new directions which have not much in common
19 with the polemics he relies on: the polemics against all kinds of con-
20 text-driven accounts of literary work, as expressed by Theodor A.
21 Meyer.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39 77 Ibid., pp. 143 f.
40 78 Ibid., pp. 233 f.
1
2
3
4 9. The Turn Towards Language:
5 Theodor A. Meyer (1901)
6
7
8
Language had already been one of the main interests of the late 18th cen-
9
tury.1 In the 19th century, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Heymann Steinthal
10
and others managed to place language at the centre of intellectual de-
11
bates, an achievement which finds its expression in extensive works
12
such as Gustav Gerber’s Die Sprache als Kunst (1885), in Nietzsche’s
13
14
theory of metaphors, in part quoted from Gerber,2 and in the philoso-
15
phy of language or early linguistics.3 Inspired by this general interest in
16
language, the question of how to perceive literature was raised anew. In
17
his work, Wilhelm von Humboldt claims that poetry means ‘art through
18 language’,4 and Johannes Minckwitz (1812 1885), a private scholar in
19 Greek, Latin and German Literature and a writer himself, in his Katechis-
20 mus der Deutschen Poetik (1868), is the first thinker to coin the term ‘art-
21 work of language’ (“Sprachkunstwerk”).5 In the poetological context,
22
23
1 This chapter is – in part – a translation of the longer contribution by Sandra
24 Richter: Anschaulichkeit vs. Sprachlichkeit: Ein paradigmatischer Scheinge-
25 gensatz in Poetik und Ästhetik (ca. 1850 bis 1950). In: Konzert und Konkur-
26 renz. Die Künste und ihre Wissenschaften im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by Oliver
27 Huck, Sandra Richter und Christian Scholl. Hildesheim [in print].
2 Anthonie Meijers: Gustav Gerber und Friedrich Nietzsche: Zum historischen
28
Hintergrund der sprachphilosophischen Auffassung des frühen Nietzsche. In:
29 Nietzsche-Studien 17 (1988), pp. 369 – 390; Anthonie Meijers and Martin Stin-
30 gelin: Konkordanz zu den wörtlichen Abschriften und Übernahmen von Bei-
31 ACHTUNGREspielen und Zitaten aus Gustav Gerber: Die Sprache als Kunst (Bromberg 1871)
32 in Nietzsches Rhetorik-Vorlesung und in “Über Wahrheit und Lüge im
außermoralischen Sinne”. In: Nietzsche-Studien 17 (1988), pp. 350 – 368.
33
3 See the prominent lectures edited by Ferdinand de Saussure, Charles Bally, Al-
34 bert Secheh Riedlinger: Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne, Paris: Payot
35 1916.
36 4 Wilhelm von Humboldt: Schriften zur Altertumskunde und Ästhetik: Die
37 Vasken, ed. by Andreas Flitner and Klaus Giel. 5th ed. Darmstadt: Wiss.
Buchges. 2002, (5 vols.), p. 173 (II, 159): “Die Poesie ist die Kunst durch
38
Sprache […].”/ ‘Poetry is art through language.’ [Italics in the original].
39 5 Johannes Minckwitz: Katechismus der Deutschen Poetik. Leipzig: Weber
40 1868, 1. Chapter.
206 9. The Turn Towards Language: Theodor A. Meyer (1901)
1 the term originates in the differentiation of the arts. Lessing, Hegel,

2 Schelling and others describe the privileged material of the poet as
3 the ‘most subtle, spiritual and liquid matter that exists’.6 Such material
4 knows no limits other than those of the human mind itself.7
5 Minckwitz’s formulation represents an early form of a poetological
6 approach which became famous around 1900: the claim that “Sprach-
7 ACHTUNGRElichkeit” (a direct translation would be the awkward noun ‘linguistic-
8 ness’) constitutes the key feature of literature as developed in Theodor
9 Alexander Meyer’s Das Stilgesetz der Poesie (1901). Meyer became one of
10 Vischer’s successors as chair of language and literature at the Technical
11 University Stuttgart,8 after he had directly attacked Vischer. In Meyer’s
12 view, Vischer’s work represents an ‘aesthetics of expressiveness’; Meyer,
13 instead, claims to provide a new account of literature and to institution-
14
alize his opinions where ‘expressiveness’ once governed.
15
At the same time, Roetteken critically discussed Wilhelm Scherer’s
16
holistic concept of poetry, opting for an examination of poetic lan-
17
guage.9 In 1907 the Jewish-German philosopher Jonas Cohn, a collea-
18
gue of Wilhelm Wundt (1892 – 1894) and later a Neo-Kantian, official-
19
ly subscribed to “Sprachlichkeit” in the Zeitschrift fr sthetik und Allge-
20
meine Kunstwissenschaft. 10 The reflections on “Sprachlichkeit” soon be-
21
came canonized in Rudolf Lehmann’s Deutscher Poetik (1908); they per-
22
23
sisted until the 1950s and 60s – with considerable modifications.11 As
24
some of these accounts of “Sprachlichkeit” will be covered in the fol-
25
lowing chapters this chapter focuses on Meyer.
26
27 6 Johannes Minckwitz: Katechismus der Deutschen Poetik. 2nd augm. and corr.
ed. Leipzig: Weber 1877, p. 8: “der feinste, geistigste und flüssigste Stoff, den
28
es giebt […].”
29 7 Ibid., p. 15.
30 8 See Alexander Reck: Meyer, Theodor Alexander. In: Internationales Germa-
31 nistenlexikon 1800 – 1950, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de
32 Gruyter 2003, vol. 1, pp. 1220 f.
9 See chapter 6.
33
10 Jonas Cohn: Die Anschaulichkeit der dichterischen Sprache. In: Zeitschrift für
34 Ästhetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 2 (1909), pp. 182 – 201; on Cohn
35 Stefan Nachtsheim: Lage und Aufgabe der zeitgenössischen Kunst in der Kul-
36 turphilosophie Jonas Cohns. In: Ideengeschichte und Kunstwissenschaft: Phi-
37 losophie und bildende Kunst im Kaiserreich, ed. by Ekkehard Mai and Stephan
Waetzoldt. Berlin: Mann 1983, pp. 153 – 170.
38
11 See chapter 6; Gerhard Storz: Sprache und Dichtung. Munich: Kösel 1957,
39 pp. 24 – 26; Hans-Peter Bayerdörfer: Poetik als sprachtheoretisches Problem.
40 Tübingen: Niemeyer 1967 (Studien zur deutschen Literatur 8).
9. The Turn Towards Language: Theodor A. Meyer (1901) 207
1 Meyer’s position is to some extent derived from Lessing, Steinthal,12

2 Fechner and Wundt – not in order to recommend psychologism as the
3 ideal method of interpretation, but rather the contrary: in order to re-
4 strict its role in the interpretation of literature.13 Meyer concentrates on
5 Vischer’s notion of ‘inner symbols’ (“innere Sinnbilder”) in order to
6 highlight his own non-psychological account: firstly, not all human be-
7 ings dispose of the competence to generate such images; secondly – as
8 Wundt showed – symbols are always unclear and subjective.14 To con-
9 clude, Meyer holds the view that the interpretation of poetry neither
10 can nor should, use (and indeed ought not to use) the notion of ‘expres-
11 siveness’ as it goes hand in hand with the problematic idea of symbols.15
12 In drawing this rigid conclusion, Meyer presupposes that ambiguity and
13 vagueness are to be banned from the interpretation of poetry. Firstly,
14 poetry does not need ‘perceptions’ because the reader can trust in the
15 author’s ability to depict a certain content. Secondly, poetry must not
16 turn into an esoteric art, relying on talent only accessible to the few
17 and automatically leading to isolated experiences of art.
18 In addition to this, Meyer recalls Lessing’s doctrine of poetry as ‘suc-
19 cessive art’: it is only step by step that poetry produces a picture of the
20 whole; words have to be connected, sentences to be understood. A
21 view which privileges ‘expressiveness’ would be inclined to think little
22 of such a form of art. The poet, according to Meyer’s conclusion, has a
23
24 12 See Bernhard Klöckener: Theodor A. Meyers “Stilgesetz der Poesie” und der
25 ästhetische Diskurs der Jahrhundertwende. In: Poetica 29 (1997), pp. 270 – 305,
26 pp. 58 f, pp. 275 – 277. In the “Stilgesetz” see also Käte Hamburger: Theodor
27 A. Meyers Sprachtheorie der Dichtung. In: Probleme der Moderne: Studien
zur deutschen Literatur von Nietzsche bis Brecht. Festschrift für Walter
28
Sokel, ed. by Benjamin Bennett, Anton Kaes and William J. Lillyman. Tübin-
29 gen: Niemeyer 1983, pp. 183 – 195.
30 13 Previous research claimed that Meyer’s main opponent was naturalism; see
31 Gottfried Willems: Anschaulichkeit: Zur Theorie und Geschichte der Wort-
32 Bild-Beziehungen und des literarischen Darstellungsstils. Tübingen: Niemeyer
1989 (Studien zur deutschen Literatur 103), p. 345.
33
14 Theodor A. Meyer: Das Stilgesetz der Poesie. Leipzig: Hirzel 1901, pp. 50 f. It
34 is not by mere accident that the “Stilgesetz” came to the attention of Wolfgang
35 Iser, see Iser: Vorwort. In: Theodor A. Meyer. Das Stilgesetz der Poesie. Mit
36 einem Vorwort von Wolfgang Iser. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1990, pp. 13 –
37 20.
15 Roetteken gives a somewhat different account to Wundt’s theory of images.
38
According to him, Wundt has shown that images have a certain continuity
39 and intersubjectivity – a view that coincides with Wundt: Grundriss der Psy-
40 chologie. 15th ed. Leipzig: Kröner 1922 (1st ed. 1896), pp. 107 f.
1 command of language only if he can trust that language does not attract
2 inner images.16 Language is expected to extinguish the inner image, to
3 summarize and shorten it, and it is only then that language suits the po-
4 etic purpose.
5 Consequently, poetry is seen as an ‘art of linguistic dissimulation’
6 (“Kunst der sprachlichen Verstellung”), as an art which modifies its ob-
7 jects and their relations.17 This art does not allow one to refer back to
8 reality. In poetry, reality vanishes entirely. Therefore, it is only the
9 text which deserves interpretation. Methodological asceticism – or the
10 polemical notion “Werkimmanenz” – is the motto of Meyer’s Stilge-
11 setz. 18 His work advocates a focus on the text and its linguistic material
12 only, a more or less formalist view of literature which declares intersub-
13 jectivity, clearness and comparability to be its main criteria.19 The exclu-
14
sion of ‘obscuritas’ becomes a turning point in the history of poetics:20 it
15
legitimises the attack on ‘expressiveness’ and the new approach of
16
“Sprachlichkeit”. Bearing in mind this context, Meyer claims to have
17
erased the ‘mythologems of the aestheticists of perception/expression’
18
(“Mythologeme[] der Anschauungsästhetiker”).21
19
Still, compared with the approaches of the poetics of expressiveness,
20
Meyer’s critique encounters difficulties in finding subjects of applica-
21
tion. Even Vischer, when mentioning ‘inner images’, polemicized
22
23
against a simplifying account of images in poetics. In addition to this,
24
he – like Meyer – stressed Lessing’s old doctrine of successiveness. Ac-
25
tually, there are only two differences between Meyer’s and Vischer’s po-
26
27 16 Meyer (fn. 14), p. 56: “[…] wenn er sich darauf verlassen kann, dass mit der
Sprache kein Reiz zum innern Sehen verbunden ist.” / ‘if he can rely on lan-
28
guage not entailing an impulse for a form of inner seeing’.
29 17 Ibid., p. 57.
30 18 On “Werkimmenanz” and the methodological problems of the notion see Lutz
31 Danneberg: Zur Theorie der werkimmanenten Interpretation. In: Zeiten-
32 wechsel. Germanistische Literaturwissenschaft vor und nach 1945, ed. by Wil-
fried Barner and Christoph König. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer 1996, pp. 313 – 342.
33
19 On formalism in interpretation see Dieter Burdorf: Poetik der Form: Eine Be-
34 griffs- und Problemgeschichte. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 2001; see also Hans-
35 Harald Müller: Zur Genealogie der werkimmanenten Interpretation. In: Kon-
36 zert und Konkurrenz. Die Künste und ihre Wissenschaften im 19. Jahrhundert,
37 (fn. 1).
20 On ‘obscuritas’ Carlos Spoerhase: Die ‘Dunkelheit’ der Dichtung als Heraus-
38
forderung der Philologie. In: Konzert und Konkurrenz: Die Künste und ihre
39 Wissenschaften im 19. Jahrhundert, (fn. 1).
40 21 Meyer (fn. 14), p. 57.
9. The Turn Towards Language: Theodor A. Meyer (1901) 209
1 sitions:22 firstly, Vischer does recognize the role of language in poetry

2 but only to a minor extent. Secondly, Vischer trusts in the productive
3 approach of the reader who, when reading a poetic work, starts to re-
4 flect and think on his own.
5 Despite Meyer’s misleading interpretation of Vischer, contempora-
6 ries received the Stilgesetz in a most enthusiastic way. Max Dessoir, one
7 of the most engaged representatives of the general science of art, stylized
8 Meyer’s thesis, calling it ‘the ascendant truth of the future’ (“Kronprin-
9 zen-Wahrheit, der die Zukunft gehört”).23 The reason for such enthu-
10 siasm might have been the fact that Meyer met the expectations of his
11 age: language had indeed been neglected by poetics although it had re-
12 ceived enormous attention in philosophy and in modern literature. It is
13 not by mere accident that ‘art of language’ (“Sprachkunst”) became one
14 of the most famous literary notions of the first decade of the 20th cen-
15 tury, supported by treatises such as Fritz Mauthner’s Beitrgen zur Kritik
16 der Sprache (I, 1901) and literary writings by Karl Kraus (Die Sprache ist
17 das Material des literarischen Knstlers, 19/1/1909 in his Aphorismen),24
18 Josef Weinheber and other poets.25
19 Still, the formalist approach in poetics as presented in the Stilgesetz
20 remains only one amongst a multitude of plausible accounts of literature
21 which appeared around and after 1900. Wolfgang Iser has questioned
22 why this is the case and provides a simple answer. He refers to the in-
23 consistencies of the “Stilgesetz” itself:26 Iser has a point. Indeed, Meyer
24 is criticized for underestimating the productive role of images, and the
25 formalist camp itself, especially Roetteken, stands as one of the best ex-
26 amples for this criticism.27 Yet it might also be the dominance of other
27 approaches which hindered recognition of an undercurrent of a formal-
28 ism. Formalism survived only to some extent: continued talk of the ‘art-
29
30 22 Compare with the chapter on Vischer.
31 23 Max Dessoir: Die Anschaulichkeit der Sprache. In: Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und
32 allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 1 (1906), pp. 353 – 368, p. 366.
24 Friedrich Jenaczek: Josef Weinheber: “Notturno”. Anmerkungen zu Leistung
33
und Grenzen des Literaturpädagogen Johannes Pfeiffer. In: Jahrbuch des Wie-
34 ner Goethe-Vereins 86 – 88 (1982 – 1984), pp. 361 – 385, p. 363.
35 25 Jenaczek (fn. 24), p. 373; See the announced paper Wilhelm Kühlmann:
36 “Schuldig sein und auch – gerichtet”. Ein Versuch zum ‘Fall Josef Weinheber’.
37 In: Die Schuldfrage. Untersuchungen zur geistigen Situation der unmittelbaren
Nachkriegszeit [in print].
38
26 Iser (fn. 14).
39 27 Roetteken: Aus der speziellen Poetik. Leipzig, Vienna: Fromme 1924 (Special
40 print from the periodical “Euphorion”, vol. 25),p. 5.
1 work of words’ or ‘language’ alluded, if not to Meyer, then to the gen-

2 eral trend of putting the literary work at the centre of the analysis, a
3 trend that is most polemically expressed in the Stilgesetz.
4 In German poetics, this formalist approach is embedded in all sorts
5 of so-called methods. Before Hefele and Walzel, Lehmann was one of
6 the first thinkers to develop the formalist approach further. He com-
7 bined it with biology. In his Deutsche Poetik (1908, 21919) he presents
8 an artistic poetics (“Poetik als Kunstlehre”) and conceptualizes the po-
9 etic work – in analogy to biology – as a ‘vivid unity’ (“lebendige Ein-
10 heit”).28 The focus is neither on content nor on form but on the basic
11 material of poetry: language and metre, the laws of composition and ar-
12 tistic intention.29 Anthropology and existentialism can be said to advo-
13 cate similar approaches. Even if they give the description and recogni-
14 tion of the human being or of being as such as their ultimate goal, they
15 refer positively to the idea that it is the work itself which should be the
16 source of poetics and, in turn, of the claims it makes about being.
17 This work-centered approach has its origin not only in Meyer’s
18 work but also in Husserl’s epistemology. Later, Ingarden was to give
19 a renouwned ontological account of poetics. Consequently, he per-
20 ceived Meyer as one of its forerunners, praising the Stilgesetz as one
21 of the most convincing works of the recent years in contrast to psychol-
22 ogist approaches (R.M. Werner, Lipps).
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
28 Rudolf Lehmann: Deutsche Poetik. Munich: Beck 1908 (Handbuch des deut-
38
schen Unterrichts an höheren Schulen, 3rd vol, 2nd part), p. 41; see also also
39 Lehmann: Poetik. 2nd corr. and augm. ed. Munich: Beck 1919, pp. 43 – 52.
40 29 Lehmann 1908 (fn. 28), p. 43.
1
2
3
4 10. Phenomenological and Ontological Poetics:
5 Edmund Husserl and Roman Ingarden (1931)
6
7
8
Husserl and Ingarden are – apart from Ludwig Wittgenstein (and the
9
rarely mentioned Franz Brentano) 1 – some of the prominent examples
10
of thinkers showing that ‘Continental philosophy’ has been involved in
11
the analytical tradition of aesthetics to a great extent.2 Furthermore, they
12
show how and why the analytical tradition is a response to questions and
13
criticisms around and after 1900. To name only two of the most dom-
14
inant criticisms: psychologism, on the one hand, all too easily took re-
15
ality and its impact on the individual for granted. Teachings of ‘weltan-
16
schauungen’ (“Weltanschauungslehre”), on the other hand, such as all
17
the trivial writings which appeared after Nietzsche and display an indi-
18
vidual’s opinion about the very essential problems of life as well as re-
19
garding current political issues,3 are not scientific enough although
20
they discuss some important ontological questions.
21
22
23
24 1 Wittgenstein had no impact on early 20th-century German poetics, still he gave
25 his Lectures on Aesthetics (1938) which were widely received and debated in
26 the Anglo-American context; Thomas Tam: On Wonder, Appreciation, and
27 the Tremendous in Wittgenstein’s Aesthetics. In: British Journal of Aesthetics
42 (2002) 3, pp. 310 – 322; Simo Saatela: ‘Perhaps the Most Important Thing
28
in Connection with Aesthetics’. Wittgenstein on ‘Aesthetic Reactions’. In:
29 Revue Internationale de Philosophie 56/219 (2002), pp. 49 – 72; Kathrin Sten-
30 gel: Ethics as Style. Wittgenstein’s Aesthetics Ethics and Ethical Aesthetics. In:
31 Poetics Today 25 (2004) 4, pp. 609 – 625. – On Brentano see Susan Krantz:
32 Brentano’s Empirical Aesthetics. In: Brentano-Studien 9 (2001) 1, pp. 215 –
228.
33
2 On this misleading distinction see the remarks in the introduction; on Husserl
34 see Michael Dummett: Origins of Analytical Philosophy. London: Duckworth
35 1993; decisively focused on phenomenology Herbert Spiegelberg: The Phe-
36 nomenological Movement. The Hague: Nijhoff 1982; Simon Glendinning:
37 In the Name of Phenomenology. Routledge 2007; cf. also Brian Elliott: Phe-
nomenology and Imagination in Husserl and Heidegger. Routledge 2005,
38
pp. 25 – 39.
39 3 Horst Thomé: Weltanschauung. In: Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie,
40 Basel: Schwabe 2004, vol. 12, col. 453 – 460.
212 10. Phenomenological and Ontological Poetics
1 It is these questions on which Husserl and Ingarden focus. The cri-

2 tique of psychologism becomes clear with Husserl’s increasing distance
3 from the work of Hermann Lotze between 1894 and 1896.4 Without
4 completely abandoning Lotze’s views, Husserl accuses him of advocat-
5 ing a problematic epistemological dualism between logical laws and
6 facts, which finally results in metaphysics and psychologism.5 The cri-
7 tique of “Weltanschauungslehre” plays a part in the development of
8 Husserl’s phenomenology as well. In his Logische Untersuchungen
9 (1900: Logical Investigations) he adheres to strict science as the ultimate
10 goal of philosophy. In contrast to the loose reflections of “Weltan-
11 schauungslehre”, Husserl conceives of theory as uniting all sciences;
12 therefore, it needs to be revised according to its own theoretical prem-
13 ises. In 1904, Husserl met the Munich group of phenomenologists as
14 well as Theodor Lipps. From that point on phenomenology began to
15 develop considerably.6 It played a part in the general history of “Geis-
16 ACHTUNGREteswissenschaften” but constituted a distinct approach: unlike Windel-
17 band, Rickert and Dilthey, Husserl in his Ideen (1913; Ideas: General In-
18 troduction to Pure Phenomenology) opts for a strict division of physical and
19 spiritual data and turns to a ‘Lotzean’ transcendental idealism.7
20 Amongst the premises of Husserl’s theory relevant for this study, are
21 his ideas on perception: perception does not refer to individual exam-
22 ples but to something general which can be expressed with words. As
23 a consequence, perception is conceived as a mental act, an intentional
24 experience.8 In addition, Husserl proposes the idea of different degrees
25
26
27 4 Dagfin Føllesdal: Husserl und Frege. Avhandlinger Utgitt av det Norske Viden-
skaps-Akademi i Oslo, II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse 2 (1958); Kai Hauser: Lotze und
28
Husserl. In: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 85 (2003), pp. 152 – 178, p.
29 163.
30 5 Ibid., p. 162. This position might be influenced by Gottlob Frege’s critique of
31 Husserl’s Philosophie der Arithmetik (1891).
32 6 Eberhard Avé-Lallemant: Die phänomenologische Bewegung: Ursprung, An-
fang und Ausblick. In: Husserl und die phänomenologische Bewegung. Zeug-
33
nisse in Text und Bild, ed. by Hans Rainer Sepp. Freiburg i. Br., Munich:
34 Alber 1988, pp. 61 – 75; Helmut Vetter: Zur Begrifflichkeit der Phänomenolo-
35 gie am Beispiel von Husserl und Heidegger. In: Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte
36 48 (2006), pp. 203 – 225, p. 204.
37 7 John E. Albert: Husserl’s Position Between Dilthey and the Windelband-Rick-
ert School of Neo-Kantianism. In: Journal of the History of Philosophy 26
38
(1988) 2, pp. 279 – 296.
39 8 Husserliana vol. XIX/1: Logische Untersuchungen. Untersuchungen zur Phä-
40 nomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis, ed. Ursula Panzer. The Hague:
10. Phenomenological and Ontological Poetics 213
1 of fulfilment of perception: perception can be more or less rich, vivid or

2 real; however, the ultimate aim of the ‘primordial constitution of essen-
3 ces’ (“Wesensschau”) is the process of accumulating a sense of fullness.9
4 Despite the fact that Husserl’s ideas on perception proposed and inspired
5 some accounts of aesthetics – such as ‘thing aesthetics’ (“Dingästhe-
6 tik”) 10 and ‘transcendental aesthetics’11 – it is to Ingarden’s credit that
7 he adopted some of Husserl’s inventions and developed the most com-
8 prehensive and coherent model of a phenomenological aesthetics.
9 Roman Ingarden (1893 – 1970) was born in Krakow and studied
10 philosophy, psychology and mathematics in Lemberg, Göttingen, Vien-
11 na and Freiburg.12 He wrote his PhD under the supervision of Husserl
12 on Intuition und Intellekt bei Henri Bergson (1918) and the ‘Habilitation’
13 with Kazimierz Twardowski (a student of Franz Brentano) in Lemberg
14 where Ingarden taught until the outbreak of World War II. From 1950
15 until 1956 he was not allowed into the educational system because of his
16 ‘idealism’ which was regarded as a suspicious ideology – a ridiculous ac-
17 cusation as Ingarden argued against idealist positions for most of his life.
18 This is apparant in Ingarden’s attempt to refute the late idealist Husserl
19 from a realist phenomenologist perspective (as some of Husserl’s Göt-
20 tingen students did, some of them inspired by Franz Brentano or Bren-
21 tano’s students such as Alexius Meinong).
22 Ingarden’s philosophy is twofold. Firstly, he covers issues of ontol-
23 ogy in Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt (3 vols., 1964/65/74). The
24 transcendental idealist Husserl claims that the ‘real world’ exists only
25 through consciousness. In contrast to him, Ingarden’s ontology focuses
26 on what could possibly exist (a priori), thereby aiming to avoid the
27 ACHTUNGREmetaphysical problems of the realism/idealism dichotomy. This dichot-
28
29
30
31 Nijhoff 1984, p. 172; Vetter: Zur Begrifflichkeit der Phänomenologie (fn. 6),
32 pp. 206 f; Danielle Lories: Remarks on Aesthetic Intentionality: Husserl or
Kant. In: International Journal of Philosophical Studies 14 (2006) 1, pp. 31 –
33
49.
34 9 Vetter: Zur Begrifflichkeit der Phänomenologie (fn. 6), p. 208.
35 10 Paul S. MacDonald: Husserl and the Cubist on a Thing in Space. In: Journal of
36 the British Society for Phenomenology 36 (2005) 3, pp. 258 – 276.
37 11 Paul R. Gyllenhammer: The Passivity of Optimalizing Practices: A Develop-
ment of Husserl’s Transcendental Aesthetics. In: Southwest Philosophy Re-
38
view 19 (2003) 1, pp. 97 – 105.
39 12 Carlos Spoerhase: Ingarden, Roman. In: Kindlers Literaturlexikon, ed. by
40 Heinz Ludwig Arnold. 3rd corr. ed. Tübingen: Metzler 2009.
1 omy could be solved, according to Ingarden, if the relation of the ‘real

2 world’ and consciousness were to be examined.
3 Secondly, this ontology was preformed and illustrated with the help
4 of Ingarden’s poetological works: mainly Das literarische Kunstwerk
5 (1931) but also Erlebnis, Kunstwerk und Wert (1969) and Gegenstand
6 und Aufgaben der Literaturwissenschaft (1976) served as preliminary studies
7 for Ingarden’s realist phenomenology.13 It was through the aesthetical
8 and poetological works that Ingarden’s philosophy reached his academic
9 public, the later ontologist works being hidden behind the Iron Curtain.
10 Ingarden’s view of art follows different directions: most importantly,
11 he aims at defining the ontological state of art. This state is – as in the
12 late works of Husserl – conceptualized as a result of intentions only. Yet
13 art (and the main example is literature) allows for subtle distinctions of
14 intentional and real worlds – and this is the reason why Ingarden engag-
15 ed in aesthetics: literary works and their representations exemplify in-
16 tentions. As purely intentional objects works of art can be contrasted
17 with real world objects – and, in turn, real world objects would require
18 a different ontological state than intentional objects. Furthermore, In-
19 garden, fascinated with artistic details, endeavours to find suitable de-
20 scriptions for the relevant aspects of artworks. In addition to this, his
21 goal is evaluation, the appraisal of felicitous or less felicitous art.
22 Das literarische Kunstwerk, Ingarden’s major poetological and analyt-
23 ical work demonstrates these aims. Apart from inspiring detailed obser-
24 vations (e. g. on the novel),14 Ingarden’s principal aim is what he calls an
25 ‘essence anatomy’ (“Wesensanatomie”) of the literary work,15 in order
26
27
28
29 13 Jeff Mitscherling: Roman Ingarden’s Ontology and Aesthetics. Univ. Press Ot-
30 tawa 1997.
31 14 Roman Ingarden: Das literarische Kunstwerk: Mit einem Anhang von den
32 Funktionen der Sprache im Theaterschauspiel. 4th ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer
1972, pp. 219 f. Against a judgement in the “Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für
33
Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte”, Ingarden claims to have been
34 the first thinker to discover the narrator in the novel. He rejects the view by
35 the DVjs that it was Wolfgang Kayser who discovered the narrator first.
36 15 Ingarden (fn. 14), p. 2. On the concept of the work in this context see Maria E.
37 Reicher: Zur Metaphysik der Kunst: Eine logisch-ontologische Untersuchung
des Werkbegriffs. Graz: dbv-Verl. für die Techn. Univ. Graz 1998 (Dissertatio-
38
nen der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz 111); Daniela Angelucci: L’oggetto
39 poetico: Conrad, Ingarden, Hartmann. Macerata: Quodlibet 2004 (Estetica e
40 critica).
1 to determine its ‘basic structure’ (“Grundstruktur”) and ‘mode of being’

2 (“Seinsweise”).16
3 According to Ingarden, the literary work is both real and ideal. As a
4 real object (and as in Husserl’s thinking), it originates in an intentional
5 act, the act of conceiving and writing. In addition to this, it becomes an
6 ideal object, primarily for the recipients. Ingarden quotes Scheler in this
7 respect: ‘A work of intellectual culture is capable of being understood
8 intellectually by a given number of people and simultaneously sensed
9 and enjoyed by them in its entirety.’17 A work of art such as literature
10 exists beyond the author’s intention; it can be grasped by many people
11 – in similar and different ways. Still it remains one work; Ingarden uses
12 organic metaphors and speaks of the ‘organic construction’ (“organi-
13 sche[] Bau”) to describe his vision of the work as a whole.18 Ingarden’s
14 thinking here is conceived with regard to Walzel’s Gehalt und Gestalt.
15 Walzel holds the oversimplifying view that the literary work is struc-
16 tured by one layer only.19 Against this view, Ingarden (perhaps inspired
17 by Lehmann) stresses that a literary work consists of different layers
18 which interact with each other – like an organic unity. This concept
19 is further explained in the famous theory of the four layers of the art-
20 work which are designed to show its ‘polyphony’, the coexistence
21 and cooperation of different layers which all totalise a certain potential
22 to stimulate aesthetic experiences.20
23 The first layer is called the layer of sound-formation. It comprises
24 the aspects of word-sound, sound-configuration as well as its meaning,
25 all three of which are only relatively constant: the phonic material, for
26 instance, is not part of the literary work and therefore different in every
27 imagination. The second layer is the one of meaning-units: of words,
28
29 16 Ingarden (fn. 14), p. XI.
30 17 Max Scheler: Der Formalismus in der Ethik und materiale Wertethik. In: Jahr-
31 buch für Philosophie 1 (1913), pp. 405 – 565, 496; Ingarden (fn. 14), p. 2: “Ein
32 Werk geistiger Kultur kann gleichzeitig von beliebig vielen erfaßt und in sei-
nem Werte gefühlt und genossen werden.” / ‘A work of culture can be under-
33
stood by a given number of people and simultaneously be felt and enjoyed in its
34 value’.
35 18 Ingarden (fn. 14), p. 25.
36 19 Ibid., p. 29.
37 20 Ibid., p. XI, p. 26 passim. See also Peter M. Simons: Strata in Ingarden’s on-
tology. In: Kunst und Ontologie. Für Roman Ingarden zum 100. Geburtstag,
38
ed. by Wlodzimierz Galewicz, Elisabeth Ströker and Wladyslaw Strozewski.
39 Amsterdam – Atlanta, GA: Rodopi 1994 (Elementa; Schriften zur Philosophie
40 und ihrer Problemgeschichte 62 – 1994), pp. 119 – 140.
1 sentences, coherence of sentences and quasi-judgements, judgements

2 which are judgements but fictional only – a concept which instigated
3 a harsh debate with the German-Jewish philosopher and philologist
4 Käte Hamburger (1896 1992), a professor of General Literary Science
5 at Stuttgart University from 1959.21 A third layer refers to schematised
6 aspects and continuities; a fourth one to presented objects: room and
7 time. Through these four layers a literary work expresses truth:22 in
8 so far as it copies reality, presents the work as a coherent unity and
9 shows the metaphysical qualities that are essential for a certain situation.
10 Ingarden sums up this view in the following way:
11 ‘The idea of the work lies in the essential connectedness of the being
12 that is brought to demonstrative self-presence and which exists between
13 a certain presented situation of life […] and a metaphysical quality that
14 reveals itself in this situation […]. In the uncovering of such an essential
15 connectedness of being that cannot be determined by concepts lies the
16 creative act of the poet.’23
17
18
19 21 Ingarden (fn. 14), pp. 184 – 192. The controversy with Käte Hamburger con-
20 cerns the view of quasi-judgement as well as Ingarden’s conception of literature
21 in general. According to Ingarden (as mentioned above) literature is real and
22 unreal. Hamburger claims that this view is insufficient in order to understand
the character of the non-real in literature; she criticizes the view that poetic ob-
23
jects are designed only intentionally and can therefore only represent the illu-
24 sion of reality – a view that, according to her, fails to understand the mimetic
25 quality of a work of art. See Elisabeth Ströker: Fiktive Welt im literarischen
26 Kunstwerk: Zu einer Kontroverse zwischen Roman Ingarden und Käte Ham-
27 burger. In: Galewicz, Ströker, Strozewski (fn. 20), pp. 141 – 165, pp. 154 ff.
Still, Ingarden manages to reject the accusations convincingly and to defend
28
his intentionalism; see Julia Mansour: Fehdehandschuh des kritischen Freun-
29 desgeistes: Die Kontroverse um Käte Hamburgers “Die Logik der Dichtung”.
30 In: Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie/ Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse,
31 ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]: Lang 2007 (Publi-
32 kationen der Zeitschrift für Germanistik NF 17), pp. 235 – 247, p. 244.
22 Ingarden (fn. 14), pp. 322 – 325.
33
23 Ibid., p. 325: “Die ‘Idee’ des Werkes liegt in dem zur anschaulichen Selbstge-
34 gebenheit gebrachten Wesenszusammenhang, der zwischen einer bestimmten
35 dargestellten Lebenssituation […] und einer metaphysischen Qualität besteht,
36 die an dieser Situation zur Selbstoffenbarung gelangt […]. In der Enthüllung
37 eines solchen Wesenzusammenhangs, der rein begrifflich nicht zu bestimmen
ist, liegt die schöpferische Tat des Dichters.” / ‘the ‘idea’ of the work lies in
38
the coherence of essence that is made clear in its ‘self-condition’. This coher-
39 ence exists between a certain described life-situation and a metaphysical quality
40 which achieves in this situation a form of self-revelation. The creative act of the
1 The work has an ‘idea’ which cannot be defined but only expressed
2 through the ‘essential interconnection’ (“Wesenszusammenhang”) of
3 the unique and united work of art, the intentional creation of the
4 poet which is to be understood as an organic whole – a premise as
5 well as a consequence of Ingarden’s circular but convincing theory.
6 Ingarden’s theory is especially helpful because of three methodolog-
7 ical premises: firstly, the exclusion of the author’s experience and fate –
8 a slightly complicated premise when it comes to the investigation of an
9 individual author’s intentions.24 Secondly, Ingarden gives no account of
10 the reader and his psychological situation when reading. Thirdly, he
11 avoids the ‘realist standpoint’ which detects objects and facts that
12 could have been archetypes for the literary work.25
13 Because of these elaborated methodological assumptions and the
14 convincing layer-model, the German reception of Ingarden began im-
15 mediately. Once again, it was Petersen’s pupil Ploetz who gave an early
16 and comprehensive account.26 Ploetz was impressed by Ingarden’s
17 method of ‘structural analysis’ (“Strukturanalyse”), his theory of layers.27
18 Nevertheless, Ploetz feared that the word layer was too ambiguous and
19 exclusive. The way Ingarden conceptualizes these layers does not cover
20 the whole work of art, e. g. the level of values is excluded.28 Further-
21 more, Ploetz’s account of Ingarden adheres to the debate which refers
22 back to Meyer: Ploetz asks what Ingarden’s ‘represented realness’ (“dar-
23 gestellte Wirklichkeit”) could mean and whether it is the object depict-
24 ed in poetry29 or images which generate “Stimmung” (‘mood’, ‘atmos-
25 phere’, ‘attunement’), a term Ploetz borrows from Husserl’s and Hei-
26 degger’s phenomenology.30 This constructive criticism reflects more a
27
28
poet lies in the revelation of such a coherence of essence, which cannot be put
29 in terms’.
30 24 Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller: Was war eigentlich der Biographismus –
31 und was ist aus ihm geworden? Eine Untersuchung. In: Autorschaft. Position-
32 en und Revisionen, ed. by Heinrich Detering. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler
2002 (Germanistische Symposien, Berichtsbände XXIV), pp. 355 – 375.
33
25 Ingarden (fn. 14), pp. 19 – 24.
34 26 See also Introduction.
35 27 Hans Achim Ploetz: Die Theorie der Dichtung: Kritische Beiträge zur gegen-
36 wärtigen Poetik. Inaug. PhD-thesis. Friedrich-Wilhelms-University Berlin.
37 Berlin: Triltsch & Huther 1936, p. 40.
28 Ibid., p. 45, p. 42.
38
29 Ibid., p. 21.
39 30 Ploetz (fn. 27), p. 26. “Stimmung” is difficult to translate as no English word
40 covers its whole meaning; see David Wellbery: Stimmung. In: Historisches
1 general discussion, than weaknesses in Ingarden’s impressive oeuvre it-

2 self.31 The discussion of Ingarden’s work did not stop until recently:
3 with its clear analysis Das literarische Kunstwerk had a considerable impact
4 not only on German contemporaries but also on later poetological
5 schools such as Reader Response Theory (Hans Robert Jauß, Wolfgang
6 Iser), Empirical Reception Theory (Siegfried J. Schmidt), New Criti-
7 cism and individual thinkers such as Michel Dufrennes and Nelson
8 Goodman.32
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Wörterbuch ästhetischer Grundbegriffe, ed. by Karlheinz Barck [et al.], Stutt-
33
gart, Weimar: Metzler 2003, vol. 5., pp. 703 – 33, p. 703.
34 31 It is soon transferred overseas: René Wellek introduced Ingarden to American
35 scholars, and some of his works are translated into English. An extended intro-
36 duction for students followed in 1981. Eugene E. Falk: The Poetics of Roman
37 Ingarden. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press 1981.
32 Anna-Terea Tymieniecka (ed.): Ingardeniana III: Roman Ingarden’s Aesthetics
38
in a New Key and the Independent Approaches of Others. The Performing
39 Arts, the Fine Arts, and Literature. Doredrecht: Kluwer 1991 (Analecta Hus-
40 serliana 33).
1
2
3
4 11. Anthropology, Existentialism and Hermeneutics:
5 the Influence of Søren Kierkegaard
6
7 and Martin Heidegger
8
9
10 However, under the cover of phenomenological ontology, poetological
11 research at the beginning of the 20th century also went beyond a priori
12 distinctions, not by means of psychologism but with the intention of
13 discovering the ‘world’ and the individual’s existence in the world
14 through art.1 From this elaborate point of view, both the individual au-
15 thor and his work become examples of an outstanding way to deal with
16 one’s particular existence, as well as examples for the human being in
17 general. In short: poetics and anthroplogy appromixate each other in
18 such a way that poetics not only delivers material for a general anthro-
19 pology, but is also changed into a poetic anthropology itself.
20 Consequently, poetological interest borrowed its main ideas from
21 the most prominent thinkers who showed some interest in these issues:
22 Kierkegaard and Heidegger. Yet philologists seldom extensively reflect-
23 ed on their philosophies. Kierkegaard and Heidegger provided general
24 frameworks and keywords (for Heidegger, for instance, being, there-
25 being, time, understanding, “Stimmung”) which were used to develop
26 one’s own thoughts on the human existence in connection with the lit-
27 erary work. Only in a few cases (Pfeiffer, Staiger), was Heidegger’s
28 thought more or less directly applied to poetics. Did the Germanists’ en-
29 gagement with Heidegger remain, in general, superficial and without
30 substance? Indeed, the reference to Kierkegaard and Heidegger is main-
31 ly a question of style, of a way to create a ‘deeper’ meaning, hitherto
32 unkown and unkown during the eras of scientific poetics, be they char-
33 acterised by psychologist, ontologist or evolutionist approaches.
34
The reception of Kierkegaard was impressive when it came to the
35
amalgamation of style, philosophy and the human being behind the
36
scene. In the 1920s and 30s, he was adored as the Protestant character
37
38
1 Compare John E. Albert: Husserl’s Position Between Dilthey and the Windel-
39 band-Rickert School of Neo-Kantianism. In: Journal of the History of Philos-
40 ophy 26 (1988) 2, pp. 279 – 296, p. 214.
220 11. Anthropology, Existentialism and Hermeneutics
1 type although his writings have much more to offer, especially on art
2 (chapter a).2 Things proved to be more complex with Heidegger al-
3 though the general tendency of a more or less associative reception is
4 true as well (chapter b–c). A great number of studies have been written
5 about Heidegger’s heritage and poststructuralist literary theory. Yet very
6 little is known about the early reception of Heidegger in literary theory
7 before 1960. The only overview at hand tends to neglect the early phase
8 in favour of the second one, claiming that Staiger’s application of Hei-
9 degger was insufficient and too philological, whilst focussing on Paul de
10 Man’s concept of allegory and Jacques Derrida’s discussion of Heideg-
11 ger’s interpretation of Hölderlin.3 More specialised approaches stress the
12 inadequacy of Heidegger’s reception in literary studies on the one hand4
13 and highlight the continuity of Heidegger’s concept and thought on the
14 other, e. g. when it comes to the notion of the Sublime (as far as there is
15 such a notion in Heidegger’s work) which is still present in the work of
16 Adorno.5
17 Until the poetics of the 1960s, it is astonishingly only Heidegger’s
18 Sein und Zeit (1927) that seems to count. His fundamental ontology in-
19 spired by Christian theology received enormous attention, also because
20 he, as Husserl’s former assistant, could be seen as being at the forefront
21 of phenomenology. The fact that Heidegger opposes Husserl’s scientific
22 concept of phenomenology did obviously increase the interest in Hei-
23
24
25
26
27 2 Isaak Winkel Holm: Monstrous Aesthetics: Literature and Philosophy in Søren
Kierkegaard. In: Nineteenth-Century Prose 32 (2005) 1, pp. 52 – 74. See also
28
Dominic Desroches: Existence esthetique, musique et language: Retour sur
29 la reception critique de Kierkegaard par Adorno. In: Horizons Philosophiques
30 16 (2006) 2, pp. 21 – 38.
31 3 Anselm Haverkamp: Heidegger und die Literaturwissenschaft: Die poetologi-
32 schen Quellen der seinsgeschichtlichen Subjektkritik. In: Heidegger-Hand-
buch. Leben – Werk – Wirkung, ed. by Dieter Thomä in collab. with Katrin
33
Meyer and Hans Bernhard Schmidt. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 2003,
34 pp. 492 – 499, pp. 496 – 499.
35 4 Klaus Weimar, Christoph Jermann: ‘Zwiesprache’ oder Literaturwissenschaft.
36 In: Neue Hefte für Philosophie 23 (1984), pp. 113 – 157.
37 5 Karl Heinz Bohrer: Das ‘Erhabene’ als ungelöstes Problem der Moderne: Mar-
tin Heideggers und Theodor W. Adornos Ästhetik. In: Das absolute Präsens.
38
Die Semantik ästhetischer Zeit, ed. by K.H.B. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp
39 1994, pp. 92 – 120; Julian Young: Death and Transfiguration: Kant, Schophe-
40 nauer and Heidegger on the Sublime. In: Inquiry 48 (2005) 2, pp. 131 – 144.
11. Anthropology, Existentialism and Hermeneutics 221
1 degger,6 in the subjective element of perception and Heidegger’s her-

2 meneutic standpoint.7
3 Still, what is (correctly or misleadingly) referred to as ‘the turn’ (“die
4 Kehre”),8 Heidegger’s late work under the heading of ‘unspeakability’ as
5 well as his admiration for Stéphane Mallarmé,9 his discussion of Mör-
6 ike’s poem “Auf eine Lampe”10 and his interest in Celan11 found only
7 little poetological attention (before poststructuralism).12 Der Ursprung
8 des Kunstwerkes (finished in 1936, published only in 1950), the idea
9 that observing art means maintining truth and the particular stress on
10 the creative process, were elements discussed later. The same is true
11 for the poetological reception of Heidegger’s contributions on Hölder-
12 lin (1937). The reason for this late reception might be the ‘antiphilolog-
13
14 6 Thomas Wolf: Konstitution und Kritik der Wissenschaften bei Heidegger. In:
15 Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 57 (2003) 1, pp. 94 – 110.
16 7 Helmut Vetter: Zur Begrifflichkeit der Phänomenologie am Beispiel von Hus-
17 serl und Heidegger. In: Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 48 (2006), pp. 203 – 225,
pp. 214 – 223.
18
8 Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert convincingly shows that there is a considerable
19 continuity between Heidegger’s phenomenological ontology and his definition
20 of art: understanding of art is the result of the application of the analytic of ‘Da-
21 sein’. Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert: Heideggers Bestimmung des Kunstwerks
22 – im Rückblick auf “Sein und Zeit”. In: Philosophie und Poesie. Otto Pögg-
eler zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by A.G.-S. vol. 2. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: From-
23
mann-Holzboog 1988 pp. 143 – 168, pp. 144 f.
24 9 Frank-Rutger Hausmann: Martin Heidegger, Hugo Friedrich und Stéphane
25 Mallarmé. In: Romanistische Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 30 (2006)
26 3,4, pp. 377 – 394, esp. pp. 385 – 394.
27 10 See Markus Wild: “Schon unser Briefwechsel hat das Gedicht allzu schwer be-
lastet.” Staiger und Heidegger über Mörike “Auf eine Lampe”. In: Kontrover-
28
ACHTUNGREsen in der Literaturtheorie/ Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf
29 Klausnitzer and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]: Lang 2007 (Publikationen der
30 Zeitschrift für Germanistik NF 17), pp. 207 – 222.
31 11 Otto Pöggeler: Spur des Worts: Zur Lyrik Paul Celans. Freiburg i. Br., Mu-
32 nich: Alber 1986; Otto Pöggeler: Mystical elements in Heidegger’s thought
and Celan’s poetic traces. In: Wordtraces: Readings of Paul Celan, ed. by
33
Aris Fioretos. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press 1994, pp. 74 – 109; see
34 also Robert André: Gespräche von Text zu Text: Celan – Heidegger – Höl-
35 ACHTUNGREderlin. Hamburg: Meiner 2001.
36 12 On the rediscovery of the late work see e. g. Julian Young: Heidegger’s Philos-
37 ophy of Art. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 2001, the first comprehensive
study on Heidegger’s aesthetics in English. It sees the ‘Origin of the Artwork’ as
38
its beginning. A similar approach is presented by Alosin Ross: The Work of the
39 Art-Work: Art after Heidegger’s Origin of the Work of Art. In: Journal of the
40 British Society for Phenomenology 37 (2006) 2, pp. 199 – 215.
1 ical affect’ (“antiphilologischer Affekt”) 13 as shown by Heidegger’s re-

2 flections on Hölderlin. They participate in a long tradition of poetolog-
3 ical self-reflection14 as well as in a long tradition of praising Hölderlin as
4 ‘poeta vates’, a tradition which, although its early protagonists would
5 have opposed against the political appropriation, lasted from the George
6 circle to the National Socialist representatives of the ‘Ahnenerbe’ and
7 led to publications like Amadeus Grohmann’s Heldentum. Hçlderlin. Aus-
8 wahl fr Soldaten (1944), a brief book for the mental stimulation of sol-
9 diers on the front-line.15 After 1945, Heidegger’s open sympathy for the
10 National Socialists caused all kinds of problems: for instance a contro-
11 versy with the contemporaneously influential Adorno who, under the
12 surface of polemics, in fact shared many assumptions on artworks with
13 Heidegger.16 Those involved in the early reception of Heidegger and
14 its pre-history had not envisaged such interference from politics.
15
16
17 (a) On the Way to Hermeneutical Poetics:
18
Theophil Spoerri (1929)
19
20
Theophil Spoerri (1890 – 1974) was born in the canton of Neuenburg
21
and educated bilingually. He studied romance philology in Zurich,
22
Bern, Paris and Siena. At the age of 32 he was appointed professor
23
for Romance philology at Zurich University; with Emil Staiger he
24
founded the periodical Trivium, was politically active in local move-
25
26
ments (“Gotthard-Bund”, “Moralische Aufrüstung”) and received sev-
27
13 Claudia Albert: Hölderlin. In: Deutsche Klassiker im Nationalsozialismus:
28
Schiller – Kleist – Hölderlin, ed. by C.A. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 1994,
29 pp. 189 – 247, p. 210.
30 14 Jürgen Söring: Sprach-Reflexion und Sprach-Denken: Martin Heidegger und
31 die Konkrete Poesie. In: Poetica. Zeitschrift für Sprach- und Literaturwissen-
32 schaft 16 (1984) 1 – 2, pp. 110 – 137.
15 Albert (fn. 13); on similar Hölderlin-editions Marcel Lepper: Gegen die Na-
33
ïveté der Wissenschaft? Hölderlin-Editoren im Deutschen Literaturarchiv. In:
34 Zeitschrift für Germanistik 17 (2007) 2, pp. 498 – 502; M.L.: Am Quell?
35 Zur Geschichte der Hölderlin-Philologie. In: Geschichte der Germanistik
36 31/32 (2007), pp. 25 – 33.
37 16 Andreas Dittrich: Jargon der Eigentlichkeit? Die Kontroverse zwischen Hei-
degger und Adorno über die philosophische Lesbarkeit ästhetischer Texte.
38
In: Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie/ Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse,
39 ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]: Lang 2007 (Publi-
40 kationen der Zeitschrift für Germanistik NF 17), pp. 223 – 234.
(a) On the Way to Hermeneutical Poetics: Theophil Spoerri (1929) 223
1 eral honorary distinctions (honorary doctoral degree at Geneva univer-

2 sity, Dante-medal of Florence). His publications include Von der dreifa-
3 chen Wurzel der Poesie (1925), Die Formwerdung des Menschen (1938) and
4 the existentialist Die Struktur der Existenz (1951) which is an introduc-
5 tion into the art of interpretation.
6 Most of Spoerri’s theoretical intentions are already pointed out in
7 his Prludium zur Poesie (1929), an elaborate, witty introduction to po-
8 etry, rich in style and examples, though sometimes exposing a penchant
9 for Suada. The style corresponds to the book’s content. Spoerri aims to
10 (re)discover the secret of poetry.17 He claims that the old ‘Literaturwis-
11 senschaft’ (Elster, Roetteken and others) devoted itself to science, the
12 new one instead reveals itself as an ‘ars hermeneutica’, following the
13 premise: ‘Poetry cannot be explained but can only be interpreted and
14 understood through interpretation.’18 Thereby Spoerri establishes a
15 harsh contradiction between science and the arts (and their interpreta-
16 tion), a contradiction which proved effective in the works of Staiger,
17 Gadamer and Spoerri’s student Peter Szondi: Spoerri was one of the
18 most important mediators, if not the most important mediator of her-
19 meneutics in the area of poetics. He took up the 19th-century theolog-
20 ical notion of hermeneutics, possibly influenced by Dilthey’s treatise Die
21 Entstehung der Hermeneutik (1900) and decisively applied hermeneutic
22 approaches to the study of poetry.19 Although Dilthey’s methodological
23 reflections on the issue are far clearer and better informed than Spoerri’s,
24 it is to Spoerri’s credit that he developed hermeneutics in the context of
25 poetics.
26 Spoerri’s Prludium does not claim to be precise or scientific but
27 rather artistic, anthropological and even existentialist. Alluding to the
28 context of philosophy of life turned into philology, it is dedicated to
29 the Zurich professor of romance studies Ernest Bovet (1870 – 1941),
30 Spoerri’s teacher. Among the works of reference, Spoerri names Kier-
31 kegaard and Pascal, Lipps, Bergson, Croce, Cysarz, Dilthey (1906), Er-
32 matinger, Gundolf, Hefele, Lipps, Unger, Walzel and Winkler; it seems
33 as if Spoerri had not discovered Heidegger yet.
34
35 17 Theophil Spoerri: Präludium zur Poesie: Eine Einführung in die Deutung des
36 dichterischen Kunstwerks. Berlin: Furche Verlag [1929], p. 5.
37 18 Ibid., p. 14: “Poesie läßt sich nicht erklären, sondern nur deuten und durch
Deutung verstehen.”
38
19 On Dilthey’s treatise see Frithjof Rodi: Drei Bemerkungen zu Diltheys Aufsatz
39 “Die Entstehung der Hermeneutik” von 1900. In: Revue Internationale de
40 Philosophie 57/226 (2003) 4, pp. 425 – 438.
1 Nevertheless, Spoerri’s aim is to interpret in the sense of ‘synthetical

2 understanding: understanding from the whole to the whole’.20 This
3 process is also called ‘symbolic viewing’ (“symbolisches Sehen”) 21 and
4 described as a circle of different relations: ‘Interpretation points to the
5 whole, which materialises in the diversifications of the singular and spe-
6 cific.’22 Consequently, this kind of viewing is opposed to scientific cog-
7 nition; viewing aims at a ‘deeper meaning’ (“tiefere[n] Sinn”) behind
8 life23 which is revitalised in the vivid concrete artwork and uncovered
9 by the interpreter. Therefore, the interpreting subject cannot be entirely
10 distinct from the text or the object; both are part of an endless under-
11 lying circle of meaning. Some decades later, Gadamer was to elaborate
12 on such processes of understanding, describing them as the ‘hermeneutic
13 circle’.
14
An organic or even anthropological understanding of poetry enables
15
Spoerri’s idea of understanding. As with all art, poetry is said to be a
16
combination of form, content and rhythm.24 ‘Form is the harmony of
17
the outer and the inner sphere.’25 Therefore, form is responsible for
18
the artistic effect of a work. Content instead is seen as the ‘body,
19
soul, and spirit of a work of art’ (“Leib, Seele und Geist des Kunst-
20
werkes”) 26 whilst rhythm works as the ‘heartbeat’ (“Herzschlag”) of po-
21
etry.27 The perception of such a work causes aesthetical pleasure, ‘self-
22
23
enjoyment’ (“Selbstgenuß”) as Lipps puts it.28
24
Consequently, following the typological tendency already described
25
with regard to Hefele’s work, Spoerri builds his genre theory on anthro-
26
pological assumptions that combine assumptions about poetry with as-
27 sumptions about the human being. He recognises three ‘basic forms’
28
29 20 Spoerri (fn. 17), p. 14: “Deuten ist synthetisches Verstehen: Verstehen vom
30 Ganzen aus, auf das Ganze hin.” / ‘Interpretation is synthetical understanding:
31 understanding from the whole, towards the whole’.
32 21 Ibid., p. 16.
22 Ibid., p. 18: “Die Deutung weist hin auf die Ganzheit, die sich in der Mannig-
33
faltigkeit des Besonderen durchsetzt – als Einheit der ausgefalteten Ordnung
34 und Einheit der verbindenden Kraft.”
35 23 Ibid., p. 50.
36 24 In taking all art into account Spoerri pays tribute to Wölfflin; Spoerri (fn. 17),
37 p. 5.
25 Ibid., p. 109: “Form ist Harmonie von Äußerem und Innerem.”
38
26 Ibid., p. 109.
39 27 Ibid., p. 117.
40 28 Ibid., p. 130.
1 (“Grundformen”) of poetry: epic, dramatic and lyric.29 Still, every kind

2 of amalgamation is possible. Therefore, Spoerri does not restrict his
3 genre concepts to genre theory, he regards them rather as essential cat-
4 egories – an idea Spoerri takes from Bovet. In his book Lyrisme, Epope,
5 Drame, un loi de l’histoire littrature explique par l’volution gnrale (1911)
6 Bovet describes genres as general concepts of human evolution: ‘the lyr-
7 ical’ expressing youth, strong feelings, future and innovation, ‘the epic’
8 representing the adult, the ripening personality which aims at the real-
9 isation of ideas and ‘the dramatic’ originating in turbulent phases in
10 which a person has to reinvent him- or herself.30 Bovet applies this evo-
11 lutionary concept not only to literature but also to general history, iden-
12 tifying lyrical, epic and dramatic periods. With this early book on a ty-
13 pological as well as evolutionary approach, Bovet indeed invented the
14
stilistic periodisation which a few years later became famous through
15
Heinrich Wölfflin’s widely recognized Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe
16
(1915).31
17
Spoerri considerably changed Bovet’s and Wölfflin’s original mod-
18
els. Adhering to Bovet’s intuitive argumentation, he grounds these
19
models anthropologically and restricts them to literature. A possible
20
source for this refined evolutionary approach to genre concepts could
21
have been a late representative of psychological poetics: Robert
22
23
Hartl.32 Building on the Austrian tradition of Herbartianism Hartl
24
aims to close a gap in psychological poetry:33 genre theory. He views
25
the distinction of three genres as a ‘psychological necessity’ (“psycholo-
26
27
29 Ibid., passim.
28
30 Ernest Bovet: Lyrisme, Epopée, Drame: Une loi de l’histoire littérature. Expli-
29 quée par l’evolution générale. Paris: Armand Colin 1911, pp. 189 f; Georges
30 Büttiker: Ernest Bovet (1870 – 1941). Basel, Stuttgart: Helbing und Lichten-
31 hahn 1971 (Basler Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft 122), pp. 16 f.
32 31 Hans-Harald Müller: Die Übertragung des Barockbegriffs von der Kunstwis-
senschaft auf die Literaturwissenschaft und ihre Konsequenzen bei Fritz Strich
33
und Oskar Walzel. In: Europäische Barock-Rezeption, ed. by Klaus Garber in
34 collab. with Ferdinand von Ingen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1991 (Wolfenbüt-
35 teler Arbeiten zur Barockforschung 20), pp. 95 – 112.
36 32 Hartl has left no traces in bio-bibliographical Handbooks or other resources.
37 33 See Georg Jäger: Die Herbartianische Ästhetik – ein österreichischer Weg in
die Moderne. In: Die österreichische Literatur: Ihr Profil im 19. Jahrhundert
38
(1830 – 1880), ed. by Herbert Zeman. Graz: Aked. Dr. u. Verl.-Anst. 1982
39 (Die österreichische Literatur. Eine Dokumentation ihrer literarhistorischen
40 Entwicklung), pp. 195 – 219.
1 gische Notwendigkeit”) or as a natural law.34 It originates in the differ-

2 ent forms of human experience: ‘the lyrical’ (“das Lyrische”) resulting
3 from a powerful emotional experience, ‘the dramatic’ (“das Dramati-
4 sche”) from the immense energy of action, ‘the epic’ (“das Epische”)
5 from an intense objective observation.35
6 Yet in order to develop his genre concepts Spoerri (like Hartl) relies
7 on Dilthey’s key term of the experience, understanding it (as Ermatinger
8 does) in an epistemological way, (in contrast to Hartl) moving away
9 from disregarded psychologism. Experience is reviewed as the basis of
10 the cognizable and this, in turn, is conceived as being static, dynamic
11 or normative. The static is associated with the epic, the dynamic with
12 the lyrical and the normative with the dramatic, whilst – as in the
13 works of Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche and others – the tragic is praised
14 as the most essential form of the human being.36
15 Consequently, genre theory is not the ultimate goal of Spoerri’s Pr-
16 ludium. He aims to found a whole anthropology grounded on the un-
17 derstanding of the highest human art that is poetry. The result is illus-
18 trated in a table he calls ‘table of categories’ (“Kategorientafel”), alluding
19 to Kant:37 ‘the static man’ (“der statische Mensch”) is governed by his
20 intellect, his role is that of the bourgeois who counts on possession,
21 the machine, science, causality, security, bones and death; the ultimate
22 form of this type of human being is the Nietzschean ‘Herrenmensch’
23 (“Herrenmensch[]”).38 In contrast to him, ‘the dynamic man’ (“der dy-
24 namische Mensch”) behaves emotionally, adheres to Rousseau, roman-
25 tics, Nietzsche, plays the Don Juan character and lives a bohemian life.
26 His element is fluidity, the non-conceptual or ‘non-graspable’ (“Nicht-
27 Verfügbare”).39 ‘The normative man’ (“der normative Mensch”) repre-
28 sents a higher form than the two previously mentioned. He devotes
29 himself to a higher goal, believes in Paulus, combines the Latin Cathol-
30 icism of Pascal with the Protestant Kierkegaard and his interest in per-
31
32
33
34 34 Robert Hartl: Versuch einer psychologischen Grundlegung der DichtungsACHTUNGREar-
35 ACHTUNGREten. Vienna: Österreichischer Schulbuchverlag 1924 (Deutsche Kultur; Literar-
36 historische Reihe 2), p. III.
37 35 Ibid., pp. 111 f.
36 Spoerri (fn. 17), pp. 149 f.
38
37 Ibid. and passim; see the print section of this book.
39 38 See table.
40 39 Ibid.
1 sonality, searches for balance and the middle, is aware of a higher, reli-
2 gious meaning and unites all contradictions.40
3 In the form of a poetics Spoerri presents his anthropological, ethical
4 and religious confession which is grounded in love that ‘is nothing else
5 but a kind of existential yes-saying’ which distinguishes man and animal
6 and again refers to Nietzsche.41 Although souls are identical everywhere,
7 the anthropologist as well as the interpreter of an artwork must take into
8 account differences: firstly, the problem of history or the tension be-
9 tween the eternal creative and the historical concrete; secondly, the elit-
10 ist creation that is an artwork;42 thirdly, milieu and ‘moment’
11 (“Kairos”);43 fourthly, the dialectics of epochs. In mentioning these as-
12 pects Spoerri alludes to contemporaneous theories, yet he also excludes
13 and rejects some of them. The most important rejection is that of the
14 work of Josef Nadler and his concept of race which Spoerri harshly at-
15 tacks in a footnote. According to Spoerri, milieu is enough to cover all
16 the aspects which shape a person’s life and can only be controlled by the
17 relevant person to a minor degree (lifestyle, habits etc.).44 As a conse-
18
19 40 Ibid.
20 41 Ibid., p. 37: “Liebe ist nichts anderes als existentielles Ja-Sagen […].”
21 42 Ibid., p. 43: “Die Elite ist die schöpferische Schicht, die Masse der tragende
22 Unterbau. Geschichte ist zumeist Geschichte der Elite […].” / ‘The elite is
the creative class, the masses are the supporting foundation. History is mostly
23
history of the elite’.
24 43 On “Kairos” see also Richard Alewyn: Johann Beer: Studien zum Roman des
25 17. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: Mayer & Müller 1932; Klaus Garber: Kulturelle
26 Räume und präsentimentale Mentalität: Das Werk über Johann Beer und
27 den Roman des 17. Jahrhunderts. In: K.G. (ed.): Zum Bilde Richard Alewyns.
Munich: Fink 2005.
28
44 Spoerri (fn. 17), p. 44: “Es liegt kein Anlaß vor, den Begriff der Rasse vom Be-
29 griff des Milieus zu unterscheiden. Wer will den Anteil der Landschaft, der his-
30 torischen Tradition, der Sprache von dem Anteil der Stammesgewohnheiten
31 und der Blutmischung trennen.” / ‘There is no reason to distinguish the
32 term race from the term millieu. Who would want to separate the role of land-
scape, historical tradition, and language from the role of customs and habits and
33
the mixing of blood’. [fn. 1:] Josef Nadler “stellt beide Mächte zusammen im
34 Titel seines Monumentalwerkes: “Literaturgeschichte der deutschen Stämme
35 und Landschaften”. Vielfach ist das, was man auf den Einfluß der Rasse zurück-
36 führt, nicht anderes als Einfluß der Sprache. Der grobe Unfug, zu dem Begriffe
37 wie ‘esprit latin’ und ‘germanische Volksseele’ Anlaß gegeben haben, wäre
leicht in die gebührenden Schranken zurückzudämmen gewesen, wenn man
38
sich dessen bewußt gewesen wäre, daß damit nur die Besonderheiten der fran-
39 zösischen und deutschen Sprache gemeint sein können.” / ‘Nadler connects
40 both powers in the title in his monumental work []. Often that which one as-
1 quence, the concept of race strikes him as being misleading, referring to

2 a primitive biological layer only.
3 In 1943, Spoerri programmatically stresses: ‘Literaturwissenschaft is
4 philology and not history.’ In contrast to the Fascist usurpations of po-
5 etics, Spoerri restricts its task to the critique of style; history is but ‘a
6 mere auxiliary science’ (“Hilfswissenschaft”).45 Johannes Pfeiffer’s
7 work points in similar existentialist and anthropological directions, yet
8 his poetics proves to be more reflective of methodology as it is informed
9 by Heidegger and developed in the context of early 20th-century phe-
10 nomenology.
11
12
13 (b) Existentialist Poetics: Johannes Pfeiffer (1936)
14
15 Johannes Pfeiffer was born in Guatemala in 1902 (†1970) and studied
16 German, history of art and philosophy with Husserl, Heidegger, Her-
17 mann Nohl, Karl Jaspers and Friedrich Gundolf. He received his doc-
18 torate in Freiburg with Husserl and the latter’s former assistant Oskar
19
Becker whose role must not be underestimated: Becker focused on
20
the ontological explanation of aesthetic phenomena, aiming at a kind
21
of neo-romanticism with a distinct admiration for the artist as someone
22
who, through his achievement, unites all areas of life.46 Following Beck-
23
er’s approach, the title of Pfeiffer’s dissertation reads Das lyrische Gedicht
24
als sthetisches Gebilde (1931). Wanting to submit his ‘Habilitation’ to
25
26
27 cribes to the influence of race is nothing but the influence of language. The
nonsense which was created by terms such as ‘esprit latin’ and ‘soul of the Ger-
28
manic people’ could have been avoided had one known that these terms refered
29 only to the specifics of the German and the French language’.
30 45 Theophil Spoerri: Über Literaturwissenschaft und Literaturkritik. In: Trivium.
31 Schweizerische Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Stilkritik 1
32 (1943), pp. 1 – 43, pp. 2 f; see Ursula Amrein: Diskurs der Mitte: Antimoderne
Dichtungstheorien in der Schweizer Germanistik vor und nach 1945. In:
33
Schreiben gegen die Moderne: Beiträge zu einer kritischen Fachgeschichte
35 Zurich: Chronos 2001, pp. 43 – 64, p. 56.
36 46 The following information on Becker as well as on Pfeiffer’s discussion of Kla-
37 ges is taken from Otto Pöggeler: Romantische oder existentielle Deutung des
Dichterischen? Die unterdrückte Auseinandersetzung von Johannes Pfeiffer mit
38
Ludwig Klages. In: Perspektiven der Lebensphilosophie. Zum 125. Geburtstag
39 von Ludwig Klages, ed. by Michael Großheim. Bonn: Bouvier 1999 (Abhand-
40 lungen zur Philosophie, Psychologie und Pädagogik 253), pp. 157 – 168.
(b) Existentialist Poetics: Johannes Pfeiffer (1936) 229
1 that admirer of Heidegger Hermann Pongs at the technical university

2 Stuttgart,47 he was refused because of his lack of a national-socialist
3 mindset. This was a tragic event also because Becker and others wanted
4 Pfeiffer to continue with his ‘Habilitationsschrift’, designed to give a
5 proper account of Ludwig Klages’ work. Yet Pfeiffer had to give up
6 and became a teacher, free lance writer and private scholar in Bremen
7 where he focused on the works of Rudolph Alexander Schröder, Friedo
8 Lampe and (astonishingly) Hans Grimm, the SS-officer who was presi-
9 dent of the German academy of poetry during the Nazi-period. Fur-
10 thermore, Pfeiffer wrote an introduction to existentialism, inspired by
11 Christian ethics (Existenzphilosphie, 1933, 51966 under the title Existenz
12 und Offenbarung) as well as various poetological works: Umgang mit Dich-
13 tung (1936, 11th ed. 1967, Span. Mexico 1951, Portug. Lissabon 1966),
14
ber das Dichterische und die Dichtung (1956), Wege zur Dichtung (1952,
15 6
1969) and Was haben wir an der Dichtung? which includes a discussion
16
of Heidegger’s accounts of literature (1955, 31966).
17
Umgang mit Dichtung has become the most popular amongst Pfeiffer’s
18
poetological books and will therefore occupy a central role in this chap-
19
ter. In comparison with other poetics, the reason for the prominence of
20
this particular work might be that it offers an anti-psychologist, phe-
21
nomenological, existentialist, anthropological and moral account com-
22
23
bined with distinguished scholarship, which is easily understood. The
24
intellegibility is explained by the development of the Umgang: Pfeiffer’s
25
lectures at the ‘Volkshochschule Bremen’ (1934) were compiled into a
26
first book version in 1936 and revised later on.
27 The popular context in which the lectures were conceived proves to
28 be responsible also for the general theoretical framework of the Umgang.
29 Pfeiffer warns his reader to stay away from two theoretical vices: ‘dilet-
30 tanism’, the pure interest in a topic, and ‘aestheticism’, pure formal in-
31
32
33
34 47 On Pongs and his four-volume literary theory “Das Bild in der Dichtung” see
35 Sandra Richter: Wie kam das Bild in die Lyriktheorie? Präliminarien zu einer
36 visuellen Theorie der Lyrik. In: Das lyrische Bild, ed. by Nina Herres, Csongor
37 Lörincz and Ralf Simon. Munich: Fink (forthcoming). Pongs’ theory is prob-
lematic in two respects: firstly, Pongs builds his theory on a vague notion of the
38
image which becomes identical with ‘existence’. Secondly, especially the sec-
39 ond volume is marked by a considerable move toward National Socialism
40 and theories of race and blood.
1 terest.48 The correct professional interpretation ought to be informative

2 regarding both areas, thereby uncovering the ‘truth’ of a work of art.
3 With the help of one method this truth can be grasped: ‘a compassion-
4 ate attentiveness’ (“ein[em] teilnehmende[n] und mitschwingende[n]
5 Fühlen”),49 a professional participation and sentiment. As this might
6 sound contradictory, Pfeiffer’s explanation of poetry is designed to
7 give some evidence for his methodological preference. The method
8 of professional sentiment is justified thus:
9 ‘if poetry consists of sonic matters, its rhythmic-melodic creative
10 force is decisive and crucial; if poetry consists of meaning matters, its
11 metamorphic powers are decisive and crucial; as rhythmic-resonating
12 and melodic-sounding and poetic language it has the power to proclaim
13 an essentual atmospheric sense, as a language structured into sentences
14
that is meaningful and representational it has the power to evoke an
15
image suffused with atmospheric mood and flow.’50
16
What amounts to a holistic understanding of poetry, discloses its
17
Nietzschean roots. Pfeiffer conceives of two spheres which mutually in-
18
fluence each other: the sphere of melody and rhythm, the ‘Dionysian’
19
sphere which articulates a (‘basic Stimmung’) “Grundstimmung” and
20
the ‘Apollonian’ sphere which is governed by objects, grammar, clear
21
structure and amounts to pictures.51 Although both spheres appear to
22
23
be separated, Pfeiffer points to overlaps: it can be that the “Grundstim-
24
mung” develops types of “Stimmung” which are not that basic but
25
closely interwoven with grammar and clear structure (“stimmungs-
26
durchtränkt”). In short: “Stimmung” is the underlying rhythm of poet-
27 ry – and a mode of being as such – which discloses itself in degrees.
28 Pfeiffer’s poetics participates in the popularity of “Stimmung” in the cir-
29
30
31 48 Johannes Pfeiffer: Umgang mit Dichtung: Eine Einführung in das Verständnis
32 des Dichterischen. Leipzig: Meiner 1947 [Veröffentlicht unter der Lizenz
Nr. 162 der Sowjetischen Militärverwaltung in Deutschland].
33
49 Ibid., pp. 9 f.
34 50 Ibid., pp. 23 f: “[…] insofern Dichtung gefügt ist aus Schallmasse, ist entschei-
35 dend ihre rhythmisch-melodische Gestaltungskraft, insofern Dichtung gefügt ist
36 aus Bedeutungsmasse, ist entscheidend ihre Verwandlungskraft; als rhythmisch-
37 schwingende und melodisch-klingende und dichterische Sprache die Kraft,
eine zuständliche Grundstimmung zu verlautbaren, als satzmäßig-gegliederte
38
und gegenständlich-meinende hat dichterische Sprache die Kraft, ein stim-
39 mungsdurchtränktes und von Bewegung durchströmtes Bild zu beschwören.”
40 51 Ibid.
(b) Existentialist Poetics: Johannes Pfeiffer (1936) 231
1 cle of Husserl and later of Heidegger.52 “Stimmung” is an existential

2 category, an essential moment of there-being that is the reflection of
3 being.
4 As a consequence, Pfeiffer concludes that the more of the underly-
5 ing rhythm an interpretation discloses the better it is. In turn, the same is
6 true for poetry: the more “Stimmung” poetry mediates the better the
7 relevant work is. “Stimmung” expresses ‘inner truth’ (“innere Wahr-
8 heit”) – an idea which Pfeiffer explains with the help of Heidegger’s
9 work and early existentialism: Heidegger speaks of the investigative
10 force (“erschließende Kraft”), Jaspers of ‘illuminatory powers’ (“Erhel-
11 lungskraft”) of “Stimmung” as far as ‘inner truth’ is concerned.53 ‘Inner
12 truth’ means ‘to be real’ on the one hand, to demand something on the
13 other. It is ‘inner truth’ that is illustrated not only in the beautiful but
14
‘meaningful form’ (“‘bedeutsame’ Form”) of poetry.54 In Pfeiffer’s
15
words: poetry is ‘a harmonious illumination of the essence and the sym-
16
bolic accumulation of Being in the realm of creative language’ (“stim-
17
mungshafte Wesenserhellung und sinnbildliche Seinsverdichtung im
18
Medium gestaltender Sprache”),55 a concept Pfeiffer proves with exam-
19
ples from Claudius, George, Trakl, Rilke and Rudolph Alexander
20
Schröder.
21
Pfeiffer reveals his Heideggerian and existentialist concept of poetry
22
23
in his various writings, for instance in his collection of essays Die dichteri-
24
sche Wirklichkeit (1962). From the contemporaneous background of
25
emerging literary theories such as Marxism, a ‘slowly developing disease’
26
(“schleichende[] Krankheit[]”) that does not allow for correct interpre-
27 tation,56 Pfeiffer draws a picture of decadence. He urges the reader to
28 stay faithful to ‘the only true’ understanding of art according to which
29 interpretation must serve the work of art. With Richard Alewyn’s
30 key term “Kairos”, Pfeiffer describes interpretation as a fruitful and
31 rare moment,57 a moment that needs to be accompanied by a ‘judging
32
33
52 See David Wellbery: Stimmung. In: Historisches Wörterbuch ästhetischer
34 Grundbegriffe, ed. by Karlheinz Barck [et al.], Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler
35 2003, vol. 5., pp. 703 – 33, pp. 724 – 726.
36 53 Pfeiffer 1947 (fn. 48), p. 40.
37 54 Ibid., p. 69.
55 Ibid., p. 90.
38
56 Johannes Pfeiffer: Die dichterische Wirklichkeit: Versuche über Wesen und
39 Wahrheit der Dichtung. Hamburg: Meiner 1956, p. 10.
40 57 See Alewyn, Garber (fn. 43).
1 appreciation’ (“wertendes Verständnis”) of poetry.58 It is not by mere

2 accident that Pfeiffer thinks highly of Theophil Spoerri’s Der Weg zur
3 Form (1954) and Hugo Friedrich’s Die Struktur der modernen Lyrik
4 (1956). Spoerri is said to have developed a coherent and holistic under-
5 standing of form as a “gesamtmenschlicher Vorgang” and to have elabo-
6 rated on three major functions of poetry: ‘the changing of the world,
7 the moving of the soul, the determination/judgement of the mind’
8 (“die Verwandlung der Welt; die Bewegung der Seele; die Entschei-
9 dung des Geistes”).59 Friedrich instead highlights the main problems
10 of modern poetry whereby his examination – perhaps against the inten-
11 tion of Friedrich himself – is seen as an ‘appeal’ (“Appell”) for moderate
12 and sensitive writing which not only focuses on formal plays.60
13 A similar positive approach can be seen from Pfeiffer’s attempt to go
14 beyond Heidegger’s thinking and to rediscover the magic in poetry
15 through a romantic and existentialist reading of Klages in 1951: Pfeiffer
16 esteems Klages’ more or less immanent poetics because they expand on
17 the romantic view that poets have a privileged access to original lan-
18 guage and to ‘original song’ (“Urlied”), the source of all poetic
19 forms.61 According to Klages, the poet’s ‘looking’ enables him to
20 write; the original picture as well as the original song move away and
21 he is left alone, attempting to testify to the cosmic vision he has seen.
22
Still, Pfeiffer remains critical; he stresses that Klages’ understanding of
23
the process of poetic production lacks the sensibility for the experience
24
of transcendence and trusts too openly in the calling by the muses.
25
To conclude, Pfeiffer proved to be one of the minor thinkers in the
26
area of poetics who was, nevertheless, well-informed by contemporary
27
research and able to consider it in a most creative and popular way. In
28
his work he transforms Husserl’s as well as Heidegger’s philosophies into
29
an existentialist framework for interpretation and examines the ideas of
30
Jaspers, Kierkegaard and Klages as well. As a result, poetry is understood
31
as an art work which carefully balances irrational and rational elements,
32
“Stimmung” and image; it goes beyond the everyday actuality and can
33
only be understood by readers who really engage with poetry. Conse-
34
quently, Pfeiffer does not entirely renounce psychologism: it is the writ-
35
36
er’s and the reader’s psyche that count when either producing or inter-
37
58 Pfeiffer 1956 (fn. 56), p. 9.
38
59 Ibid., p. 15.
39 60 Ibid., p. 19.
40 61 See Pöggeler: Romantische oder existentielle Deutung (fn. 46), pp. 160 – 168.
(c) Anthropological Poetics in Refined Genre Theory 233
1 preting poetry. Although one might be critical of this approach to Josef

2 Weinheber,62 it is fair to note that Pfeiffer, being a teacher at popular
3 schools, had little chance to introduce more advanced and formalist
4 models into poetics. And yet he found himself in the avantgarde main-
5 stream of contemporary poetological writing.
6
7
8 (c) Anthropological Poetics in Refined Genre Theory:
9 Emil Staiger (1939/1946)
10
11 In contrast to Pfeiffer, Emil Staiger (1908 – 1987) had an impressive ca-
12 reer which was, however, to be characterised by the typical scheme of
13 ‘rise and fall’. In the 1940s and 50s Staiger was praised as the most in-
14 novative poetological thinker whose books were among the most pop-
15 ular. In the 1960s he, together with Ermatinger and Faesi, and in oppo-
16 sition to the younger Adolf Muschg, shaped the anti-modern climate of
17 Swiss German studies,63 although Staiger, by raising phenomenologist
18 and existential ideas, contested Ermatinger and Faesi to a certain ex-
19 tent.64 In the late 1960s Staiger’s works dramatically lost the canonical
20 status they had achieved in the 1940s and 50s.65
21 The first and obvious explanation for this is the so-called ‘Zürcher
22 Literaturstreit’ which started with Staiger’s speech Literatur und ffent-
23 ACHTUNGRElichkeit (1966, Schauspielhaus Zurich) when he received the Zurich lit-
24 erature award. Attacking and misinterpreting the attempts of modern
25 literature (especially Peter Weiss) Staiger stressed some old classicist
26 and neo-humanist rules: that the aesthetical value and morality of an au-
27 thor have a close relation to each other, that morality must be part of the
28
29 62 Friedrich Jenaczek: Josef Weinheber: “Notturno”. Anmerkungen zu Leistung
30 und Grenzen des Literaturpädagogen Johannes Pfeiffer. In: Jahrbuch des Wie-
31 ner Goethe-Vereins 86 – 88 (1982 – 1984), pp. 361 – 385, p. 381.
32 63 André Bucher: Zur Rezeption der klassischen Moderne in der Schweizer Ger-
manistik: Untersuchungen zu Ermatinger, Faesi, Muschg und Staiger. In:
33
35 Zurich: Chronos 2001, pp. 65 – 83, pp. 77 – 81.
36 64 Max Wehrli: Germanistik in der Schweiz 1933 – 1945 [1993]. In: M.W., Ge-
37 genwart und Erinnerung. Gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. by Fritz Wagner, Wolf-
gang Maaz. Hildesheim, Zurich: Weidmann 1998 (Spolia Berolinensia 12),
38
pp. 307 – 320, p. 319.
39 65 Heinz Schlaffer: Emil Staigers “Grundbegriffe der Poetik”. In: Monatshefte 95
40 (2003) 1, pp. 1 – 5, p. 2.
1 opus’ content and, as a consequence, that modern literature which con-

2 tests bourgeois values lacks morality. The public, even the Pen-centre in
3 Darmstadt and Germanist Associations opposed Staiger and his polem-
4 ics.66 Although the dispute was over by 1968, Staiger became the coun-
5 ter-image of the student movement and of the new generation of Ger-
6 manists.67
7 Still, this does not explain why Staiger’s central ideas are neglected
8 today.68 The second reason for Staiger’s fall lies deeper, in the renewed
9 general development of ‘literary science’ into a scientific, objectivied
10 field of study where social history plays the most important role, an ac-
11 count which is often combined with a certain contempt for the classicist
12 values of the ‘Bildungsbürger’ advocated at least by the late Staiger.69
13 For Max Wehrli, the ‘LiACHTUNGREteraturstreit’ marks the journey from the re-
14 stricted methods of formal, immanent interpretation to new shores.70
15 Staiger’s ideas did not meet the new criteria. He, not only in the ‘Li-
16 ACHTUNGREteraturstreit’ but also in his poetological books, relies on a more or
17 less intuitive approach. It is grounded in the critique of style and the
18 ‘close reading’ of authors like Horace, Goethe and Mörike.71 This ap-
19
20
21 66 A documentation of this process is to be found in Robert Weninger: Streitbare
22 Literaten: Kontroversen und Eklats in der deutschen Literatur von Adorno bis
Walser. Munich: Beck 2004, pp. 68 – 83; on Staiger’s polemics Yvonne Wüb-
23
ben: Propaganda, polemisch: Zur Aktualität von Emil Staigers Stilkritik. In:
24 Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes: Klassiker der Germanistik.
25 Local Heroes in Zeiten des Global Thinking, ed. by Petra Boden and Uwe
26 Wirth 53 (2006) 1, pp. 60 – 72.
27 67 Therefore, Michael Böhler reflects on the minimal impact of the ‘Zürcher Li-
ACHTUNGREteraturstreit’, see M.B.: Der ‘neue’ Zürcher Literaturstreit: Bilanz nach zwanzig
28
Jahren. In: Formen und Formgeschichte des Streitens. Der Literaturstreit, ed.
29 by Franz-Josef Worstbrock and Helmut Koopmann, vol. 2: Kontroversen,
30 alte und neue, ed. by Albrecht Schöne. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1986 (Akten
31 des 7. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses, Göttingen 1985), pp. 250 –
32 262.
68 See Böhler, Der ‘neue’ Zürcher Literaturstreit (fn. 67), p. 254.
33
69 Georg Bollenbeck: Vom allmählichen Abhandenkommen des Platzierungs-
34 sinns: Denkstil und Resonanzkalkül in ‘verteilersprachlichen’ Texten Emil
35 Staigers. In: Semantischer Umbau der Geisteswissenschaften nach 1933 und
36 1945, ed. by Georg Bollenbeck and Clemens Knobloch. Heidelberg: Winter
37 2001, pp. 132 – 157.
70 Ibid., pp. 256 f.
38
71 This is stressed as Staiger’s genuine poetic approach; see Bernhard Böschen-
39 stein: Emil Staigers “Grundbegriffe”: ihre romantischen und klassischen Ur-
40 sprünge. In: Zeitenwechsel Germanistische Literaturwissenschaft vor und
1 proach is legitimised through the works of Hefele, Spoerri, and Pfeiffer

2 in adopting the theories of Husserl and Heidegger. Following this tra-
3 dition, anthropology constitutes the main aim of Staiger’s poetics;
4 therefore, current research again, but hesitantly recommends Staiger’s
5 poetics as a historical document worth reading on the issue.72 Doubts
6 touch on Staiger’s method which is characterised by paraphrase instead
7 of interpretation and by the lack of clear concepts – Heinz Schlaffer de-
8 scribes Staiger’s Grundbegriffe der Poetik as ‘more basis than concept’
9 (“mehr Grund als Begriff”).73 Still, Schlaffer argues, one ought to take
10 into account that Staiger writes for the educated public and not only
11 for students or colleagues; books like the Grundbegriffe (and with them
12 all poetics written before 1968) matter not only in the history of science
13 but also in the history of education.74
14
Nevertheless, Staiger sets himself ambitious theoretical goals. They
15
originate, in part, in his reading of Heidegger. Staiger reported that
16
he was fascinated by the powerful language of Sein und Zeit and highly
17
impressed by the account of ontology, which rejects psychologism in fa-
18
vour of phenomenology.75 The two theoretical works he published
19
both demonstrate that he adheres to this general anti-psychologist Hei-
20
deggerian framework.
21
Die Zeit als Einbildungskraft des Dichters (1939, 21953) is not a com-
22
23
prehensive poetics but an approach focused on the problem of time, as
24
one would suspect given that it was inspired by Heidegger’s Being and
25
Time. The book is divided into three chapters: ‘the tearing time’
26
(“Die reißende Zeit”/ Brentano), ‘the instant’ (“Der Augenblick”/
27 Goethe), ‘the quiet time’ (“Die ruhende Zeit”/ Keller) each of which
28 depicts a form of expressiveness for an author. Like Heidegger, Staiger
29
30 nach 1945, ed. by Wilfried Barner and Christoph König. Frankfurt a. M.:
31 Fischer 1996, pp. 268 – 281.
32 72 Schlaffer: Staigers “Grundbegriffe”; Fritz Breithaupt: Emil Staiger und das An-
thropologische. In: Monatshefte 95 (2003) 1, pp. 6 – 13.
33
73 Schlaffer: Staigers “Grundbegriffe” (fn. 72), p. 3.
34 74 Ibid., p. 2. This is also true for Staiger’s famous methodological article “Die
35 Kunst der Interpretation” (1951); see Volker Ladenthin: Legitimation von
36 Wissenschaft: Emil Staigers Aufsatz “Die Kunst der Interpretation” als Paradig-
37 ma. In: 1955 2005: Emil Staiger und “Die Kunst der Interpretation” heute,
ed. by Joachim Rickes, Volker Ladenthin and Michael Baum. Bern [et al.]:
38
Lang 2007 (Publikationen zur Zeitschrift für Germanistik 16), pp. 135 154.
39 75 Emil Staiger: Ein Rückblick. In: Heidegger, Perspektiven zur Deutung seines
40 Werks, ed. by Otto Pöggeler. Königstein/Ts.: Athenäum, 1984, pp. 242 – 245.
1 claims that ‘there-being’ reveals itself in the way the individual author
2 deals with the most demanding issues of existence: time and death.
3 Staiger’s theory behind these assumptions is independent of Heideg-
4 ger’s work. The philologist claims that the history of literature, his dis-
5 cipline of reference, contributes as an independent science to ‘general
6 anthropology’ (“allgemeine Anthropologie”), the science that asks the
7 basic question ‘What is the human being?’ (“Was ist der Mensch?”).76
8 Staiger obviously follows in Spoerri’s footsteps in this regard but he
9 also alludes to other, well-known theorists such as Wilhelm Scherer,
10 thereby combining different poetological traditions. Scherer is (slightly
11 deviating from the original) quoted as the authority on the history of lit-
12 erature, formulating its key questions thus: ‘the experienced, the learnt,
13 the inherited’ (“Erlebtes, Erlerntes, Ererbtes”).77 These concepts are said
14 to still be able to cover the subject’s main questions.
15 Staiger is critical only as far as ‘the learnt’ is concerned. Firstly,
16 knowledge in literature is difficult to discover as literature contains
17 only vague utterances and minor knowledge-claims. Secondly, learning
18 can itself be the object of literature, and in this respect the ‘learnt’ is to
19 be regarded as a valuable object of poetics.
20 The ‘inherited’ brings a more positive attitude to light: despite the
21 fact that the question of heritage poses a challenge to the study of liter-
22 ature, it is a question worth asking in a most subtle way. Literature and
23 the area of ‘Geist’ in total are to be attributed a certain autonomy.78
24 Therefore, Nadler’s biological or geopolitical approach is inappropriate;
25 the beautiful cannot be considered as a mere product of unconcious ex-
26 ternal effects. As a consequence one cannot, Staiger argues in Spoerri’s
27 footsteps explain ‘Geist’ but only describe poetry (rhythm, grammar,
28 rhyme, sound, choice of words) or imitate it. Heidegger’s thinking is
29
30 76 Emil Staiger: Die Zeit als Einbildungskraft des Dichters: Untersuchungen zu
31 Gedichten von Brentano, Goethe und Keller. Zurich: Atlantis 1953 (1st
32 ed. 1939), p. 9.
77 The famous formula of the “Ererbte, Erlebte und Erlernte” originates in Scher-
33
er’s publications on Goethe: Aufsätze über Goethe, ed. Erich Schmidt. Berlin:
34 Weidmann 1886, p. 15; Wolfgang Höppner: Das “Ererbte, Erlebte und Er-
35 lernte” im Werk Wilhelm Scherers: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Germanis-
36 tik. Cologne [et al.]: Böhlau 1993 (Europäische Kulturstudien; Literatur –
37 Musik – Kunst im historischen Kontext 5), p. 127.
78 Staiger: Die Zeit (fn. 76), p. 13: “Der Geist aber hat unbeschadet seines Aus-
38
ruhens und seiner Daseinsabhängigkeit den Charakter der vollsten EigengeACHTUNGREsetz-
39 ACHTUNGRElichkeit.” / ‘The mind has the character of fullest inner legality, independent
40 from its repose and right to exist’
1 played off against that of Nadler when Staiger introduces the idea of the
2 hermeneutic circle.79 ‘Cautiousness’ (“Behutsamkeit”) 80 is to serve as a
3 guide for the interpretation of literature. Hence, Staiger expands on
4 the expression of the existential structure of there-being, ‘deriving [it]
5 from the things themselves’ (“aus den Sachen selbst”) – a demand to
6 which Staiger adds an exclamation mark.81 Like Heidegger Staiger
7 claims that ‘there-being’ is already there, in the literary work, and
8 needs to be revealed:82
9 ‘Then he [the philologist] examines poetry itself, not something that
10 lies behind it [!]. Then he wants to comprehend what apprehends him,
11 not what becomes visible only if the poetic vanishes.’83
12 The last sentence of this Heideggerian, yet simultaneously non-Hei-
13 deggerian statement has become famous for the abbreviation ‘compre-
14
hend that which apprehends us’ (“begreifen, was uns ergreift”), the for-
15
mula of intuitive poetics from the 1930s until the 1950s.
16
It follows as natural that Scherer’s ‘Experienced’ (“Erlebtes”) strikes
17
Staiger as constituting the most important aspect of the interpretation.
18
Staiger emphatically quotes Ermatinger’s title Das Erlebnis und die Dich-
19
tung and combines it with a reference to Gundolf, as both focus on ty-
20
pologies of experience. Yet Staiger, with a slightly rigid constructivist
21
objection (before the emergence of constructivism as a definite tenden-
22
23
cy of thought), argues: ‘The world that is not yet experienced by the
24
one that is experiencing cannot be imagined at all.’84 The world is
25
only a bundle of characteristics imagined by the poet anyway; in
26
27 79 Staiger: Die Zeit (fn. 76), p. 13; on Staiger’s reception of Heidegger’s herme-
neutics cf. Andrea Polaschegg: Tigersprünge in den hermeneutischen Zirkel
28
oder Gedichte nicht verstehen: Gattungspoetische Überlegungen (lange) nach
29 Emil Staiger. In: 1955 2005: Emil Staiger und “Die Kunst der Interpretation”
30 heute, ed. by Joachim Rickes, Volker Ladenthin and Michael Baum. Bern [et
31 al.]: Lang 2007 (Publikationen zur Zeitschrift für Germanistik 16), pp. 87 109.
32 80 Staiger: Die Zeit (fn. 76), p. 17.
81 Martin Heidegger: Sein und Zeit. Halle a. d. S.: Niemeyer 1927, p. 153; Staig-
33
er: Die Zeit (fn. 76), p. 18.
34 82 Heidegger (ibid., p. 28) uses the reflexive Greek verb va¸meshai (‘to show it-
35 self’) in order to explain his understanding that a phenomen is what reveals it-
36 self.
37 83 Staiger: Die Zeit (fn. 76), p. 15: “Dann untersucht er die Dichtung selbst, nicht
etwas, das dahinter liegt. Dann will er begreifen, was ihn ergreift, nicht was ihm
38
erst sichtbar wird, sobald das Dichterische verblasst.”
39 84 Ibid., p. 14: “Die Welt, die dem Erlebenden noch unerlebt gegeben sein soll,
40 ist überhaupt nicht vorstellbar.”
1 turn, the concept of experience becomes superfluous. The notion of ex-

2 perience is – as in Ermatinger’s work – only regarded as taking a circu-
3 itous route to the poet’s world.
4 Die Zeit soon received enthusiastic reviews and references. To quote
5 only two of the most famous ones, Julius Petersen praises ‘this hightly
6 accomplished and sensitively written book’ (“dieses hochkultivierte,
7 feinfühlige Buch”),85 and still in the early 1950s the critical Max Wehrli
8 writes the following astonishing sentences:
9 ‘Presumably since the time of idealism the most cohesive and com-
10 pact but also the most audacious beginnings for a poetics emerged where
11 their categories and terms are no longer of eclectic or accidentally em-
12 piric origins, but where they have a systematic and philosophic substan-
13 tiation.’86
14 The systematic and philosophical order of Staiger’s work was appre-
15
ciated during the 1950s, but was heavily criticized by the next genera-
16
tion. This criticism mostly ignores Die Zeit and focuses on the Grundbe-
17
griffe der Poetik (1946), translated only late in 1991 as Basic Concepts of Po-
18
etry (published by the University of Pennsylvania Press). If Die Zeit is to
19
be regarded as a preparatory work; the Grundbegriffe is expected to pro-
20
vide a fully-fledged poetics.
21
Poetics, according to Staiger, no longer refers to a practical doctrine
22
but rather pays tribute to the differentiation of literature. In order not to
23
reduce individual phenomena to patterns, poetics is inclined to refuse
24
25
systems. Still, every true work of poetry participates in literary character-
26
istics and types often specified as ‘genre’.87 As a consequence, a determi-
27
nation of the lyric, the epic and the dramatic should be possible. These
28
concepts refer to essential qualities of literature, for Husserl they refer to
29
its ‘ideal meaning’ (“ideale Bedeutung”) and it is the idea, the ‘basic
30 concept’, the essential quality that counts even in the individual expres-
31
32
85 Julius Petersen: Die Wissenschaft von der Dichtung: System und Methoden-
33
lehre der Literaturwissenschaft. With contributions from the bequested papers
34 ed. by Erich Trunz. 2nd ed. Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt 1944, pp. 490 f.
35 86 Max Wehrli: Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft. Bern: Francke 1951, 2nd
36 ed. 1969 (Wissenschaftliche Forschungsberichte; Geisteswissenschaftliche
37 Reihe 3), p. 62: “Es sind wohl seit den Zeiten des Idealismus die geschlossens-
ten, wenn auch kühnsten Ansätze zu einer Poetik, deren Kategorien und Ter-
38
mini nicht mehr eklektischen oder zufällig empirischen Ursprungs sind, son-
39 dern eine systematisch-philosophische Begründung haben.”
40 87 Staiger: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. Zurich: Atlantis 1946, p. 10.
1 sion.88 Therefore, Staiger claims to espouse a ‘fundamental poetics’

2 (“Fundamentalpoetik”) which is said to contribute to ‘philosophical an-
3 thropology’ (“philosophische Anthropologie”),89 although, as is admit-
4 ted at the end of the Grundbegriffe, fundamental poetics will remain a
5 philosophical ‘propaedeutic’ (“Propädeutik”) as it can only prepare fur-
6 ther systematic and historical investigation.90 The whole account is rem-
7 iniscent of Spoerri although the concrete realisation is different.
8 What should be regarded as the essence of genre or the ‘ideal mean-
9 ing’? Staiger, again, refers to Heidegger. Genre concepts reveal them-
10 selves as ‘literary scientist’s names for possibilities of human there-
11 being’.91 The approach is similar to Die Zeit although the ultimate
12 goal is different. Heidegger’s Being and Time again opens up manifold
13 possibilities of combining phenomenological ontology and poetics.
14 The analysis of style, the way to deal with time and death, is used to dis-
15 tinguish not only the style of individual poets but also genre concepts:
16
the ‘fundamental existential’ (“fundamentales Existential”) expresses it-
17
self in dramatic style,92 ‘existential orientation and mood’ (“Befindlich-
18
keit oder Stimmung”) expresses itself in lyric poetry,93 ‘decaying’ (“Ver-
19
fallen”) produces epic poetry.94 The triade itself is grounded in Heideg-
20
ger’s three-dimensional time: ‘the lyric there-being remembers, the epic
21
envisions, the dramatic drafts’.95
22
Staiger explains these concepts in great detail,96 constructing abstract
23
analogies as Spoerri had done before – both claim that the dramatic is
24
the form in which all stages realised themselves. The “Stufenfolge”
25
26
(‘graduation of stages’) syllable – word – sentence, corresponds to Cas-
27
88 Edmund Husserl: Logische Untersuchungen. 4th ed. Halle: Niemeyer 1928,
28
vol. II,1, pp. 91 f; Staiger: Grundbegriffe (fn. 87) , p. 9.
29 89 Ibid., p. 12.
30 90 Ibid., p. 232.
31 91 Ibid., p. 237: “[…] da sich die Gattungsbegriffe als literaturwissenschaftliche
32 Namen für Möglichkeiten des menschlichen Daseins enthüllten […].”
92 Ibid., p. 238.
33
93 Ibid.
34 94 Ibid.: “Entwerfen, Befindlichkeit und Verfallen konstituieren zusammen die
35 ‘Sorge’, womit in ‘Sein und Zeit’ noch das Sein des Menschen als Zeit bezeich-
36 net wird.” / ‘Devising, mental state, and degeneration constitute the notion of
37 concern’.
95 Staiger: Grundbegriffe (fn. 87), p. 234: “das lyrische Dasein erinnert, das epis-
38
che vergegenwärtigt, das dramatische entwirft.”
39 96 See the helpful overview in Fritz Breithaupt: Emil Staiger und das Anthropo-
40 logische. In: Monatshefte 95 (2003) 1, pp. 6 – 13, p. 10.
1 sirer’s doctrine of the stages of language: firstly, language passes through

2 a phase of sensual expression (the lyric), then it becomes a demonstrative
3 expression (the epic) and, last but not least, an expression of conceptual
4 thinking (the dramatic).97 Other “Stufenfolgen” Staiger mentions con-
5 cern the becoming-of-the-subject of the human being: childhood
6 (the lyric), youth (the epic), maturity (the dramatic) 98 as well as the
7 stages of ‘perceiving-illustrating-proving’ (“Fühlen – Zeigen – Bewei-
8 ACHTUNGREsen”).99
9 The Nachwort (given as a lecture at Oxford University in 1948,
10 printed in the second edition of the Grundbegriffe in 1951) is designed
11 to justify the risky but traditional approach of the book. Thereby, Staig-
12 er stresses two aspects which are worth noting: firstly, he claims that the
13 old genre theory has lost its foundation and that only adjectives, names
14
for qualities, would be adequate to denote what is left of traditional gen-
15
res. Secondly, Staiger opposes simple ‘picturebook-phenomenology’
16
(“Bilderbuchphänomenologie”, Max Scheler) 100 and highlights his at-
17
tempt to describe the essence of the human being by providing an
18
up-to-date and fundamental understanding of the work of art with
19
words, which expresses ‘the purest being of humankind’ (“das reinste
20
Sein des Menschen”).101
21
In the Nachwort Staiger stresses the main aims of his poetics which
22
23
are – to some extent – grounded in Heidegger’s work. If in Die Zeit
24
Heidegger’s remarks on time are directly applied to literature, Staiger’s
25
Grundbegriffe develops Being and Time further: literature represents
26
‘there-being’; the philologist need do no more than reveal the ‘oeuvre’
27 itself. It is not by mere accident that Staiger in Grundbegriffe moves away
28 from Heidegger’s thinking a little more. From this point on, Staiger
29 constructs analogies in order to deal with the difficult issue of genre
30
31 97 Ernst Cassirer: Philosophie der symbolischen Formen. part 1. Berlin 1923;
32 Staiger: Grundbegriffe (fn. 87), p. 224. On Cassirer Sebastian Luft: Cassirer’s
Philosophy of Symbolic Forms: Between Reason and Relativism; a Critical
33
Appraisal. In: Idealistic Studies 34 (2004) 1, pp. 25 – 47; Roger H. Stephenson:
34 The Aesthetics of Weimar Classicism, Ernst Cassirer and the German Tradition
35 of Thought. In: Publications of the English Goethe Society 74 (2005), pp. 67 –
36 82.
37 98 Staiger: Grundbegriffe (fn. 87), p. 226.
99 Ibid., p. 227.
38
100 Staiger: Nachwort. In: Grundbegriff der Poetik. 2nd ed. Zurich: Atlantis 1951,
39 pp. 235 – 263, pp. 259 f.
40 101 Ibid., p. 237.
1 concepts which are now turned into anthropological ideas. It is this ap-
2 proach which guarantees Staiger’s continued impact not only in the
3 1950 s and 60 s but also in today’s biopoetics.102
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 102 See, for instance, Katja Mellmann’s contribution in which she defends Staiger’s
approach on tension against his critics; K.M.: Vorschlag zu einer emotionspsy-
38
chologischen Bestimmung von ‘Spannung’. In: Im Rücken der Kulturen, ed.
39 by Karl Eibl, K.M. and Rüdiger Zymner. Paderborn: Mentis 2007, pp. 241 –
40 268, pp. 242 f.
1
2
3
4 12. The After-Life of the ‘Artwork of Language’
5 (“Sprachkunstwerk”)
6
7
8
One of the ideas most relevant in the 1950s (but considerably less in the
9
60s) was the conceptualisation of the ‘artwork of words’ as presented by
10
Theodor A. Meyer, Walzel and others. Poetological writings actualised
11
the accounts handed down to them: Wolfgang Kayser, for instance,
12
presents an inspiring amalgamation of the most innovative theories
13
known up until 1948 (a). In contrast to Kayser, Herbert Seidler, aims
14
to rediscover stylistics in order to develop a normative aesthetics of lit-
15
erature (b).
16
17
18
19
(a) The Great Amalgamation: Wolfgang Kayser (1948)
20
Wolfgang Kayser (1906 – 1960), studied German, history, philosophy
21
and English in Berlin. He wrote his doctoral thesis on Harsdörffer
22
23
and his ‘Habilitation’ on the ballad, both works were supervised by Ju-
24
lius Petersen. Having been appointed ‘Lektor’ in Denmark and later in
25
Lisbon he became influential both in Germany and abroad. In 1949
26
Kayser received a calling to Göttingen University and then a guest pro-
27
fessorship in Zagreb (1954, 1957) as well as in Harvard (1955/56); he
28
refused offers of professorships in Cologne and Berlin.1
29
Kayser is especially famous for one book: Das sprachliche Kunstwerk
30 (1948) which serves as an introduction to literary studies. With twenty
31 more or less unrevised reeditions appearing up until 1992,2 it is probably
32 the most popular introduction to literary studies that has ever been pub-
33 lished. Yet it is more than an introduction of the type which is con-
34 cerned with the current methodologies or with the rhetorical tools of
35 literary studies. Das sprachliche Kunstwerk, mentioning the ‘artwork’ al-
36
37 1 Teresa Seruya: Kayser, Wolfgang. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon
1800 – 1950, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2003,
38
vol. 2, pp. 904 – 906.
39 2 Until the 16th edition, the bibliographies are carried further; they then re-
40 mained the same from the 16th to the 20th editions.
(a) The Great Amalgamation: Wolfgang Kayser (1948) 243
1 ready in its title, stresses the artificial aspect of poetry and, therefore, in-
2 tends to provide a kind of salvation for poetics. Poetics, in turn, is un-
3 derstood as the theory of literature which examines poetry as art and re-
4 fuses to reduce poetry to a mere product of its context or to disregard
5 the characteristic features of a literary text.
6 This type of literary study has polemically been named “Werkim-
7 menanz”, a somewhat misguiding title for a widespread set of methodo-
8 logical accounts from the 1940s to the 1960s.3 Kayser’s broad under-
9 standing of literature and the fact that he does not draw clear distinctions
10 from what might be called ‘belles lettres’ (which include non-literary
11 texts, e. g. on philosophical issues) contradicts any notion of “Werkim-
12 manenz”. Furthermore, the methodological interest of Das sprachliche
13 Kunstwerk, the fact that it introduces different ‘work methods’ (“Arbeits-
14 weisen”) of ‘Literaturwissenschaft’, complements this impression.4 In
15
Kayser’s case, only one feature associated with “Werkimmanenz” is cor-
16
rect: the recognition of the artwork as such.
17
Kayser pursues one goal wherein the original character of his book
18
lies: he aims at examining ‘poetry as linguistic artwork’ (“Dichtung als
19
sprachliches Kunstwerk”).5 In contrast to Ingarden and others he does
20
not use the word ‘word’ to describe the artwork but insists on language.
21
This shift may already signal how aware Kayser was of an emerging field
22
of study: linguistics, or, philosophy of language. The most important
23
task for research, Kayser writes, is to determine the linguistic forces
24
that are effective in a poetic work.
25
26
Yet he shares the assumption with Ingarden that poetry does not live
27
and does not originate as a ‘reflection of something else’ (“Abglanz von
28
irgend etwas anderem”), e. g. of the poet’s psychology, to reintroduce a
29
well-known topos from the critique of psychologism.6 Contrary to the
30 assumptions of psychologism, poetry is well-structured and hermetically
31
32
3 On the problems that follow from this notion see Lutz Danneberg: Zur The-
33
orie der werkimmanenten Interpretation. In: Zeitenwechsel. Germanistische
34 Literaturwissenschaft vor und nach 1945, ed. by Wilfried Barner and Christoph
35 König. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer 1996, pp. 313 – 342.
36 4 Wolfgang Kayser: Das sprachliche Kunstwerk: Eine Einführung in die Litera-
37 turwissenschaft. 4th ed. Berlin: Francke 1956, p. 5.
5 Ibid., pp. 18 f.
38
6 Ibid., p. 5: “[…] ein neuer Abschnitt in der Geschichte der literarischen For-
39 schung hat begonnen.” / ‘a new chapter has begun in the history of literary re-
40 search’.
244 12. The After-Life of the ‘Artwork of Language’ (“Sprachkunstwerk”)
1 arranged.7 While psychological and even social interpretations of the

2 artwork should not be entirely excluded, the stress of every interpreta-
3 tion should be on the essence of poetry as such. Kayser quotes Aristotle
4 in order to mention an authoritative proof of his attempt, acknowledg-
5 ing that a more contemporary account has to go further.8
6 This particular strategy of referring to the old authorities is in inter-
7 esting contrast to the fact that Kayser ignores the early 20th-century
8 ones: he inherits his concepts from Staiger Die Zeit, Jolles, Ingarden
9 and Günther Müller. Aiming at the theoretical avantgarde, Kayser
10 does not even mention Th.A. Meyer or Ermatinger and rejects Croce’s
11 intuitionist explication of poetry which draws on Schleiermacher and
12 assumes that poetry is but the expression of a poet’s feeling.9 In short,
13 Kayser’s Sprachliches Kunstwerk is astonishing for two reasons: firstly, it
14 provides a synthesis of trends, pointing in the direction of emerging the-
15 ories of linguistics. Secondly, it does not develop these ideas very much,
16 considering the introductory nature of the book. Taking into account
17 the numerous innovative approaches in the field of poetics and literature
18 theory published in the 1970s, it is surprising that it is Das sprachliche
19
20 7 Ibid., pp. 18 f.
21 8 Ibid.
22 9 This view had already been criticized by Winkler; see Sandra Richter: An-
schaulichkeit vs. Sprachlichkeit: Ein paradigmatischer Scheingegensatz in Poet-
23
ik und Ästhetik (ca. 1850 bis 1950). In: Konzert und Konkurrenz. Die Künste
24 und ihre Wissenschaften im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by Oliver Huck, Sandra
25 Richter, Christian Scholl. Hildesheim [in print]. In the 1930 s and even in
26 the 50 s the discussion of Croce was ongoing; see the contributions by V. Stella,
27 G. Uscatescu, F. Tessitore and M.G. Montaldo Spigno on “Benedetto Croce e
l’estetica europea”. In: Atti del IV e V Seminario Teoresi e poeticità nella cul-
28
tura europea. Genova, 6 – 7 dicembre 1989 e 28 – 29 novembre 1991, ed. by
29 Maria Adelaide Raschini. L’Aquila: Japadra 1993. See also the objections by
30 R.G. Collingwood (1938) and John Hospers (1955); Gordon Graham: Expres-
31 sivism: Croce and Collingwood. In: The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics,
32 ed. by Berys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes. London, New York: Rout-
ACHTUNGREledge. 2nd ed. 2005 (1st ed. 2001), pp. 133 – 145; R. Keith Sawyer: Improvisa-
33
tion and the Creative Proces: Dewey, Collingwood, and the Aesthetics of
34 Spontaneity. In: Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 58 (2000) 2,
35 pp. 149 – 161. See also the remarks on Croce in the context of the German dis-
36 cussion on genre theory Ralf Klausnitzer, Guido Naschert: Gattungstheoreti-
37 sche Kontroversen? Konstellationen der Diskussion von Textordnungen im
20. Jahrhundert. In: Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie/ Literaturtheorie in
38
der Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]:
39 Lang 2007 (Publikationen der Zeitschrift für Germanistik NF 17), pp. 369 –
40 412, pp. 373 – 379. See also the brief remarks on Schleiermacher in this book.
(b) Back to a Poetics of Style: Herbert Seidler (1959) 245
1 Kunstwerk that has been reedited and read so often, even up until the
2 1990s. Yet contrasting Das sprachliche Kunstwerk with contemporary
3 writings such as Seidler’s Die Dichtung, the surprise vanishes. Considered
4 alongside Die Dichtung, Kayser’s work looks like a far more innovative
5 and comprehensive account which, although led by out-dated ap-
6 proaches, helped to shape the future of literary science.
7
8
9 (b) Back to a Poetics of Style: Herbert Seidler (1959)
10
11 Seidler (1905 – 1983) studied with Emil Winkler, an early rationalist op-
12 ponent of the intuitionist Croce,10 became a member of the NSDAP
13 and therefore lost the ‘venia legendi’ in 1945 but was denazified in
14 1946. From 1958 until 1963 he served as a professor of Modern German
15 philology at Johannesburg University, edited the periodical Sprachkunde
16 (1971 ff) and became prominent through his rude opposition to Käte
17 Hamburger.11 In 1959 he aimed to create a final synthesis of the old-
18 fashioned ‘inter ars’-debate combined with the turn toward language.
19 Seidler’s Die Dichtung. Wesen – Form – Dasein (1959) is a final at-
20 tempt to protect the old poetics against the modern, his adversaries
21
being new theorists like Hamburger who aim to introduce a decisive
22
scientification of poetics.12 The text Die Dichtung developed throughout
23
Seidler’s lectures on the topic at Innsbruck University. Yet Seidler does
24
not content himself with providing a guide for students; he aims to cre-
25
ate ‘a new poetics’ (“eine neue Poetik”) although the title “Poetik”
26
struck him as being too problematic.13 Nevertheless, Die Dichtung claims
27
to provide a poetics that is a ‘contained representation of poetry’ (“ge-
28
ACHTUNGREschlossene Darstellung der Dichtung”).14 Like Kayser, Seidler highlights
29
the aspect of language in order to characterize poetry, and with so many
30
31
of his contemporaries he shares the interest in anthropology as well as in
32
10 Richter (fn. 9).
33
11 Julia Mansour: Fehdehandschuh des kritischen Freundesgeistes: Die Kontro-
34 verse um Käte Hamburgers “Die Logik der Dichtung”. In: Kontroversen in
35 der Literaturtheorie/ Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf Klausnit-
36 zer and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]: Lang 2007 (Publikationen der Zeit-
37 ACHTUNGREschrift für Germanistik NF 17), pp. 235 – 247, p. 243.
12 Ibid., p. 243.
38
13 Herbert Seidler: Die Dichtung: Wesen – Form – Dasein. Stuttgart: Kröner
39 1959 (Kröners Taschenausgabe 283), p. 2.
40 14 Ibid.
1 existentialist approaches to literature. The whole oeuvre, however, is

2 less original even than Kayser’s Sprachliches Kunstwerk. Still, it is an –
3 in part – surprising, astonishingly theoretical and slightly conservative
4 ‘anthropological’ reproduction of ideas and theories already developed.
5 The historical chapter on poetics introduces poetics since the Sturm
6 und Drang and amounts to an astonishingly positive judgement of psy-
7 chological poetics and the work of the young Dilthey, the argument
8 being that psychological processes lead to cultural achievements.15
9 ACHTUNGRENevertheless, it should not be the task of the interpreter to examine
10 the poet’s psyche; he might only wish to understand the process of cre-
11 ation.16 A representative poetics of the time such as Die Dichtung, Seidler
12 assumes, has to complete three tasks: firstly, it must describe the relation
13 of poetics to all branches of science and the humanities, secondly, it
14 ought to expand on a general ‘Literaturwissenschaft’ and thirdly, it
15 should bring the artwork closer to the reader through providing theo-
16 retical knowledge.17
17 Still, the principle which should bring the reader closer to literature
18 is reminiscent of Heidegger as well as of older approaches in praise of
19 the extraordinary qualities of literature: ‘reverence’ (“Ehrfurcht”) is
20 the principle in question.18 Many secrets and depths remain impercep-
21 tible to the human eye, writes Seidler, a ‘deep experience’ (“tiefes Er-
22 lebnis”) or at least the preparedness for such an experience is said to
23 be the premise for reading poetry.19 The argument is grounded in the
24 ‘irrational’ nature of poetry: poetry can only be experienced ‘by
25 means of a specific attitude’ (“in ganz bestimmter Haltung”) 20 that is
26 through ‘aesthetic experience’ (“ästhetisches Erleben”) and ‘aesthetic
27 pleasure’ (“ästhetische Lust”).21 Despite this stress on emotion and senti-
28
29 15 Ibid., pp. 5 f.
30 16 Ibid., p. 82.
31 17 Ibid., pp. 7 f.
32 18 Ibid., p. 10: “Nur mit Ehrfurcht darf sich der Erforscher der Dichtung nähern.
Er muß wissen, daß viele Geheimnisse und Tiefen der Dichtung dem erken-
33
nenden Auge des theoretischen Menschen verschlossen bleiben müssen, sie
34 hat er zu verehren.” / ‘The scholar should approach poetry with nothing but
35 reverence. He needs to know that many secrets and depths of poetry will be
36 closed off to the knowing eye of the theoretical mind, and precisely these se-
37 crets and depths he has to worship’.
19 Ibid.
38
20 Ibid., pp. 47 f.
39 21 Ibid., p. 134: “Wir versenken uns dabei in die Fülle eines Gegebenen aus einer
40 bestimmten inneren Haltung, in der alle seelischen Kräfte mitwirken und die
(b) Back to a Poetics of Style: Herbert Seidler (1959) 247
1 ment, Seidler emphasises that a kind of theoretical approach to poetry is

2 possible as well.
3 Poetry, in turn, is both ‘a phenomenon so decisive for humankind’
4 (“menschlich so wichtiges Phänomen”) 22 and a special type of art be-
5 cause of the immense possibilities of language. Seidler reexamines Mey-
6 er’s arguments against Vischer in claiming that poetry is not only the
7 ‘vehicle of poetry’ (“Vehikel der Dichtung”) 23 but an ‘artwork of lan-
8 guage’ (“Sprachkunstwerk”) which carries its world in itself, thereby re-
9 vealing something deeper (“Tieferes”).24 The ultimate goal of poetry is
10 ‘enlightenment of being’ (“Seinserhellung”) 25 or, according to Spoerri,
11 ‘the perfection of there-being’ (“die Vollendung des Daseins”).26
12 The rest of Die Dichtung reads like a combination of Heideggerian
13 romanticism, Walzel, Ermatinger, Ingarden’s layer model27 and Staiger.
14 As far as the romantic aspect is concerned, Seidler (influenced by Hei-
15 degger) adheres to the romantic and post-romantic notion that Aristo-
16 tle’s ‘mimesis’ does not reflect the deeper meaning of poetry correctly.28
17 The only way to describe and distinguish different types of poetry
18 (and even genre) is, according to Staiger, through the analysis of style
19 and time as both express the characteristics of a particular human
20 being.29 Poetry can be differentiated according to the three ‘attitudes’
21 (“Haltungen”),30 the lyric, the epic and the dramatic. Seidler develops
22 Staiger’s approach further in that he expands on genre: the lyrical, for
23 instance, is characterized by, firstly, ‘innerness’ (“Verinnerung”) which al-
24 lows no distance between the object and the subject,31 secondly, ‘exami-
25 nation’ (“Betrachtung”), thirdly, ‘spectating’ (“Zuschauen”) as in Goethe’s
26 poem on the metamorphosis of plants32 and, fourthly, ‘being enraptured’
27 (“Hingerissensein”), a form of pathos which is typical for drama but also
28
29 aus dem Tiefsten steigt.” / ‘We delve with this into the fullness of that which is
30 there and given, an act which derives from a specific inner countenance in
31 which all mental powers are active and which ascends from depths.’
32 22 Ibid., p. 10.
23 Ibid., p. 21.
33
24 Ibid., pp. 49 f.
34 25 Ibid., p. 48.
35 26 Ibid., p. 94.
36 27 Ibid., pp. 284 – 316.
37 28 Ibid., pp. 67 – 70.
29 Ibid., p. 148.
38
30 Ibid., p. 95.
39 31 Ibid., p. 350.
40 32 Ibid., pp. 351 f.
1 for the lyric and epic.33 Like Staiger’s genre theory Seidler’s builds on
2 the premise of ‘shifting boundaries with other categories and types’
3 (“fließende Grenzen zu anderen Gattungen und Arten”).34
4 A similar modification of Staiger’s thinking is perceptible in Seidler’s
5 evaluation of poetry according to its representation of time: poetry
6 should have, remarks Seidler rather normatively, ‘through/all-encom-
7 passing movement’ (“durchgehende Bewegung”), coherence in the
8 sense of ‘various repetitions’ (“verschiedene Wiederholungen”), ‘equili-
9 brium of elements’ (“Ausgewogenheit der Glieder”) and ‘own space’
10 (“eigenen Raum”).35 Still, since grotesque, kitsch and popular literature
11 may also possess these elements, Seidler restricts his evaluation of poetry,
12 referring to Walzel: the best poetry is ‘poetry, that is marked by an ex-
13 tensive and thorough content’ (“Dichtung, die durch den umfassenden,
14 weit- und tiefreichenden Gehalt ausgezeichnet ist”).36 “Gehalt und Ge-
15 stalt” need to be balanced in a harmonious way.37
16 Even if Seidler’s (and, to some extent) Kayser’s approaches strike
17 one as being out-dated already in the 1940s, the extent to which they
18 differ from poetics conceived in the Nazi-period is astonishing. It is as
19 if scholars in the 1940s and 50s had to go back to the early 1940s and
20 extinguish all context-driven approaches as they seemed to be contami-
21 nated by the Nazis’ want for historically relevant interpretations. Still,
22 the contradiction is not that harsh: already in the 1940s and 50s, the
23 conditioning of a work of art by the respective historical situation is a
24 valid interest of poetics.38
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 33 Ibid., p. 352.
37 34 Ibid., p. 378.
35 Ibid., pp. 263 – 274.
38
36 Ibid., pp. 340 f.
39 37 Ibid., pp. 138 – 145.
40 38 Ibid., p. 361.
1
2
3
4 13. Poetics under the Fascist Regime
5
6
7 In George Tabori’s drama Mein Kampf Adolf Hitler is portrayed as an
8 uneducated and unsuccessful painter of trivial “Heimatkunst” (regional
9 folk-art), who lives off the goodwill of his Jewish neighbour in a Vien-
10 nese men’s boarding house. Having failed as a painter he devotes all his
11 energy to politics. He aims to create an aesthetic politics, and art is seen
12 as one of the means to support and glorify his political goals. Indeed, in
13 his various ‘speeches on culture’ (“Kulturreden”), the historical Hitler
14 claimed that art should be ‘a mission sublime and commanding one’s fa-
15 naticism in pursuing it’.1 The same was true for art theory. It had to
16 serve the so-called ‘Third Reich’. State-run universities as well as scien-
17 tific and cultural foundations were peculiarly likely to be usurped by the
18 Fascist regime or even (like the “Forschungsgemeinschaft Deutsches
19 Ahnenerbe e.V.”, 1935 1945, and the “Aktion Ritterbusch”,
20 1940 1945) founded by the National Socialists and suffused with Fas-
21
cist ideology.2 Literary science not only saw the dismissal of Jewish col-
22
leagues but also the establishment of institutions to cultivate the ‘ances-
23
tral legacy’ (“Ahnenerbe”). However, despite the political will to colo-
24
nize art as well as its theory under the flag of Fascism, poetics, from
25
1933 to 1945, showed a variety of accounts, and not all of them were
26
in agreement with the political attempts of the Nazi Party.
27
Two poetics published in Germany at the time (those of Karl Justus
28
Obenauer and Heinz Kindermann) support Fascist ideas. They even
29
claim to develop Fascist thinking further and to help a ‘true German po-
30
31
etry’ by establishing a new literary science (a, b). Still, at the same time
32
1 Heinz Kindermann: Dichtung und Volkheit: Grundzüge einer neuen Litera-
33
turwissenschaft. Berlin: Junker & Dünnhaupt 1937, p. 13.
34 2 See Frank-Rutger Hausmann: “Deutsche Geisteswissenschaft” im Zweiten
35 Weltkrieg: Die “Aktion Ritterbusch” (1940 1945). 3rd ed. Heidelberg: Syn-
36 chron 2007 (1st ed. 1998); Frank-Rutger Hausmann: Auch im Krieg schwei-
37 gen die Musen nicht: Die Deutschen Wissenschaftlichen Institute im Zweiten
Weltkrieg. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2001; see also the latest study
38
on the “Geschichte der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft 1920 – 1970,” car-
39 ried out by Rüdiger vom Bruch and Ulrich Herbert (presentation of results:
40 DFG Pressemitteilung No. 6, 2008).
1 the largest historiography of poetics Geschichte der deutschen Poetik (4

2 vols., 1937 – 1959) had been written by Bruno Markwardt (1899 –
3 1972), a professor at Greifswald University. Furthermore and in contrast
4 to Obenauer’s and Kindermann’s approaches, three theories of poetics
5 participate only in the general scientific interest of the time in questions
6 of biology, race and morphology (Ludwig Büttner, Günther Müller, Ju-
7 lius Petersen). Büttner and Müller do not refer positively to National
8 Socialism at all and Petersen praises it only in a few noncommittal sen-
9 tences of his huge opus magnum (c, d, e).
10 Last but not least, there is a third pattern of poetics which deserves
11 mention: the pattern of elitist aesthetic escapism with its preference for
12 aesthetic heroism and autonomy. Although this pattern does not bring
13 many new thoughts to the study of poetics it is a remarkable account
14 of the historical circumstances that determined events during the
15 1940s. The pattern in question is revealed by Eckart Peterich
16
(1900 1968), a journalist, from 1959 director of German liberaries in
17
Italy, programme director of the Goethe Institute Munich in 1962
18
and later freelance writer. His Mass der Musen was first published in
19
1944 (“Venedig, im April 1944”), destroyed in an air-raid on Freiburg
20
im Breisgau and then in 1947 republished under the French military re-
21
gime.3 The latter circumstance highlights the fact that the book contains
22
no explicit reference to Fascism as it was republished immediately. In-
23
deed, the very abstract essay tries to derive the essence of poetry from
24
the muses. As there is an abundance of photos of copper-plate engrav-
25
ings of the muses (produced by an anonymous engraver around 1460),
26
the book styles itself as a “Gesamtkunstwerk” of poetics.4
27
28
The aim of the work is to place old thoughts in a new order: tradi-
29
tion – not individuality or originality – plays the main part in this ver-
30
sion of poetics.5 The muses guide the poet and legitimate poetry. Mne-
31
mosyne becomes the leading muse as she is said to express a threefold
32 meaning: she represents the individual, humanity and all muses.6 Mne-
33 mosyne, however, is the sovereign of a realm accessible to only a few
34 elected poets and a small audience: ‘Culture, however, is immortal.
35 […] Only those who are free entirely may possess it [culture]; this is
36
37 3 Eckart Peterich: Das Mass der Musen: Überlegungen zu einer Poetik. 2nd ed.
Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1947, preface [not pag.].
38
4 See, for instance, the Poesia-print in the addendum.
39 5 Peterich (fn. 3), p. preface [not pag.].
40 6 However, a Mnemosyne-print is missing in Peterich’s book.
1 why the people do not yet possess it today.’7 This aesthetic elitism is
2 reminiscent of that prevailing in the George-circle, which through its
3 ideas of an aesthetic universe distances itself from the ordinary people
4 as well as from political leaders. Peterich carefully omits every political
5 or historical reference. Nevertheless, he subtly states that the history of
6 humanity (and poetry as part of it) will be written by the muses not by
7 the dukes.8 This plea for an autonomy of poetics is already a political
8 statement – a statement that is far detached from the open sympathy
9 for National Socialism as demonstrated by Obenauer.
10
11
12 (a) Problems of German Poetics: Karl Justus Obenauer (1936)
13
14 Obenauer (1888 – 1973) is well-known due to a most problematic deci-
15 sion: As dean at Bonn University in 1936 he instructed the faculty to
16 disallow Thomas Mann his honorary doctorate. Therefore, and also be-
17 cause he was a fervent party member of the NSDAP, depicting National
18 Socialism as a new kind of mysticism or pantheism, he had difficulties
19
finding further employment after 1945.9 From 1936 Obenauer had
20
been the co-editor of the Zeitschrift fr Deutsche Bildung, the periodical
21
of the ‘Society for German Education’ (Gesellschaft für Deutsche Bil-
22
dung; Deutscher Germanistenverband e.V.) that was attached to the
23
‘National Socialist Teacher Association’ (Nationalsozialistischer Lehrer-
24
bund). Obenauer’s monograph Volkhafte und politische Dichtung. Probleme
25
deutscher Poetik (1936) was published in a comparatively politicized con-
26
27
7 Peterich (fn. 3), pp. 36 f: “Kultur aber ist ein Unsterbliches. […] Kultur aber
28
vermögen nur völlig freie Menschen zu tragen; darum trägt sie das Volk
29 heute noch nicht.”
30 8 Peterich (fn. 3), p. 77: “Gewaltig aber ist die Macht der Musen: sie, nicht die
31 Fürsten, schreiben die Geschichte der Menschheit.”/ ‘The power of the muses
32 is enormous, the muses and not the princes write the history of humankind.’
9 Thomas Pittrof: Obenauer, Karl Justus. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon
33
1800 – 1950. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2003, vol. 2., pp. 1342 f; see also
34 Eberhard Lämmert: Ein Weg ins Freie. Versuch eines Rückblicks auf die Ger-
35 manistik vor und nach 1945. In: Zeitenwechsel: Germanistische Literaturwis-
36 senschaft vor und nach 1945, ed. by Wilfried Barner and Christoph König,
37 Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer 1996, pp. 411 – 417, p. 412; Holger Dainat: Zur Ber-
ufungspolitik in der Neueren deutschen Literaturwissenschaft 1933 – 1945. In:
38
Literaturwissenschaft und Nationalsozialismus, ed. by Holger Dainat and Lutz
39 Danneberg. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2003 (Studien und Texte zur Sozialge-
40 schichte der Literatur 99), pp. 55 – 86, pp. 69 f.
1 text: with Armanen publishers, in a special series called ‘World View

2 and Science’ (“Weltanschauung und Wissenschaft”). As the advert indi-
3 cates, this title refers to works published in favour of National Social-
4 ism.10
5 Volkhafte und politische Dichtung is the extended version of Oben-
6 ACHTUNGREauer’s inaugural lecture at Bonn University. Obenauer aims to produce
7 ‘a German poetics’ (“eine deutsche Poetik”) 11 which in his case means
8 not only a book on German literature but a peculiar German poetics.
9 Therefore, Obenauer programmatically begins his poetics with a refer-
10 ence to the early Dilthey: Dilthey called poetics a true and abstract in-
11 troduction into literary history, and Obenauer turns Dilthey’s theories
12 around. Poetics, the ‘doctrine of the essence and the forms of poetry’
13 (“die Lehre vom Wesen und von den Formen der Dichtung”) 12 is in-
14 deed to be seen as a true introduction into the field but not as an abstract
15 overview. Poetics should contain a decisive foundation for literature, its
16 claims of primacy based on empirical historical research.13
17 The problem of contemporary poetics follows from this claim: po-
18
etics has lost its reputation because it is no longer able to answer the
19
question of the essence of poetry. The latest historically sufficient an-
20
swers were the doctrine of mimesis as well as the romantic and idealist
21
aesthetics of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Historicism and psy-
22
chologism were not able to respond convincingly. In order to prove his
23
judgement Obenauer polemically quotes ‘the enemy’, Scherer’s Poetik:
24
‘poetry offers delight by means of anticipating future delight’,14 a quote
25
which sounds like a trivialized version of hedonist ideas,15 ideas that are
26
to be rejected in the name of new and sacred inventions. Obenauer di-
27
agnoses that in the course of the 19th century, the great idea about the
28
mission of the poet lost its relevance, and consequently, poetics was dis-
29
credited. It is not by mere accident that the notion of a mission of the
30
31
poet in 1936 is directly reminiscent of Hitler’s speeches on culture.
32
10 Karl Justus Obenauer: Volkhafte und politische Dichtung: Probleme deutscher
33
Poetik. Leipzig: Armanen 1936 (Weltanschauung und Wissenschaft 5), addi-
34 tional advert, p. 35.
35 11 Ibid., p. 1.
36 12 Ibid., p. 3.
37 13 Ibid., p. 3.
14 Scherer: Poetik, ed. Gunter Reiss. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1977, p. 62: “Die Po-
38
esie gewährt Vergnügen durch die Vorstellung eines künftigen Vergnügens”;
39 Obenauer (fn. 10), p. 4.
40 15 See also the chapter on Scherer and his reception.
1 Obenauer’s method already anticipates the link to National Social-

2 ism and its doctrine: ‘blood-bound emphathy’ (“bluthaftes Einfühlen”)
3 is the racial premise of Obenauer’s method of interpretation; he praises
4 it as a ‘deep need’ especially of the German researcher.16 Consequently,
5 Obenauer specifies his ‘German poetics’ as a doctrine of the essence and
6 form of German poetry, which is synthetical and closely related to gen-
7 eral doctrines of art and soul, anthropology, ‘national theory’ (“Volks-
8 theorie”) and philosophy.17 Its principal tasks are to formulate clear
9 ideas about the mission of the poet in a ‘national state of the people’
10 (“volkhaften Staate”), a doctrine of life as well as of the general rules
11 of poetry and to develop a sense for ‘all that is coming into being
12 (and livelihood) and all that is yet to come’ (“lebendig Werdende und
13 Zukünftige”).18
14 In order to reveal his poetics in detail Obenauer follows the theory
15 of Heidegger, who in Time and Being states that true movements in sci-
16 ence disclose themselves by the radical revision of their key concepts.19
17 Obenauer therefore examines established ideas and proposes new, most-
18 ly racial or cultural key concepts of poetics such as political and “vol-
19 khafte” poetry, ‘species-specific’ (“arteigene”) poetry, ‘Nordic-Ger-
20 man’ (“nordisch-deutsche”) poetry and ‘typical German values of ex-
21 pression’ (“typisch deutsche Ausdruckswerte”) that are opposed to ‘a
22 rootless and aloof bourgeois international’ (“wurzellos weltbürgerlich
23 internationale”) art that might be individualistic, too conscious of class
24 and inclined toward ‘useless’ l’art pour l’art.20
25 Obenauer’s concepts will be explained with the help of contempo-
26 raneous national theories which Obenauer mentions without pursuing
27 his poetical plan: Max Hildebert Boehm’s scientifically ambitious
28 “Volkstheorie” (‘theory of the people/national theory’) 21 and the con-
29
30 16 Obenauer (fn. 10), p. 5. On the relevance of race in programmatic approaches
31 of National Socialism in the humanities see Michael Grüttner: Die nationalso-
32 zialistische Wissenschaftspolitik und die Geisteswissenschaften. In: Literaturwis-
senschaft und Nationalsozialismus, ed. by Holger Dainat, Lutz Danneberg. Tü-
33
bingen: Niemeyer 2003 (Studien und Texte zur Sozialgeschichte der Literatur
34 99), pp. 13 – 39, p. 27.
35 17 Ibid., p. 6.
36 18 Ibid., p. 6, passim.
37 19 Ibid., p. 24.
20 Ibid., p. 8.
38
21 Max Hildebert Böhm: Das eigenständige Volk: Volkstheoretische Grundlagen
39 der Ethnopolitik und Geisteswissenschaften, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
40 precht 1932.
1 cept of the ‘autonomous people’ (“eigenständige Volk”), a people that

2 determines itself in history and Josef Nadler’s concept of the people as
3 ‘clannish entity’ (“stammhaftes Gefüge”).22 Although Obenauer doubts
4 that landscape entirely structures or forms the people, Adolf Helbock’s
5 attempt to formulate an essential concept of people as expressed in his
6 monograph Was ist deutsche Volksgeschichte (1935) is praised.23 The
7 same is true for the racist, yet bourgeois and conservative author Hans
8 Grimm (1875 – 1959) who, with his major work Volk ohne Raum
9 (1926), provided the Nazis with one of their key political ideas (the
10 lack of space for the Nordic race). Grimm is particularly enthusiastically
11 perceived as he vividly advocates the political office of the poet and ar-
12 gues against ‘egoistic’ poetry, precisely against the poet Paul Alverdes
13 (1897 – 1979), a former officer and free lance writer who, from 1934,
14
acted as co-editor of the unpolitical bourgeois monthly Das innere
15
Reich (1934 – 1944).24 This self-presentation is, however, misleading as
16
Grimm regularly met with Alverdes and other non-National Socialist
17
or even anti-National Socialist conservative writers.25
18
A consequence of these oppositions, the key concept of the ‘indig-
19
enous poet’ (“volkhafte Dichter”), is explained in millenarian terms:
20
Obenauer promotes here the idea of an ultimate relationship between
21
the poet and his people.26 This relationship is a relationship of fate – a
22
23
fate that only the poet can foresee, a poet like Hans Sachs for instance
24
who had already served as an example of the poeta vates in the work
25
of Friedrich Schlegel. The poet is able to act as a vates as Obenauer at-
26
27 22 Obenauer (fn. 10), pp. 9 f.
23 Ibid.
28
24 Ibid., p. 12; on the periodical Marion Mallmann: “Das Innere Reich”: Analyse
29 einer konservativen Kulturzeitschrift im Dritten Reich. Bonn: Bouvier 1978
30 (Abhandlungen zur Kunst-, Musik und Literaturwissenschaft 248).
31 25 Klaus van Delft: Kritische Apologie des Nationalsozialismus: Hans Grimms
32 Konservative Revolution? In: Leid der Worte: Panorama des literarischen Na-
tionalsozialismus, ed. by Jörg Thunecke. Bonn: Bouvier 1987, pp. 255 – 277;
33
Uwe-Karsten Ketelsen: Klaustrophobie im Kloster Lippoldsberg: Hans Grimms
34 Roman “Volk ohne Raum”. Ein Bilderbuch rechter Ideologie in Deutschland.
35 In: Literatur und Drittes Reich, ed. by U.-K. K. Schernfeld: SH-Verlag 1992,
36 pp. 199 – 215; Gerd Koch: Dichtertage bei Hans Grimm in Lippoldsberg. In:
37 Zeitschrift für Germanistik 2 (1994), pp. 337 – 349.
26 Obenauer (fn. 10), p. 15: “eine tiefste, letzte Wesens- und Existenzbeziehung
38
zwischen dem Genius des Dichters und des Volkes.” / ‘a deepest, ultimate re-
39 lation of essence and existence between the genius of the poet and of the peo-
40 ple’.
(b) Poetry and “Volkheit” – a New Literary Science 255
1 tributes a special capacity to him: fantasy – a notion of fantasy that cov-

2 ers everything from ‘racial-national powers’ (“rassisch-völkische Bild-
3 ACHTUNGREkräfte”) to sublime spiritual viewing.27 Being kissed by the muse,
4 ACHTUNGREObenauer’s poet awakens his motives by a ‘creative choice of form’
5 (“schöpferische Formwahl”).28 The results of this grasp of poetry express
6 and thereby guarantee the states, actions and passions of a people.29 This
7 in turn becomes Obenauer’s essence of poetry: the mission the poet ful-
8 fils for his people.
9 Obenauer, however, failed to conceive a whole new German poet-
10 ics. His account of the difficulties of poetry remained a sticking point as
11 did his propositions about how a future poetics shall arise and direct the
12 people’s fate. Yet his Volkhafte und politische Dichtung pointed the way
13 towards a National Socialist poetics, grounded in a racist theory of in-
14 terpretation and revitalised concept of the ancient poeta vates. It was
15 Kindermann who radicalised Obenauer’s thoughts.
16
17
18 (b) Poetry and “Volkheit” – a New Literary Science:
19
Heinz Kindermann (1937)
20
21
Heinz Kindermann (1894 – 1985), a member of the NSDAP from 1933
22
and ‘one of the most ambitious Nazi-Germanists’ (“einer der ehrgeizigs-
23
ten Nazi-Germanisten”),30 taught at the Universities of Danzig and
24
Münster. In 1943, he founded the ‘Centre for Theatre Science’ (“Zen-
25
26
tralinstitut für Theaterwissenschaft”) in Vienna that later became a big
27
27 Ibid., p. 29: “Wer die Phantasie studiert hat, weiß, daß sie alles umfaßt, was an
28
plastischem und bildhaftem Vermögen in uns ruht: sie reicht hinab bis zu den
29 letzten mütterlichen Gründen der rassisch-völkischen Bildkräfte und hinauf bis
30 zu den erhabensten Höhen der geistigen Schau.” / ‘Those who have studied
31 fantasy know that it embraces all of our abilities to capture malleable and pic-
32 torial material; poetry reaches from the last motherly foundations of racial-na-
tional powers of composition to the most sublime heights of the intellectual
33
show.’
34 28 Ibid., p. 25.
35 29 Ibid., p. 34.
36 30 Jens Malte Fischer: “Zwischen uns und Weimar liegt Buchenwald.” Germanis-
37 ten im Dritten Reich. In: Merkur 1987, pp. 12 – 25, p. 20; on Kindermann and
his academic career see Mechthild Kirsch: Heinz Kindermann – ein Wiener
38
Germanist und Theaterwissenschaftler. In: Zeitenwechsel: Germanistische
39 ACHTUNGRELiteraturwissenschaft vor und nach 1945, ed. by Wilfried Barner and Christoph
40 König. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer 1996, pp. 47 – 59.
1 representative institute in the cultural centre of the “großdeutsche

2 Reich”. Between 1933 und 1945 Kindermann was one of the most pro-
3 fusely publishing Germanists, judged as a popular scientist by the Nazis
4 as his writings were very much inspired by National Socialist ideas. Fol-
5 lowing the work of Heidegger and his adherents, Kindermann attacked
6 Geisteswissenschaft and opted for a historical anthropology of literature.
7 Combining popular, anthropological as well as biologist and racist ac-
8 counts, one of his main theoretical contributions was his idea of
9 ACHTUNGRE‘literature from abroad/outside Germany’ (“auslanddeutsche Literatur”).
10 Kindermann postulated the biological idea that literature is the expres-
11 sion of the ‘body of the people’ (“Volksganze”), and therefore, expand-
12 ed the term German literature to all literature written in the German
13 language.31 Although this concept was inspired by Fascist ideas and
14 led to a homogenisation of all literature written in German, the concept
15 opened up an empirical interest in what was written beyond German
16 borders. Nevertheless, this was of minor interest and significance.
17 After World War II Kindermann was dismissed from his job. In
18 1954, however, he was re-appointed as professor for theatre science at
19 Vienna University, despite student protests. The protests need have
20 looked no further for their justification than quotes from Kindermann’s
21 work Dichtung und Volkheit (1937).
22 Kindermann radicalises Obenauer’s approach by expanding on his
23 key term “Volkheit” (which roughly translates as ‘the essence of a peo-
24 ple’): Kindermann invents his own etymology for “Volkheit” by mixing
25 up some passages from Goethe’s Wilhelm Meister (“Aus Makariens Ar-
26 chiv”) with biologist and racist reflection. As a result, “Volkheit” is un-
27 derstood as a unity of ‘a people’s body, mind/spirit and soul’ (“Volks-
28 ACHTUNGREkörper, Volksgeist und Volksseele”) which aims to be eternal.32 Conse-
29 quently, “volkhafte Dichtung” cannot be characterised by dead letters;
30 it is ‘a continuously procreating form of art’ (“fortzuzeugendes
31 Leben”).33
32 Kindermann uses the notion of “Volkheit” to develop a visionary
33 National Socialist poetics that aims to create a new foundation of a
34
35 31 Alexander Ritter: “Auslanddeutsche Literatur”: Ideologische und fachtheoreti-
36 sche Definition. Dokumentarisches zu Heinz Kindermann und seiner national-
37 konservativen literaturwissenschaftlichen Programmatik. In: Deutsche Regio-
ACHTUNGREnalliteraturen in Rumänien 1918 – 1944, ed. by Peter Motzan and Stefan Sie-
38
nerth. Munich: Südostdt. Kulturwerk 1997, pp. 21 – 32.
39 32 Kindermann (fn. 1), p. VII.
40 33 Ibid., p. IX.
1 so-called literary science. In fact, it is a normative and primitive meth-

2 odology for literary studies as well as a normative poetics for poets.
3 Kindermann however, in contrast to Obenauer, omits the term poetics
4 and uses the more innovative “Literaturwissenschaft”.
5 Kindermann briefly reconstructs the evolution of literary science,
6 legitimising his account with the words of Nietzsche: ‘only by employ-
7 ing the highest mental powers of the present may you interpret the past’
8 (“Nur aus der höchsten Kraft der Gegenwart dürft ihr das Vergangene
9 deuten”).34 This legitimation deserves some attention: Kindermann
10 writes a presentist poetics. His theories do not allow for a purposeless
11 objective, neutral or ‘pure historical’ science. But not only that: Kinder-
12 mann goes further in attributing a distinct present to the poetics to be
13 envisaged. Science in general and poetics in particular should perceive
14
themselves as means to develop, sustain and promote their nation.
15
Therefore, science should prepare itself for future action: ‘mental prep-
16
aration’ (“seelische[s] Bereitmachen[]”) 35 was a term often heard in Na-
17
tional Socialist speeches before World War II.
18
From a scientific point of view, Kindermann’s literary science is not
19
as innovative as it promises to be. For instance, he does not propose a
20
new methodology for his literary science but a new attitude (“Grund-
21
haltung”) or mentality towards poetry.36 Innovation in Kindermann’s
22
23
case means creating an ideology. He undermines concepts that are al-
24
ready used in poetics, e. g. Rudolph Unger’s fruitful ‘history of prob-
25
lems’. Kindermann appreciates Unger’s context-related approach to lit-
26
erature but according to Kindermann it is not problems, but rather
27 forces, which govern German literature.37 One should explore the
28 ‘force of German poetics’ (“Kraftfeld der deutschen Dichtung”)
29 anew,38 thereby, contributing to the ‘great German turn’ (“große deut-
30 sche Wende”) that – both in literature and literary science – reveals itself
31 through ‘the influence of blood’ and through ‘a love characterised by its
32 readiness for action’ (“tatbereite[] Liebe”).39
33 The same process of ‘transformation’ occurs, according to Kinder-
34 mann, in the work of Dilthey: Dilthey is correct in stating that each
35
36 34 Ibid., pp. 32 – 34.
37 35 Ibid., p. 44.
36 Ibid., p. VIII.
38
37 Ibid., p. 65.
39 38 Ibid., p. VIII.
40 39 Ibid., p. IX.
1 work is a unity of its own – but the cause for this is to be seen in the
2 poet’s experience with his people: in the ‘racial-mental, national and so-
3 cial capacities of the poet and the/his society’ (“rassenseelischen, völki-
4 schen und sozialen Möglichkeiten des Dichters und der Gemein-
5 schaft”).40 From this premise follows a task: literary science should
6 not limit itself to the study of the history of a work, but should also
7 take the history of its effects into consideration.41 It should show the
8 picture of the German man in German poetry and should rebuild liter-
9 ary science as ‘national science/study of life’ (“volkhafte[] Lebenswis-
10 senschaft”).42 In short: Kindermann reformulates Dilthey’s account by
11 establishing an ideology. Again, Dilthey’s concepts of experience and
12 life prove to be open to an approach inspired by biologist, racist and Na-
13 tional Socialist tendencies.
14 Like in the work of Obenauer, the main topics of such a revised po-
15
etics are the poet and his people. But Kindermann develops Obenauer’s
16
ideas further. This strategy of ‘outbidding’ can be shown from Kinder-
17
mann’s poetological assumptions and consequences: Firstly, biologist se-
18
lection is seen as the principle of literary evolution. Therefore, literature
19
(“Schrifttum”) that is nationally indifferent or decisively international is
20
dangerous for the ‘blood circulation’ of the nation.43 Secondly, poetry is
21
more than an ‘artwork of words’ (“Wortkunstwerk”).44 It is primarily to
22
be seen as a sacrifice to “Volkheit”.45 Kindermann gives several quotes
23
in order to illustrate this idea: Paul Ernst’s article Das deutsche Volk und
24
25
der Dichter von heute (1932/ published 1933) shows that the poet is the
26
conscience of his people, Ernst himself being the best example of this
27
as he received the renowned Goethe-medal in 1933 (before Hitler
28
had the power to confer the medal which had been originally founded
29
by chancellor Hindenburg).46 Another example is Friedrich Griese
30 (1890 – 1975), a national poet who, in his Gesang des Smanns, depicts
31 the poet as someone who sows (“Sämann”) the seeds for/of his nation,
32 not openly alluding to National Socialism but nevertheless supporting its
33
34
35 40 Ibid., p. 78.
36 41 Ibid., p. 65.
37 42 Ibid., p. 89.
43 Ibid., p. 1.
38
44 Ibid., p. 10.
39 45 Ibid., p. 10.
40 46 For information on the medal I wish to thank Bernd Hamacher.
1 ideology through key words.47 What follows comes as no surprise: Hit-

2 ler’s speeches on culture with their statements on the missionary task of
3 art.48
4 Thirdly, Kindermann defines in which direction this mission should
5 go: poetry should not only contribute to the national community of life,
6 but should also enhance the ‘state of being well-fortified and able-
7 bodied’ (“Wehrhaftigkeit”) and the ‘force of resistance’ (“Kraft des Wi-
8 derstandes”).49 Fourthly, each poet is only a link (“Glied”) in the chain
9 of his people; his poetry speaks not so much of his individual fantasy,
10 but more of the ‘choir of the community’ (“Chor der Gemeinschaft”).50
11 Fifthly, the poet is an elected person who has the duty to renew his
12 community through his writings. He is to follow particular role models:
13 the most honoured NS-author Erwin Guido Kolbenheyer (1878 –
14
1962), Hans Grimm, former expressionist turned National-Socialist
15
poet Hanns Johst (1890 – 1978) who wrote ‘the’ National-Socialist
16
drama Schlageter (1933) 51 and the writer Wilhelm Schäfer
17
(1868 1952) who in his speech Der Schriftsteller (1911) pleaded for an
18
archaic and national understanding of the poet’s mission – a mixture
19
that clearly reveals Kindermann’s ideological preferences.
20
Kindermann’s poetics does not require further description: it is a
21
National Socialist text from its premises, through its little developed
22
23
methodology to its examples. Although it presents itself as a theory of
24
literature, it is based to a large extent on preconceiving contemporary
25
poetics from a Fascist point of view. Already in 1937, it reads like a
26
war-mongering document that obviously served political and not scien-
27
28
47 On Griese see Stefan Busch: “Und gestern, da hörte uns Deutschland”: NS-
29 Autoren in der Bundesrepublik. Kontinuität und Diskontinuität bei Friedrich
30 Griese, Werner Beumelburg, Eberhard Wolfgang Möller und Kurt Ziesel.
31 Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 1998.
32 48 Kindermann (fn. 1), p. 13.
49 Ibid., p. 28.
33
50 Ibid., p. 6. The author refers to Ernst Krieck: Nationalpolitische Erziehung.
34 Leipzig: Armanen 1932; Walter Gross: Rassenpolitische Erziehung. Berlin:
35 Junker & Dünnhaupt 1934.
36 51 On Johst see Helmut F. Pfanner: Hanns Johst: Vom Expressionismus zum Na-
37 tionalsozialismus. The Hague, Paris: Mouton 1970; on “Schlageter” Helmut
Göbel: Zum politischen Drama und Theater im Nationalsozialismus: Hanns
38
Johsts “Schlageter” als politisches Märtyrerdrama und die nationalsozialistischen
39 Massenveranstaltungen. In: Aspekte des politischen Theaters und Dramas von
40 Calderón bis Georg Seidel. Bern [et al.]: Lang 1996, pp. 269 – 288.
1 tific purposes. This is different from Ludwig Büttner’s poetological ap-

2 proach.
3
4
5 (c) Biologist Approaches: Ludwig Büttner (1939)
6
7 Despite his eloquent and thoughtful theoretical approach, Ludwig Bütt-
8 ner (1909 – 1984) belongs to the group of little-known literary scientists.
9 This lack of prominence might be due to two facts: firstly, he did not
10 make a very successful career for himself. He received his doctorate at
11 Erlangen University; after some years of teaching and assistantship he
12 moved to Middlebury/Vermont as a university teacher. Secondly,
13 after having finished his theoretical oeuvre, Büttner focused on authors
14 such as Georg Büchner as well as on the history of drama and lyric po-
15 etry and left the area of poetics.52 In contrast to more conventional as
16 well as to Fascist approaches, Büttner’s exciting earlier Gedanken zu
17 einer biologischen Literaturbetrachtung (1939) aims to establish a biologist
18 poetics that does not adhere to National Socialism (yet it proves to be
19 anti-Semitic). Büttner remained ideologically tentative and sceptical.
20 Although Büttner – like Obenauer and Kindermann – attacks Geistes-
21
wissenschaft in his work and proclaims an entirely new account of po-
22
etics, Büttner presents his findings as provisory results only; he explores
23
possibilities.
24
This scepticism stems from a methodological question to which
25
Büttner knows no sufficient answer: ‘To what extent are biological cog-
26
nitions for a deepening, extension or correction of the present founda-
27
tion of Geisteswissenschaft possible, useful and necessary?’53 Büttner
28
clearly distinguishes the areas of the body and the mind and does not
29
claim superiority of one over the other. This premise leads him to a cri-
30
31
tique of existing biological approaches: They overlooked Büttner’s
32
52 Ludwig Büttner: Georg Büchner: Revolutionär und Pessimist. Ein Beitrag zur
33
Geistesgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Nuremberg: Carl 1948; L.B. (ed.): Das
34 europäische Drama von Ibsen bis Zuckmayer: Dargestellt an Einzelinterpreta-
35 tionen. Frankfurt a. M.: Diesterweg 1960; L.B.: Von Benn bis Enzensberger:
36 Eine Einführung in die zeitgenössische deutsche Lyrik. 3rd rev. ed. Nurem-
37 berg: Carl 1975 (1st ed. Nuremberg 1971).
53 Ludwig Büttner: Gedanken zu einer biologischen Literaturbetrachtung. Mu-
38
nich: Hueber 1939, p. 8: “Wieweit sind die biologischen Erkenntnisse für
39 eine Vertiefung, Erweiterung oder Korrektur der bisherigen Grundlage der
40 Geisteswissenschaft möglich, brauchbar und notwendig?”
(c) Biologist Approaches: Ludwig Büttner (1939) 261
1 methodological question as they were too much driven by the natural

2 sciences.
3 Few exceptions confirm the rule. Büttner thinks highly of Hans
4 F.K. Günther’s ‘physical description of a race’ (“leibliche[] Beschrei-
5 bung einer Rasse”) which is said to be a combination of artistic and sci-
6 entific observation, of intuition and statistics.54 Another positive role
7 model is Alfred Rosenberg’s Fascist ‘chef d’oeuvre’ Der Mythus des
8 20. Jahrhunderts (1930) – a widely acknowledged as well as highly dis-
9 puted attempt at an intuitive racial world view.55 Rosenberg (1893 –
10 1946), fascinated by Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s racial theories, is
11 to be regarded as the ideologist-in-chief of the National Socialist
12 party who promotes race purification. In contrast to Oswald Spengler’s
13 sceptical depiction of the ‘Decline of the Occident’, Rosenberg’s
14
Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts proposes a racial symbolism that includes a
15
new ‘Nordic’ religious myth as well as a new ‘Germanic’ aesthetics.56
16
National Socialism becomes the telos of Rosenberg’s ideology of histo-
17
ry – an ideology which German academics were not allowed to oppose.
18
Büttner therefore uses a special strategy to cite (yet subvert) Rosen-
19
berg’s ideology. Büttner concludes that both Günther and Rosenberg
20
21
22 54 Ibid., p. 17.
55 Ibid., pp. 20 f; on Rosenberg see Herbert P. Rohfelder: A Study of Alfred
23
Rosenberg’s Organization for National Socialist Ideology. PhD-thesis 1963
24 (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor); Reinhard Bollmus: Das Amt Rosenberg
25 und seine Gegner: Studien zum Machtkampf im nationalsozialistischen Herr-
26 schaftssystem. Munich: Oldenbourg 2006; Ernst Piper: Alfred Rosenberg: Hit-
27 lers Chefideologe. Munich: Pantheon Verlag 2007.
56 Alfred Rosenberg: Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts: Eine Wertung des see-
28
lisch-geistigen Gestaltenkämpfe unserer Zeit. 17th–20th ed. Munich: Hohenei-
29 chen-Verl. 1934, pp. 277 f: “Auch die Zeit der dickbändigen Aesthetiken ist
30 vorüber. Die überwiegend zergliedernde Arbeit […] hat uns auch eine lange
31 Reihe sich bis ins feinste verästelnde Werke über das Wesen der Kunst und
32 die aesthetische Empfindung beschert. Eine ungeheure geistige Arbeit liegt
hier aufgespeichert, aber kein Mensch liest heute Zimmermann, Hartmann,
33
ja kaum noch Fechner, Külpe, Groos, Lipps, Müller-Freienfels, Moos und
34 viele andere.” / ‘The time for/of multi-volume works on aesthetics is over.
35 The largely dissecting, analytic way of working brought us a large number of
36 works on the essence of art and aesthetic perception which are infinitely rami-
37 fied. A tremenduous intellectual work is stored here, but nowadays hardly any-
body is reading Zimmermann, Hartmann, and very little by Fechner, Külpe,
38
Groos, Lipps, Müller-Freienfels, Moos and others’. The problem of this ‘ana-
39 tomic aesthetics’ is said to have been its analytic premise. Rosenberg aims to
40 replace this premise with regard to a synthetical Wagnerian aesthetic religion.
1 prove the existence of a ‘race’s soul’ (“Rassenseele”), a concept that –

2 according to Büttner – does not so much aim to distinguish between
3 races as to draw attention to the various racial identities of every
4 human being: race seldom appears in pure form; almost everybody is
5 a hybrid, a “Mischling”.57 For those who know Rosenberg’s Mythus
6 – his classical definition of the soul as ‘inner element’ of race,58 his vehe-
7 ment attacks on ‘a pessimist Jewish and Catholic religion’ which impris-
8 ons the Nordic soul and its positive religion – it is evident that Büttner
9 considerably re-interprets Rosenberg’s concept without making this
10 overt. The same is true for Günther’s approach: Büttner reduces the
11 relevance of the biological race, implicitly turning it around by recog-
12 nising the multiplicity of races in which everybody participates.
13 Büttner’s relatively open-minded account leads to a combination of
14
mental as well as physical characteristics. ‘The racial principle is to be
15
seen in the interplay with other principles: the wholeness, the individ-
16
uation, the entelechy.’59 Race does not exist as a separate unity; rather,
17
the concept of race serves heuristic tasks – tasks that cannot be fulfilled
18
without taking into account other aspects of individual and social devel-
19
opment. They are briefly characterised by the phrase ‘completeness, in-
20
dividuation, entelechy’ (“Ganzheit, Individuation, Entelechie”) 60. As if
21
this idea does not stress Büttner’s bio-mental approach thoroughly, he
22
23
introduces another expression for his combinations: ‘the fate of the peo-
24
ple is historically developed in language, ethics and achievement. Blood
25
and soul form an organic unity.’61 According to Büttner, it is not blood
26
alone that determines an individual’s or a society’s fate. Rather, both de-
27 pend on the particular unity of blood and soul as expressed in the devel-
28 opment of language, ethics and achievement.
29
30 57 Büttner (fn. 53), p. 18.
31 58 Rosenberg (fn. 56), p. 2. On Rosenberg’s attacks against those ‘sects’ said to op-
32 pose the true Nordic religion; Rosenberg: Protestantische Rompilger: Der
Verrat an Luther und der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts. Munich: Hoheneichen
33
Verl. 1937.
34 59 Büttner (fn. 53), p. 25: “Das rassische Princip muß im Zusammenwirken mit
35 anderen Prinzipien: der Ganzheit, der Individuation, der Entelechie geschaut
36 werden.”
37 60 Ibid.
61 Ibid., p. 32: “Was im Volk schicksalhaft angelegt ist, entfaltet sich geschichtlich
38
in Sprache, Sitte und Leistung. Blut und Geist. Bilden eine organische Ganz-
39 heit, und biologische Erscheinungen wie das Volkstum sind leibliche und see-
40 lisch-geistige Erscheinungen.”
(c) Biologist Approaches: Ludwig Büttner (1939) 263
1 This theory of race finds an ideal object in the German people. In

2 order to study the Germans, Büttner suggests two concepts: ‘Nordic’,
3 referring to most parts of the German race and ‘Germanic’, denoting
4 the people’s culture. ‘German culture is the organic and historical devel-
5 opment of Germanic culture, which, in this process, fused and coalesced
6 the racial and cultural other into its essence’,62 states Büttner. He stresses
7 that a multiracial and multicultural layer underlies German identity – a
8 most controversial description in a time when the homogeneity of the
9 people was officially praised. It follows from Büttner’s multi-racial con-
10 cept that Germany as a ‘people of the middle’ (“Volk der Mitte”) is full
11 of tensions.63 Although Büttner does not expand on this consequence
12 one could perhaps understand his expression ‘people of the middle’ as
13 an explanation of the rising political conflicts of the late 1930s.
14 Poetics, however, according to Büttner, ought not to serve political,
15 but rather scientific, interests. Therefore, Büttner ascribes the following
16 tasks to the study of poetics: firstly, the racial analysis of the poet which
17 is, secondly, specified by the study of the ‘genetic make-up of the poet’
18 (“Erbbild des Dichters”).64 Büttner again expresses his scepticism when
19 it comes to the evaluation of this genetic make-up: genius, for instance,
20 cannot be inherited. Thirdly, Büttner demands the observation of the
21 poetic creation of human beings (“dichterische Menschengestaltung”)
22 as well as of the influence of racial factors.65 This third step proves to
23 be difficult as one has to take into account the poet’s fantasy, which
24 tends not to follow racial patterns. Nevertheless, Büttner expects to
25 solve the problem through racial comparison: folk and racial character-
26 istics are expected to reveal themselves in syntax, in the construction
27 and development of climax, in sentences, the choice of words, the
28 level of tone and in composition and symbols.66
29 Büttner breaks with his more or less scientific race-centred approach
30 only when it comes to Jewish influences on German culture, claiming
31 that this race affects German culture negatively. He does not justify
32 why it is this race that endangers the – in itself manifold – German cul-
33 ture. Instead, he attacks normative aesthetics. According to Büttner,
34
35 62 Ibid., p. 35: “Die deutsche Kultur ist die organisch und geschichtliche Weiter-
36 entwicklung der germanischen Kultur, die aber rassisch und kulturell Anderes
37 wesenhaft eingeschmolzen hat.”
63 Ibid., p. 39.
38
64 Ibid., pp. 62 f.
39 65 Ibid., pp. 72 f.
40 66 Ibid., p. 85.
1 normative aesthetics has always been oriented towards the South; Nor-
2 dic form seems to have been too difficult to analyse. Büttner alleges that
3 Jewish thought is responsible for this trend. He states that Jewish intel-
4 lectuals have tended to colonise German language and literature as they
5 are not of the same race (“arthaft”).67 Büttner therefore pleads for a par-
6 ticular kind of research: he wishes to find out to what extent ‘the Jewish
7 literary science’ (“die jüdische Literaturwissenschaft”), exemplified by
8 colleagues like Gundolf and Strich, applied ‘non-German’ norms to
9 German literature.68 This pleading grants a concession to Fascism.
10 Although Büttner’s attempt to establish a biologist poetics sounds
11 promising, its founder discredits it through his anti-Semitism. Yet Bütt-
12 ner’s method is developed in a neutral way and should be recognised.
13 Before Büttner, no literary theorist had formulated such a thoughtful,
14
methodologically open and clear account of the difficult area of race
15
and culture.
16
17
18
(d) Morphological Poetics: Günther Müller (1943)
19
20
Büttner’s important role in the history of poetics can also be proven by
21
the fact that his methodological key question was a subject of inquiry for
22
other academics. Günther Müller (1890 – 1957) whose early formalist
23
works were based on Edmund Husserl and whose name is still connect-
24
ed with the concepts of narrative time (“Erzählzeit”) and narrated time
25
(“erzählte Zeit”) was one of those literary scientists who devoted their
26
attention to the relation of nature and mind.69 He provided a traditional
27
28
solution to Büttner’s problem: morphological poetics. According to
29
Müller, his approach inspired by Goethe can close the gap between nat-
30
ural and human science as it discovers the ‘sources of life’ (“Quellen des
31
Lebens”).70
32
33
67 Ibid., p. 20.
34 68 Ibid., p. 113.
35 69 On the relation of Müller and Husserl see Pierre Deghaye: De Husserl à
36 Günther Müller. In: Études Germaniques 20 (1965), pp. 366 – 369; Andreas
37 Pilger: Nationalsozialistische Steuerung und die ‘Irritationen’ der Literaturwis-
senschaft. In: Literaturwissenschaft und Nationalsozialismus, ed. by Holger
38
Dainat and Lutz Danneberg. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2003 (Studien und Texte
39 zur Sozialgeschichte der Literatur 99), pp. 107 – 126, pp. 123 f.
40 70 Günther Müller (fn. 69), p. 246.
(d) Morphological Poetics: Günther Müller (1943) 265
1 Like Büttner’s biologist approach, Müller’s morphological one is far

2 removed from Fascist goals – not only because of Müller’s Catholicism
3 (which he eschewed in the 1930s) but also because of the fact that his
4 colleague Kindermann made his academic life at Münster University
5 unbearable.71 Müller relies on a prominent tradition of thought: Aristo-
6 tle had taken the first steps towards a teleological biology.72 Goethe was
7 the thinker who complemented them with botanical as well as anatom-
8 ical studies.73 Around 1900, his morphology became particularly popular
9 and it is this general trend which Müller still adheres to: monolinear
10 theories of progress failed to convince contemporary historians. There-
11 fore, they were looking for new concepts to explain historical changes.
12 Morphology provided one of the most promising accounts. Firstly, it al-
13 lows a link between natural and cultural developments. Secondly, mor-
14
phology examines its objects within an endless circle of life. It takes into
15
account degrees of high development without considering them as the
16
ultimate and best phase of history. Instead, historical texts such as Os-
17
wald Spengler’s famous Untergang des Abendlandes (1918/1922) distin-
18
guish between types of development, types that can reoccur and that
19
mark phases of the rise and fall of nations.74
20
21
22 71 Pilger: Nationalsozialistische Steuerung, (fn. 69).
72 Wolfgang Kullmann: Die Teleologie in der aristotelischen Biologie: Aristoteles
23
als Zoologe, Embryologe und Genetiker. Heidelberg: Winter 1979; Wolfgang
24 Kullmann: Zum Gedanken der Teleologie in der Naturphilosophie des Aristo-
25 teles und seiner Beurteilung in der Neuzeit. In: Zum teleologischen Argument
26 in der Philosophie: Aristoteles, Kant, Hegel, ed. by Jürgen-Eckhardt Pleines.
27 Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 1991, pp. 150 – 171.
73 Dorothea Kuhn: “Die Metamorphose der Pflanzen ward als Herzenserleichte-
28
ACHTUNGRErung geschrieben”: Goethes Voraussetzungen und Ziele. In: In der Mitte zwi-
29 schen Natur und Subjekt: Johann Wolfgang Goethes ,Versuch, die Metamor-
30 phose der Pflanzen zu erklären‘. 1790 – 1990. Sachverhalte, Gedanken, Wir-
31 kungen, ed. Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft. Coll. Willi Zie-
32 gler, ed. by Gunter Mann, Dieter Mollenhauer and Stefan Peters. Frankfurt
a. M.: Kramer 1992, pp. 19 – 31; D.K: Typologie und Metamorphose:
33
Goethe-Studien, eds. Renate Grumach. Marbach a. N.: Dt. Schillergesellschaft
34 (Marbacher Schriften 30).
35 74 On Spengler see Herbert Jauman: Oswald Spengler “Der Untergang des
36 Abendlandes” (1918/1922). In: Große Theorien von Freud bis Luhmann,
37 ed. by Walter Erhart and Herbert Jaumann. Munich: Beck 2000 (Beck’sche
Reihe 1398), pp. 52 – 72; Horst Thomé: Geschichtsspekulationen als Weltan-
38
schauungsliteratur: Zu Oswald Spenglers “Der Untergang des Abendlandes”.
39 In: Literatur und Wissen(schaften) 1890 – 1935, ed. by Christine Maillard
40 and Michael Titzmann. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 2002, pp. 193 – 212.
1 Spengler himself was no National Socialist and neither was Müller.75

2 Müller’s main text Morphologische Poetik was published in the interna-
3 tional journal Hlicon (Amsterdam, 1944). The journal’s purpose is con-
4 ducive to Müller’s attempt: he aims to create a new poetics in European
5 literary science by investigating ‘simple laws of composition’ (“ein-
6 ACHTUNGREfache[] Gestaltungsgesetze”).76 Therefore, Müller encounters some
7 methodological problems: simple in his case means that a statement
8 needs no proof. It is no wonder that the notion ‘simple’ is of some im-
9 portance throughout the whole text.
10 Astonishingly, Müller does not quote the historian of art, literature
11 and language Johannes Andreas Jolles (1874 – 1946) in this context. Al-
12 ready in 1930, Jolles had published his major work Einfache Formen, a
13 typology of oral narrative forms like wit, phrase or puzzle.77 Müller
14 might have had political reasons for his ignorance of Jolles: in 1933,
15 Jolles joined the NSDAP, became a member of the “Sicherheitsdienst
16 Reichsführer-SS” (SD) in 1937 and received the Goethe-medal from
17 Hitler in 1944, the year of Müller’s publication. Still, both studies are
18 so close that Müller’s account can be regarded as a further development
19 of Jolles’.
20 Jolles differentiates between three tasks of literary science: the aes-
21 thetical, the historical and the morphological; all three work according
22 to their own methods. His focus is on the morphological task that is the
23 description and definition of form, or more precisely “Gestalt”.78 “Ge-
24
25 75 Rainer Baasner assumes that Müller’s interest in morphology might be related
26 to the Nazis but taking into account the context mentioned above, this assump-
27 tion seems to be short-sighted; see Baasner: Günther Müllers morphologische
Poetik und ihre Rezeption. In: Zeitenwechsel: Germanistische Literaturwis-
28
senschaft vor und nach 1945, ed. by Wilfried Barner and Christoph König.
29 Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer 1996, pp. 256 – 267, p. 257.
30 76 Günther Müller (fn. 69), p. 225.
31 77 Re-appraisals of the work are to be found in Heilna Du Plooy: Literatur uit die
32 lewe: André Jolles se ‘Einfache Formen’. In: Journal of Literary Studies 4
(1985), pp. 20 – 37; Ulla Fix: Was ist aus André Jolles “Einfachen Formen”
33
heute geworden? Eine kulturanalytische und textlinguistische Betrachtung.
34 In: Sprache und Kommunikation im Kulturkontext, ed. by Volker Hertel.
35 Frankfurt a. M.: Lang 1996, pp. 105 – 120; Regula Rohland de Langbehn:
36 La teoría de las ‘formas simples’ de André Jolles (1874 – 1946): Una reconsider-
37 ación. In: Hispanic Research Journal. Iberian and Latin American Studies 3
(2002) 3, pp. 243 – 260.
38
78 André Jolles: Einfache Formen. Legende/ Sage/ Mythe/ Rätsel/ Spruch/
39 Kasus/ Memorabile/ Märchen/ Witz. 2nd unchanged ed. Darmstadt: Wissen-
40 schaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1958 (1st ed. 1930), pp. 6 f.
1 stalt” is more than form. As Müller does later, Jolles derives this term
2 from Goethe’s morphology as well as from Oskar Walzel who is, inci-
3 dentally, not mentioned in Einfache Formen. Goethe holds the view that
4 “Gestalt” names what belongs together and is fixed in its character even
5 though the relevant object is still developing; in other words: “Gestalt”
6 refers to a core of a unity which expresses itself in different ‘forms’ but
7 cannot be changed.79 It is something to be traced ‘underneath’ the sur-
8 face.
9 Jolles turns this abstract biological idea into a pragmatic critical con-
10 cept: the concept of “Gestalt” is replaced by the concept of simple forms
11 such as legends. Legends exist everywhere and at all times: be it in an-
12 tiquity or in the middle ages. Jolles explains this phenomenon as a great
13 cultural earthquake through which spiritual tendencies generate charac-
14 teristic expressions which are condensed by language.80 The task of the
15 morphologist is to classify the results, that is, the different types of simple
16 forms.
17 Müller instead focuses on development, on the ‘forming, creative
18 forces’ (“formende[], bildende[] Kräfte”) as they are individually specif-
19 ic, thereby making normative poetics impossible.81 He starts from two
20 axioms (“Grundsätze”), which are stated as ‘simple observations’ (“ein-
21 ACHTUNGREfache Beobachtungen”): firstly, poetry is ‘language-bound’ (“sprachge-
22 tragene”) reality; secondly, the force that gives birth to this ‘language-
23 bound’ reality is a force of nature.82
24 The first ‘simple observation’ is reminiscent of Ingarden’s structural
25 layers of an ‘artwork of words’: Müller claims that in a literary text, lan-
26 guage forms a body of resonance (“Klangleib”) of fewer or bigger sen-
27 sual forces,83 then comes the ‘arrangement’ (“Gefüge”) of sentences
28 which in a poetic text can either be logical or illogical; the ‘arrangement
29 of meaning’ (“Bedeutungsgefüge”) makes the work complete.84 Müller
30 lays stress on the difference between poetic and non-poetic writing in
31 order to indicate a theory of interpretation: it is not statements and cor-
32 rectness which are of most importance or relevance in a work of art, but
33
34 79 Ibid., p. 6.
35 80 Ibid., p. 265.
36 81 Günther Müller: Morphologische Poetik [1944]. In: G.M., Gesammelte Auf-
37 sätze, in collab. with Helga Egner ed. by Elena Müller. Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1968, pp. 225 – 246, p. 225.
38
82 Ibid., pp. 226 f.
39 83 Ibid., p. 227.
40 84 Ibid., p. 228.
1 ‘something Other’ (“etwas Anderes”): this ‘Other’ is constituted by the

2 combination of language and meaning as it appears in poetry.85 The sec-
3 ond ‘simple observation’ refers to the Greek notion of ‘physis’ which
4 includes cultural aspects like talents and gifts as well.
5 The analysis of layers as well as the idea of ‘physis’ indicate a theo-
6 retical direction well-known as a result of the work of Theodor A.
7 Meyer and others: the work of art is to be seen as a ‘unity’ (“Einheit”) 86
8 as ‘actuality of the gestalt’ (“Gestaltwirklichkeit”).87 Originating in the
9 characteristics of language, for instance the succession of words and sen-
10 tences, the work is further developed in a series of genres as well as in its
11 specific individual features. These developments are described as a pat-
12 tern of metamorphosis, a change from one state to another. Adopting
13 Goethe’s morphology, Müller distinguishes two ‘types of metamorpho-
14 sis’ (“Metamorphose-Arten”):88 a ‘vertical’ (“vertikale”) and a ‘spiral
15
16
17 85 Ibid., p. 229.
86 Ibid., p. 231.
18
87 Ibid., p. 235: “Dichtung ist eine Gestaltwirklichkeit, die durch sprachliche Ent-
19 ACHTUNGREfaltung eines Kräftespiels von Bedeutungen gebildet wird, dies ist ein Kern-
20 ACHTUNGREpunkt morphologischer Poetik. Es ist zugleich eine Bestimmung des Typus
21 Dichtung, Typus wieder im Sinn von Goethes Morphologie genommen (die
22 ihn besonders in dem osteologischen Entwurf herausarbeitet). Und schon aus
den bisherigen Ausführungen geht hervor, daß auch der Typus Dichtung
23
nicht ohne Metamorphose erscheinen kann. Einmal stellen die unübersehbaren
24 Reihen der wirklichen Dichtungen lauter Abwandlungen, Metamorphosen
25 dieses Typus dar. Diese Abwandlungen bilden Gattungen und Arten, in
26 denen sich der allgemeine Dichtungstypus zu Gattungen und Arten besondert.
27 Zum andern verwirklicht sich jede Dichtung in einem Werden, das bei aller
Verschiedenheit mit dem Wachsen einer Pflanze verglichen werden kann
28
und das sich durch Metamorphosen vollzieht.” / ‘Poetry is a gestalt-reality
29 which is created by the linguistic unfolding of an interplay of powers of mean-
30 ings, and this is a key aspect in morphologic poetry. It is also a definition of the
31 type of poetry, ‘type’ in the sense of Goethe’s morphology (elaborated in par-
32 ticular in the oesteological thoughts). As it became already apparent in our pre-
vious observations, the type of poetry cannot appear without metamorphosis.
33
For the highly visible numbers of true poetry are modifications and metamor-
34 phoses of this type. These modifications generate further kinds and types into
35 which this general type of poetry is differentiated. Furthermore, every work
36 of poetry reaches its fullest potential in a becoming, which, despite some differ-
37 ences, can be compared to the growing of a plant, and which occurs by means
of metamorphosis’.
38
88 Goethe developed his reflections on the different types of metamorphosis from
39 the Greek ‘systole’/ ‘diastole’, see Goethe: Botanik als Wissenschaft (1788 –
40 1794). In: Goethe, Schriften zur Morphologie, ed. by Dorothea Kuhn. Frank-
1 tendency’ (“spirale Tendenz”) that stem from fundamental male and fe-
2 male phenomena such as ‘leading force’ (“Führkraft”) and ‘swelling
3 force’ (“Schwellkraft”).89
4 Müller engages with the biological model to a considerable extent;
5 he follows the biological thinking of his time, moving away from clas-
6 sification and embracing typology: every poetic work originates from
7 one original germ or from the original plant. The goal is to show its
8 metamorphosis and the different phases of the work. A poetics like
9 this ‘is not aesthetics but gestalt-studies’;90 it does not observe aesthetical
10 attraction, but rather the general laws of formation. In order to comple-
11 ment this biological holism the reader is seen as part of the work of art.
12 He is asked to read the work aloud, to observe the meaning of the body
13 of language. Therefore, the reader forms the work of art by himself, at
14
least to some extent. He thereby contributes to the amalgamation
15
(“Verschmelzen”) of abstract poetic structures and the realized work.91
16
It is no wonder that this approach criticizes the doctrine of experience
17
and other external explanations of the poetic,92 the argument being that
18
the work and the process of its perception should be seen as one. Mül-
19
ler’s morphology tends toward a certain hermeticism: there is no way
20
out of the poetic work that is identical with its perception.
21
Rather than closing the gap between natural and human science,
22
23
Müller seems to impose the naturalist model upon cultural phenomena.
24
This tendency is also proven by the fact that non-biologist works such as
25
Staiger’s Die Zeit als Einbildungskraft des Dichters are quoted mainly in
26
27 furt a. M.: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag 1987 ( J.W. Goethe, Sämtliche Werke,
Briefe, Tagebücher und Gespräche I, 24), pp. 93 – 108, p. 107, passim; see
28
also Gabriele Malsch: Systole – Diastole, Motus cordis – Motus in omnibus:
29 Zur Geschichte eines Begriffspaares. In: Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 41
30 (1999), pp. 86 – 118.
31 89 G. Müller (fn. 69), pp. 237 f.
32 90 Ibid., p. 241: “Diese Poetik ist nicht Ästhetik, sondern Gestaltkunde.”
91 Ibid., p. 242.
33
92 Ibid., p. 245: “Schädelform, Gesichtsausdruck, Gebärde, Stimmklang sind nicht
34 der ganze Mensch, aber sie bringen ihn zur Erscheinung. Die Dichtung als
35 sprachgetragene Gestalt ist nicht der Dichter und nicht sein Erlebnis, sondern
36 ein Gebilde, das in einen völlig anderen, von eigenen Gesetzen durchwalteten
37 Wirklichkeitsbereich gehört […].” / ‘Shape of the skull, facial expression, ges-
tures, sound of voice do not make the whole human being, but they let it ap-
38
pear. Poetry as a gestalt of language is constituted by not by the poet or his ex-
39 periences alone. Rather, it is a creation which belongs to a very different area of
40 reality, goverened by its own laws.’
1 order to illustrate Müller’s reflections. Nevertheless, Müller goes far in

2 developing what promises to be a poetological approach worth discus-
3 sing – an approach that was not widely recognized, but popular within a
4 small group of scholars: Using Müller’s poetics as his starting point,
5 Horst Oppel wrote a whole Morphologische Literaturwissenschaft – Goethes
6 Ansicht und Methode (1947), a work that was criticized by the anti-biol-
7 ogist Hans Pyritz.93 Pyritz’s criticism might have influenced Eberhard
8 Lämmert who conceived his Bauformen des Erzhlens (1955) as a moder-
9 ate interpretation of the morphological approach.
10 All three examples show, however, that Müller and his successors
11 helped to build a branch of German formalism – a formalism that was
12 inspired by Ingarden’s structural approach but tried to combine it
13 with biologist assumptions. The attractive aspect of this combination
14
is a systematic one: if one could convincingly close the gap between na-
15
ture and mind (or culture) in the area of poetics, the result would re-
16
spond to Dilthey’s demand: poetics could become the leading science
17
not only of the humanities, but of an integrative bio spiritism.
18
19
20
(e) Towards a Methodology of a ‘General Literary Science’:
21
22
Julius Petersen (1939, 21944)
23
24
The enormous variety of poetological approaches existing already in the
25
1890s, led to a new sub-discipline of literary science: methodology.
26
Methodology covers a grey zone between poetics (which in some
27
parts means methodology), logic and epistemology. As part of literary
28 studies, methodology provides information regarding the premises, ar-
29 guments and ways of engaging with literature; as part of logic and epis-
30 temology the methodology of literary studies becomes an example for
31 the whole spectrum of scientific approaches, for its convincing and
32 problematic assumptions and habits.94 Julius Petersen main work repre-
33 sents one of the first and most comprehensive examples of this tenden-
34 cy.
35 Julius Petersen (1878 – 1941) studied German, history of art and phi-
36 losophy in Lausanne, Munich, Leipzig and Berlin (with Wilhelm Dilth-
37
38
39 93 On these sources see Baasner (fn. 75), pp. 263 – 265.
40 94 See also introduction of this book.
(e) Towards a Methodology of a ‘General Literary Science’ 271
1 ey, Heinrich Wölfflin and Gustav Roethe).95 After having obtained his
2 qualifications and working as a journalist for the Allgemeine Zeitung (Mu-
3 nich), he relocated many times: he received a professorship at Munich
4 University (1911), at Yale University (1912), at Basle University (1914),
5 at Frankfurt am Main University (1914/1915) and finally settled down
6 in Berlin (1920) where he became director of the German seminar. Var-
7 ious academic travels brought him to the USA (1933), England (1935)
8 and Estonia (1935). His prizes, honours and memberships in literary so-
9 cieties or academies and his various editorships, cannot be counted.
10 Amongst his students were some of the most influential Germanists of
11 the time: Richard Alewyn, Hans Pyritz, Karl Viëtor and Benno von
12 Wiese to mention only the most important names.
13 What might have fascinated them regarding Petersen, could have
14 been his interest in methodology as clearly shown in Philosophie der
15 ACHTUNGRELiteraturwissenschaft (1930), a volume Petersen co-edited with Ermating-
16 er. The volume turns out to serve as an introduction to contemporary
17 methodologies. Starting from this background, Julius Petersen’s main
18 work Die Wissenschaft von der Dichtung. System und Methodenlehre der
19 ACHTUNGRELiteraturwissenschaft (I, 1939, 21944) is not a poetic treatise but an inter-
20 esting example: it sums up nearly all relevant poetological tendencies of
21 the time, as in his inaugural lecture “Literaturgeschichte als Wissen-
22 schaft” (Basle, 1914) aiming to combine text-based and context-based
23 approaches.96 Therefore, the text not only reads like a well-written
24 handbook of poetics but it also tries to heighten the diversity, from
25 more or less developed approaches to firm methods. Although Peter-
26 ACHTUNGREsen’s book does not provide many original ideas its methodological ac-
27 count of poetics was still influential in the 1950s, 60s and early 70s. Pe-
28 tersen’s belief in method and his plea for a ‘general literary science’ (“all-
29 gemeine Literaturwissenschaft”) 97 has an after-life in Wolfgang Kayser’s
30 and Max Wehrli’s theories. One reason for this may also be found in
31 Petersen’s methodological scepticism, which shapes his plea for method-
32 ology: despite being a National Socialist, Petersen is sceptical when it
33 comes to the scientific relevance of biological and racial approaches.
34
35 95 Red.: Petersen, Julius. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon 1800 – 1950, ed.
36 by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2003, vol. 2, pp. 1385 –
37 1388.
96 On the Inaugural lecture and related methodological controversies see Petra
38
Boden: Julius Petersen: Ein Wissenschaftsmanager auf dem Philologenthron.
39 In: Euphorion 88 (1994) 1, pp. 82 – 102, pp. 82 – 96.
40 97 Petersen (fn. 95), p. 1.
1 What is more: Petersen defended and employed a Jewish colleague de-

2 spite the Nazi rule prohibiting the employment of Jews and, therefore,
3 suffered to a considerable extent through Franz Koch’s actions, a newly
4 established Berlin colleague who was himself a Nazi.98
5 Politics on the whole seems to be far detached from the study of lit-
6 erary method when reading Petersen’s preface. He presents his oeuvre as
7 a continuation of his inaugural lecture at Basle, entitled “Literaturge-
8 schichte als Wissenschaft” (1914), a continuation that was never com-
9 pleted: the oeuvre remains a fragment even in its second edition, pre-
10 pared and prefaced by Erich Trunz (1905 – 2001), Petersen’s PhD-stu-
11 dent who joined the National Socialist party, became a professor in Pra-
12 gue (1940), lost his office (1946 – 1950) and was reinstalled as a professor
13 in Münster (1955 – 1957) and Kiel (1957 – 1970). Petersen distinguishes
14 his approach from Elster, Walzel, Ermatinger and others in saying that
15 they either took the work or the psychology of poetic creation into ac-
16 count whereas he himself aims at a double and comprehensive perspec-
17 tive. Synthesis is the keyword for his general literary science.99 The task
18
for such a science is nothing less than that of revealing humanity in the
19
spiritual world.
20
In order to serve his humanist ideal, Petersen considers extensively
21
the concept and development of method, the literary work and the
22
poet, as well as the future prospects for literary science. All this is exe-
23
cuted with a remarkable openness that combines the national with the
24
transnational: although national literary histories are divided, it should
25
be easy not only to compare them but also to find out about processes
26
of transfer between them. The ‘travel pass’ (“Reisepaß”) that guarantees
27
open access to the other national or, indeed, international areas, can be
28
obtained easily.100 Nevertheless, literature is only to be perceived as an
29
‘organism’ in the national language it uses.101 There are as many literary
30
31
histories as literary languages, but there is only one literary science.102
32
Petersen’s doctrine of method is best understood in the context its
33
double, national and transnational, background. As a ‘common doctrine
34
35 98 Boden: Julius Petersen (fn. 96), pp. 97 – 102.
36 99 Julius Petersen: Die Wissenschaft von der Dichtung: System und Methoden-
37 lehre der Literaturwissenschaft. With contributions from the bequested papers
ed. by Erich Trunz. 2nd ed. Berlin: Junker & Dünnhaupt 1944, p. XIX.
38
100 Ibid., p. 5.
39 101 Ibid.
40 102 Ibid., p. 9, p. 12.
1 of method’ literary science offers orientation to all literary histories,103 as

2 well as providing a statement of accounts of science as such. Despite his
3 stressing of methodology, Petersen’s statement of accounts does not take
4 the concept itself all that seriously. Like Adolf von Harnack (1851 –
5 1930), maybe the most important theologian, church historian and or-
6 ganiser of science in the late 19th century, Petersen names this method
7 ‘mother wit’ (“Mutterwitz”), ‘a way of experience that cannot be trans-
8 ferred’ to another person (“unübertragbare Erlebnisart”, Friedrich Gun-
9 dolf):104 ‘There are as many methods as there are standpoints and aims
10 […]’, concludes Petersen.105 As a consequence, the high tide of literary
11 method around and after 1890 is depicted as an ‘inflation period of
12 methods’ (“Inflationszeit der Methoden”).106 All these methods, howev-
13 er, have something in common: they direct the interpretation of liter-
14
ature in a fruitful way.
15
Therefore, Petersen recommends logic as a basis for general theoret-
16
ical reflection, stating that everything beyond it is individualistic only. In
17
his theoretical fragment Petersen tries to show to what extent such a
18
meta-theoretical approach can be helpful. Against the fragmentation
19
and differentiation of the humanities around and after 1890, he goes
20
back to the foundations of literary theory, following Sigmund von Lem-
21
picki’s (1886 – 1943) ‘Habilitation’ Geschichte der deutschen Literaturwissen-
22
23
schaft bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts (1920, 21968) and J.H. O’Leary’s
24
English Literary History and Bibliography (1928). Close to Lempicki’s
25
thinking, Petersen names three sources of a general literary science: ‘lit-
26
erary history, aesthetic literary criticism and history’ (“Literärhistorie, äs-
27 thetische Literaturkritik und Geschichtswissenschaft”);107 observing the
28 long history of the development of literary theory this amalgamation
29 sounds plausible although not complete. It might have been useful to
30 have mentioned rhetoric, grammar and other fields of knowledge like
31 medicine.
32 Still, many discussions of so-called methods develop the meta-scien-
33 tific account in great detail. This presentation will only highlight some
34 of Petersen’s most striking comments that relate firstly, to past poetic
35
36 103 Ibid., p. 13.
37 104 Ibid., p. 14.
105 Ibid., p. 14: “Es gibt […] ebenso viele Methoden, als es Standorte und Zielset-
38
zungen gibt […].”
39 106 Ibid., p. 17.
40 107 Ibid., p. 20.
1 debates such as psychologism, secondly, to the contemporary situation

2 and thirdly, to the most valuable approaches.
3 Petersen introduces his historical judgement with his general views
4 on literature and the poet. They both express a broad understanding of
5 the subject: for instance, literature is to be understood as the ‘art of ho-
6 listic fantasy and sensuality’ (“Kunst allseitiger Phantasiesinnlichkeit”)
7 that includes every sense.108 Its principle agent is the poet, the ‘unity
8 of causes’ (“Ursacheneinheit”) of the work; but in order to understand
9 a work it is not enough to examine ‘the poetic man’ (“den dichterischen
10 Menschen”); ‘genetic relations’ (“genetische Verbindungen”) between
11 the work and the poet ought to be observed as well.109
12 Petersen explains this idea by referring to psychologism. In contrast
13 to the general spirit of the 1920s to the 1940s, he astonishingly appre-
14 ciates psychological approaches, although he states that the act of crea-
15 tion remains a mystery.110 The only way to approach it is to look back-
16 wards: a scientist needs to analyse the work first and then consider its
17 genesis, taking into account the poet and his context. From the back-
18 ground of this modified psychological theory of development Petersen
19 defends ‘positivism’ against all too simple devaluations; he praises Scher-
20 er’s philological approach as ‘devotion to detail’ (“Andacht zum Klei-
21 nen”) and even expands on Scherer’s French reception (Victor
22 Basch).111 Petersen’s own position is disclosed by his positive remarks
23 on Elster: the small impact of Elster’s (according to Petersen) intelligent
24 books is to be explained by new poetological trends leaning toward his-
25 torical and problem-related approaches.112
26 These approaches continued to be significant and to shape literary
27 thinking in the 1940s. Petersen depicts literary studies with regard to
28 their context and attributes to them an important task: in all countries
29 that participate in the War, the evaluation of poetry is to be regarded
30 as being part of a country’s reconstruction.113 Despite this all-encom-
31
32
33
108 Ibid., p. 255.
34 109 Ibid., p. 278.
35 110 Ibid., pp. 157 f.
36 111 Ibid., p. 37.
37 112 Ibid., pp. 43 f.
113 Ibid., p. 47: “In allen Ländern, die am Weltkrieg teilgenommen haben, ist die
38
Wertung der Dichtung und der ihr geltenden Wissenschaft als Pfeiler eines
39 Wiederaufbaus, der auf Sichselbstbefinden ausgeht, unverkennbar.” / ‘It is ap-
40 parent that in all countries that participated in the world war the appreciation of
1 passing humanism, Petersen, at this point – perhaps as a mode of self-de-

2 fence against Nazi critics like Koch114 – adheres to National Socialism as
3 he writes that, in Germany, these tasks are ‘determined by the particular
4 stand-point of National Socialist world view’.115 The ‘people’ has to be
5 seen as a key concept that mediates between the individual and human-
6 ity; therefore, traditional concepts are to be reinvented and decorated
7 with the ‘proud brandings of people-hood, race and existence’ (“den
8 stolzen Federzeichen Volkheit, Rasse und Existenz”).116
9 Yet Petersen’s close examination of poetic theories expresses a scep-
10 tical, rather than an enthusiastic, attitude towards National Socialism and
11 its world views: he expands on Obenauer who calls for a new poetics
12 based on national biology (Paul Krannhals), blood (Franz Koch himself)
13 and race (Hans F.K. Günther, Ludwig Ferdinand Clauß). As Petersen
14 states, German literary history offers a lot of examples for questions of
15 race but it is not adequate to expell the Jewish element from it (as Bütt-
16 ner advocated); in-depth study is still required on the extent to which
17 races influence each other and the history of literature.117 Existing stud-
18 ies grounded in biology, race and blood do not provide any convincing
19 results. On the contrary, they confuse more than they prove, e. g. when
20 it comes to the relation between poet and race: poets like Hinrich
21 Wriede (*1882) who mostly wrote in dialect and the sailor-poet
22 Gorch Fock (1880 – 1916) were both born in the formerly Danish Ham-
23 burg-Altona. Nevertheless, they do not fit into the Nordic type at all.118
24 The same confusion is true for the relation between the physical and spi-
25 ritual nature of the human being; despite Obenauer’s, Büttner’s and
26 other attempts, nothing is yet proven.119 As a consequence, Petersen
27 only vaguely expands on the chances of such accounts: according to
28
29 poetry and scholarly reasearch on it form a key pillar of the kind of reconstruc-
30 tion that aims at finding oneself.’
31 114 See Boden: Julius Petersen (fn. 96), p. 100.
32 115 Petersen (fn. 95), p. 48: “bestimmt ist durch den veränderten Standort national-
sozialistischer Weltanschauung”.
33
116 Ibid., p. 48.
34 117 Ibid., p. 49.
35 118 Ibid., p. 288.
36 119 Ibid., pp. 286 f: “Mangels fester Formen für das Verhältnis zwischen der kör-
37 perlichen und der geistigen Natur des Menschen bleibt die gegenseitige Hilfs-
ACHTUNGREleistung [von Rassetheorie und Literaturwissenschaft] unsicher.” / ‘In the ab-
38
sence of distinct categories for the relationship between the nature of body
39 and mind of human beings the mutual assistance and interexchange between
40 theories of race and literary studies remains uncertain.’
1 him, research on the ‘original mothers’ (“Urmütter”) and on genetic

2 make up and environment are factors that might help to explain a
3 poet’s genius.120 He also expresses some interest in the literary survival
4 of the fittest: leaders and followers amongst the poets can be distinguish-
5 ed as their relation to each other shapes literary history.121 Again, despite
6 being a National Socialist, Petersen doubts the explanatory potential of
7 simplistic racial accounts; he adheres to some heroic and Darwinist hu-
8 manism.
9 Contrary to his doubt in racial accounts Petersen is most excited by
10 formalist and phenomenological approaches. The work of Husserl, Hei-
11 degger and Ingarden lives on in the 1940s. Petersen compares Ingarden’s
12 phenomenology to the forgotten work of his Romanian counterpart
13 Michel Dragomirescu (La science de la littrature, 1928 – 29). Dragomires-
14 cu aims to introduce a scale of aesthetic judgements which Ingarden
15 wishes to avoid.122 Petersen’s enthusiasm for formalism increases only
16 in respect of Heidegger and Emil Staiger (Die Zeit als Einbildungskraft
17 des Dichters, 1939) who is regarded as the young theoretical genius fol-
18 lowing in Heidegger’s footsteps: Heidegger’s question of being is said to
19 be essential for the study of literature; the same is true for Heidegger’s
20 hermeneutics and Heidegger’s Hölderlin-readings.123 Staiger introduces
21 new view-points and concepts when it comes to lyric poetry. Instead of
22 “Weltanschauung” he focuses on pure form; instead of using Dilthey’s
23 concept of experience, Staiger relies on Heidegger’s concept of time.
24 ‘This accomplished and deft book’ (“dieses hochkultivierte, feinfühlige
25 Buch”),124 writes Petersen about Die Zeit, thereby pointing in the po-
26 etological direction which his general literary science favours. Looking
27 backwards, Petersen was on the right track. Heidegger and Staiger sur-
28 vived when Obenauer and Büttner were long forgotten.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 120 Ibid., pp. 304 – 322.
121 Ibid., p. 568.
38
122 Ibid., p. 64.
39 123 Ibid., p. 249, p. 258, p. 442.
40 124 Ibid., pp. 490 f.
1
2
3
4 14. New Approaches in a Reproductive Era
5
6
7 As mentioned with reference to Kayser and Seidler, one theory is said to
8 dominate literary thinking after 1945: ‘work immanence’ (“Werkim-
9 manenz”).1 This assertion is neither wrong nor right. However, con-
10 text-driven approaches, especially those that link the study of literature
11 to biology and race, were problematic for social and cultural reasons.
12 Studies of this kind force the scientist into the area of politics that in
13 the 1940s and 50s was overshadowed by the Nazi-past. But besides
14 these historical circumstances, there are inner-scientific explanations
15 for the preference for work-related theories: since the critique of ‘ex-
16 pressiveness’, context-driven approaches have largely been discredited.2
17 Despite some tendencies to revitalise them in the 1930s and 40s, influ-
18 ential scientists like Petersen rank them lower than the methodological
19 assumptions coming from formalism and phenomenology. On the one
20 hand, the reason for this lies in the appreciation of literature. Literature
21 is said to be an inconsummable, complex, rich, inexhaustible entity that
22 in itself includes more than one can discover in relation to context.3 On
23 the other hand, meta-scientific problems are not solved: Büttner, Mül-
24 ler and others made strong claims about the common nature of the nat-
25 ural and the human sciences, but they had not been able to prove them.
26 Reflecting these preconditions, literary theory or poetics in the
27 1940s and 50s restricts itself to the reproduction of formalist and phe-
28 nomenological approaches. An extreme example for such a relatively
29 meager account is Joseph Körner’s Einfhrung in die Poetik, published
30 in the year 1949 in Frankfurt am Main, permitted by the media control
31 watchdog of the military government. Körner’s (1888 – 1950) ‘Habilita-
32 tion’ on Romantiker und Klassiker. Die Brder Schlegel in ihrer Beziehung zu
33
34 1 Lutz Danneberg: Zur Theorie der werkimmanenten Interpretation. In: Zeiten-
35 wechsel. Germanistische Literaturwissenschaft vor und nach 1945, ed. by Wil-
36 fried Barner and Christoph König. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer 1996, pp. 313 – 342.
37 2 See chapter 12.
3 Carlos Spoerhase: Die ‘Dunkelheit’ der Dichtung als Herausforderung der Phi-
38
lologie. In: Konzert und Konkurrenz: Die Künste und ihre Wissenschaften im
39 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by Christian Huck, Sandra Richter and Oliver Scholl. Hil-
40 desheim [in print].
1 Schiller und Goethe (1924) had been rejected at Prague University in the
2 course of a highly controversial dispute about the general aims of literary
3 science – with the Jewish-German Körner representing the philological
4 camp that had come under attack from the ‘Ordinarius’ August Sauer
5 who advocated the study of national character.4 Nevertheless, Körner
6 received the ‘venia legendi’ for a second ‘Habilitation’ on Recht und
7 Pflicht. Eine Studie ber Kleists “Michael Kohlhaas” und “Prinz von Hom-
8 burg” (1926) and was employed as a professor in Prague (1930 – 1938).
9 Still, he was dismissed from his office when the Nazis took over Cze-
10 choslovakia, deported to Theresienstadt and freed in 1945; he became
11 a private scholar with a state pension until his death (again in Prague).5
12 Affirming the work of Theodor A. Meyer and his successors, Körner
13 defines literature as art of language or of words, states its artistic claim
14 and restricts the notion of literature to texts (pantomime, for instance,
15 is not part of literature). In turn, Körner’s book focuses on the language
16 aspect of literature: on style, prosody and the generic. Körner goes be-
17 yond formalism only through a vague amalgamation of psychological
18 and post-Heideggerian poetics in praising ‘the poet’s mission’ (“des
19
Dichters Sendung”) that is the ‘spiritually produced and unconscious
20
voicing of psychological experiences’ ‘in unconscious neccessity’ (“in
21
bewußtloser Notwendigkeit”).6 Even if such a poetics fulfils teaching
22
needs, it seldom goes beyond this and reveals any more information.
23
What is more: it leaves students in the dark when it comes to the origin
24
of adored achievements such as the poet’s mission.7
25
Yet Körner’s Einfhrung is an extremely reductive example. Other
26
texts such as Wolfgang Kayser’s Sprachliches Kunstwerk have more to
27
offer and,8 after Kayser, some new accounts of poetics and literary theo-
28
ry arose. This chapter will only discuss two of them. They were both
29
conceived for college or university teaching; their writers sharing
30
31
some scientific, as well as writing, interests. However, both texts were
32
4 Petra Boden: Julius Petersen: Ein Wissenschaftsmanager auf dem Philologen-
33
thron. In: Euphorion 88 (1994) 1, pp. 82 – 102, pp. 87 – 92.
34 5 Gerhard Sauder: Körner, Joseph. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon
35 1800 – 1950, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2003,
36 vol. 2, pp. 974 976.
37 6 Joseph Körner: Einführung in die Poetik. Frankfurt a. M.: Schulte-Blumke
1949 (Veröffentlicht, unter der Zulassungs-Nr. US-W-1042 der Nachrichten-
38
kontrolle der Militärregierung), p. 7.
39 7 See the chapter on poetics during the Nazi-period in this book.
40 8 See chapter 12.
(a) Author Poetics from America: Joachim Maass (1949, 21955) 279
1 written under entirely different circumstances and follow different

2 methodological assumptions. Hence they stand as examples for tenden-
3 cies already in existence at the time or tendencies which they themselves
4 brought to fruition: Joachim Maass’ work represents some of the old
5 aesthetics and opts for an author-based poetics (a). On the contrary,
6 Max Wehrli devoted himself to high methodological ideals of the inter-
7 national humanities (b).
8
9
10 (a) Author Poetics from America:
11 Joachim Maass (1949, 21955)
12
13 Little is known about Joachim Maass:9 He was born in Hamburg on 1st
14 September 1901 as the son of a wealthy Jewish-German merchant fam-
15
ily, attended the famous school of the Johanneum, loved his hometown
16
and left it only late in 1938. Arriving in America, he was helped by the
17
Carl Schurz Memorial Foundation as well as by the Oberländer Trust
18
who were interested in placing Jewish-German scholars and artists in
19
university jobs. In 1940, Maass got a job at the women’s college
20
Mount Holyoke in South Hadley, Massachusetts where he wrote and
21
lectured. Contemporaries like Hermann Hesse judged Maass to be
22
one of the most promising young novellists of the 1930s. Maass died
23
24
on 15th October 1972 in New York.
25
In his Die Geheimwissenschaft der Literatur. Acht Vorlesungen zu einer
26
sthetik des Dichterischen (1949) Maass not only reflects on his own the-
27
ories of writing, but also aims to provide a more than subjective theory
28 of literature. The book is in fact the result of a lecture series he gave at
29 Mount Holyoke seven years previously. Components of the lecture ser-
30 ies result from his experience as a poet as well as from teaching modern
31 literature (Thomas Mann, Hermann Hesse, Rilke, Hofmannsthal,
32 Kafka, Freud). As regards the idea of writing such a book in the first
33 place, Maass is inspired by the observation that modern literature
34 lacks an appropriate theory. Maass wishes to provide such a theory.
35 The reception of this theory was however characterised by public mis-
36 understanding and mere subjective interpretations in journalism.
37
38
9 The following information is taken from Dieter Sevin: Joachim Maass. In:
39 Deutschsprachige Exilliteratur seit 1933, ed. by John M. Spalek, Joseph Strelka.
40 part 1. Bern: Francke 1989, pp. 599 – 621.
1 Maass’ methodological premise reads like a vivid critique of journal-

2 ism, as well as of literary science. Journalistic literary critique has always
3 been the ‘tittle-tattle in the backstreets of scholarly critique of literature’
4 (“Hintertreppen-Tratsch”).10 To put it bluntly, this is no critique at all
5 but rather individual judgement. In contrast to this, literary theory fo-
6 cused on genre theory; after Hegel, it tended to simplify poetics as it
7 subsumed everything under the headings of subjectivity and objectivi-
8 ty.11 The cause for both aberrations is to be seen in the lack of a clear
9 and well-built critical system, in a lack of common feelings for values
10 that could be shared by critics and readers.
11 Despite the idea of an aesthetics of literature that is already expressed
12 in this ex negativo-description, Maass confesses to remaining sceptical:
13 there is no such thing as a logic of aesthetics. Instead, instinct proves to
14 be one of the most important weapons of the critic. Therefore, the lec-
15 ture series cannot provide a definite aesthetic of modern literature.
16 However, Maass goes as far as possible. He calls his method “donquijo-
17 tesk” which means that he pursues a kind of trial and error approach –
18 with an unclear goal.12 In fact, this “donquijotesk” notion is essentially a
19 facade; Maass turns to the Socratic method, making use of extensive
20 pedagogical questioning. His lecture can be qualified as a systematical
21 approach to what is an aesthetics or poetics of modern literature, an ap-
22 proach that does not to follow the ‘dry pattern of a school book’
23 (“trockene[n] Lehrbuch-Muster”) but aims at a vivid demonstration
24 of rather open norms for literature.13 The fact that Maass dedicates his
25 Geheimwissenschaft to his poet friend Friedo Lampe (1899 – 1945, his
26 work was edited by Johannes Pfeiffer) 14 reflects not only on the expe-
27 rience of War but proves Maass’ ironic, drastic and decisive account
28 when it comes to world views and poetry: Maass in his dedication re-
29 marks that the homosexual Lampe who was neither a National Socialist
30 nor an officer (as he fell ill with bone tuberculosis) was shot by Russian
31 soldiers as they thought he was an SS-man – this dedication sets the la-
32 conic and secretive tone of the Geheimwissenschaft.
33
34 10 Joachim Maass: Die Geheimwissenschaft der Literatur: Acht Vorlesungen zur
35 Anregung einer Ästhetik des Dichterischen. Berlin: Suhrkamp 1949; Repr.
36 Vienna, Munich, Basel: Desch 1955, pp. 12 f.
37 11 Ibid., p. 141.
12 Ibid., p. 19.
38
13 Ibid., p. 7.
39 14 Friedo Lampe: Das Gesamtwerk, ed. by Johannes Pfeiffer. Hamburg: Rowohlt
40 1955.
(a) Author Poetics from America: Joachim Maass (1949, 21955) 281
1 For the purpose of the Geheimwissenschaft, Maass reminds his stu-

2 dents of the Greek “aisthetikós” which he translates as ‘perceptive, pre-
3 dominantly through the senses’ (“geeignet zur Aufnahme, hauptsächlich
4 durch die Sinne”).15 The aesthetic work expresses human content – a
5 content which is to be understood as a symbol, a concept Maass
6 might have borrowed from Cassirer. Like a formula, the symbol ex-
7 presses something in short form, in this case the dark experiences of
8 human beings, their original knowledge. In attributing these character-
9 istics to the symbol, Maass moves away from ‘a particularly crude form
10 of blood and soil philosophising’ (“Blut und Boden-Philosophasterei”)
11 and the Nazi adoration for the ‘chthonic’ (“Chthonische”) 16 or the
12 ‘original orphic murmur’ (“orphische[] Urgeraune”).17 Maass aims at a
13 knowledge that is more than subjective, that can potentially be shared
14 by everybody.
15 Bearing this background in mind, he applies three criteria to the
16 symbol. It has to be judged according to, firstly, the degrees of its ‘tem-
17 poral disjuncture’ (“Zeitungebundenheit”), secondly, its deepness, puri-
18 ty and accuracy and thirdly, its ‘worldliness’ (“Welthaltigkeit”).18 To ex-
19 plain these features a little more Maass does not provide clear defini-
20 tions. He expands on the context of such judgements: a good poet is
21 not led by fashion and trends only, he aims rather to provide in-
22 depth studies that teach his public by examples. The ambitious poet-
23 teacher adheres to the idea of the ‘poeta doctus’: good artists have always
24 been great intellectuals, working against all ‘frivolous’ inventions (“alles
25 Leichtfertige”) and – playing with words – ‘all that is easily ready’ (“alles
26 leicht Fertige”).19
27 Such a poetics is moving when it comes to its writer’s experience. It
28 is a voice to be heard when in respect of literary critique. But already in
29 the 1950s it no longer fulfils scientific requirements: Although Wehrli
30 appreciates Maass’ lecture series and praises its pleasant style, he com-
31 plains about the conventional differentiation of symbolic and linguistic
32 expression.20
33
34 15 Maass (fn. 10), p. 7.
35 16 Ibid., p. 82.
36 17 Ibid., p. 147.
37 18 Ibid., p. 115.
19 Ibid., p. 117.
38
20 Max Wehrli: Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft. Bern: Francke 1951, 2nd
39 ed. 1969 (Wissenschaftliche Forschungsberichte; Geisteswissenschaftliche
40 Reihe 3), p. 71.
1 (b) Holistic Poetics in a General Literary Science:

2 Max Wehrli (1951, 21969)
3
4 Wehrli, himself a poet and a professor at Zurich University, is famous
5 for his sensitive use of the voice as well as for his narrative account of
6 the literature and culture of his home town Zurich.21 In his writings
7 he often distances himself from his profession, e. g. through his critique
8 of scientific language. Wehrli warmly describes the chances and prob-
9 lems of ‘intellectualisation’ of speech and opts for a slight degree of
10 self-reflection: ‘a pinch, a moment of openness, of suspiciousness,
11 even a form of relativising oneself’ (“einen Hauch, ein Ingrediens der
12
Offenheit, des Misstrauens, ja der Selbstrelativierung”).22 The same
13
ideology-free openness is true for his understanding of literature: he
14
conceives literature as part of its contexts and cotexts.23 Taking into ac-
15
count that Wehrli is both oriented towards analytical science, as well as
16
towards its self-reflection, his account might be described as holistic.
17
In the same way, already in the 1950s, Wehrli’s Allgemeine Literatur-
18
wissenschaft (1951) addresses itself to the German-speaking academic au-
19
dience. In 1945, his colleagues Richard Newald and Helmut de Boor,
20
21
members of the NSDAP, were expelled from Switzerland. Soon (in
22
1949, 1952) both colleagues were appointed again – this time at the
23
Free University Berlin. A few years earlier than Wehrli, Newald pub-
24
lished an – in some chapters interesting and still worth reading – Einfh-
25 rung in die deutsche Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft (1947) that is not only
26 in favour of a separation between politics and the humanities, but also
27 abolishes the term and the concept of poetics completely.24 As always,
28 Wehrli does not care for harsh judgements. He sets a different tone.
29
30 21 Peter von Matt: In memoriam Max Wehrli. In: Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 34
31 (1999) 1, pp. 1 – 6.
32 22 Max Wehrli: Zur Sprache unserer Wissenschaft. In: Der gesunde Gelehrte:
Literatur-, Sprach- und Rezeptionsanalysen. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag
33
von Hans Bänziger, ed. by Armin Arnold and C. Stephen Jäger. Herisau:
34 Schläpfer 1987, pp. 16 – 25, p. 24.
35 23 Max Wehrli: Vom Schwinden des Werk-Begriffs [1990]. In: M.W., Gegen-
36 wart und Erinnerung: Gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. by Fritz Wagner and Wolf-
37 gang Maaz. Hildesheim, Zurich: Weidmann 1998 (Spolia Berolinensia 12),
pp. 64 – 74.
38
24 Richard Newald: Einführung in die deutsche Sprach- und Literaturwissen-
39 schaft. Lahr: Schauenburg 1947 (Visa No. 3.133/L de la Direction de l’Educa-
40 tion Publique Autorisation No. 3.154 de la Direction de l’Information).
Holistic Poetics: Max Wehrli (1951, 21969) 283
1 His lucid, highly reflective and clear presentation of literary science, es-
2 pecially of poetics and its problems, does not aim at a revolutionary ap-
3 proach. Rather, Wehrli wishes to give an account of the area of knowl-
4 edge and the methods of literary science, which to some extent refers to
5 Wolfgang Kayser’s Einfhrung in die Literaturwissenschaft but criticizes
6 Kayser’s work for its self-limitation to the interpretation of the work
7 only, and goes far beyond it.25 Wehrli’s Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft
8 proves to be most fascinating for the development of both the decreas-
9 ing and increasing areas or sub-disciplines, of poetics on the one hand,
10 of literary theory on the other.
11 The content of the book illustrates this double-sidedness: the first
12 chapter deals with general aspects of literary science (systematics, histo-
13 ry), the second one with critique and techniques of the edition of texts.
14 Developing these approaches further, the third chapter focuses on poet-
15 ics, the fourth on the work, the poet and society. The fifth chapter gives
16 an account of literary history. Poetics encompasses firstly, aspects of aes-
17 thetics and poetics (poetry in the circle of the arts, literature and lan-
18 guage, poetry/literature/non-poetry) and secondly, the poetic work
19 of art (general characteristics, style, types and genres, evaluation).
20 In his definitions Wehrli points out the distinctions he has in mind
21 when it comes to literary science and poetics. General literary science is
22 explained thus:
23 ‘We understand literary science as the study of literature’s nature,
24 origin, appearance and its various connections to life; thus, (in a more
25 strict sense) it is concerned predominantly with the study of principles
26 and methods of scholarly approaches to literature. Its disciplinary boun-
27 daries shall be drawn in a generous rather than a restrictive manner. The
28 phenomenon of the verbal artefact shall serve as an initial and tangible
29 manifestation.’26
30 In short: general literary science covers all aspects that arise from the
31 phenomenon of literature, especially the meta-question of how to inter-
32 pret literature methodologically. This definition reads like a description
33
34 25 Wehrli: Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft (fn. 20), p. 55.
35 26 Ibid., p. 4: “Unter Allgemeiner Literaturwissenschaft wird im Folgenden die
36 Wissenschaft vom Wesen, Ursprung, Erscheinungsformen und Lebenszusam-
37 menhängen der literarischen Kunst verstanden; sie ist dadurch, in einem engern
Sinn, speziell die Wissenschaft von den Prinzipien und Methoden der Wissen-
38
schaftlichen Literaturbetrachtung. Die Grenzen sollen weit und nicht scharf
39 gezogen sein. Fester, greifbarer Anhaltspunkt ist zunächst das Phänomen des
40 sprachlichen Kunstwerks.”
1 of what Petersen had already suggested in his voluminous Wissenschaft

2 von der Dichtung. In addition to this, Wehrli’s stress on method relies
3 on Petersen.
4 Wehrli contrasts his integrative understanding of general literary sci-
5 ence with his definition of poetics, which is narrower: Poetics refers to a
6 trias of ‘creation’, ‘work’ and ‘understanding’.27 It provides the system-
7 atic fundament of literary science and is part of philosophical aesthetics
8 as well. Still, general literary science and poetics both aim at a systematic
9 foundation of the study of literature. Therefore, they overlap to an ex-
10 tent, which concerns method and general aspects of theory. Neverthe-
11 less, general literary science includes more than poetics, e. g. studies on a
12 text’s context, which, before distinctions like this arose, were part of po-
13 etics.
14
Wehrli, however, expresses doubts when it comes to the value of
15
philosophy. Philosophical aesthetics today, he writes, can be defined
16
as ‘unsystematic poking about’ (“unsystematische ‘SchießACHTUNGREbuden-
17
ACHTUNGREtechnik’”).28 It is more an eclectic comparative art science; as a conse-
18
quence poetics is not leading towards new ideas. In contrast to this, phi-
19
losophy of language and early linguistics look promising. Taking into
20
account that literature is a verbal form of art (“‘worthafte Stiftung’,
21
Sprachkunst, Wortkunst”),29 poetics should follow this artistic path.
22
23
Wehrli offers suggestions. According to him, the Geneva school of lin-
24
guistics, the Anglo-American critique of language (I.A. Richards), the
25
theory of the world field ( Jost Trier) and language statistics and physi-
26
ognomics (Hans Gaitanides) will prove fruitful. Wehrli advocates a unity
27 of literary science and linguistics as they deal with different aspects of the
28 same phenomenon: language and literature are phonetic systems of
29
30 27 Ibid., p. 40: “Literaturwissenschaft steht und fällt mit der Überzeugung, daß
31 Dichtung – als ein Schaffen, ein Werk und ein Verstehen – etwas Wirkliches
32 darstellt, das nicht durch ein Anderes ersetzt oder auf ein Anderes reduziert
werden kann. Die Lehre vom dichterischen Phänomen in diesem dreifachen
33
Aspekt heißt Poetik und stellt nach heute vorherrschender Überzeugung den
34 systematisch grundlegenden Teil der Literaturwissenschaft dar.” / ‘Literary
35 Studies depends on the conviction that poetry – seen as a creative act, a
36 work of poetry and an understanding of it – cannot be substituted by something
37 else or be reduced to something else. The study of the poetic phenomenon un-
derstood in this tripartiate aspect is called poetics and is, according to common
38
understanding, the stystematic, basic part of Literary Studies’.
39 28 Ibid., pp. 40 f.
40 29 Ibid, p. 45.
1 signs, both social as well as individual, to be observed diachronically as

2 well as synchronically.30
3 Yet Wehrli not only speculates about future prospects but also pro-
4 vides some new accounts of more traditional poetological questions. He
5 clearly states that poetics has been a non-normative practice for a long
6 time. As a descriptive science it is open to practical use and practised
7 by poets. Along with Dilthey and Croce, Wehrli understands poetics
8 as being concerned with creating and understanding (“Schaffens- und
9 Verstehenspoetik”).31 As far as scientific poetics are concerned, howev-
10 er, developments are difficult to show and not all of these developments
11 are to be appreciated. On this occasion, Wehrli quotes Max Kommerell
12 and states ironically: the essence of something is questioned if its func-
13 tion becomes unclear.32 Nevertheless, Wehrli tries to find his way
14 through the thicket of poetics using Kayser as a guide. Like (and indeed
15 also in contrast to) Kayser, Wehrli observes three main tendencies of po-
16 etics: firstly, the term poetics itself is protean and has become unclear;
17 secondly, poetological accounts focus on the description of the work
18 and show some references to phenomenology (Ingarden, Donald Brink-
19 mann Natur und Kunst. Zurich 1938), to the philosophy of existence
20 ( Johannes Pfeiffer) as well as to the critique of style (Staiger). Thirdly,
21 Staiger’s emphatic notion “daß wir begreifen, was uns ergreift” is said
22 to set the tone for current poetics. Wehrli attacks this tone with his typ-
23 ically subtle irony: theory, he writes, is replaced by pedagogy, advice
24 and initiation.
25 This picture of poetics explains some of Wehrli’s scepticism when it
26 comes to the future use of the term. Nevertheless, he claims that some
27 aspects of the area are still important: firstly, style. Like Kayser, Wehrli
28 defends the anti-humanist opinion ‘style is not the individual’ (“Der Stil
29 ist nicht der Mensch”).33 The individual cannot be measured according
30 to the beauty of his writing. Instead, style might be differentiated with
31 the help of the term “Stimmung”.34 Both concepts are derived from
32 Heidegger’s Time and Being in which being-there is understood as
33 being in time and further applied to the analysis of style in Staiger’s cou-
34
35 30 On the differentiation of literary science and linguistics see Ulrike Haß and
36 Christoph König (eds.): Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik von 1960 bis
37 heute. Göttingen: Wallstein 2003 (Marbacher Wissenschaftsgeschichte 4).
31 Wehrli: Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft (fn. 20), p. 40.
38
32 Ibid., p. 53.
39 33 Ibid., pp. 58 f.
40 34 Ibid., p. 61.
1 rageous account of Die Zeit. 35 Yet it might be too difficult to pursue

2 such an approach as an enormous number of criteria would be required
3 to judge questions of style accordingly. What is more: beyond the cat-
4 egory of time, the category of space has been widely neglected and
5 needs some reshaping, e. g. as Spengler does in his morphology of cul-
6 ture and Spoerri in his Verwandlung der Welt. To fulfil current require-
7 ments the reflection of reality in Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis must not be
8 overlooked.36
9 As far as the literary work of art is concerned, Wehrli shows some
10 sympathy for Heidegger’s thinking. Ernst Georg Wolff’s suggestions
11 strike Wehrli as being too complicated; astonishingly, the same is true
12 for Ingarden. In contrast to both, Heidegger’s Der Ursprung des Kunst-
13 werks as well as his interpretations of Hölderlin and Rilke promise to
14 be more fruitful: poetry is to be seen as the emancipation of the indi-
15 vidual, as an existential act. The work must not be understood in
16 terms of its ‘thinghood’ (“Dingcharakter”) and the empty scheme of
17 form and content – on the contrary, the work expresses there-
18 being.37 The Heidegger-Staiger line prevails. Types and genres, assumes
19 Wehrli, cannot be explained more ambitiously than with Staiger’s
20 Grundbegriffe. Still in the 1950s, Wehrli adheres to the idea that genre
21 concepts are concepts of style and are to be understood as names for
22 the possibilities of being, thereby, gaining anthropological meaning
23 and exploring connections between individual works.38 Nevertheless,
24 Wehrli opts for a position which is directed against the level of abstrac-
25 tion in Staiger’s work. Wehrli pleads for a historical understanding of
26 genre: it is necessary to understand the historical context of a work as
27 well as the work itself. One should avoid speculating about its anthro-
28 pological value.
29 This final attack reveals Wehrli’s key aim: he introduces some his-
30 torical scepticism into poetics, a sub-discipline which itself has become
31 historical.39 Therefore, in Wehrli’s Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft poetics
32 is reduced to the theory of the interpretation of the work and its key
33 terms whilst literary science is responsible for analysis and contexts.
34
35 35 See David Wellbery: Stimmung. In: Historisches Wörterbuch ästhetischer
36 Grundbegriffe, ed. by Karlheinz Barck [et al.], Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler
37 2003, vol. 5., pp. 703 – 33.
36 Wehrli: Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft (fn. 20), pp. 61 – 63.
38
37 Ibid. pp. 59 f.
39 38 Ibid., p. 75.
40 39 Ibid.
1 By reformulating poetics and literary science in this way, Wehrli’s book

2 is an admirable attempt to reform the old university and its disciplines;
3 his Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft shows that 1968 was already present in
4 1950s scientific approaches, with utmost respect for the old as well as the
5 new. Although some of the German scholars might have shared Wehr-
6 li’s views, it is worth noting that his work originated in Switzerland.
7 The Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft proves the fruitfulness of theoretical
8 innovations in so far as they are well-informed by past ideas and directed
9 towards the future.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4 15. Conclusion:
5 Tendencies, Trends and Sunken Ideas
6
7
8
Wehrli’s book reflects the problematic status of poetics in balancing the
9
term with the notion ‘literary theory’. Although the expressions ‘poet-
10
ics’ and ‘literary theory’ often seem to be used in contingent ways, the
11
turn from poetics to literary theory means more than a change of seman-
12
tics.1 It conveys a shift in focus as well as in method. Wehrli’s work is
13
14
representative of the idea that poetics mainly refers to the work itself,
15
the favoured method being hermeneutics. Contrary to poetics, literary
16
theory is more inclined towards analysis and explanation, to the study
17
of the work in context. Such contexts can be derived either from lin-
18 guistics or social history. Methods vary. They range from structuralism
19 to modified forms of hermeneutics.
20 This differentiation of poetics and literary theory appears as the ex-
21 pression and result of theoretical problems which had been inherent in
22 poetics itself: whilst the dominance of rhetoric was about to be phased
23 out, the genre of scholarly or academic poetics had served as a form in
24 which theoretical reflections on literature could be carried out. The ob-
25 ject of study had been clearly limited, especially since the Weimar clas-
26 sic: the object of study was the (more or less) fictional work of litera-
27 ture. From the late 19th century on, the unity of the object became con-
28 tested. In addition to this, theory evolved quickly. With the invention
29 of the term ‘literary theory’ and the transformation of poetics, a growing
30 need for theoretical self-reflection became clear, a need which finally
31 exploded the frame of poetics.
32 Still, this was a gradual movement not a caesura. This conclusion is
33 proven by the focused summary of the history of poetics as documented
34 in the previous chapters which have reported on the development of
35 poetic theory in the specific genre of scholarly or academic poetics.
36 The organising principles were implicit and explicit theoretical assump-
37 tions which underlie the relevant books or book-length chapters. As a
38
39 1 Georg Bollenbeck and Clemens Knobloch (eds.): Semantischer Umbau der
40 Geisteswissenschaften nach 1933 und 1945. Heidelberg: Winter 2001.
15. Conclusion: Tendencies, Trends and Sunken Ideas 289
1 result, fourteen main poetological tendencies can be presented, most of

2 them spanning several different approaches.
3 Firstly, eclectic poetics of the late 18th and early 19th centuries were
4 discussed in the light of contemporary problems. Even in Sulzer’s ‘opus
5 magnum’ morals continued to constitute a main challenge for poetics.
6 In addition to this, the moral impact of poetics on the growing reading
7 public required intense reflection. Transcendental poetics (secondly) re-
8 stricted these reflections by questioning the scientific status of aesthetics
9 as a whole. Yet Kant’s radical position in this respect was harmonised
10 with older popular philosophy as well as with the new popular cosmol-
11 ogy. The outcome was considered problematic in the light of theoret-
12 ical reflection. Yet from a pragmatic point of view, it helped poetic and
13 aesthetic theory to flourish further. A third impulse for the growth of
14 poetics and aesthetics came from historiographical and genetic interests
15 in poetics as executed by Herder, Herwig and A.W. Schlegel. These in-
16 terests found their afterlife in literary historiography, thereby promoting
17 the differentiation of the rising national philologies.
18 A fourth tendency coexisted with these interests but focused on the
19 speculative order of genre: logostheological poetics, inspired by Schel-
20 ling. These accounts occupied the broad area of post-idealist poetics
21 (fifth tendency). Yet together with Herbart’s heritage and the new ori-
22 entations of the Hegel-School as found in Vischer, logostheological po-
23 etics also inspired pre-empirical poetics. Pre-empirical and empirical po-
24 etics, the sixth tendency, proved to be fruitful in that scholars aimed at
25 applying ‘Völkerpsychologie’ and ‘Erfahrungsseelenlehre’ to literature.
26 Furthermore, they promoted an interest in the poet’s psyche and emo-
27 tive interpretations (seventh tendency) which, of course, was later criti-
28 cised as amounting to a naturalistic fallacy (eighth tendency).
29 Consequently, poetics promoted the recognition of the literary
30 work as such. This promotion was performed in the light of highly am-
31 bitious epistemological assumptions (eighth and tenth tendencies) as
32 well as contemporaneous philosophy of language (ninth tendency). Fur-
33 thermore, the genre of poetics transformed itself into a sub-genre of
34 Weltanschauungslehre: anthropology, existentialism, typology and her-
35 meneutics were conjoined in the most surprising ways (eleventh ten-
36 dency). This amalgamation enjoyed a long afterlife: after 1945, it was
37 this tendency (in combination with the ninth one) that could be redis-
38 covered easily, the reason being its distance from politics. Under the
39 Fascist regime, some prominent poetic theories (or more exactly, liter-
40 ary theories) had been built upon problematic assumptions regarding
290 15. Conclusion: Tendencies, Trends and Sunken Ideas
1 race and blood (thirteenth tendency). As a consequence, poetic theory

2 needed to be purified. Taking into account this need for purification,
3 the 1950s appear as a grey zone, a “Janus-faced” period.2 This is marked
4 by traditional accounts but also by new attempts which sooner or later
5 bid farewell to poetics and embraced literary theory (fourteenth tenden-
6 cy). Through this implicit and explicit gesture, the 1950s and 60s stood
7 in direct continuity to the Nazi period in which both notions, ‘Poetik’
8 and ‘Literaturtheorie’, as well as pleas to accept one and reject the other,
9 were to be observed.3 Still, the political conditions and premises of these
10 pleas had changed radically. Formalist, anthropological and existentialist
11 poetics survived until the mid 1970s.4 It was only in the 1980s, through
12 introductions such as David Wellbery’s Positionen der Literaturwissenschaft
13 (1985), that they were finally replaced.
14 Beyond these continuities, some of the tendencies mentioned are
15 shaped by recurring interests: the first recurring interest concerns the re-
16 lationship of literature and scholarship as it is reflected in literary criti-
17 cism. Popular philosophy, Heusinger, Gottschall and Maass focus on
18 the problem of how to judge a literary work adequately and how to fas-
19 cinate the public with it, thereby often implicitly or explicitly promot-
20 ing a poetics of rules (an approach which, in fact, continued until the
21 20th century). A second interest is historiography (Herder, Herwig,
22
A.W. Schlegel, Eugen Wolff). Religion constitutes a third interest;
23
Schelling, Wackernagel, Jungmann and Spoerri consider religious as-
24
pects of literature from different confessional and even meta-confession-
25
al perspectives. The fourth widespread interest is in the psyche of the
26
poet, be it within the framework of ‘Erfahrungsseelenlehre’ or in psy-
27
28
2 Georg Bollenbeck and Gerhard Kaiser (eds.): Die janusköpfigen 50er Jahre.
29 Wiesbaden: Westdt. Verl. 2000 (Kulturelle Moderne und bildungsbürgerliche
30 Semantik 3).
31 3 Cf. Wilhelm Voßkamp: Kontinuität und Diskontinuität: Zur deutschen Lite-
32 ACHTUNGREraturwissenschaft im Dritten Reich. In: Wissenschaft im Dritten Reich, ed.
by Peter Lundgreen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1985, pp. 140 – 162; Marcus
33
Gärtner: Kontinuität und Wandel in der neueren deutschen Literaturwissen-
34 schaft nach 1945. Bielefeld: Aisthesis-Verl. 1997.
35 4 Cf. Manon Maren-Grisebach: Methoden der Literaturwissenschaft. Bern, Mu-
36 nich: Francke 1970; Reinhold Grimm and Jost Hermans (eds.): Methodenfra-
37 gen der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft
1973 (Wege der Forschung 290); Manfred Jurgensen: Deutsche Literaturtheo-
38
ACHTUNGRErie der Gegenwart: Georg Lukács – Hans Mayer – Emil Staiger – Fritz Strich.
39 Munich: Francke 1973; Horst Turk: Literaturtheorie I: Literaturwissenschaft-
40 licher Teil. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1976.
1 chology (popular philosophy tended to follow this track until the works
2 of Dilthey were published). The fifth long-lasting interest, formalism
3 and the focus on the work as such, opposed the fourth. Formalism ap-
4 pears in a variety of different forms which overlap only to a minor ex-
5 tent. To name just the most important representatives: Herbart and
6 Zimmermann, the Austrian tradition, T.A. Meyer, Walzel, Husserl, In-
7 garden, Staiger, Jolles and Günther Müller.
8 The sixth interest exceeds the previously mentioned ones: Vischer,
9 Scherer and Wehrli all aim at meta-poetic reflections, arising from huge
10 cross-readings, observations and combinations of previous accounts.
11 Meta-poetic or meta-aesthetic reflections, of course, can also be
12 found in Kant as well as in most preliminary chapters to works on poetic
13 theory. Still, these reflections are more or less detailed and valuable. In
14
the cases of Vischer, Scherer and Wehrli, they amount to new impulses
15
from which the area of poetic or literary theory profits enormously.
16
Furthermore, it is possible to identify developments of poetic theory
17
which were driven by new academic challenges: the late 1940s/ early
18
1950s, the late 1960s/ early 1970s and today’s academia faced a consid-
19
erable demand for introductions to literary theory or overviews.5 The
20
first wave of demand was caused by the lack of trustworthy poetic
21
texts after 1945. With their reformation of study programmes in the
22
late 1960s and early 1970s, the growing mass universities contributed
23
24
to a second wave of demand. The far-reaching revision of the ‘Lehr-
25
ACHTUNGREamts’- and ‘Magister’-study programmes in favour of today’s Bache-
26
lor/Master-programmes increased this demand for the third time. Pub-
27
lishing companies transformed academic revisions into markets and
28 chances to sell books to the student customer.
29 Another complex pattern in the history of poetics and literary theory
30 is the recurring scientification.6 Going beyond the scope of this study,
31
32 5 Jörg Schönert: “Einführung in die Literaturwissenschaft”: Zur Geschichte eines
Publikationstypus der letzten 50 Jahre. In: Jahrbuch der ungarischen Germanis-
33
tik (2001), pp. 63 72.
34 6 Lutz Danneberg and Hans-Harald Müller: Verwissenschaftlichung der Litera-
35 turwissenschaft. Ansprüche, Strategien, Resultate. In: Zeitschrift für Allge-
36 meine Wissenschaftstheorie/ Journal for General Philosophy of Science 1
37 (1979), pp. 162 – 191; Rainer Rosenberg: Die Semantik der ‘Szientifizierung’:
Die Paradigmen der Sozialgeschichte und des linguistischen Strukturalismus als
38
Modernisierungsangebote an die deutsche Literaturwissenschaft. In: Semanti-
39 scher Umbau der Geisteswissenschaften, ed. by Georg Bollenbeck and Clemens
40 Knobloch. Heidelberg: Winter 2001, pp. 122 – 131.
1 three main scientific movements in the area of poetics can be observed:

2 the psychologism of the late 19th century, the want for scientifically cor-
3 rect literary theory in the 1960s and 70s and current ‘cognitive’, ‘neuro-
4 scientific’ literature studies or ‘biopoetics’. Psychologism has been dis-
5 cussed at length in the previous chapters and should, therefore, not be
6 revisited. The 1960s/70s scientification would be an interesting case
7 to discuss as it was promoted through heated political debate between
8 two generations of scholars. The replacement of poetics by the notion
9 of literary theory was enforced through those parties of the younger
10 generation who longed for ‘scientifically correct’ explanations of litera-
11 ture,7 be they structuralist,8 materialist, feminist, media- or reception
12 oriented.9 Things are different again with ‘biopoetics’.10 As in the 19th
13 century (yet in more refined ways) scholars aim at uncovering the psy-
14
chological motivations of poets and readers, thereby hoping to ground
15
aesthetic assumptions in ‘hard’ biological knowledge and to bring the
16
‘two cultures’ together. It is not by mere accident that they are again
17
accused of committing naturalistic fallacies.11
18
19
20 7 A helpful overview and analysis is to be found in Silvio Vietta: Kanon- und
21 Theorieverwerfungen in der Germanistik der siebziger Jahre. Aus der Diskus-
22 sion. In: Germanistik der siebziger Jahre: Zwischen Innovation und Ideologie,
ed. by S.V. and Dirk Kemper. Munich: Fink 2000, pp. 9 – 58.
23
8 See the results of the conference on the history of structuralism at the German
24 Literary Archive, Marbach Neckar as well as the preparatory study by Marcel
25 Lepper: Die strukturalistische Kontroverse, die keine war: Die Konferenz
26 von Baltimore und die Folgen. In: Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie/ Li-
27 ACHTUNGREteraturtheorie in der Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer and Carlos Spoer-
hase. Bern [et al.]: Lang 2007 (Publikationen der Zeitschrift für Germanistik
28
NF 17), pp. 311 – 326.
29 9 On the different types of reception theory Tom Kindt: Denn sie wissen nicht,
30 was sie tun: Stanley Fish vs. Wolfgang Iser. In: Kontroversen in der Literatur-
31 theorie/ Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer and Carlos
32 Spoerhase. Bern [et al.] 2007 (Publikationen der Zeitschrift für Germanistik NF
17), pp. 353 – 368.
33
10 Karl Eibl: Animal Poeta. Bausteine zur biologischen Kultur- und Literatur-
34 theorie. Paderborn: Mentis 2004; Katja Mellmann: Emotionalisierung – Von
35 der Nebenstundenpoesie zum Buch als Freund: Eine emotionspsychologische
36 Analyse der Literatur der Aufklärungsepoche. Paderborn: Mentis 2006 (Poeto-
37 genesis 4). Karl Eibl, Katja Mellmann, Rüdiger Zymner (eds.). Im Rücken der
Kulturen. Paderborn: Mentis 2007.
38
11 Raymond Tallis: License my raving hands: Does neuroscience have anything to
39 teach us about the pleasure of reading John Donne? In: The Times Literary
40 Supplement 11 (2008), S. 13 – 15.
1 Every scientification tends to be surpassed by other scientific pro-

2 grammes or by recurring waves of descientification. Among the exam-
3 ples discussed, existentialist and anthropological poetics are likely to
4 meet the criteria for descientifications; among the most recent pro-
5 grammes, one would name deconstruction. The scholarly consequences
6 of these scientifications and descientifications range widely. To give
7 only a sketch (which could and should be expanded to a wider meta-
8 theoretical discussion): scientifications as well as descientifications are
9 inclined to form groups of belief, joined by different generations of
10 scholars. Once a programme has lost its allure, the relevant group is
11 to invent itself anew – at high cognitive, and perhaps social, costs.
12 Some scholars might have fought bitterly for ‘their’ programme, alien-
13 ating colleagues or endangering the consensus as well as the methods of
14 the discipline. Even if new accounts are valuable and enhance the public
15 recognition of literary theory, these costs should be taken into consid-
16 eration. It is not by mere accident that the philologies now, after dec-
17 ades of ‘methodological innovation’ and theoretical or even ideological
18 promises (sometimes fulfilled, but also sometimes broken), face a serious
19 discussion about their credibility.12 Some programmatic novelties have
20 indeed led to a lack of consensus among colleagues and a decline in
21 method.
22 Still, these pessimistic remarks should be contrasted with sober ob-
23 servations: firstly, most theoretical innovations from 1800 to the 1950s
24 refer to those areas which were previously treated by rhetoric. If we re-
25 turn to the list of questions on, and topics of, poetics presented in the
26 introduction of this book, this observation can be illustrated: Whilst
27 rhetoric grounded its concept of the poet in enthusiasm, mania, furor
28 poeticus, character and taste, 19th-century poetics pleaded for a scientific
29 examination of the poet’s psyche, alluding to concepts like imagination
30 and fantasy. Mimesis, as the main rhetorical description of the poetic act,
31 was replaced by the study of the poet’s experience – which was later de-
32 nounced for committing a naturalistic fallacy. Furthermore, the rhetor-
33 ical doctrine of genre was substituted for the idea of personal style. The
34 teachings on memoria and pronuntiatio moved into specialised treatises
35 for actors. In addition to this, the whole area concerned with reception
36 was transformed considerably. The rhetorical aims of presentation
37 counted as antiquated. A broad modern audience, buyers and readers
38
39 12 See the Forum “Credibility. The New Challenge”. In: The German Quarterly
40 80 (2007) 4, pp. 421 – 426.
1 of printed books, required further study. This type of study was initiated
2 through the description of the book market by Scherer. These inner-
3 poetic developments reacted to external demand: to new philosophical,
4 psychological or sociological challenges. Reactions like these kept poet-
5 ic theory moving and made it a representative area of the development
6 of scholarship in total.
7 All these poetological innovations ranged within boundaries and led
8 to more or less precise but varying ideas about literature, poetics and lit-
9 erary theories. The stability within the variety of approaches is consid-
10 erable. This observation becomes more apparent in the 20th century:
11 after the methodological debate about the linguistic nature of the art-
12 work of words and the requirements for its interpretation (Th.A.
13 Meyer), poetological invention seemed to be restricted to world
14 views or ideologies, methodological innovations being limited to
15 changes of context or to the import of anthropological, existentialist
16 or biological tools of description. The Nazi period serves as the best ex-
17 ample of this tendency: concepts such as race and blood were taken into
18 poetics and expelled from it after National Socialism was over. Poetic
19 theory, obviously a stable yet fragile field of knowledge, was able to
20 move back to the late 1920s or early 1930s state of research. What is
21 more, poetic theory managed to come up with other innovative con-
22 cepts shortly after its ideological downfall.
23 Secondly, as if an invisible hand process were at work, forgotten po-
24 etological patterns of descriptions began to come back one or two gen-
25 erations after they were lost. Observing most recent publications and
26 trends, it seems as if current approaches are somewhat reluctant when
27 it comes to innovation. Instead of proposing new theories, they move
28 back. Sunken ideas, outmoded as an ‘irrational stock of poetics’ in the
29 1960s, are about to be revitalised. Schleiermacher’s, Heidegger’s and
30 Staiger’s notions of “Stimmung” are a good example of this trend.13
31 After all the attempts to get underlying, pre-reflexive feelings out of
32 the text and its interpretation, “Stimmung” is coming back and faces
33 a revival which aims at going beyond Staiger in the light of current lit-
34
35
36
37 13 David Wellbery: Stimmung. In: Historisches Wörterbuch ästhetischer Grund-
begriffe, ed. by Karlheinz Barck [et al.], Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 2003,
38
vol. 5., pp. 703 – 33; Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht: Schluss mit Stimmung. Der ex-
39 istentialistische Sound der Dekonstruktion. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei-
40 tung, 24 January 2007, No. 20, p. N3.
1 erary theory. It is only a matter of time until notions like “Geist”, “Er-
2 lebnis”, “Gestalt”, “Seele” and “Kunstwerk” are reinvented as well.
3 Seen from a bird’s eye view, this reinvention of old poetic notions
4 complements a larger trend in the politics of science across Europe: the
5 rediscovery of elements which had been expelled from the universities
6 in the 1960s and 70s. Some of these sunken ideas have been reintro-
7 duced with the whole political and administrative force of the Bologna
8 process: rhetoric and style, for instance, have celebrated a comeback in
9 the trivialised form of ‘soft skills’. In the 1960s and 70s, rhetoric and
10 style were regarded as being personal expressions and excluded from
11 the scientificated canon of literary science. Consequently, literary theo-
12 ry was measured not by ‘beautiful’ writing but by terminology and cor-
13 rectness. This is understandable and respectable, also in the light of the
14
opposition to vague notions of anthropological and existentialist ac-
15
counts dominant at the time. Still, the exclusion of rhetoric and style al-
16
together went too far: literary theory became a more and more esoteric
17
practice. This process has not been examined up until now but would
18
form the basis of a most interesting study. Such a study should combine
19
an investigation of the development of literary theory in the 1970s and
20
afterwards with an examination of the development of academia and the
21
public reception of such theories.
22
23
A book like the present one cannot fulfil this task. Rather, it is ap-
24
propriate for this study to end with a meditation on another sunken
25
idea, forgotten by everybody, including those who make science policy.
26
This dusty good is called inspiration, often considered by old-fashioned
27 scholarly poetics. Inspiration cannot be explained (in total). Still, it
28 would be boring to simply admire it. It might be worth asking which
29 conditions help inspiration to emerge. In the light of this study, it
30 seems that among these conditions one ought to include the existence
31 of well-reflected and well-written books on literary theory which re-
32 main distant from the immediate demands of the book market or re-
33 gional Bachelor-/Master-study programmes. And inspiration would
34 ask for more: for a culture of responsibility and historical awareness in
35 which enthusiasm and respect for innovative literary theory can grow
36 without ignorance and regret.
37 What would such a culture of responsibility and historical awareness
38 look like? Taking into account the many poetological inventions dis-
39 cussed in this book I wish to propose four principles which could
40 help to initiate such a culture:
1 (1) Historical awareness. New theoretical projects should ask themselves

2 to what extent they are new, and reflect their novelty in the light
3 of previous theories. The approaches discussed often use a kind of
4 rhetoric of the new and demarcate the field in order to present
5 their aims. One of the most successful scholars to use such a type
6 of rhetoric (without going into detail as far as his sources are con-
7 cerned) was the young Dilthey. Two of the most reflected and in-
8 fluential approaches, those of Vischer and Scherer, are in opposition
9 to their predecessors’, they name role models and manage to gain
10 intellectual energy from these debates.
11 (2) Addressee orientation. Still, to attract a general public or to fight for
12 the recognition of literary or text theory, the rhetoric of the new
13 is helpful and, perhaps, indispensable. This rhetoric can even be un-
14 derstood as an abbreviation. Essays or journal articles have to be
15 short, persuasive and provocative – and a scholar like Vischer was
16 a master of provocation. Yet when it comes to addressing the aca-
17 demic public, the rhetoric of the new not only requires relativisa-
18 tion, but the new project will also profit from more detailed, reflec-
19 tive and self-critical presentations which make the project more
20 credible for the academic audience.
21 (3) Correctness. This specific audience would be interested in examining
22 the inner-theoretical correctness of new theories proposed – a pro-
23 ACHTUNGREject which in the 1970s gained the attention of a group of scholars
24 associated with argumentation theory and analytical philosophy and
25 is today covered by the analytical theory of literature.14 Indeed, cor-
26 rect arguments can decide the fate of a theoretical approach. After
27 Husserl and the critique of the natural fallacies committed by psy-
28 chologism, this approach was dead for advanced literary theory,
29 even if psychologism survived in some degree in practical analyses
30 and theories.
31 (4) Appropriateness. This after-life of psychologism could be explained
32 by the fact that it often seemed to provide appropriate interpreta-
33
34 14 See the overviews by Werner Strube: Analytische Philosophie der Literaturwis-
35 senschaft. Untersuchungen zur literaturwissenschaftlichen Definition, Klassifi-
36 kation, Interpretation und Textbewertung. Paderborn [et al.]: Schöningh
37 1993; Simone Winko/Tilmann Köppe: Theorien und Methoden der Litera-
turwissenschaft. In: Handbuch Literaturwissenschaft, ed. Thomas Anz, Stutt-
38
gart, Weimar: Metzler 2007, vol. 2., S. 285 – 372. The whole working group
39 “ReVisionen” (with a series published with de Gruyter) has subscribed to
40 ACHTUNGREanalytical literary science.
1 tions, a fact which should be esteemed as well. In addition to ques-

2 tions of inner-theoretical correctness, theories should be apt to the
3 objects they describe and correctly applied to their objects, thereby
4 testing themselves.15 Examining the appropriateness of a theory
5 would mean to confront it with those literary texts the relevant
6 theory aims at describing. The approaches discussed solved this
7 problem in different ways. They seldom allowed themselves to go
8 into greater detail but rather concentrated on specific text elements
9 only. Furthermore, they chose those texts which fitted the relevant
10 theory. Spoerri and Staiger, for instance, both selected those poets
11 and works for their typologies which obviously possessed many
12 characteristics of the relevant type. Of course, according to Spoerri’s
13 world view, a combination of Pascal and Kierkegaard would consti-
14 tute a ‘normative man’s’ belief.
15 (5) Efficiency. Beyond the principles named, new theoretical projects
16 should consider the costs of further exploration. To found a new
17 project could mean encouraging young scholars into it, making
18 them spend their early academic life reflecting on this new and little
19 established approach. Would this be an effective tool for presenting
20 them to the academic audience or would this rather hinder their ac-
21 ceptance in the field in which they want to qualify? Furthermore,
22 an intense one-dimensional theoretical claim could call into ques-
23 tion a scholar’s seriousness and cause a public scandal. In the case
24 of Staiger, for instance, literary theory made him famous at first –
25 and discredited him in 1966. He underestimated the costs of his
26 wish to implement classicist views on the contemporaneous literary
27 field.
28 (6) Relevance. Furthermore, Staiger was wrong in considering his views
29 relevant. Should a new theory be suggested, the question of its rele-
30 vance (both within and outside of academia) ought to be raised. The
31 audience should be sensitive to the specific new approach. Other-
32 wise, a lot of intellectual energy would be wasted. In turn, the
33 new approach should consider itself in the light of current discus-
34 sions in order not to be entirely behind trends or, alternatively, to
35 swamp the public. The young Staiger, for instance, hit the intellec-
36 tual mark of his time; the later Staiger was clearly very far off it.
37
38
39
40 15 Danneberg/Müller (fn. 6), pp. 190 f.
1 Taking my pleas for historical awareness seriously, I understand

2 these principles in Fechner’s sense: as preliminary remarks and non-nor-
3 mative suggestions for a literary and text theory in a future culture of
4 academic responsibility.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 III. Bibliographies and Prints
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
III. Bibliographies and Prints 301
1 Taking into account the variety of primary texts related to the issue of
2 poetics, the bibliography is split into several parts: the first contains
3 comprehensive German poetics in the narrow sense, i. e. books which
4 mainly refer to structure, genre and ways of interpreting literary texts.
5 These works are inclined to be didactical yet can be highly theoretical
6 as well (1.). The second part presents comprehensive German aesthetics
7 which either refer to the aesthetics of literature or are mentioned in the
8 poetological texts discussed (2.). Poetological texts from the 1930s on-
9 wards, which tend towards literary theory, are listed in the third part
10 (3.). The fourth part of the bibliography gives an insight into Non-Ger-
11 man rhetoric, poetics and aesthetics, mainly in the 18th and early 19th
12 centuries, the reason for the selection being the reception of the relevant
13 texts through German poetics and aesthetics (4.). Additional sources are
14 grouped together in the fifth section. In this section one also finds po-
15 etological texts which do not contain a comprehensive poetics but deal
16 with one specific poetological issue such as fantasy or suspense (5.). Re-
17 search literature is to be found in the final part of the bibliography (6.).
18 It is, however, often difficult to decide where to place a publication.
19 Some texts might well fall into more than one group. Take for example
20 Max Wehrli. His Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft is as much a poetological
21 and theoretical text as it is a part of the research literature on previous
22 poetics and aesthetics. In cases like this, the decision on where to
23 place a book follows the purposes of this study. Another categorisation
24 might well be possible.
25 A further note on the bibliographical strategies of this volume might
26 be helpful: as the title of this publication indicates, the focus of the
27 source bibliographies is on works published between 1770 und 1960.
28 Still, there will be a certain overlap with 18th-century texts as they re-
29 mained among the principal theories until the 20th or even 21st century.
30 Due to the narrow focus of the first section, its bibliography is more or
31 less complete. The other bibliographies are more selective. If possible,
32 all first editions are mentioned. Later editions are taken in if they con-
33 tain significant changes or if the final edition is concerned. Also, reprints
34 are included as they may inform the reader about later stages of the re-
35 ception of the relevant work. All parts of the bibliography were com-
36 pleted in 2006. Secondary literature published later is only occasionally
37 included.
38
39
40
1
2
3
4 1. Bibliography of German Poetics
5
6
7 Anon.: Grundriß einer Methodologie der Geisteswissenschaften mit besonde-
8 ACHTUNGRErer Berücksichtigung der Poetik. Vienna: Manzsche k.u.k. Hof-Verlags-
und Universitäts-Buchhandlung 1908.
9
Anon.: Lebensbilder deutscher Dichter für Rektoratschulen, Mittelschulen und
10 die Oberstufe mehrklassiger Volksschulen: Nebst einer Übersicht über die
11 Geschichte der deutschen Dichtung und dem Wichtigsten aus der Poetik.
12 Arnsberg: Stahl 1902.
13 Anon.: Leitfaden bei dem Unterrichte in der teutschen Sprache für die höhere
14 Töchterschule im englischen Institute zu Augsburg. Augsburg: Winter
1842.
15
Anon.: Leitfaden bei dem Unterrichte in der deutschen Sprache für die höhere
16 Töchterschule im englischen Institute zu Augsburg: Mit einem Anhang,
17 Grundlinien der Poetik enthaltend. 3rd ed. Augsburg: Schmid 1847.
18 Anon.: Leitfaden bei dem Unterrichte in der deutschen Sprache für die höhere
19 Töchterschule und die Lehramtskandidatinnen im englischen Institute zu
20
Augsburg. 4th, ext. augm. ed. Augsburg: Schmid 1862.
Anon.: Poetische und prosaische Versuche einiger Schüler der Poetik und
21 Rhetorik am Lyceum zu Rastatt: Programm als Einladung zu den öffentli-
22 chen Prüfungen und Feierlichkeiten am Großherzogl. Lyceum zu Rastatt,
23 1830. Beilage 2. Rastatt: Birks 1830.
24 Aurbacher, Ludwig: Grundlinien der Poetik nach einem neuen und einfachen
25 Systeme. Munich: Lindauer 1821.
Aurbacher, Ludwig: Grundlinien der Rhetorik und Poetik. 2nd, corr. ed. Mu-
26
nich: Lindauer 1838.
27 Aurbacher, Ludwig: Grundlinien der Rhetorik und Poetik. Repr. ed. Munich:
28 Saur 1994. (Bibliothek der deutschen Literatur, Fiche, 5690).
29 Aurbacher, Ludwig: Grundlinien der Psychologie: Als Propädeutik zum Un-
30 terrichte in der Rhetorik und Poetik. Munich 1824.
31 Bachmann, Julius: Literaturkunde: Eine Vorstufe zu Dr. K. Heilmanns Ge-
schichte der deutschen Nationalliteratur. Für den Gebrauch in Präparan-
32
ACHTUNGREdenACHTUNGREanstalten bearbeitet von Julius Bachmann. Königlicher Seminar-Ober-
33 lehrer. Mit einer Abbildung und einer Karte. Breslau: Hirt 1904.
34 Baumgart, Hermann: Handbuch der Poetik: Eine kritisch-historische Darstel-
35 lung der Theorie der Dichtkunst. Stuttgart: Cotta 1887.
37
lung der Theorie der Dichtkunst. Repr. ed. Hildesheim, Zurich, New
York: Olms 2003. (Bewahrte Kultur). (2 vols.).
39 lung der Theorie der Dichtkunst. Vol. 1: Sects. i–xviii. Repr. ed. Hildes-
40 ACHTUNGREheim, Zurich, New York: Olms 2003. (Bewahrte Kultur).
1. Bibliography of German Poetics 303

2 lung der Theorie der Dichtkunst. Vol. 2: Sects. xix–xxx. Repr. ed. Hildes-
3
ACHTUNGREheim, Zurich, New York: Olms 2003. (Bewahrte Kultur).
Baumgarten, Heinrich: Deutsche Dichter der neueren Zeit: Nebst einem
4
Überblick über die Geschichte der deutschen Dichtung und des Wichtigs-
5 ten aus der Lehre von der Dichtkunst. Für die Oberstufe mehrklassiger
6 Volksschulen. Cologne: Theissing 1899.
7 Bayerische Akademie der Schönen Künste München: Poetik. Ed. Clemens
8 Graf Podewils. Munich: Oldenbourg 1962. (Gestalt und Gedanke, 7).
9
Beck, Friedrich: Theorie der Prosa und Poesie: Ein Leitfaden für den Unter-
richt in der Stilistik (Rhetorik) und Poetik an Gymnasien und verwandten
10 Lehranstalten wie auch zum Privatgebrauch. Vol. 2: Lehrbuch der Poetik
11 für höhere Unterrichts-Anstalten wie auch zum Privatgebrauche. Munich:
12 Fleischmann 1862.
13 Beck, Friedrich: Theorie der Prosa und Poesie: Ein Leitfaden für den Unter-
14 richt in der Stilistik (Rhetorik) und Poetik an Gymnasien und verwandten
Lehranstalten wie auch zum Privatgebrauch. Vol. 2: Lehrbuch der Poetik
15
für höhere Unterrichts-Anstalten wie auch zum Privatgebrauche. 2nd,
16 corr. and augm. ed. Munich: Merhoff 1867.
20
für höhere Unterrichts-Anstalten wie auch zum Privatgebrauche. 3rd,
corr. and augm. ed. Munich: Merhoff 1873.
21
24 für höhere Unterrichts-Anstalten wie auch zum Privatgebrauche. 4th,
26
richt in der Stilistik (Rhetorik) und Poetik an Gymnasien und verwandten
28 für höhere Unterrichts-Anstalten wie auch zum Privatgebrauche. 5th,
Lehranstalten wie auch zum Privatgebrauch. Vol. 2: Lehrbuch der Poetik
32
für höhere Unterrichts-Anstalten wie auch zum Privatgebrauche. 6th,
37
für höhere Unterrichts-Anstalten wie auch zum Privatgebrauche. Ed. Hy-
acinth Holland. 7th, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Zieger 1896.
38 Becker, H (ed.): Litteraturkundliches Handbuch für Mittelschulen und mehr-
39 klassige Volksschulen. Vol. 1: A. Gedichte. B. Etwas aus der Poetik. C.
40 Liederverzeichnis. Frankfurt a. M.: Gebrüder Knauer 1885.
1 Bernhardt, Gustav: Drei Bücher deutscher Dichtungen zum Schulgebrauch.

2 Halle a. d. S. 1855.
3
Bernhardt, Gustav: Drei Bücher deutscher Dichtungen von Albrecht Haller bis
auf die Gegenwart: Mit einem litterargeschichtlichen Überblick, den Biog-
4 raphien der Dichter und einem Abriße der Poetik. Ed. Franz Knauth. 5th
5 ed. Halle a. d. S.: Hendel 1871.
6 Bernhardt, Gustav: Sieben Bücher deutscher Dichtungen von den ältesten
7 Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart: Mit einem litterargeschichtlichen Über-
8
blicke, den Biographien der Dichter und einem Abriße der Poetik. Ed.
Franz Knauth. Halle a. d. S.: Hendel 1882.
10 Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart. Ed. Franz Knauth. 7th ed. Halle a. d. S.:
11 Hendel 1890.
13
Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart: Mit einem litterargeschichtlichen Über-
blicke, den Biographien der Dichter und einem Abriße der Poetik. Ed.
14 Franz Knauth. Halle a. d. S.: Hendel 1900.
15 Bertram, Franz: Was muß man von der deutschen Poetik und Metrik wissen?
16 Berlin: Steinitz 1909.
17 Beyer, C[onrad]: Deutsche Poetik: Theoretisch-Praktisches Handbuch der
18
Deutschen Dichtkunst. Nach den Anforderungen der Gegenwart. Stutt-
gart: Göschen 1882 – 1884. (3 vols.)
20 Deutschen Dichtkunst. Nach den Anforderungen der Gegenwart. Vol. 1.
21 Stuttgart: Göschen 1882.
23
Deutschen Dichtkunst. Nach den Anforderungen der Gegenwart. Vol. 2.
Stuttgart: Göschen 1883.
26 Stuttgart: Göschen 1884.
28
Deutschen Dichtkunst. Nach den Anforderungen der Gegenwart. 2nd
ed. Stuttgart: Göschen 1887. (3 vols.).
31 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Göschen 1887.
33
Deutschen Dichtkunst. Nach den Anforderungen der Gegenwart. Vol. 2.
2nd ed. Stuttgart: Göschen 1887.
36 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Göschen 1887.
38
Deutschen Dichtkunst. 2nd ed. Berlin: Behr 1887. (3 vols.).
39
40

2 Deutschen Dichtkunst. Vol. 1: Deutsche Verslehre. 2nd ed. Berlin: Behr
3
1887.
Beyer, C[onrad]: Deutsche Poetik: Theoretisch-Praktisches Handbuch der
4 Deutschen Dichtkunst. Vol. 2: Die Dichtungsgattungen. 2nd ed. Berlin:
5 Behr 1887.
7 Deutschen Dichtkunst. Vol. 3: Die Technik der Dichtkunst. 2nd ed. Ber-
8
lin: Behr 1887.
9 Deutschen Dichtkunst. 3rd ed. Berlin: Behr 1900. (3 vols.).
11 Deutschen Dichtkunst. Vol. 1: Deutsche Verslehre. 3rd ed. Berlin: Behr
12 1900.
13
Deutschen Dichtkunst. Vol. 2: Die Dichtungsgattungen. 3rd ed. Berlin:
14 Behr 1900.
16 Deutschen Dichtkunst. Vol. 3: Die Technik der Dichtkunst. 3rd ed. Ber-
17 lin: Behr 1900.
18
Deutschen Dichtkunst. 4th ed. Berlin: Behr 1913. (3 vols.).
20 Deutschen Dichtkunst. Vol. 1: Deutsche Verslehre. 4th ed. Berlin: Behr
21 1913.
23
Deutschen Dichtkunst. Vol. 2: Die Dichtungsgattungen. 4th ed. Berlin:
Behr 1913.
25 Deutschen Dichtkunst. Vol. 3: Die Technik der Dichtkunst. 4th ed. Ber-
26 lin: Behr 1913.
27 Beyer, C[onrad]: Kleine Poetik: Für höhere Schulen und zum Selbstunterricht.
28
Stuttgart, Leipzig, Berlin, Vienna: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt 1893.
Blum, Maximilian: Repetitorien. Vol. 1: Kurzes Repetitorium der deutschen
29 Literaturgeschichte nebst einigen Anmerkungen über Metrik, Aufsatzlehre
30 und Dichtungsarten. Berlin: Albertus 1917.
31 Blümel, Rudolf. Kleine deutsche Verslehre. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer 1918.
32 (Deutschkundliche Bücherei).
33
Böckelmann, Friedrich (Fritz): Auslese deutscher Gedichte zum Memorieren
nebst einem Abriss der Poetik für höhere Schulen. 3rd ed. Herford: W.
34 Menekhoff 1901.
35 Böckelmann, Friedrich (Fritz): Blumenlese deutscher Gedichte: Zum Memo-
36 rieren für höhere Schulen nach den Klassen zusammengestellt nebst
37 einem Abriß der Poetik. 4th ed. Bielefeld, Leipzig, Berlin: Velhagen &
38
Klasing 1908. (Velhagen & Klasings Sammlung deutscher Schulausgaben,
122).
39
40
1 Böckelmann, Friedrich (Fritz): Blumenlese deutscher Gedichte: Zum Memo-

3
einem Abriß der Poetik. 5th ed. Bielefeld, Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing
1913. (Velhagen & Klasings Sammlung deutscher Schulausgaben, 122).
4
Böckelmann, Friedrich (Fritz): Blumenlese deutscher Gedichte: Zum Memo-
6 einem Abriß der Poetik. 6th ed. Bielefeld, Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing
7 1923. (Velhagen & Klasings Sammlung deutscher Schulausgaben, 122).
8 Böckelmann, Friedrich (Fritz): Blumenlese deutscher Gedichte: Für höhere
Schulen nach den Klassen zusammengestellt nebst einem Abriß der Poe-
9
ACHTUNGREtik. 9th ed. Bielefeld, Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing 1935. (Velhagen &
10 Klasings Sammlung deutscher Schulausgaben, 122).
11 Bohnstedt, H[anno]: Zur Poetik, der Theorie der Dichtkunst. Bielefeld, Leip-
12 zig: Velhagen & Klasing 1927. (Velhagen & Klasings deutsche Lesebogen.
13 Materialien zum Arbeitsunterricht an höheren Schulen, 110/111).
14 Bone, Heinrich: Deutsches Lesebuch für höhere Lehranstalten. Vol. 2: Hand-
buch für den deutschen Unterricht in den oberen Klassen der Gymnasien:
15
Mit Einschluss der Rhetorik, Poetik, Literaturgeschichte und der schriftli-
16 chen Aufsätze. Cologne: DuMont-Schauberg 1853.
18 buch für den deutschen Unterricht in den oberen Klassen der Gymnasien:
19 Mit Einschluss der Rhetorik, Poetik, Literaturgeschichte und der schriftli-
20
chen Aufsätze. 2nd ed. Cologne: DuMont-Schauberg 1855.
Bone, Heinrich: Deutsches Lesebuch für höhere Lehranstalten. Vol. 2: Hand-
23 chen Aufsätze. 3rd ed. Cologne: DuMont-Schauberg 1857.
26
chen Aufsätze. 5th, augm. ed. Cologne: DuMont-Schauberg 1863.
30 chen Aufsätze. 6th, augm. ed. Cologne: DuMont-Schauberg 1866.
buch für den deutschen Unterricht in den oberen Klassen der Gymnasien:
32
33 chen Aufsätze. 8th ed. Cologne: DuMont-Schauberg 1868.
37
chen Aufsätze. 10th ed. Cologne: DuMont-Schauberg 1872.
40 chen Aufsätze. 11th ed. Cologne: DuMont-Schauberg 1872.

3
Mit Einschluss der Rhetorik, Poetik, Litteraturgeschichte und der schrift-
lichen Aufsätze. 13th ed. Cologne: DuMont-Schauberg 1889.
6 Mit Einschluss der Rhetorik, Poetik, Litteraturgeschichte und der schrift-
7 lichen Aufsätze. 14th ed. Cologne: DuMont-Schauberg 1889.
8
buch für den Deutschen Unterricht in den oberen Klassen der höheren
9 Lehranstalten mit Einschluß der Literaturgeschichte, Rhetorik, Poetik
10 und der schriftlichen Aufsätze. 15th ed. Cologne: DuMont-Schauberg
11 1905.
12 Bonnell, H. E.: Auswahl deutscher Gedichte systematisch geordnet in
13
Anschluß an ein Lehrbuch der Poetik. Berlin: Habel 1870.
Borinski, Karl: Deutsche Poetik. Stuttgart: Göschen 1895. (Sammlung Gö-
14 schen, 40).
15 Borinski, Karl: Deutsche Poetik. 2nd, corr. ed. Leipzig: Göschen 1898.
16 (Sammlung Göschen, 40).
17 Borinski, Karl: Deutsche Poetik. Impr. of the 2nd, corr. ed. Leipzig: Göschen
18
1901. (Sammlung Göschen, 40).
Borinski, Karl: Deutsche Poetik. 3rd, corr. ed. Leipzig: Göschen 1906. (Samm-
19 lung Göschen, 40).
20 Borinski, Karl: Deutsche Poetik. Impr. of the 3rd, corr. ed. Leipzig: Göschen
21 1908. (Sammlung Göschen, 40).
22 Borinski, Karl: Deutsche Poetik. 4th, corr. ed. Berlin, Leipzig: Göschen 1912.
23
(Sammlung Göschen, 40).
Borinski, Karl: Deutsche Poetik. Impr. of the 4th, corr. ed. Berlin, Leipzig:
24 Göschen 1916. (Sammlung Göschen, 40).
25 Bornhak, Gustav: Leitfaden der deutschen Poetik: Für die oberen Klassen hö-
26 ACHTUNGREherer Schulen. Berlin: Weidmann 1878.
27 Bornhak, Gustav: Lexikon der allgemeinen Litteraturgeschichte: Die National-
28
litteratur der ausserdeutschen Völker aller Zeiten in geschichtlichen Über-
sichten und Biographien. Zugleich Lexikon der Poetik. Leipzig: Bibliogra-
29 phisches Institut 1882. (Meyers Fach-Lexika, 10).
30 Bosch, Rudolf: Die Problemstellung der Poetik: Eine historisch-kritische Un-
31 tersuchung über die Methoden und Grenzen wissenschaftlicher Wertbes-
32 timmung. Leipzig: Leopold Voss 1928. (Beiträge zur Aesthetik, 18).
33
Bosch, Rudolf: Die Problemstellung der Poetik: Eine historisch-kritische Un-
tersuchung über die Methoden und Grenzen wissenschaftlicher Wertbe-
34 ACHTUNGREstimmung. Photomech. repr. Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der deutschen de-
35 mokratischen Republik 1973.
36 Bötticher, Gotthold and Karl Kinzel: Geschichte der deutschen Literatur mit
37 einem Abriß der Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Metrik: Anhang
38
zu den Denkmälern der Älteren deutschen Literatur für den literaturge-
schichtlichen Unterricht an höheren Lehranstalten im Sinne der amtlichen
39
40
1 Bestimmungen. 2nd, corr. ed. Halle a. d. S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung des
2 Waisenhauses 1896.
3
Bötticher, Gotthold and Karl Kinzel: Geschichte der deutschen Litteratur mit
einem Abriß der Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Metrik: Anhang
4 zu den Denkmälern der Älteren deutschen Litteratur für den litteraturge-
5 schichtlichen Unterricht an höheren Lehranstalten im Sinne der amtlichen
6 Bestimmungen. 3rd, corr. ed. Halle a. d. S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung des
7 Waisenhauses 1898.
8
Bötticher, Gotthold and Karl Kinzel: Geschichte der deutschen Literatur mit
einem Abriß der Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Metrik: Anhang
9 zu den Denkmälern der Älteren deutschen Litteratur. 11th, corr. ed.
10 Halle a. d. S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses 1907.
13
zu den Denkmälern der Älteren deutschen Literatur. 12th–15th, corr.
eds. Halle a. d. S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses 1907.
16 zu den Denkmälern der Älteren deutschen Literatur. 16th–20th, corr.
17 eds. Halle a. d. S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses 1910.
18
einem Abriß der Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, nebst Metrik und Po-
19 etik: Anhang zu den Denkmälern der Älteren deutschen Literatur für den
20 literaturgeschichtlichen Unterricht an höheren Lehranstalten im Sinne der
21 amtlichen Bestimmungen. 21st–25th, corr. eds. Halle a. d. S.: Verlag der
22 Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses 1915.
23
einem Abriß der Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, nebst Metrik und Po-
24 etik: Anhang zu den Denkmälern der Älteren deutschen Literatur für den
25 literaturgeschichtlichen Unterricht an höheren Lehranstalten im Sinne der
26 amtlichen Bestimmungen. 26th–30th eds. Halle a. d. S.: Verlag der Buch-
27 handlung des Waisenhauses 1921.
28
Bräuninger, Julius: Grundlagen der Deutschen Sprachlehre nebst Stillehre,
Versmaßlehre, Dichtungslehre und den nötigsten Behelfen der Denklehre.
29 Munich: R. Oldenbourg 1906.
30 Brederlow, C. G. F.: Die Dichtungsarten: Lesebuch zur Bildung des Ge-
31 ACHTUNGREschmacks und zur Veredlung des Herzens. Ed. Joh. Wilhelm Heinrich Zie-
32 genbein. 4th, rev. ed. Quedlinburg, Leipzig: Ernstsche Buchhanndlung
33
1839.
Bruchmann, Kurt: Poetik: Naturlehre der Dichtung. Berlin: W. Hertz 1898.
34 Brugier, Gustav: Geschichte der deutschen National-Literatur: Zunächst für
35 höhere Töchterschulen und weibliche Erziehungsanstalten, etc. Freiburg
36 i. Br. [et al.]: Herder 1865.
37 Brugier, Gustav: Geschichte der deutschen National-Litteratur: Für Schule und
38
Selbstbelehrung. Mit vielen Proben und einem Glossar. 2nd, fully rev. ed.
Freiburg i. Br. [et al.]: Herder 1868.
39
40
1 Brugier, Gustav: Geschichte der deutschen National-Litteratur: Nebst kurzge-

2 fasster Poetik. Für Schule und Selbstbelehrung. Mit vielen Proben und
3
einem Glossar. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Freiburg i. Br. [et al.]: Herder
1871.
4
Brugier, Gustav: Geschichte der deutschen National-Litteratur: Nebst kurzge-
6 einem Glossar. 4th, corr. and augm. ed. Freiburg i. Br. [et al.]: Herder
7 1874.
fasster Poetik. Für Schule und Selbstbelehrung. Mit vielen Proben und
9
einem Glossar. 5th, corr. and augm. ed. Freiburg i. Br. [et al.]: Herder
10 1878.
14 1880.
Brugier, Gustav: Geschichte der deutschen National-Litteratur: Nebst kurzge-
15
fasster Poetik. Für Schule und Selbstbelehrung. Mit vielen Proben und
17 1884.
19 fasster Poetik. Für Schule und Selbstbelehrung. Mit einem Titelbild, vielen
20
Proben und einem Glossar. 8th, corr. and augm. ed. Freiburg i. Br. [et al.]:
Herder 1888.
22 fasster Poetik. Für Schule und Selbstbelehrung. 9th, corr. and augm. ed.
23 Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1893.
24 Brugier, Gustav: Geschichte der deutschen Literatur: Mit Titelbild, vielen Pro-
25 ben, einem Glossar und kurzgefasster Poetik. 10th, corr. ed. Freiburg i. Br.:
Herder 1898.
26
Brugier, Gustav: Geschichte der deutschen Literatur: Nebst kurzgefaßter Poe-
27 ACHTUNGREtik. Für Schule und Selbstbelehrung. Mit einem Titelbild, vielen Proben
28 und einem Glossar. 11th ed. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1904.
29 Brugier, Gustav: Geschichte der deutschen Literatur: Mit Titelbild, vielen Pro-
30 ben, einem Glossar und kurzgefasster Poetik. Ed. Elisabeth Margarete Ha-
31
mann. 12th ed. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1911.
Buchner, Wilhelm: Deutsche Dichtung: Die Lehre von den Formen und Gat-
32
tungen derselben. Ein Leitfaden für Realschulen, höhere Bürger- und
33 Töchterschulen. Essen: G. D. Bädeker 1863.
34 Buschmann, J[ohannes]: Deutsches Lesebuch für die Oberklassen höherer
35 LehrACHTUNGREanstalten. Vol 2: Deutsche Dichtung in der Neuzeit. 1877.
37
LehrACHTUNGREanstalten. Vol 2: Deutsche Dichtung in der Neuzeit: (Nebst einem
Abriß der Poetik). 2nd ed. Trier: Fr. Litz’sche Buchhandlung 1881. (Ge-
38 schichte der deutschen Nationalliteratur in Übersichten und Proben).
40 LehrACHTUNGREanstalten. Vol 2: Deutsche Dichtung in der Neuzeit: (Nebst einem
1 Abriß der Poetik). 3rd ed. Trier: Fr. Litz’sche Buchhandlung 1885. (Ge-
3
Buschmann, J[ohannes]: Deutsches Lesebuch für die Oberklassen höherer
4
Abriß der Poetik). 4th ed. Trier: Fr. Litz’sche Buchhandlung 1893. (Ge-
8 Abriß der Poetik). 7th ed. Trier: Fr. Litz’sche Buchhandlung 1906. (Ge-
schichte der deutschen Nationalliteratur in Übersichten und Proben).
9
Buschmann, J[ohannes]: Deutsches Lesebuch für die Oberklassen höherer
Abriß der Poetik). 9th, augm. ed. Trier: Fr. Litz’sche Buchhandlung
15
1912. (Geschichte der deutschen Nationalliteratur in Übersichten und Pro-
16 ben).
19 Abriß der Poetik). Ed. E. Genniges. 10th ed. Trier: Fr. Litz’sche Buch-
handlung 1916. (Geschichte der deutschen Nationalliteratur in Übersichten
20
und Proben).
26
Abriß der Poetik). Ed. Paul Verbeek. 12th ed. Trier: Fr. Litz’sche Buch-
27 handlung 1925. (Geschichte der deutschen Nationalliteratur in Übersichten
28 und Proben).
29 Buschmann, Josef: Abriss der Poetik und Stilistik für höhere Lehranstalten.
30 Trier: Lintz 1879.
31
Buschmann, Josef: Abriss der Poetik und Aufsatzlehre für höhere Schulen. 3rd
ed. Trier: Lintz 1899.
32
Buschmann, Josef: Abriss der Poetik und Aufsatzlehre für höhere Schulen. 4th
33 ed. Trier: J. Lintz 1906.
34 Calmberg, Adolf: Kunst der Rede: Lehrbuch der Rhetorik, Stilistik, Poetik.
35 Leipzig [et al.]: Füssli 1884.
Ed. Heinrich Utzinger. 2nd ed. Leipzig [et al.]: Füssli 1885.
37
Calmberg, Adolf: Kunst der Rede: Lehrbuch der Rhetorik, Stilistik, Poetik.
38 Ed. Heinrich Utzinger. 3rd ed. Berlin: Bloch 1891.
40 Ed. Heinrich Utzinger. 4th, corr. ed. Zurich: Füßli 1907.
1 Clodius, C[hristian] A. H.: Entwurf eine systematischen Poetik nebst Collecta-

2 neen zu ihrer Ausführung. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel 1804.
3
Cyranka, L.: Wiederholungsbüchlein für den Unterricht in der deutschen Lit-
teraturkunde, nebst einem Abriss der Poetik und Metrik. Breslau: F. Hirt
4 1896.
5 Dammann, Adolf: Deutscher Lernstoff: Eine Auswahl von Musterstücken in
6 gebundener und ungebundener Form. Für den Schulgebrauch chronolo-
7 gisch und nach Dichtergruppen zusammengestellt. Mit einem Anhang
8
über deutsche Metrik und Poetik. Berlin: L. Oehmigke 1876.
Dammann, Adolf: Deutscher Lernstoff. 2nd ed. 1879.
9 Dammann, Adolf: Deutscher Lernstoff. Eine Auswahl von Musterstücken in
10 gebundener und ungebundener Form. Für den Schulgebrauch chronolo-
11 gisch und nach Dichtergruppen zusammengestellt. Mit einem Anhang
12 über deutsche Metrik und Poetik. 3rd, corr. ed. Berlin: L. Oehmigke
13
1891.
Deile, Gotthold: Poetik: Wiederholungsfragen aus der deutschen Literatur mit
14 angefügten Antworten. 4th ed. Dessau: Dünnhaupt 1913.
15 Deile, Gotthold: Poetik: Wiederholungsfragen aus der deutschen Literatur mit
16 angefügten Antworten. Ein Hilfsmittel für Unterricht und Studium. 5th ed.
17 Dessau: Dünnhaupt 1921.
18
Didon, Alexander: Grundgesetze der Kunst und deutscher Kunstsprache nebst
Gedichten: Dem deutschen Geiste geweiht. Arnsberg 1851.
19 Dieckhoff, Bernard: Handbuch der Poetik für Gymnasien. Münster: Theissing-
20 sche Buchhandlung 1832.
21 Dieckhoff, Bernard: Handbuch der Poetik für Gymnasien. Ed. Georg Dieck-
22 ACHTUNGREhoff. 2nd, rev. ed. Münster: Theissingsche Buchhandlung 1848.
23
Dieckhoff, Bernard: Handbuch der Poetik für Gymnasien. Ed. Georg Dieck-
ACHTUNGREhoff. 3rd, rev. ed. Münster: Theissingsche Buchhandlung 1857.
24 Dielitz, [Theodor] and J[ohann] E[rnst] Heinrichs: Handbuch der deutschen
25 Literatur für die oberen Klassen höherer Lehranstalten: Eine nach den Gat-
26 tungen geordnete Sammlung poetischer und prosaischer Musterstücke
27 nebst einem Abriß der Metrik, Poetik, Rhetorik und Literaturgeschichte.
28
Berlin: Georg Reimer 1863.
Dielitz, [Theodor] and J[ohann] E[rnst] Heinrichs: Handbuch der deutschen
29 Literatur für die oberen Klassen höherer Lehranstalten: Eine nach den Gat-
31 nebst einem Abriß der Metrik, Poetik, Rhetorik und Literaturgeschich-
32 te. 2nd ed. Berlin: Georg Reimer 1872.
33
Dielitz, [Theodor] and J[ohann] E[rnst] Heinrichs: Handbuch der deutschen
Literatur für die oberen Klassen höherer Lehranstalten: Eine nach den Gat-
35 nebst einem Abriß der Metrik, Poetik, Rhetorik und Literaturgeschich-
36 te. 3rd ed. Berlin: G. Reimer 1879.
37 Dielitz, [Theodor] and J[ohann] E[rnst] Heinrichs: Handbuch der deutschen
38
Litteratur für die oberen Klassen höherer Lehranstalten: Eine nach den
Gattungen geordnete Sammlung poetischer und prosaischer Musterstücke
39
40
1 nebst einem Abrß der Metrik, Poetik, Rhetorik und Litteraturgeschich-

2 te. 4th ed. Berlin: Georg Reimer 1888.
3
Dietlein, Rudolf (ed.): Aus deutschen Lesebüchern: Dichtungen in Poesie und
Prosa erläutert für Schule und Haus. Unter Mitwirkung namenhafter
4 Schulmänner. Berlin: Hoffmann 1881.
5 Dietlein, Rudolf and Woldemar Dietlein (eds.): Aus deutschen Lesebüchern:
6 Dichtungen in Poesie und Prosa erläutert für Schule und Haus. Unter Mit-
7 wirkung namenhafter Schulmänner. 3rd ed. Gera: Hoffmann 1891.
8
Dietlein, Rudolf and Woldemar Dietlein (eds.): Aus deutschen Lesebüchern:
Dichtungen in Poesie und Prosa erläutert für Schule und Haus. Unter Mit-
9 wirkung namenhafter Schulmänner. 4th ed. Gera: Hoffmann 1897.
10 Dietlein, Woldemar: Die Poesie in der Volksschule: Volkstümliche und klassi-
11 sche Gedichte für Schulen. Mit einem Anhange, enthaltend: Das Wich-
12 tigste aus der Poetik. Für die Oberstufe. 5th, fully rev. ed. Berlin: Hofmann
13
1885.
Dilschneider, Joseph: Musterlese aus dem Gebiete der deutschen Dichtkunst
14 nebst einer kurzgefassten Poetik. 2nd ed. Cologne 1839.
15 Dilschneider, Joseph: Über die Poesie: Einiges über Dichtkunst überhaupt.
16 Schulprogramme Köln. Katholisches Gymnasium. Cologne: Johann Peter
17 Bachem, Hof-Buchhändler & Buchdrucker 1839. (Einladungsschrift zu
18
der öffentlichen Prüfung der Schüler des katholischen Gymnasiums zu
Köln am 16. und 17. September 1839, 16).
19 Dilthey, Wilhelm: Die Einbildungskraft des Dichters: Bausteine für eine Poet-
20 ik. Philosophische Aufsätze. Eduard Zeller zu seinem fünfzigjährigen Doc-
21 tor-Jubiläum gewidmet. Leipzig: Fues 1887. (Philosphische Aufsätze, 10).
22 Dilthey, Wilhelm: Die Einbildungskraft des Dichters: Bausteine für eine Poet-
23
ik. In: W. D.: Wilhelm Diltheys Gesammelte Schriften. Ed. Karlfried
Gründer. Leipzig [et al.]: Teubner 1924, vol. 6.
24 Dilthey, Wilhelm: Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung: Lessing, Goethe, Novalis,
25 Hölderlin. Vier Aufsätze. Leipzig: Teubner 1906.
27 Hölderlin. Vier Aufsätze. 2nd, augm. ed. Leipzig: Teubner 1907.
28
Dilthey, Wilhelm: Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung: Lessing, Goethe, Novalis,
Hölderlin. Vier Aufsätze. 3rd, augm. ed. Leipzig: Teubner 1910.
30 Hölderlin. Vier Aufsätze. 4th ed. Leipzig, Berlin: Teubner 1913.
33
Hölderlin. Vier Aufsätze. 6th ed. Leipzig, Berlin: Teubner 1919.
38
39
40
3
5 Hölderlin. Vier Aufsätze. 12th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
6 ca. 1950.
8
Hölderlin. Vier Aufsätze. 13th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
1957.
11 1965. (Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe, 191).
13
Hölderlin. Vier Aufsätze. 15th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
1970. (Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe, 191).
16 1985. (Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe, 191).
18
Hölderlin. Ed. Rainer Rosenberg. Leipzig: Reclam 1988. (Reclams Uni-
versal-Bibliothek, 1268: Kunstwissenschaften).
20 Hölderlin. Ed. Rainer Rosenberg. 2nd, rev. ed. Leipzig: Reclam 1991.
21 (Reclams Universal-Bibliothek, 1268: Kunstwissenschaften).
22 Dilthey, Wilhelm: Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung: Lessing – Goethe – Novalis
23
– Hölderlin. Ed. Gabriele Malsch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
2005.
24 Dingler, Max: Kleine Poetik: Ein Laienbrevier über die Formgesetze von Vers
25 und Reim. Donauwörth: Cassianeum 1950.
26 Doch, Albert: Akrothinien, Liederproben: Nebst einleitendem Vorwort, Fra-
27 gen aus der Poetik und Metrik berührend. Nuremberg: Recknagel 1839.
28
Döderlein, Ludwig: Aristologie für den Vortrag der Poetik und Rhetorik. Er-
langen: Junge 1842.
29 Döderlein, Ludwig: Aristologie für den Vortrag der Poetik und Rhetorik. 2nd,
30 rev. ed. Erlangen: Bläsing 1854.
31 Döring, Reinhold: Die Gattungen der Dichtkunst als ein Leitfaden für den lit-
32 eraturhistorischen Unterricht in den obern Klassen höherer Schulanstal-
33
ten. 2nd, augm. ed. Brieg: F. Gebhard 1866.
Durmayer, Johann: Grundzüge der Poetik: Für Mittelschulen und Lehrerfort-
34 bildungsanstalten. Nuremberg: Korn 1882.
35 Durmayer, Johann: Grundzüge der Poetik: Für Mittelschulen. 2nd, corr. and
36 augm. ed. Nuremberg: Korn 1894.
37 Durmayer, Johann: Grundzüge der Poetik. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Nurem-
38
berg: Korn 1905.
Durmayer, Johann: Grundzüge der Poetik. 4th ed. Nuremberg: Korn 1910.
39
40
1 Eckardt, Ernst: Einhundert und fünfzig ausgewählte deutsche Gedichte:

2 Schulgemäß und eingehend erläutert, verbunden mit einer elementaren
3
Litteraturgeschichte und Poetik. Wurzen: Kiesler 1890.
Edler, C[arl] F.: Deutsche Versbaulehre: Ein rhythmisch-metrisches Handbuch
4 für Lehrer und zum Selbstunterricht. Berlin: Enslin 1842.
5 Engel, Johann Jakob: J. J. Engel’s Schriften. Vol. 11: Poetik. Berlin: Mylius
6 1806.
7 Engel, Johann Jakob: J. J. Engel’s Schriften. Vol. 11: Poetik. Berlin: Mylius
8
1845.
Engel, Johann Jakob: J. J. Engel’s Schriften. Vol. 11: Poetik. New ed. Berlin:
9 Mylius 1851.
10 Engel, Johann Jakob: J. J. Engel’s Schriften. Vol. 11: Poetik. Frankfurt a. M.:
11 Goar 1857.
12 Engel, Johann Jakob: J. J. Engels’s Schriften. Vol. 11: Poetik. Faks. repr. Frank-
13
furt a. M.: Athenäum 1971.
Engl, Franz: Deutsche Poetik. Vienna 1907. (Freytags Hilfsbücher für den
14 deutschen Unterricht, 7).
15 Ernesti, Johann Heinrich Martin (ed.): Theoretisch-praktisches Handbuch der
16 schönen Redekünste: Für die obern Classen gelehrter Schulen. Quedlin-
17 burg [et al.]: Basse.
18
Ernesti, Johann Heinrich Martin (ed.): Theoretisch-praktisches Handbuch der
schönen Redekünste: Für die obern Classen gelehrter Schulen. 4th, rev.
19 and augm. ed. Quedlinburg [et al.]: Basse 1820.
20 Ernesti, Johann Heinrich (ed.): Neues Theoretisch-praktisches Handbuch der
21 schönen Redekünste: Für die obern Classen der Gelehrten-Schulen. 5th,
22 new and only leg. ed. Munich: Fleischmann 1828.
23
Ernesti, Konrad: Kurzgefaßte Poetik und Lektüre für den Unterricht an Semi-
narien und höheren Schulen, sowie auch fürs Privatstudium. Regensburg:
24 G. J. Manz 1884.
25 Fielder, Rudolf: Deutsche Poetik nebst einem kurzen Abriss der deutschen Li-
26 ACHTUNGREteratur Österreichs im letzten Jahrhundert. Vienna 1904.
27 Fischer, F. W. R.: Kleine Grammatik der deutschen Sprache: Ein Lehr- und
28
Lernbuch zum Gebrauch in den unteren und mittleren Klassen höherer
Unterrichtsanstalten in zwei Cursen dargestellt. Berlin: Nicolai 1866.
29 Fischer, F. W. R.: Kleine Grammatik der deutschen Sprache nebst einem
30 Abriß der deutschen Metrik: Ein Lehr- und Lernbuch zum Gebrauch in
31 gehobeneren Bürgerschulen. 2nd ed. Berlin: Nicolai 1869.
33
Abriß der deutschen Metrik: Ein Lehr- und Lernbuch zum Gebrauch in
gehobeneren Bürgerschulen. 5th ed. Berlin: Nicolai 1875.
36 gehobeneren Bürgerschulen. 10th ed. Berlin: Nicolai 1881.
38
Abriß der deutschen Metrik: Ein Lehr- und Lernbuch zum Gebrauch in
39
40

3
Fischer, F. W. R.: Dr. F. W. R. Fischers Kleine Grammatik der deutschen
4 Sprache nebst einem Abriß der deutschen Metrik: Ein Lehr- und Lernbuch
5 zum Gebrauch in höheren Schulen. Ed. Adolf Ohmstede. 20th ed. Berlin:
6 Nicolai 1904.
7 Fischer, F. W. R.: Dr. F. W. R. Fischers Kleine Grammatik der deutschen
8
Sprache nebst einem Abriß der deutschen Metrik: Ein Lehr- und Lernbuch
zum Gebrauch in höheren Schulen. Ed. Adolf Ohmstede. 21st ed. Berlin:
9 Nicolai 1905.
10 Fischer, F. W. R.: Dr. F. W. R. Fischers Kleine Grammatik der deutschen
11 Sprache nebst einem Abriß der deutschen Metrik: Ein Lehr- und Lernbuch
12 zum Gebrauch in höheren Schulen. Ed. Adolf Ohmstede. 22nd ed. Berlin:
13
Nicolai 1907.
Fischer, F. W. R.: Dr. F. W. R. Fischers kleine Grammatik der deutschen
14 Sprache nebst einem Abriß der deutschen Metrik und Poetik. 24th ed. Ber-
15 lin: Nicolai 1917.
16 Fischer, Josef: Lehrbuch der Stilistik, Metrik und Poetik zum Gebrauche an
17 höheren Lehranstalten und zum Selbstunterrichte. Langensalza: Greßler
18
1878.
Fischer, Josef: Lehrbuch der Stilistik, Metrik und Poetik zum Gebrauche an
19 höheren Lehranstalten und zum Selbstunterrichte. 2nd ed. Langensalza:
20 Greßler 1879.
22 höheren Lehranstalten und zum Selbstunterrichte. 3rd ed. Langensalza:
23
Greßler 1882.
Fischer, Josef: Lehrbuch der Stilistik, Metrik und Poetik zum Gebrauche an
24 Mittelschulen und Selbstunterrichte. 4th, rev. ed. Langensalza: Greßler
25 1888.
27 Mittel- und höheren Schulen und zum Selbstunterrichte. Ed. Georg
28
Funk. 6th, corr. and augm. ed. Langensalza: Greßler 1903.
Fluck, Hans: Deutsche Poetik. Paderborn: Schöningh 1927. (Schöninghs
29 Dombücherei, 58).
30 Foltz, Otto: Elemente der Poetik und Theorie des Lehrverfahrens: 5.6. Ober-
31 stufe 7. und 8. Schuljahr. Anleitung zur Behandlung deutscher Gedichte
32 auf der Oberstufe der Volksschule und in den Mittelklassen höherer Leh-
33
ranstalten. Dresden: Bleyl & Kämmerer 1898.
Foltz, Otto: Die Vergleichung: Ein Beitrag zur Poetik. Langensalza: Beyer
34 1910. (Friedrich Manns pädagogisches Magazin, 424).
35 Funk, Georg: Grundriß der Metrik und Poetik: Für den Schul- und Selbstun-
36 terricht. Leipzig: Hirt 1910.
37 Gaebel, Adolf Friedrich Julius: Leitfaden der deutschen Poetik für die oberen
38
Klassen höherer Bildungsanstalten. Züllichau, Schwiebus, Meseritz: Spor-
leder 1847.
39
40
1 Geerling, Karl F.: Geerlings deutsche Metrik und Poetik: Materialien und Leit-
2 faden für mittlere und höhere Lehr-Anstalten und zum Selbststudium.
3
Wiesbaden: Gestewitz 1882.
Geib, Karl: Theorie der Dichtungsarten: Nebst einem Anhange über Rhetorik.
4
Mannheim: Loeffler 1846.
5 Gietmann, Gerhard: Grundriß der Stilistik, Poetik und Ästhetik: Für Schulen
6 und zum Selbstunterricht. Mit drei Abbildungen und einer Farbtafel. Frei-
7 burg i. Br.: Herder 1897.
8 Goeppner, J. B.: Hilfs- und Übungsbuch für den Unterricht im Deutschen:
(Wortlehre – Wortbildung – Satzlehre – Rechtschreibung – Stil, Verslehre
9
und Dichtungsarten). Für Handelsschulen und ähnliche Unterrichtsanstal-
10 ten. Nuremberg: Verlag der Friedrich Korn’schen Buchhandlung 1920.
11 Goerth, A[lbrecht]: Kurzgefasste Geschichte der deutschen Dichtkunst: Ein
12 Handbuch für den deutschen Unterricht in den Oberklassen höherer Mäd-
13 chenschulen. Leipzig, Berlin: Julius Klinkhardt 1887.
14 Gottschall, Rudolf von: Poetik: Die Dichtkunst und ihre Technik. Vom
Standpunkte der Neuzeit. Breslau: Trewendt 1858.
15
Gottschall, Rudolf von: Poetik: Die Dichtkunst und ihre Technik. Vom
16 Standpunkte der Neuzeit. 2nd, fully corr. and augm. ed. Breslau: Trewendt
17 1870. (2 vols.).
19 Standpunkte der Neuzeit. Vol. 1. 2nd, fully corr. and augm. ed. Breslau:
20
Trewendt 1870.
21 Standpunkte der Neuzeit. Vol. 2. 2nd, fully corr. and augm. ed. Breslau:
22 Trewendt 1870.
24 Standpunkte der Neuzeit. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Breslau: Trewendt
25 1873. (2 vols.).
26
Standpunkte der Neuzeit. Vol. 1. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Breslau: Tre-
27 wendt 1873.
29 Standpunkte der Neuzeit. Vol. 2. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Breslau: Tre-
30 wendt 1873.
Standpunkte der Neuzeit. 4th, rev. and corr. ed. Breslau: Trewendt
32
1877. (2 vols.).
34 Standpunkte der Neuzeit. Vol. 1. 4th, rev. and corr. ed. Breslau: Trewendt
35 1877.
37
Standpunkte der Neuzeit. Vol. 2. 4th, rev. and corr. ed. Breslau: Trewendt
1877.
39 Standpunkte der Neuzeit. 5th, rev. and corr. ed. Breslau: Trewendt
40 1882. (2 vols.).
3
1882.
5 1882.
7 Standpunkte der Neuzeit. 6th, corr. and augm. ed. Breslau: Trewendt
8
1893. (2 vols.).
9 Standpunkte der Neuzeit. Vol. 1. 6th, corr. and augm. ed. Breslau: Tre-
10 wendt 1893.
12 Standpunkte der Neuzeit. Vol. 2. 6th, corr. and augm. ed. Breslau: Tre-
13
wendt 1893.
Gottschall, Rudolf von: Poetik. Munich: Saur 1990. (Bibliothek der deutschen
14 Literatur, 5690).
15 Gredy, Friedrich Melchior: Die deutsche Poetik oder die deutsche Verskunst
16 und die Hauptarten der deutschen Gedichte zur Vorbereitung für die Ge-
17 schichte der deutschen Literatur: Zum Gebrauche in höheren Lehranstal-
18
ten wie zum Privat- und Selbstunterrichte. Mainz: Franz Kirchheim 1856.
Gredy, Friedrich Melchior: Die deutsche Poetik oder die deutsche Verskunst
21 ten wie zum Privat- und Selbstunterrichte. 2nd, corr. and augm. ed.
22 Mainz: Franz Kirchheim 1859.
23
Gredy, Friedrich Melchior: Die deutsche Poetik oder die deutsche Verskunst
und die Hauptarten der deutschen Gedichte zur Vorbereitung für die Ge-
25 ten wie zum Privat- und Selbstunterrichte. 3rd ed. Mainz: Franz Kirch-
26 heim 1863.
28
und die Hauptarten der deutschen Gedichte zur Vorbereitung für die Ge-
schichte der deutschen Literatur: Zum Gebrauche in höheren Lehranstal-
29 ten wie zum Privat- und Selbstunterrichte. 4th ed. Mainz: Franz Kirch-
30 heim 1867.
33
ten wie zum Privat- und Selbstunterrichte. 5th ed. Mainz: Franz Kirch-
34 heim 1870.
38
heim 1877.
39
40
3
4 heim 1881.
8 ten wie zum Privat- und Selbstunterrichte. 9th ed. Mainz: Franz Kirch-
heim 1892.
9
Gruber, J[ohann] G[ottfried]: Poetische Anthologie der Teutschen für Frauen-
10 zimmer: Nebst Poetik und Biographie der Dichter. Rudolstadt: Hof-
11 Buchhandlung.
12 Gude, Carl: Erläuterungen deutscher Dichtung: Nebst Themen zu schriftli-
13 chen Aufsätzen in Umrissen und Ausführungen. Ein Hülfsbuch beim Un-
14 terricht in der Litteratur. Vol. 7, sect. 2: Die neuere deutsche Lyrik. Leip-
zig: Brandstetter 1912.
15
Günther, Friedrich Joachim: Die Poetik (nach Hegels Ästhetik): Für Gymna-
16 sien. Halle a. d. S.: Waisenhaus 1845.
17 Günther, Friedrich Joachim: Handbuch für den deutschen Unterricht auf
18 Gymnasien: Enthaltend eine nach den sechs Klassen eingerichtete Verthei-
19 lung des Lehrstoffs mit kurzen methodischen Anweisungen. 2600 Aufga-
20
ben zu schriftlichen Arbeiten mit kurzgefasster Theorie der Stilarten.
Halle a. d. S.: Waisenhaus 1845.
21 Günther, Friedrich Joachim: Dr. Friedr. Joach. Günthers Hundert Paragraphen
22 aus der Rhetorik und Poetik: Nebst einer kurzen Übersicht der deutschen
23 Litteraturgeschichte und Litterar-historischen Personalnotizen für Schul-
24 lehrer-Seminare und andere höhere Lehranstalten. Ed. Carl Schroeter. 2nd,
25 corr. and augm. ed. Gera: Reisewitz 1886.
Günther, Friedrich Joachim: Rhetorik und Poetik. Ed. Carl Schroeter. 2nd,
26
corr. and augm. ed. Gera: Reisewitz 1891.
27 Hagen, Rudolf: Zur Repetition der Dichtungsarten und der Verslehre. Nur-
28 emberg: Friedrich Kora’sche Buchhandlung 1887.
29 Hahn, Werner: Deutsche Poetik. Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz 1879.
30 Haller, Hanns and Leo Tumlirz: Lernbuch für Poetik und deutsche Literatur.
31 Graz: Leykam 1932.
Haller, Hanns and Leo Tumlirz: Lernbuch für Poetik und deutsche Literatur:
32
Mit besonderer Würdigung des österreichischen Anteiles. Graz: Leykam
33 1936.
34 Hansen, Karl: Deutsches Lesebuch. Vol. 5: Deutsche Dichter und Prosaiker:
35 Auswahl Deutscher Gedichte und Prosastücke von 375 bis 1860 nebst
36 einem Abriß der Metrik, Figurenlehre und Poetik. Ein Handbuch der
37
Deutschen Nationallitteratur für höhere Lehranstalten und Freunde
Deutscher Litteratur. Harburg: Elkan 1862.
38 Hansen, Karl: Deutsches Lesebuch. Vol. 5: Deutsche Dichter und Prosaiker:
39 Auswahl Deutscher Gedichte und Prosastücke von 375 bis 1860 nebst
1 Deutschen Nationallitteratur für höhere Lehranstalten und Freunde

2 Deutscher Litteratur. 2nd, ext. augm. ed. Berlin: F. A. Brockhaus 1873.
3
Hansen, Karl: Deutsches Lesebuch. Vol. 5: Deutsche Dichter und Prosaiker:
Auswahl Deutscher Gedichte und Prosastücke von 375 bis 1860 nebst
5 Deutschen Nationallitteratur für höhere Lehranstalten und Freunde
6 Deutscher Litteratur. 3rd, ext. augm. ed. Berlin: F. A. Brockhaus 1886.
7 Haselmayer, Joh[ann]: Ev. Dichtungslehre (Poetik) für die oberen Kurse der
8
Realschulen Bayerns und verwandter Anstalten: Mit Aufgaben zur
Übung in der Form der Dichtungen. Würzburg: Verlag der J. Staudinger’-
9 schen Buchhandlung 1878.
10 Heilmann, Karl: Geschichte der deutschen Nationalliteratur nebst einem Abriß
11 der deutschen Poetik: Ein Hilfsbuch für Schule und Haus. Breslau: Ferdi-
12 nand Hirt 1893.
13
Heilmann, Karl: Geschichte der deutschen Nationalliteratur nebst einem Abriß
der deutschen Poetik: Ein Hilfsbuch für Schule und Haus. 2nd, corr. ed.
14 Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt 1895.
16 der deutschen Poetik. 3rd, corr. ed. Breslau: F. Hirt 1897.
18
der deutschen Poetik. 4th, corr. ed. Breslau: F. Hirt 1902.
19 der deutschen Poetik: Ausg. mit 30 Dichterportr. 5th, corr. and augm. ed.
20 Breslau: F. Hirt 1905.
22 der deutschen Poetik: Ausgabe ohne Abbildungen. 5th, corr. and augm.
23
ed. Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt 1905.
24 der deutschen Poetik. 6th ed. Breslau: F. Hirt 1909.
28
der deutschen Poetik. 8th, rev. ed. Breslau: F. Hirt 1917.
29 der deutschen Poetik. 10th, corr. ed. Breslau: F. Hirt 1920.
32 Heinsius, Theodor: Teut, oder theoretisch-praktisches Lehrbuch der gesamm-
33
ACHTUNGREten deutschen Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 3: Der Redner und Dichter: Oder
Anleitung zur Rede- und Dichtkunst. Berlin: Braunes 1810.
35 ACHTUNGREten deutschen Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 3: Der Redner und Dichter: Oder
36 Anleitung zur Rede- und Dichtkunst. 2nd, corr. ed. Berlin: Duncker &
37 Humblot 1817.
38
Heinsius, Theodor: Teut, oder theoretisch-praktisches Lehrbuch der gesamm-
39
40
1 Anleitung zur Rede- und Dichtkunst. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Berlin:
2 Duncker & Humblot 1824.
3
4
Anleitung zur Rede- und Dichtkunst. 4th, corr. and augm. ed. Berlin:
8 Anleitung zur Rede- und Dichtkunst. 5th ed. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
1832.
9
11 Anleitung zur Rede- und Dichtkunst. 6th, corr. and augm. ed. Berlin:
Anleitung zur Rede- und Dichtkunst. 7th ed. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
15
1846.
18 Anleitung zur Rede- und Dichtkunst. 8th ed. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
19 1850.
20
Heinze, Johann Michael: Zu der Feyer des beglückten Geburthstages unsers
Durchlauchtigsten Herzogs im Fürstl. Wilhelm-Ernestinischen Gymnasio
21 ladet geziemend ein Johann Michael Heinze: [Ob die Grammatik, Rhe-
22 ACHTUNGREtorik, Poetik und Logik in unsern literarischen Schulen zu lehren]. Wei-
23 mar: Glüsing 1784.
24 Heinze, Paul and Rudolf Goette: Deutsche Poetik: Umriß der Lehre vom
25 Wesen und den Formen der Dichtkunst. Mit einer Einfassung in das Gebiet
der Kunstlehre. Dresden-Striesen: Paul Heinze’s Verlag 1891.
26
Hentschel, Adolf and Karl Linke: Kleine Literaturkunde. 5th ed. Leipzig:
27 Duerr 1905.
28 Hentschel, Adolf and Karl Linke: Kleine Literaturkunde. 7th ed. Leipzig:
29 Duerr 1907.
30 Hentschel, Adolf and Karl Linke: Kleine Literaturkunde. 9th ed. Leipzig:
31
Duerr 1911.
Hentschel, Adolf and Karl Linke: Kleine Literaturkunde. 10th, rev. and augm.
32
ed. Leipzig: Peter 1913.
33 Hentschel, Adolf and Karl Linke: Kleine Literaturkunde. 11th, rev. ed. Leipzig:
34 Peter 1916.
35 Hentschel, Adolf and Karl Linke: Kleine Literaturkunde. Ed. A. Booss. 12th,
36 rev. ed. Leipzig: Peter 1920.
37
Hentschel, Adolf and Karl Linke: Kleine Literaturkunde. Ed. A. Boss. 14th,
rev. ed. Braunschweig: Graff 1922.
38 Herling, S[imon] H[einrich] A[dolf]: Theoretisch-praktisches Lehrbuch der
39 Stylistik für obere Classen höherer Schulanstalten und zum Selbstunter-
40 richt. Hanover: Hahn’schen Hof-Buchhandlung 1837.
1 Herzog, Joh[ann] Adolf: Poetik. Leipzig: Freytag 1914.

2 Heusler, Andreas: Wege und Irrwege in der neueren Verslehre. Ed. Eduard
3
Fraenkel. Graefenheinichen 1930. (250 Jahre Weidmannsche Buchhand-
lung).
4
Heyse, Johann Christian August and [Heinrich] F[riedrich] [Franz] Sickel: The-
5 oretisch-praktisches Handbuch aller verschiedenen Dichtungsarten: Zu-
6 nächst für die oberen Schul-Classen mit besonderer Hinsicht auf die wei-
7 bliche Jugend. Magdeburg: Heinrichshofen 1821.
8 Hippel, Erika: Deutsche Sprachlehre mit einem Abriß der Metrik und Poetik.
Eds. Regina Tieffenbach and Emanuel Neumann. Berlin: Grote 1928.
9
Hoff, L[udwig] and W[ilhelm] Kaiser: Handbuch für den deutschen Unterricht
10 auf höheren Schulen. Vol. 2: Abriß der Rhetorik und Poetik. Essen: Bae-
11 deker 1880.
12 Hoff, L[udwig] and W[ilhelm] Kaiser: Handbuch für den deutschen Unterricht
13 auf höheren Schulen. Vol. 2: Abriß der Rhetorik und Poetik. Ed. H. Wer-
14 neke. 2nd ed. Essen: Baedeker 1907.
Hofmann, Fritz: Hilfsbüchlein für den deutschen Unterricht an den Mittelklas-
15
sen höherer Lehranstalten. Copenick: Jenne 1901.
16 Holczabek, Felix: Deutsche Metrik und Poetik nebst einem Abriß der Litera-
17 turgeschichte und einer Sammlung von Beispielen: Ein Hilfsbuch für den
18 deutschen Unterrichten an Mädchen-Lyzeen, höheren Mädchen-Fortbil-
19 dungsschulen wie zum Selbstunterrichte. 2nd, corr. ed. Vienna: Karl
20
Graeser & Kie. 1906.
Holczabek, Johann Wilhelm: Das Notwendigste aus der deutschen Litera-
21 tur. 1873.
22 Hüttmann, J. F.: Litteraturkunde: Leitfaden der Poetik für Mittelschulen und
23 die mittleren Klassen höherer Lehranstalten. Stade: Schaumburg 1893.
24 Ilg, Johann: Ziele und Wege der neueren deutschen Poetik: Programm Urfahr,
25 Bischöfliches Privatgymnasium am Kollegium Petrinum. 1911/12. Urfahr
1912.
26
Jütting, Wübbe U.: Praktische Poetik für Lehrer, Lehrerbildungsanstalten, hö-
27 here Bürgerschulen und höhere Töchterschulen. Leipzig: Siegismund &
28 Volkening 1884.
29 Kellen, Tony: Die Dichtkunst: Eine Einführung in das Wesen, die Formen und
30 die Gattungen der schönen Literatur. Nebst zahlreichen Musterbeispielen.
31 Essen: Fredebeul & Koenen 1911.
Kleinpaul, Ernst: Die Lehre von den Formen und Gattungen der deutschen
32
Dichtkunst: Für höhere Lehranstalten, so wie zum Selbstunterricht bear-
33 beitet und mit Hinweisungen auf die Gedichtsammlungen von Echtermey-
34 er, Kurz, Schwab, Wackernagel und Wolff versehen. Barmen: Langewi-
35 sche 1843.
36 Kleinpaul, Ernst: Die Lehre von den Formen und Gattungen der deutschen
37
Dichtkunst: Für höhere Lehranstalten, so wie zum Selbstunterricht bear-
beitet. 2nd ed. Barmen: Langewische 1850.
38 Kleinpaul, Ernst: Die Lehre von den Formen und Gattungen der deutschen
39 Dichtkunst: Für höhere Lehranstalten, sowie zum Selbstunterricht. 3rd,
40 corr. and augm. ed. Barmen: Langewiesche 1856.
1 Kleinpaul, Ernst: Poetik: Die Lehre von den Formen und Gattungen der deut-
2 schen Dichtkunst. Für höhere Lehranstalten, sowie zum Selbstunter-
3
richt. 4th, corr. and augm. ed. Barmen: Langewiesche 1861.
Kleinpaul, Ernst: Poetik: Die Lehre von den Formen und Gattungen der deut-
4 schen Dichtkunst. 5th, corr. and augm. ed. Barmen: Langewiesche 1864.
5 (2 vols.).
7 schen Dichtkunst. Vol. 1: Dichtungsformen. 5th, corr. and augm. ed. Bar-
8
men: Langewiesche 1864.
9 schen Dichtkunst. Vol. 2: Dichtungsarten. 5th, corr. and augm. ed. Bar-
10 men: Langewiesche 1864.
12 schen Dichtkunst. 6th, corr. and augm. ed. Barmen: Langewiesche 1868.
13
(2 vols.).
14 schen Dichtkunst. Vol. 1: Die Dichtungsformen. 6th, corr. and augm. ed.
15 Barmen: Langewiesche 1868.
17 schen Dichtkunst. Vol. 2: Die Dichtungsarten. 6th, corr. and augm. ed.
18
Barmen: Langewiesche 1868.
19 schen Dichtkunst. 7th, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Langewiesche 1873 –
20 1874. (2 vols.).
23
Leipzig: Langewiesche 1873.
25 Leipzig: Langewiesche 1874.
27 schen Dichtkunst. 8th, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Langewiesche 1879 –
28
1880. (3 vols.).
32 schen Dichtkunst. Vol. 2: Die Dichtungssprache. Ausgeführt für Dichter
33
und alle Freunde der Poesie. 8th, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Langewie-
sche 1879.
38
schen Dichtkunst. Ed. Wilhelm Langewiesche. 9th, corr. and augm. ed.
Bremen: Heinsius 1892.
39
40
1 Kleinpaul, Ernst: Von der Volkspoesie: Nebst ausgewählten echten Volkslie-

2 dern und Umdichtungen derselben. Zugleich ein Supplement zu “Klein-
3
paul’s Poetik”. 2nd ed. Barmen: Langewiesche 1870.
Kleinpaul, Ernst: Schulpoetik: Vornehmlich nach der ausgeführteren neuesten
4 Auflage der von Ernst Kleinpaul entworfenen, jetzt zweibändigen “Poe-
5 ACHTUNGREtik”. Ed. Julius Axenfeld. Leipzig: Langewische 1877.
6 Kleinpaul, Ernst: Kleine Poetik für Schule und Haus. Ed. Carl L. Leim-
7 bach. 2nd ed. Bremen: Heinsius 1886.
8
Knauth, Franz: Auswahl deutscher Gedichte: Für den Schulgebrauch geordnet.
Mit einem literaturgeschichtlichen Überblicke, den Biographien der
9 Dichter und einem Abrisse der Poetik. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Halle
10 a. d. S.: Hendel 1870.
11 Knauth, Franz: Auswahl deutscher Gedichte: Für den Schulgebrauch geordnet.
12 Mit einem literaturgeschichtlichen Überblicke, den Biographien der
13
Dichter und einem Abrisse der Poetik. 6th, corr. and augm. ed. Halle
a. d. S.: Hendel 1880.
14 Knauth, Franz: Auswahl deutscher Gedichte: Für den Schulgebrauch geordnet.
15 Mit einem literaturgeschichtlichen Überblicke, den Biographien der
16 Dichter und einem Abrisse der Poetik. 8th, augm. ed. Halle a. d. S.: Hendel
17 1886.
18
Knauth, Franz: Auswahl deutscher Gedichte: Mit einem literargeschichtlichen
Überblicke, den Biographien der Dichter und einem Abrisse der Poetik.
19 [Orthographie nach dem preuß. Ministerial-Erlaß vom 21 Januar 1880].
20 Für den Schulgebrauch zusammengestellt. 9th ed. Halle a. d. S.: Hendel
21 1888.
22 Knauth, Franz: Auswahl deutscher Gedichte: Mit einem literargeschichtlichen
23
Überblicke, den Biographien der Dichter und einem Abrisse der Poetik.
[Orthographie nach dem preuß. Ministerial-Erlaß vom 21 Januar 1880].
24 Für den Schulgebrauch zusammengestellt. 10th, corr. and augm. ed.
25 Halle a. d. S.: Hendel 1889.
26 Knauth, Franz: Auswahl deutscher Gedichte: Für den Schulgebrauch. Mit
27 einem literaturgeschichtlichen Überblicke, den Biographien der Dichter
28
und einem Abrisse der Poetik. 12th, corr. and augm. ed. Halle a. d. S.:
Hendel 1895.
31 und einem Abrisse der Poetik. 15th, corr. and augm. ed. Halle a. d. S.:
32 Hendel 1899.
33
Knauth, Franz: Auswahl deutscher Gedichte: Für den Schulgebrauch. Mit
einem literaturgeschichtlichen Überblicke, den Biographien der Dichter
34 und einem Abrisse der Poetik. 17th, corr. and augm. ed. Halle a. d. S.:
35 Hendel 1901.
38
und einem Abrisse der Poetik. 18th ed. Halle a. d.S.: Hendel 1903.
39
40

3
und einem Abrisse der Poetik. 23rd ed. Halle a. d. S.: Hendel 1907.
Knauth, Franz: Auswahl deutscher Gedichte: Für den Schulgebrauch. Mit
4 einem literargeschichtlichen Überblicke, den Biographien der Dichter
5 und einem Abrisse der Poetik. Einheitliche deutsche Rechtschreibung
6 vom 1. Januar 1903. 29th ed. Halle a. d. S.: Hendel 1911.
7 Knauth, Franz: Sieben Bücher deutscher Dichtungen von den ältesten Zeiten
8
bis auf die Gegenwart: Mit einem litterargeschichtlichen Überblicke, den
Biographien der Dichter und einem Abrisse der Poetik. Orthographie
9 nach dem preußischen Ministerial-Erlaß vom 21. Jan. 6th ed. Halle
10 a. d. S.: Hendel 1882.
12 bis auf die Gegenwart: Für den Gebrauch in höheren Lehranstalten. Mit
13
einem litterargeschichtlichen Überblicke, Biographien der Dichter und
einem Abrisse der Poetik. Ed. G. Bernhardt. Halle a. d. S.: Otto Hendel
14 1890.
16 bis auf die Gegenwart: Für den Gebrauch in höheren Lehranstalten bear-
17 beitet. Mit einem litterargeschichtlichen Überblicke, Biographien der
18
Dichter und einem Abrisse der Poetik. Ed. G. Bernhardt. Halle a. d. S.:
Hendel 1900.
19 Knüttell, August: Die Dichtkunst und ihre Gattungen: Ihrem Wesen nach dar-
20 gestellt und durch eine nach Dichtungsarten geordnete Mustersammlung
21 erläutert. Mit Rücksicht auf den Gebrauch in Schulen. 2nd, corr. and
22 augm. ed. Breslau: Graß, Barth & Comp. 1848.
23
Knüttell, August: Die Dichtkunst und ihre Gattungen: Ihrem Wesen nach dar-
gestellt und durch eine nach den Dichtungsarten geordnete Mustersamm-
24 lung erläutert. 3rd, augm. ed. Breslau: Leuckart 1863.
25 Kobel, Oskar: Kurzer Abriß der Lehre von der Dichtkunst für Präparandenan-
26 stalten und Mittelschulen. Breslau: Heinrich Handels Verlag 1903.
27 Kobel, Oskar: Kurzer Abriß der Lehre von der Dichtkunst. 2nd, corr. ed. Bres-
28
ACHTUNGRElau: Handel 1906.
Kobel, Oskar: Kurzer Abriß der Lehre von der Dichtkunst. 4th ed. Breslau:
29 Handel 1909.
30 Kobel, Oskar: Kurzer Abriß der Lehre von der Dichtkunst. 5th ed. Breslau:
31 Handel 1911.
33
Handel 1915.
Kobel, Oskar: Kurzer Abriß der Lehre von der Dichtkunst. 7th ed. Breslau:
34 Handel 1918.
36 Handel 1925.
37 Koch, Christian Friedrich: Deutsche Grammatik nebst den Tropen und Fi-
38
ACHTUNGREguren und den Grundzügen der Metrik und Poetik. 3rd, corr. ed. Jena:
Mauke 1860.
39
40
1 Koch, Christian Friedrich: Deutsche Grammatik nebst den Tropen und Fi-
2 ACHTUNGREguren und den Grundzügen der Metrik und Poetik. 4th ed. Jena: Mauke
3
1862.
Koch, Christian Friedrich: Figuren und Tropen und die Grundzüge der Metrik
4 und Poetik. Jena: Mauke 1860.
5 Koch, Christian Friedrich: Figuren und Tropen: Grundzüge der Metrik und
6 Poetik. Ed. Eugen Wilhelm. 2nd ed. Jena: Mauke 1873.
7 Koch, Christian Friedrich: Figuren und Tropen: Grundzüge der Metrik und
8 Poetik. Ed. Eugen Wilhelm. 3rd, rev. ed. Jena: Fischer 1878.
Koch, Christian Friedrich: Figuren und Tropen: Grundzüge der Metrik und
9
Poetik. Ed. Eugen Wilhelm. 4th ed. Jena 1880.
10 Koepert, Hermann: Lehrbuch der Poetik: Für Unterricht und Selbststudium.
11 Leipzig: Arnold 1860.
12 Koepert, Hermann: Lehrbuch der Poetik: Für Unterricht und Selbststu-
13 dium. 2nd, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Arnoldische Buchhandlung 1869.
14 Kolck, Hermann Josef: Grundzüge der deutschen Poetik: Zum Gebrauch an
höheren Lehranstalten. Münster i. W.: Aschendorff 1892.
15
König, Eduard: Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik: In Bezug auf die biblische Litteratur
16 komparativisch dargestellt. Leipzig: Dieterich 1900.
17 Konrad, Karl: Grundzüge der Poetik: Vom künstlerischen Schaffen und Ge-
18 ACHTUNGREnießen. Breslau: Finsterbusch 1929.
19 Körner, Josef: Einführung in die Poetik. Frankfurt a. M.: Schulte-Bulmke
20
1949.
Körner, Josef: Einführung in die Poetik. 2nd ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Schulte-
21 Bulmke 1964.
22 Körner, Josef: Einführung in die Poetik. 3rd ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Schulte-
23 Bulmke 1968.
24 Kralik, Richard von: Kunstbüchlein gerechten, gründlichen Gebrauchs aller
25 Freunde der Dichtkunst. Vienna: Konegen 1891.
Krauß, Ludwig: Leitfaden der deutschen Poetik: Für Gymnasialschüler. Ans-
26
bach: Brügel 1897.
27 Krauß, Ludwig Leitfaden der deutschen Poetik: Für Gymnasialschüler und zum
28 Selbstunterricht zusammengestellt. 2nd, augm. ed. Ansbach: Brügel 1902.
29 Krauß, Ludwig: Leitfaden der deutschen Poetik: Für Gymnasialschüler und
30 zum Selbstunterricht zusammengestellt. 3rd ed. Ansbach: Brügel 1907.
31 Krauß, Ludwig: Leitfaden der deutschen Poetik: Für Gymnasialschüler und
zum Selbstunterricht zusammengestellt. 4th ed. Ansbach: Brügel 1911.
32
Krauß, Ludwig: Leitfaden der deutschen Poetik: Für Gymnasialschüler und
33 zum Selbstunterricht zusammengestellt. 5th ed. Ansbach: Brügel 1923.
34 Krause, Wilhelm: Die Deutsche Dichtkunst: Lehrbuch der Metrik und Poetik
35 zum Unterricht und zum Selbststudium. Berlin: Salevski 1876.
36 Krause, Wilhelm: Die deutsche Dichtkunst: Leitfaden zum Unterrichte in
37
Metrik und Poetik an höheren Lehranstalten, Seminaren und höhere
Töchterschulen, wie auch zum Selbststudium. 2nd ed. Berlin: Oehmigke
38 1887.
39 Krause, Wilhelm: Werkstatt der Wortkunst: Eine Poetik in Selbstzeugnissen
40 deutscher Dichter. Munich [et al.]: Oldenbourg 1942.
1 Kretschmer, Karl: Geschichte der deutschen Nationalliteratur: Nebst einer Po-

2 etik. Für höhere Schulen, Lehrer- und Lehrerinnenbildungsanstalten, hö-
3
here Mädchenschulen und zum Selbstunterricht. Mit Abbildungen. Ha-
belschwerdt: Franke 1907.
4
Kretschmer, Karl: Einführung in die deutsche Literatur: Nebst einer Poetik.
5 Für höhere Schulen, Lehrer- und Lehrerinnenbildungsanstalten, höhere
6 Mädchenschulen und zum Selbstunterricht. Mit Abbildungen. 2nd, fully
7 rev. ed. 1914.
8 Kretschmer, Karl: Einführung in die deutsche Literatur: Nebst einer Poetik.
Für höhere Schulen, Lehrer- und Lehrerinnenbildungsanstalten, höhere
9
Mädchenschulen und zum Selbstunterricht. Mit Abbildungen. Ed. R. Mo-
10 ser. 3rd, augm. ed. Habelschwerdt: Franke 1920.
11 Kriebitzsch, Karl Theodor: Zur Poetik: Anhang zu den Lesebüchern für deut-
12 sche Lehrerbildungsanstalten von Kehr und Kriebitzsch. Gotha: Thiene-
13 mann, Engelhard-Reyher 1883.
14 Kröger, C. H.: Die Elemente der deutschen Poetik und Litteraturgeschichte.
Oldenburg: Schulze 1885.
15
Krüger, Carl A.: Deutsche Sprachlehre nebst Metrik und Poetik [für Fortbil-
16 dungs-, Mittel- und mehrklassige Volksschulen wie Präparandenanstalten]:
17 Bearbeitet nach ministeriellen allgemeinen Bestimmungen vom 15. Octo-
18 ber 1872. 2nd ed. Gdansk: Theodor Bertling 1874.
19 Krüger, Carl A.: Deutsche Sprachlehre nebst Metrik und Poetik [für Fortbil-
20
dungs-, Mittel- und mehrklassige Volksschulen wie Präparandenanstalten]:
Bearbeitet nach ministeriellen allgemeinen Bestimmungen vom 15. Octo-
21 ber 1872. 3rd, corr. ed. Gdansk: Theodor Bertling 1882.
22 Krüger, Carl A.: Deutsche Schulgrammatik nebst Metrik, Poetik und Wörter-
23 verzeichnis [für Volks-, Bürger- und Mittelschulen und die entsprechenden
24 Klassen höherer Lehranstalten]. Gdansk: Axt 1883.
25 Krüger, Carl A.: Deutsche Schulgrammatik nebst Metrik, Poetik und Wörter-
verzeichnis [für Volks-, Bürger- und Mittelschulen und die entsprechenden
26
Klassen höherer Lehranstalten]. 2nd, corr. and augm. ed. Gdansk: Franz
27 Axt 1888.
28 Kummer, Karl Ferdinand von and Karl Stejskal: Leitfaden zur Geschichte der
29 deutschen Literatur: Zum Unterrichtsgebrauch an Mittelschulen und ver-
30 wandten Lehranstalten. 1912.
31 Lange, Otto: Deutsche Poetik: Ein Hülfsbuch für Lehrer der deutschen Lite-
ACHTUNGREratur und zum Selbstunterricht theoretisch-practisch bearbeitet. Berlin:
32
Plahn 1844.
33 Lange, Otto: Deutsche Poetik: Formenlehre der deutschen Dichtkunst. Ein
34 Leitfaden für Oberklassen höherer Bildungsanstalten. 2nd, fully rev. ed.
35 Berlin: Rudolph Gaertner 1865.
37
Leitfaden für Oberklassen höherer Bildungsanstalten. 3rd, corr. ed. Berlin:
Gaertner 1870.
39 Leitfaden für Oberklassen höherer Bildungsanstalten. 4th ed. Berlin: Ru-
40 dolph Gaertner 1876.

2 Leitfaden für Oberklassen höherer Bildungsanstalten, wie zum Selbstunter-
3
richt. Ed. Richard Jonas. 5th ed. Berlin: Rudolph Gaertner, Verlagsbuch-
handlung Hermann Heyfelder 1885.
5 Leitfaden für Oberklassen höherer Bildungsanstalten, wie zum Selbstunter-
6 richt. Ed. Richard Jonas. 6th ed. Berlin: Rudolph Gaertner, Verlagsbuch-
7 handlung Hermann Heyfelder 1900.
8
Lehmann, Joseph: Deutsche Sprach- und Aufsatzlehre. Vienna 1902.
Lehmann, Rudolf: Deutsche Poetik. Munich: Beck 1908. (Handbuch des
9 deutschen Unterrichts an höheren Schulen, 3.2).
10 Lehmann, Rudolf: Poetik. 2nd, corr. and augm. ed. Munich: Beck 1919.
11 (Handbuch des deutschen Unterrichts an höheren Schulen, 3.2).
12 Leimbach, Karl: Kleine Poetik für Schule und Haus: Nach Dr. Ernst Kleinpauls
13
dreibändiger Poetik neu bearbeitet. 2nd ed. Bremen: Heinsius 1886.
Leineweber, Heinrich: Poetische Blumenlese oder Grundlagen für den Unter-
14 richt in der Poetik und Litteraturgeschichte: Ein Lese- und Bildungsbuch
15 für mittlere und höhere Schulen, insbesondere für Seminare, Präparan-
16 den-Anstalten, Mittelschulen und höhere Töchterschulen. Trier: Stepha-
17 nus 1882.
18
Leineweber, Heinrich: Poetische Blumenlese oder Grundlagen für den Unter-
richt in der Poetik und Litteraturgeschichte: Ein Lese- und Bildungsbuch
19 für mittlere und höhere Schulen, insbesondere für Seminare, Präparan-
20 den-Anstalten, Mittelschulen und höhere Töchterschulen. 2nd, augm. ed.
21 Trier: Stephanus 1890.
22 Leineweber, Heinrich: Poetische Blumenlese oder Grundlagen für den Unter-
23
richt in der Poetik und Litteraturgeschichte: Ein Lese- und Bildungsbuch
für mittlere und höhere Schulen, insbesondere für Seminare, Präparan-
24 den-Anstalten, Mittelschulen und höhere Töchterschulen. 3rd ed. Trier:
25 Heinrich Stephanus 1887.
26 Lindner, Johann Gotthelf: Hilfsbuch für den deutschen Unterricht: Abriß der
27 Poetik und Übersicht über die Literaturgeschichte. Berlin: Mittler 1906.
28
Lindner, Johann Gotthelf: Kurzer Inbegriff der Aesthetik, Redekunst und
Dichtkunst. Königsberg, Leipzig: Zeisen & Hartung 1771 – 1772. (2 vols.).
29 Lindner, Johann Gotthelf: Kurzer Inbegriff der Aesthetik, Redekunst und
30 Dichtkunst. Vol. 1. Königsberg, Leipzig: Zeisen & Hartung 1771.
32 Dichtkunst. Vol. 2: Zweiter Theil, der die Rhetorik und Poetik in sich
33
faßt. Königsberg, Leipzig: Zeisen & Hartung 1772.
34 Dichtkunst. Faks. repr. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum 1971. (Athenäum Re-
35 prints). (2 vols.).
37 Dichtkunst. Faks. repr. Vol. 1. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum 1971. (Athe-
38
näum Reprints).
39
40

2 Dichtkunst. Vol. 2: Zweiter Theil, der die Rhetorik und Poetik in sich
3
faßt. Faks. repr. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum 1972. (Athenäum Reprints).
Linning, Franz: Vorschule der Poetik und Litteraturgeschichte. Paderborn:
4
Ferdinand Schöningh 1878.
5 Linning, Franz: Vorschule der Poetik und Litteraturgeschichte: Ein Hilfsbuch
6 für den Unterricht im Deutschen für Lehrer und Lernende. 2nd ed. Pader-
7 born, Münster: Ferdinand Schöningh 1888.
8 Lippert, Rudolf: Grundriß der deutschen Poetik: Für den Schulgebrauch.
Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer 1911.
9
Lippert, Rudolf: Grundriß der deutschen Poetik: Für den Schulgebrauch. 2nd
10 ed. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer 1914.
11 Lippert, Rudolf: Grundriß der deutschen Poetik: Für den Schulgebrauch. 3rd,
12 corr. ed. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer 1914.
13 Lohmeyer, Theodor: Kleine deutsche Satzlehre: Nebst einer Auswahl aus der
14 Formenlehre und einer Zeichensetzungslehre. Zunächst für die Klassen
Sexta bis Tertia höherer Lehranstalten mit Latein. Hanover: Helwingsche
15
Verlagsbuchhandlung 1887.
16 Lohmeyer, Theodor: Kleine Deutsche Satzlehre nebst einer Auswahl aus der
17 Formenlehre und einer Interpunktionslehre: Sowie einem Anhang aus
18 der Poetik und Metrik. 2nd ed. Hanover: Helwingsche Verlagsbuchhand-
19 lung 1891.
20
Lohmeyer, Theodor: Kleine Deutsche Satzlehre nebst einer Auswahl aus der
Formenlehre und einer Interpunktionslehre: Sowie einem Anhang aus
21 der Poetik und Metrik. 3rd ed. Hanover: Helwingsche Verlagsbuchhand-
22 lung 1892.
23 Lohmeyer, Theodor: Kleine Deutsche Satz-, Formen- und Interpunktions-
24 ACHTUNGRElehre: Nebst einem Anhange, enthaltend Regeln aus der Poetik und Met-
25 rik, Geschichtliches über die deutsche Sprache, das Lautverschiebungsge-
setz und die Wortbildungslehre, Aufsatzbeispiele und Aufsätze. 4th ed.
26
Hanover: Helwingsche Verlagsbuchhandlung 1899.
27 Loreye, Joseph: Theorie der Dichtkunst: Durch lateinische und teutsche Mus-
28 ter beleuchtet. Stuttgart, Tübingen: Cotta 1801 – 1802. (2 vols.).
30 ter beleuchtet. Vol. 1: Enthält noch, als Anhang, einen kurzen Entwurf der
31
griechischen und römischen Mythologie. Stuttgart, Tübingen: Cotta 1801.
Loreye, Joseph: Theorie der Dichtkunst: Durch lateinische und teutsche Mus-
32
ter beleuchtet. Vol. 2: Enthält noch, als Anhang, einen kurzen Entwurf der
33 Archäologie. Stuttgart, Tübingen: Cotta 1802.
35 ter beleuchtet. 2nd, fully rev. ed. Tübingen, Stuttgart: Cotta 1820. (2
36 vols.).
37
Loreye, Joseph: Theorie der Dichtkunst: Durch lateinische und teutsche Mus-
ter beleuchtet. Vol. 1. 2nd, fully rev. ed. Tübingen, Stuttgart: Cotta 1820.
39 ter beleuchtet. Vol. 2: Enthält noch, als Anhang, einen kurzen Entwurf der
40 Archäologie. 2nd, fully rev. ed. Stuttgart, Tübingen: Cotta 1820.
1 Lyon, Otto: Handbuch der deutschen Sprache für höhere Schulen. Vol. 2: Sti-
2 listik, Poetik und Literaturgeschichte. Leipzig [et al.]: Teubner 1885.
3
Lyon, Otto: Handbuch der deutschen Sprache für höhere Schulen. Vol. 2: Sti-
listik, Poetik und Literaturgeschichte: Für obere Klassen. 2nd, corr. and
4 augm. ed. Leipzig [et al.]: Teubner 1890.
6 listik, Poetik und Literaturgeschichte: Für obere Klassen. 3rd. ed. Leipzig
7 [et al.]: Teubner 1893.
8
listik, Poetik und Literaturgeschichte: Für obere Klassen. 4th, corr. and
11 listik, Poetik und Literaturgeschichte: Für obere Klassen. 5th, corr. and
13
listik, Poetik und Literaturgeschichte. 6th, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig [et
14 al.]: Teubner 1902.
15 Lyon, Otto: Handbuch der deutschen Sprache für höhere Schulen. Vol. 2:
16 Deutsche Literaturgeschichte, deutsche Poetik, Geschichte der deutschen
17 Sprache und deutsche Stilistik. Ed. Bruno Busse. 8th, fully rev. ed. Leipzig
18
[et al.]: Teubner 1915.
Lyon, Otto: Handbuch der deutschen Sprache für höhere Schulen. Vol. 2: Po-
19 etik und Literaturgeschichte. Für mittlere und obere Klassen. Ed. Willy
20 Scheel. 2nd ed. Leipzig [et al.]: Teubner 1912.
21 Madel, Johann: Abriss der deutschen Verslehre und Poetik. Munich: Pohl
22 1907.
23
Marcus, Solomon: Mathematische Poetik. Bucuresti, Frankfurt a. M.: Athe-
näum Verl. 1973. (Linguistische Forschungen, 13).
24 Marienburg, Lucas Joseph: Grundlinien des deutschen Styls in seinem ganzen
25 Umfange, das ist, in wie weit Sprachlehre, Redekunst und Dichtkunst dar-
26 unter begriffen werden: Ein Leitfaden für Lehrende und Lernende. Leip-
27 zig: Heinsius 1796 – 1797. (4 vols.). [Anon.].
28
Marienburg, Lucas Joseph: Grundlinien des deutschen Styls in seinem ganzen
Umfange, das ist, in wie weit Sprachlehre, Redekunst und Dichtkunst dar-
29 unter begriffen werden: Ein Leitfaden für Lehrende und Lernende. Vol. 1.
30 Leipzig: Heinsius 1796. [Anon.].
33
unter begriffen werden: Ein Leitfaden für Lehrende und Lernende. Vol. 2.
Leipzig: Heinsius 1796. [Anon.].
38
Marienburg, Lucas Joseph: Grundlinien des deutschen Styls in seinem ganzen
Umfange, das ist, in wie weit Sprachlehre, Redekunst und Dichtkunst dar-
39
40
3
Maydorn, Bernhard: Deutsche Sprachlehre nebst Metrik und Poetik und Re-
geln für die Zeichensetzung. 3rd ed. Thorn: Schwartz 1908.
4 Maydorn, Bernhard: Metrik und Poetik: Deutsche Sprachlehre. Frankfurt a.
5 M. [et al.]: Diesterweg 1912.
6 Mayer, Karl August: Leitfaden der deutschen Poetik für die Oberklassen höh-
7 erer Lehranstalten und für Freunde der Dichtkunst. Leipzig: Teubner
8
1869.
Mayer, Karl August: Leitfaden der deutschen Poetik für die Oberklassen höh-
9 erer Lehranstalten und für Freunde der Dichtkunst. 2nd, corr. ed. Leipzig:
10 Teubner 1879.
11 Mayer, Philipp: Theorie und Literatur der deutschen Dichtungsarten: Ein
12 Handbuch zur Bildung des Stils und des Geschmackes. Nach den Hilfs-
13
quellen bearbeitet von Ph. M. Vienna: Carl Gerold 1824. (3 vols.).
Mayer, Philipp: Theorie und Literatur der deutschen Dichtungsarten: Ein
15 quellen bearbeitet von Ph. M. Vol. 1. Vienna: Carl Gerold 1824.
16 Mayer, Philipp: Theorie und Literatur der deutschen Dichtungsarten: Ein
18
quellen bearbeitet von Ph. M. Vol. 2. Vienna: Carl Gerold 1824.
Mayer, Philipp: Theorie und Literatur der deutschen Dichtungsarten: Ein
20 quellen bearbeitet von Ph. M. Vol. 3. Vienna: Carl Gerold 1824.
21 Mayr, Richard or Pischek, Hans: Hilfsbuch für den deutschen Unterricht.
22 Vienna 1898.
23
Mensing, Otto: Hülfsbuch für den deutschen Unterricht auf höheren Schulen.
Vol. 4: Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur nebst Verslehre
24 und Poetik für die Oberstufe höherer Schulen. Dresden: Ehlermann 1916.
25 Mensing, Otto: Hilfsbuch für den deutschen Unterricht auf höheren Schulen.
26 Vol. 4: Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur nebst Verslehre
27 und Poetik für die Oberstufe höherer Schulen. 2nd ed. Berlin, Dresden,
28
Leipzig: Ehlermann 1919.
Mensing, Otto: Hilfsbuch für den deutschen Unterricht auf höheren Schulen.
29 Vol. 4: Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur nebst Verslehre
30 und Poetik für die Oberstufe höherer Schulen. 6th ed. Berlin: Ehlermann
31 1925.
32 Mensing, Otto: Hilfsbuch für den deutschen Unterricht auf höheren Schulen.
33
Vol. 4: Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur nebst Verslehre
und Poetik für die Oberstufe höherer Schulen. 7th ed. Berlin: Ehlermann
34 1926.
35 Merkl, Wenzel: Das deutsche Volk in seiner Literatur: Bilder aus der deutschen
36 Literaturgeschichte und kurzgefasste Metrik und Poetik für die einjährigen
37 Lehrkurse an Bürgerschulen. Vienna: Tempsky 1913.
38
Minckwitz, Johannes: Lehrbuch der deutschen Verskunst oder Prosodie und
Metrik: Nach neuen Grundsätzen bearbeitet für Universitäten, Gymnasien,
39
40
1 Realschulen, Seminarien, wie auch zum Selbstunterricht. 3rd ed. Leipzig:

2 J. J. Weber 1854.
3
Metrik: Nach neuen Grundsätzen bearbeitet für Universitäten, Gymnasien,
4
Realschulen, Seminarien, wie auch zum Selbstunterricht. 4th ed. Leipzig:
5 Arnold 1862.
6 Minckwitz, Johannes: Lehrbuch der deutschen Verskunst oder Prosodie und
7 Metrik: Nach neuen Grundsätzen bearbeitet für Universitäten, Gymnasien,
8 Realschulen, Seminarien, wie auch zum Selbstunterricht. 5th ed. Leipzig:
Arnold 1878.
9
10 Metrik: Nach neuen Grundsätzen bearbeitet für Universitäten, Gymnasien,
11 Realschulen, Seminarien, wie auch zum Selbstunterricht. 6th ed. Leipzig:
12 Arnold 1878.
13 Minckwitz, Johannes: Katechismus der Deutschen Poetik. Leipzig: J. J. Weber
14 1868. (Weber’s Illustrirte Katechismen, 63.).
Minckwitz, Johannes: Katechismus der Deutschen Poetik. 2nd, corr. and
15
augm. ed. Leipzig: J. J. Weber 1877. (Weber’s Illustrirte Katechismen, 63).
16 Minckwitz, Johannes: Katechismus der Deutschen Poetik. 3rd ed. Leipzig: J. J.
17 Weber 1899. (Weber’s Illustrirte Katechismen, 63).
18 Müller, Georg: Kurze Theorie der Dichtungsarten: Nebst einer vollständigen
19 deutschen Beispielsammlung für obere Gymnasialklassen. Posen [et al.]:
20
E. S. Mittler 1828.
Müller, Otto: Anleitung zur Dichtkunst: Ein allgemein verständlicher Leitfa-
21 den, die Kunst der Poesie in Bezug auf Form, Versmaß und Reim durch
22 Selbstunterricht zu erlernen. 2nd ed. Vienna 1904.
23 Müller-Frauenstein, Georg: Handbuch für den deutschen Sprachunterricht in
24 den oberen Klassen höherer Lehranstalten. Vol. 2: Zur Vers-, Stil- und
25 Dispositionslehre. Hanover: Norddeutsche Verlagsanstalt 1890.
Müller-Frauenstein, Georg: Handbuch für den deutschen Sprachunterricht in
26
den oberen Klassen höherer Lehranstalten. Vol. 2: Zur Vers-, Stil- und
27 Dispositionslehre. 2nd, rev. ed. Hanover: Norddeutsche Verlagsanstalt
28 1909.
29 Müller-Freienfels, Richard: Poetik. Leipzig: Teubner 1914. (Aus Natur und
30 Geisteswelt, 460).
31 Müller-Freienfels, Richard: Poetik. 2nd, rev. and augm. ed. Leipzig [et al.]:
Teubner 1921. (Aus Natur und Geisteswelt, 460).
32
Muth, Joseph: Vorschule der deutschen Dichtkunst, bestehend in einer deut-
33 schen Poetik, einer Anthologie über alle Dichtungsformen und einer Auf-
34 gabensammlung zu metrischen Übungen: Für Schulen. Wiesbaden: Schel-
35 lenberg 1831. (2 vols.).
36 Muth, Joseph: Vorschule der deutschen Dichtkunst, bestehend in einer deut-
37
schen Poetik, einer Anthologie über alle Dichtungsformen und einer Auf-
gabensammlung zu metrischen Übungen: Für Schulen. Vol. 1: Deutsche
38 Poetik. Wiesbaden: Schellenberg 1831.
39 Muth, Joseph: Vorschule der deutschen Dichtkunst, bestehend in einer deut-
40 schen Poetik, einer Anthologie über alle Dichtungsformen und einer Auf-
1 gabensammlung zu metrischen Übungen: Für Schulen. Vol. 2: Aufgaben

2 zu metrischen Übungen im Deutschen. Wiesbaden: Schellenberg 1831.
3
Nadler, Fr[iedrich]: Das Wichtigste aus der Poetik: Ein Leitfaden für die Hand
der Schüler. Wiesbaden: Behrend 1901.
4 Nieden, I.: Deutsche Poetik in einem kurzen Abriß. Strasbourg: Selbst-
5 verl. 1892.
6 Niemeyer, Eduard: Abriss der deutschen Metrik nebst metrischen Aufgaben:
7 Ein Leitfaden für Schulen. Crefeld: Kühler 1850.
8
Niemeyer, Eduard: Abriß der deutschen Metrik und Poetik nebst metrischen
Aufgaben: Ein Leitfaden für Schulen. Crefeld: Kühler 1860.
9 Niemeyer, Eduard: Abriß der deutschen Metrik und Poetik nebst metrischen
10 Aufgaben: Ein Leitfaden für Schulen. 2nd, corr. ed. Dresden: Höcker
11 1865.
13
Aufgaben: Ein Leitfaden für Schulen. 2nd, corr. ed. Dresden: Ehlermann
1877.
15 Aufgaben: Ein Leitfaden für Schulen. 3rd, corr. ed. Dresden: Höckner
16 1872.
18
Aufgaben: Ein Leitfaden für Schulen. 4th, rev. ed. Dresden: Ehlermann
1877.
20 Aufgaben: Ein Leitfaden für Schulen. 5th, corr. ed. Dresden: Höckner
21 1883.
23
Aufgaben: Ein Leitfaden für Schulen. 7th ed. Meißen: Schlimpert 1908.
Nohl, Clemens: Leitfaden für den Unterricht in der deutschen Litteraturge-
24 schichte, Poetik und Jugendlitteratur, für Lehrer- und Lehrerinnen-bil-
25 dungsanstalten. Neuwied a. Rhein, Leipzig: Heuser 1897.
26 Nonnig, Karl Ferdinand: Kleine deutsche Sprachlehre: Ein Handbüchlein des
27 deutschen Sprachunterrichts für die Schüler der Elementar- und Bürger-
28
schulen nebst einigen Belehrungen über das Lesen mit Ausdruck. Berlin:
Logier 1842.
31 schulen nebst einigen Belehrungen über das Lesen mit Ausdruck. 2nd,
32 corr. ed. Berlin: Logier 1849.
33
Nonnig, Karl Ferdinand: Kleine deutsche Sprachlehre: Ein Handbüchlein des
deutschen Sprachunterrichts für die Schüler der Elementar- und Bürger-
34 schulen nebst einigen Belehrungen über das Lesen mit Ausdruck. 3rd,
35 augm. ed. Berlin: Logier 1853.
38
schulen nebst einigen Belehrungen über das Lesen mit Ausdruck. 4th,
augm. ed. Berlin: Logier 1856.
39
40

3
augm. ed. Berlin: Logier 1862.
4
6 schulen nebst einigen Belehrungen über das Lesen mit Ausdruck. 8th,
9
14 augm. ed. Berlin: Berggold 1867.
15
17 corr. ed. Berlin: Berggold 1869.
20
corr. ed. Berlin: Berggold 1871.
24 augm. ed. Berlin: Berggold 1880.
26
schulen nebst einigen Belehrungen über das Lesen mit Ausdruck. 21st,
27 corr. and augm. ed. Berlin: Berggold 1882.
30 schulen nebst einigen Belehrungen über das Lesen mit Ausdruck. 22nd
31
ed. Berlin: Berggold 1883.
32
33 schulen nebst einigen Belehrungen über das Lesen mit Ausdruck. 25th
34 ed. Berlin: Berggold 1889.
35 Nösselt, Friedrich: Lehrbuch der deutschen Literatur für das weibliche Ge-
36 ACHTUNGREschlecht: Besonders für höhere Töchterschulen. Vol. 1: Lehrbuch zur
37
Kenntniss der verschiedenen Gattungen der Poesie und Prosa. Breslau:
Max 1833.
38 Oesterley, Hermann: Die Dichtkunst und ihre Gattungen: Ihrem Wesen nach
39 dargestellt und durch eine nach den Dichtungsarten geordnete Muster-
40 Sammlung. Breslau: F. E. G. Leuckart 1870.
1 Pablasek, M[atthias]: Deutsche Poetik oder Lehre vom Silbenmaße, vom Vers-
2 bau und von den Dichtungsarten. Vienna: Friedrich Beck 1848.
3
Pablasek, M[atthias]: Deutsche Poetik: Verslehre und Dichtungsarten mit einer
Auswahl von Musterstücken deutscher Poesie zur Übung des mündlichen
4 Vortrags. 3rd, fully rev. ed. Vienna: Hölder 1873.
5 Pählig, August: Kleine Poetik oder Anfangsgründe der Dichtkunst. 2nd ed.
6 Merseburg 1824.
7 Paldamus, F. C.: Deutsche Dichterhalle des neunzehnten Jahhunderts. Vol. 1.
8
2nd, rev. and augm. ed. Mainz: C. G. Kunze 1856.
Parr, Adolf: Leitfaden der deutschen Literaturgeschichte: Nebst einem Anhang
9 aus der Metrik und Poetik für Bürgerschulen und verwandte Anstalten. 6th
10 ed. Vienna: Österreichischer Schulbücherverlag 1924.
11 Parr, Adolf: Leitfaden der deutschen Literaturgeschichte: Nebst einem Anhang
12 aus der Metrik und Poetik für Bürgerschulen und verwandte Anstal-
13
ten. 7th, corr. ed. Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag für Unterricht,
Wissenschaft und Kunst 1926.
14 Pesch, Wilhelm: Einige Bemerkungen über das Wesen und die Arten der
15 dramatischen Poesie. Trier: F. Lintz’sche Buchdr., Buchdr. J. P. Hegner
16 1895. (2 vols.).
17 Pesch, Wilhelm: Einige Bemerkungen über das Wesen und die Arten der
18
dramatischen Poesie. Vol. 1. Trier: F. Lintz’sche Buchdr. 1895.
Pesch, Wilhelm: Einige Bemerkungen über das Wesen und die Arten der
19 dramatischen Poesie. Vol. 2. Trier: Buchdr. J. P. Hegner 1895.
20 Peterich, Eckhart: Das Maß der Musen: Überlegungen zu einer Poetik. Düs-
21 seldorf: Christophorus-Verlag Herder 1944.
22 Peterich, Eckhart: Das Maß der Musen: Überlegungen zu einer Poetik. 2nd ed.
23
Düsseldorf: Christophorus-Verl. Herder 1946.
Peterich, Eckhart: Das Maß der Musen: Überlegungen zu einer Poetik. Frei-
24 burg i. Br.: Herder 1947.
25 Peterich, Eckhart: Das Maß der Musen: Überlegungen zu einer Poetik. Basel:
26 Morus 1947.
27 Peters, Johann: Übersicht der deutschen Metrik. 2nd ed. Berlin: J. Springer
28
1876.
Peters, Johann: Übersicht der deutschen Metrik und Poetik zum Gebrauche an
29 höheren Lehranstalten. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Berlin: J. Springer 1881.
30 Petri, Friedrich Erdmann: Grundriß der Dichtungs-Lehre für Gelehrten-Schu-
31 len. Würzburg: Etlinger 1834.
32 Ploetz, Hans Achim: Die Theorie der Dichtung: Kritische Beiträge zur gegen-
33
wärtigen Poetik. Berlin: Triltsch & Huther 1936.
Poelitz, Karl Heinrich Ludwig: Das Gesammtgebiet der teutschen Sprache,
34 nach Prosa, Dichtkunst und Beredsamkeit: Theoretisch und practisch dar-
35 gestellt. Leipzig: Hinrichs 1825. (4 vols.).
36 Poelitz, Karl Heinrich Ludwig: Das Gesammtgebiet der teutschen Sprache,
38
gestellt. Vol. 1: Philosophie der Sprache. Leipzig: Hinrichs 1825.
39
40

3
gestellt. Vol. 2: Sprache der Prosa. Leipzig: Hinrichs 1825.
Poelitz, Karl Heinrich Ludwig: Das Gesammtgebiet der teutschen Sprache,
4
nach Prosa, Dichtkunst und Beredsamkeit: Theoretisch und practisch dar-
5 gestellt. Vol. 3: Sprache der Dichtkunst. Leipzig: Hinrichs 1825.
8 gestellt. Vol. 4: Sprache der Beredsamkeit. Leipzig: Hinrichs 1825.
Recke, Otto: Poetischer Schatz für höhere Lehrinstitute: Nebst einer Erklär-
9
ung der verschiedenen Dichtungsarten mit literarischen Bemerkungen
10 und historischen Andeutungen. Rostock: G. B. Leopold’s Universitäts-
11 buchhandlung 1844.
12 Reinbeck, Georg: Handbuch der Sprachwissenschaft: Mit besonderer Hinsicht
13 auf die deutsche Sprache. Zum Gebrauche für die obern Klassen der Gym-
14 nasien und Lyceen. Duisburg, Essen: Baedeker 1813 – 1824. (3 vols.).
Reinbeck, Georg: Handbuch der Sprachwissenschaft: Mit besonderer Hinsicht
15
auf die deutsche Sprache. Zum Gebrauche für die obern Klassen der Gym-
16 nasien und Lyceen. Vol. 1., sect. 1: Die reine allgemeine Sprachlehre.
17 Duisburg, Essen: Baedeker 1813.
20
nasien und Lyceen. Vol. 1., sect. 2: Angewandte allgemeine Sprachlehre.
Duisburg, Essen: Baedeker 1813.
21
23 nasien und Lyceen. Vol. 2., sect. 1: Die Rhetorik. Duisburg, Essen: Bae-
24 deker 1816.
26
nasien und Lyceen. Vol. 2., sect. 2: Die Poetik in ihrem Zusammenhange
27 mit der Aesthetik. Duisburg, Essen: Baedeker 1817.
30 nasien und Lyceen. Vol. 3., sect. 1: Die Geschichte der Dichtkunst und
31
ihre Literatur. Duisburg, Essen: Baedeker 1824.
32
33 nasien und Lyceen. Vol. 3., sect. 2: Poetische Beispielsammlung zu Vorle-
34 sungen über Poetik und zur Declamation. Duisburg, Essen: Baedeker
35 1824.
37
nasien und Lyceen. 2nd, rev. and augm. ed. Duisburg, Essen: Baedeker
38 1819 – 1826. (2 vols.).
1 nasien und Lyceen. Vol. 1., sect. 1: Die reine allgemeine Sprachlehre. 2nd,
2 fully rev. ed. Duisburg, Essen: Baedeker 1819.
3
4
nasien und Lyceen. Vol. 1., sect. 2: Angewandte allgemeine Sprachleh-
5 re. 2nd, rev. and augm. ed. Duisburg, Essen: Baedeker 1819.
8 nasien und Lyceen. Vol. 2., sect. 1: Die Rhetorik. 2nd, rev. and augm. ed.
Duisburg, Essen: Baedeker 1823.
9
11 nasien und Lyceen. Vol. 2., sect. 2: Die Poetik in ihrem Zusammenhange
12 mit der Aesthetik. 2nd, rev. and augm. ed. Duisburg, Essen: Baedeker
13 1826.
14 Reuter, Wilhelm: Literaturkunde: Enthaltend: Abriss der Poetik und Ge-
schichte der deutschen Poesie. Für höhere Lehranstalten, Töchterschulen
15
und zum Selbstunterrichte. 2nd, rev. and augm. ed. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder
16 1866.
18 schichte der deutschen Poesie. Für höhere Lehranstalten, Töchterschulen
19 und zum Selbstunterrichte. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder
20
1869.
Reuter, Wilhelm: Literaturkunde: Enthaltend: Abriss der Poetik und Ge-
22 und zum Selbstunterrichte. 5th, corr. ed. Freiburg i. Br. [et al.]: Herder
23 1872.
und zum Selbstunterrichte. 8th ed. Freiburg i. Br. [et al.]: Herder 1877.
26
28 und zum Selbstunterrichte. 9th ed. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1878.
31
und zum Selbstunterrichte. 10th ed. Freiburg i. Br., Munich [et al.]: Herd-
er 1880.
32
34 und zum Selbstunterrichte. 11th, corr. ed. Freiburg i. Br., Munich [et
35 al.]: Herder 1882.
37
und zum Selbstunterrichte. 12th ed. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1886.
40 und zum Selbstunterrichte. 13th, corr. ed. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1889.

3
und zum Selbstunterrichte. 14th, corr. ed. Freiburg i. Br., Munich [et
al.]: Herder 1891.
4
6 und zum Selbstunterrichte. 15th, corr. ed. Freiburg i. Br., Munich [et
7 al.]: Herder 1894.
9
und zum Selbstunterrichte. Ed. Lorenz Lütteken. 16th ed. Freiburg i.
10 Br., Munich [et al.]: Herder 1898.
13 und zum Selbstunterrichte. Ed. Lorenz Lütteken. 18th ed. Freiburg i.
15
16 und zum Selbstunterrichte. Ed. Lorenz Lütteken. 19th ed. Freiburg i.
20
und zum Selbstunterrichte. Ed. Lorenz Lütteken. 20th and 21st, corr.
eds. Freiburg i. Br., Munich [et al.]: Herder 1913.
23 und zum Selbstunterrichte. Ed. Lorenz Lütteken. 22nd and 23rd, corr.
24 eds. Freiburg i. Br., Munich [et al.]: Herder 1919.
25 Reuter, Wilhelm: Poetik: Eine Vorschule für die Geschichte der schönen Li-
ACHTUNGREteratur und der Lectüre der Dichter. Für Gymnasien, Realschulen und zum
26
Selbstunterrichte. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1870.
28 ACHTUNGREteratur und der Lectüre der Dichter. Für höhere Lehranstalten, Töchter-
29 schulen und zum Selbstunterrichte. 2nd, rev. and augm ed. Freiburg i.
31
Reuter, Wilhelm: Poetik: Eine Vorschule für die Geschichte der schönen Li-
ACHTUNGREteratur und der Lectüre der Dichter. Für höhere Lehranstalten, Lehrersemi-
32
narien, Töchterschulen und zum Selbstunterricht. Ed. Lorenz Lütte-
33 ken. 3rd, rev. and augm ed. Freiburg i. Br., Munich [et al.]: Herder 1902.
35 ACHTUNGREteratur und der Lectüre der Dichter. Für höhere Lehranstalten und zur
36 Selbstbelehrung. Ed. Lorenz Lütteken. 4th, corr. ed. Freiburg i. Br., Mu-
nich [et al.]: Herder 1912.
37
Riebandt, Johannes: Lehrproben und Entwürfe zu deutschen Gedichten und
38 Lehrstücken. Goslar: Danehl 1913. (4 vols.).
39 Riebandt, Johannes: Lehrproben und Entwürfe zu deutschen Gedichten und
40 Lehrstücken. Vol. 1. Goslar: Danehl 1913.
1 Riebandt, Johannes: Lehrproben und Entwürfe zu deutschen Gedichten und

3
Lehrstücken. Vol. 3. Goslar: Danehl 1913.
4
6 Riemann, Robert: Hilfs- und Lehrbücher für den höheren Unterricht, Vol. 3:
7 Deutsche Poetik Leipzig: Jaeger 1923.
8 Rumpelt, Hermann Berthold: Elemente der Poetik: Zum Gebrauch für Töch-
terschulen. 3rd ed. Breslau: Gosohorsky 1872.
9
Rumpelt, Hermann Berthold: Elemente der Poetik: Leitfaden für Schulen. 4th
10 ed. Breslau 1875.
11 Rumpelt, Hermann Berthold: Elemente der Poetik: Leitfaden für Schulen. Ed.
12 Felix Kohler. 6th ed. Neisse 1885.
13 Salzmann, Ernst: Ausgewählte Gedichte für Schule und Haus: Nebst einem
14 Anhang mit Proben aus Schauspielen und einem Abriss der Poetik. Stutt-
gart: Glaser 1893.
15
Salzmann, Ernst: Ausgewählte Gedichte für Schule und Haus: Nebst einem
16 Anhang und Proben aus Schauspielen und einem Abriss der Poetik. 2nd
17 ed. Stuttgart: Glaser & Sulz 1900.
18 Salzmann, Ernst: Ausgewählte Gedichte für Schule und Haus: Nebst einem
19 Anhang und Proben aus Schauspielen und einem Abriss der Poetik. 3rd
20
ed. Stuttgart: Glaser & Sulz 1907.
Saupe, Ernst Julius: Die Gattungen der deutschen Dichtkunst: Eine Poetik für
21 obere Gymnsialklassen. Gera: Kanitz 1863.
22 Schäfer, Dietmar: Literatur: Geschichte und Gattungen. Deutsch bis zur 10.
23 Klasse. Munich: Mentor 2005.
24 Schaller, Karl L.: Handbuch der deutschen Dicht- und Redekunst: Aus Bei-
25 ACHTUNGREspielen entwickelt. Vienna: Doll 1806.
Schenckel, J.: Blüten deutscher Dichter: Nebst Poetik und Literaturgeschich-
26
te. 2nd, ext. corr. and augm. ed. Mainz: Evler 1850.
27 Schenckel, J.: Blüten deutscher Dichter: Nebst Poetik und Literaturgeschich-
28 te. 2nd, ext. corr. and augm. ed. Mainz: Evler 1853.
30 te. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Mainz: Evler 1859.
te. 4th, corr. and augm. ed. Mainz: Evler 1863.
32
Scherer, Wilhelm: Poetik. Berlin: Weidmann 1888.
33 Scherer, Wilhelm: Poetik. Repr. ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1975.
34 Scherer, Wilhelm: Poetik: Mit einer Einleitung und Materialien zur Rezep-
35 tionsanalyse. Ed. Gunter Reiss. Repr. ed. Munich, Tübingen: Dt. Ta-
36 schenbuch-Verl., Niemeyer 1977. (Deutsche Texte, 44. Dtv, 4290: Wis-
37
senschaftliche Reihe).
Schick, Ernst: Über die Epopöe und Tragödie: Nebst vorangehenden Andeu-
38 tungen über die Poesie und die schönen Künste überhaupt. Mit besondrer
39 Rücksicht auf die von Aristoteles in der Poetik darüber aufgestellten Ideen.
40 Leipzig: Andrä 1833.
1 Schiller, Karl: Handbuch der deutschen Sprache. Vol. 2: Grammatik, Stilistik,

2 Metrik, Poetik, Literaturgeschichte. Eds. Friedrich Bauer and Franz
3
Streinz. 2nd, fully rev. and augm. ed. Wien: Harleben.
Schlüter, Anton: Über die Theorie der Dichtungsarten als Gegenstand des
4 Gymnasial-Unterrichtes. Arnsberg: Gymnasium Arnsberg 1831.
5 Schmeckebier, Oskar: Abriß der deutschen Verslehre und der Lehre von den
6 Dichtungsarten: Zum Gebrauch beim Unterricht. 2nd, corr. ed. Berlin:
7 Weidmannsche Buchhandlung 1886.
8 Schmeckebier, Oskar: Abriß der deutschen Verslehre und der Lehre von den
Dichtungsarten: Zum Gebrauch beim Unterricht. 5th ed. Berlin: Weid-
9
mann 1905.
10 Schmidt, Alfred M.: Einführung in die Ästhetik der deutschen Dichtung: Ein
11 Handbuch für Schüler höherer Lehranstalten. Leipzig: Klinkhardt 1908.
12 Schmidt, Alfred M.: Kunsterziehung und Gedichtbehandlung im Unterrichte:
13 Erläuterungen deutscher Dichtungen für Schule und Haus. Nebst Lehr-
14 beispielen. Leipzig: Klinkhardt 1912.
Schneider, Gustav: Die Poetik in der Schule: Stoffe mit Beispielen. Beilage
15
zum Jahresbericht über die städtische Höhere Mädchenschule in Unter-
16 Barmen, Schuljahr 1904 – 1905. Barmen: Röder 1905.
17 Schneider, Johann Immanuel: Systematische und geschichtliche Darstellung der
18 deutschen Dichtkunst von ihrem Ursprung an bis auf die neuere Zeit: Eine
19 gekrönte Preisschrift in erweiterter Gestalt. Tübingen: J. J. Heckenhauer
1861.
20
Schuster, Albert Christ[ian] Friedr[ich]: Lehrbuch der Poetik für höhere Lehr-
21 ACHTUNGREanstalten. Clausthal: Grosse 1874.
22 Schuster, Albert Christ[ian] Friedr[ich]: Lehrbuch der Poetik für höhere Lehr-
23 ACHTUNGREanstalten. 2nd ed. Clausthal: Grosse 1884.
24 Schuster, Albert Christ[ian] Friedr[ich]: Lehrbuch der Poetik für höhere Lehr-
25 ACHTUNGREanstalten. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Halle a. d. S.: Mühlmann 1890.
Schwahn, W[alther]: Grundzüge der deutschen Poetik: Ein Leitfaden für hö-
26
here Lehranstalten. Hamburg: Kriebel 1893.
27 Seehaußen, R[ichard]: Litteraturkunde für mittlere und höhere Lehranstalten:
28 Nebst einer kurzen Poetik. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1893.
29 Seehaußen, R[ichard]: Geschichte der deutschen Literatur: Nebst einer kurzen
30 Poetik. 2nd, corr. ed. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1905.
31
Seehaußen, R[ichard]: Geschichte der deutschen Literatur: Nebst einer kurzen
Poetik. 3rd, corr. ed. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1909.
32
Seehaußen, R[ichard]: Geschichte der deutschen Literatur: Nebst einer kurzen
33 Poetik. 6th ed. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1925.
34 Seehaußen, R[ichard]: Geschichte der deutschen Literatur: Nebst einer kurzen
35 Poetik. 7th ed. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1928.
36 Seidler, Herbert: Die Dichtung: Wesen – Form – Dasein. Stuttgart: Kröner
37
1959. (Kröners Taschenausgabe, 283).
Seidler, Herbert: Die Dichtung: Wesen – Form – Dasein. 2nd, rev. ed. Stutt-
38 gart: Kröner 1965. (Kröners Taschenausgabe, 283).
39 Sevin, Ludwig: Elemente der deutschen Poetik für höhere Bürger- und Töch-
40 terschulen. 2nd ed. Pforzheim: Riecker 1879.
1 Sevin, Ludwig: Elemente der deutschen Poetik oder kurzgefasste Lehre von der
2 deutschen Dichtkunst. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Lang 1911.
3
Sladeczek, A[ndreas]: Die Elemente der deutschen Poetik oder Formenlehre
der Dichtkunst: Zum Gebrauche in Bürger- und höheren Töchterschulen,
4
Präparandenanstalten und Lehrerseminarien. Breslau: Goerlich 1884.
5 Sladeczek, A[ndreas]: Kleine Poetik: Der Versbau und die Gattungen der deut-
6 schen Dichtung. Auszug aus desselben Verfassers “Elemente der deutschen
7 Poetik”, zunächst zum Gebrauche in gehobenen Volksschulen bestimmt.
8 Breslau: Goerlich 1884.
Sommer, Wilhelm: Deutsches Lesebuch für höhere Lehranstalten: Mit beson-
9
derer Rücksicht auf den Aufsatz und die Vortrags-Übungen der Schüler.
10 Nebst einem Abriß der Poetik und Literaturgeschichte. Cologne: Du-
11 Mont-Schauberg 1869.
12 Sommer, Wilhelm: Deutsches Lesebuch für höhere Lehranstalten: Mit beson-
13 derer Rücksicht auf den Aufsatz und die Vortrags-Übungen der Schüler.
14 Nebst einem Abriß der Poetik und Literaturgeschichte. 3rd, fully rev. ed.
Cologne: DuMont-Schauberg 1881.
15
Sommer, Wilhelm: Deutsches Lesebuch für höhere Lehranstalten: Mit beson-
16 derer Rücksicht auf den Aufsatz und die Vortrags-Übungen der Schüler.
17 Nebst einem Abriß der Poetik und Literaturgeschichte. 4th ed. Cologne:
18 DuMont-Schauberg 1886.
19 Sommer, Wilhelm: Deutsches Lesebuch für höhere Lehranstalten: Mit beson-
20
derer Rücksicht auf den Aufsatz und die Vortrags-Übungen der Schüler.
Nebst einem Abriß der Poetik und Literaturgeschichte. 5th ed. Cologne:
21 DuMont-Schauberg 1893.
22 Sommer, Wilhelm: Grundzüge der Poetik: Für höhere Lehranstalten, insbe-
23 sondere für Seminarien, Präparanden-Anstalten, höhere Töchterschulen,
24 wie zum Selbstunterricht. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Paderborn, Münster:
25 Ferdinand Schöningh 1886.
Sommer, Wilhelm: Grundzüge der Poetik: Für höhere Lehranstalten, insbe-
26
sondere für Seminarien, Präparanden-Anstalten, höhere Töchterschulen,
27 wie zum Selbstunterricht. 4th, corr. and augm. ed. Paderborn, Münster:
28 Ferdinand Schöningh 1889.
29 Sommer, Wilhelm: Grundzüge der Poetik: Für höhere Lehranstalten und zum
30 Selbstunterricht. 5th, corr. ed. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh 1893.
31
Sommer, Wilhelm: Grundzüge der Poetik: Für höhere Lehranstalten und zum
Selbstunterricht. 6th, corr. ed. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh 1895.
32
Selbstunterricht. 9th, corr. ed. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh 1903.
37
40 Selbstunterricht. 11th ed. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh 1907.
2 Selbstunterricht. 12th ed. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh 1909.
3
Selbstunterricht. Ed. Joseph Preising. 13th ed. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schö-
4 ningh 1912.
6 Selbstunterricht. Ed. Joseph Preising. 14th ed. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schö-
7 ningh 1914.
Selbstunterricht. Ed. Joseph Preising. 15th ed. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schö-
9
ningh 1919.
10 Sommert, Hans: Grundzüge der deutschen Poetik für den Schul- und Selbstun-
11 terricht. 4th, rev. ed. Vienna: Bermann & Altmann 1893.
12 Sommert, Hans: Grundzüge der deutschen Poetik für den Schul- und Selbstun-
13 terricht. 5th ed. Vienna: Bermann & Altmann 1895.
14
Sommert, Hans: Grundzüge der deutschen Poetik für den Schul- und Selbstun-
terricht. 7th ed. Vienna: Pichler 1902.
15
Sommert, Hans: Grundzüge der deutschen Poetik für den Schul- und Selbstun-
16 terricht. 11th ed. Vienna: Pichler 1913.
17 Spatzal, Johann: Das deutsche Schrifttum: Einheitliche Darstellung der Stilistik,
18 Poetik und Literaturgeschichte. Prague: Haase 1912.
19 Spreer, Emil Leopold: Über die Verwendung der Poetik des Aristoteles in der
Schule. Merseburg: Herling 1902.
20
Staiger, Emil: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. Zurich: Atlantis-Verlag 1946.
21 Staiger, Emil: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. 2nd, augm. ed. Zurich: Atlantis-Ver-
22 lag 1951.
23 Staiger, Emil: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. 3rd ed. Zurich: Atlantis-Verlag 1956.
24 Staiger, Emil: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. 4th ed. Zurich: Atlantis-Verlag 1959.
25 Staiger, Emil: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. 5th ed. Zurich: Atlantis-Verlag 1961.
Staiger, Emil: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. 6th ed. Zurich: Atlantis-Verlag 1963.
26
Staiger, Emil: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. 7th ed. Zurich: Atlantis-Verlag 1966.
27 Staiger, Emil: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. 8th ed. Freiburg i. Br.: Atlantis-Verlag
28 1968.
29 Staiger, Emil: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. Munich: Dt. Taschenbuch-
30 Verl. 1971. (dtv, 4090: Wissenschaftliche Reihe).
31 Staiger, Emil: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. 2nd ed. Munich: Dt. Taschenbuch-
Verl. 1972. (dtv, 4090: Wissenschaftliche Reihe).
32
Staiger, Emil: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. 3rd ed. Munich: Dt. Taschenbuch-
34 Staiger, Emil: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. 4th ed. Munich: Dt. Taschenbuch-
36 Staiger, Emil: Grundbegriffe der Poetik. 5th ed. Munich: Dt. Taschenbuch-
37
Verl. 1983. (dtv, 4090: Wissenschaftliche Reihe).
Staiger, Emil: Les concepts fondamentaux de la poétique. Transl. by R. Célis
38 and M. Gennart Bruxelles: Lebeer-Hossmann 1990.
39 Staiger, Emil: Basic concepts of poetry. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Univ. Press
40 1991.
1 Steiger, Johann Jacob: Führer durch den sprachlichen Teil des bernischen
2 Oberklassen-Lesebuchs. Vol. 3: Die lyrische Poesie in der Schule. 1893.
3
Stejskal, Karl: Deutsche Verslehre. Vienna: Manz 1906. (Hilfsbücher für den
deutschen Unterricht, 4).
4 Stohn, Hermann: Lehrbuch der deutschen Literatur für höhere Töchterschulen
5 und die weisere weibliche Jugend. 2nd, corr. ed. Leipzig 1876.
6 Stohn, Hermann: Lehrbuch der deutschen Poetik für höhere Mädchenschulen
7 und Lehrerinnenbildungsanstalten. Leipzig: Teubner 1884.
8
Stohn, Hermann: Lehrbuch der deutschen Poetik für höhere Mädchenschulen
und Lehrerinnenbildungsanstalten. Ed. E. Schmid. 5th ed. Leipzig: Teub-
9 ner 1897.
10 Stohn, Hermann: Lehrbuch der deutschen Poetik für höhere Mädchenschulen
11 und Lehrerinnenbildungsanstalten. Ed. Johannes Heydtmann. 7th, corr. ed.
12 Leipzig, Berlin: Teubner 1903.
13
Storz, Gerhard: Gedanken über die Dichtung: Poetik für Liebhaber. Frankfurt
a. M.: Societäts-Verlag 1941.
14 Storz, Gerhard: Poetik in der Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Klett 1952. (Der Deutsch-
15 ACHTUNGREunterricht, 4, 2).
16 Storz, Gerhard: Sprache und Dichtung. Munich: Kösel 1957.
17 Strzemcha, Paul: Kleine Poetik: Ein Leitfaden. Bruenn 1880.
18
Sturm, Alexander: Deutsche Vers- und Tropenlehre mit einem Anhange über
die Dichtungsarten. Vienna 1890.
19 Timm, [Hans]: Die Lehre von den Arten und Formen der Dichtung: Ein Leit-
20 faden für höhere Schulen und zugleich ein Handbuch zum Selbstunter-
21 richt. Halle a. d. S.: Schrödel & Simon, Knappsche Sortimentsbuchhand-
22 lung 1853.
23
Traut, Heinrich Theodor: Deutsche Verslehre mit einer Auswahl von Gedich-
ACHTUNGREten und biographischen Notizen über die Dichter für deutsche Schulen
24 und zum Privatgebrauch. Leipzig: Merseburger 1863.
25 Traut, Heinrich Theodor: Grundzüge der neuhochdeutschen Grammatik nebst
26 einem Anhange: Tropen und Figuren, Metrik und Poetik. Für Lehranstal-
27 ten, insbesondere Seminarien. Leipzig: Merseburger 1865.
28
Traut, Heinrich Theodor: Lehrbuch der Deutschen Sprache: Enthaltend eine
systematische Grammatik mit classischen Beispielen und practische
29 ÜbungsACHTUNGREaufgaben an realen Sprachstücken, nebst Anhängen über den Stil
30 und die Poesie. Für höhere Schulen, insbesondere Fortbildungsanstal-
31 ten. 2nd, corr. ed. Halle a. d. S.: G. Schwetschke’scher Verlag 1871.
32 Trnka, Anton: Grundriss der Stilistik und Poetik. Prague 1894.
33
Tumlirz, Karl: Die Lehre von den Tropen und Figuren: Nebst einer kurzge-
fassten deutschen Metrik. Zum Gebrauche für den Unterricht an höheren
34 Lehranstalten. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Prague: Dominicus 1892.
35 Tumlirz, Karl: Die Lehre von den Tropen und Figuren: Nebst einer kurzge-
36 fassten deutschen Metrik. Zum Gebrauche für den Unterricht an höheren
37 Lehranstalten. 4th, rev. ed. Leipzig: Freytag 1902.
38
Tumlirz, Karl: Poetik. Vol. 1: Die Sprache der Dichtkunst. 5th, augm. ed.
Vienna, Leipzig: Tempsky, Freytag 1907.
39
40
1 Tumlirz, Karl: Poetik. Vol. 1. Die Sprache der Dichtkunst. Impr. of the 6th,
2 rev. ed. Vienna, Leipzig: Tempsky, Freytag 1919.
3
Uschold, Johann N[epomuk]: Lehrbuch der Poetik. Munich: Lindauer 1835.
Uschold, Johann N[epomuk]: Lehrbuch der Poetik: Für Gymnasien bearbeitet
4 und mit einer systematisch geordneten Mustersammlung versehen. 3rd,
5 corr. ed. Munich: Lindauer 1856.
6 Uschold, Johann N[epomuk]: Lehrbuch der Poetik: Für Gymnasien bearbei-
7 tet. 4th ed. Munich: Lindauer 1864.
8
Verbeek, Paul: Der Weg zur Dichtkunst im Deutschen Unterricht. Leipzig,
Dresden, Berlin: L. Ehlermann 1921.
9 Vernaleken, Theodor: Leitfaden für deutsche Sprach- und Litteraturkunde. St.
10 Gallen, Bern: Huber & Co. 1850.
11 Vernaleken, Theodor: Deutsches Litteraturbuch. St. Gallen, Bern: Huber &
12 Co. 1850.
13
Vernaleken, Theodor: Deutsches Litteraturbuch. 2nd ed. St. Gallen [et al.]:
Huber 1851.
14 Vernaleken, Theodor: Litteraturbuch: Deutsches Lesebuch nebst den Anfän-
15 gen der Litteraturgeschichte, Altertumskunde, Mythologie und Poetik.
16 Für höhere Bildungsanstalten. 3rd ed. Vienna: Braumüller 1855.
17 Vernaleken, Theodor: Litteraturbuch: Deutsches Lesebuch nebst den Anfän-
18
gen der Litteraturgeschichte, Altertumskunde, Mythologie und Poetik. 6th
ed. Vienna: Braumüller 1873.
19 Viehoff, Heinrich: Vorschule der Dichtkunst: Theoretisch-praktische Anlei-
20 tungen zum deutschen Vers- und Strophenbau. Mit vielen Aufgaben und
21 beigegebenen Lösungen. Braunschweig: Westermann 1860.
22 Viehoff, Heinrich: Die Poetik auf der Grundlage der Erfahrungsseelenkunde:
23
In zwei Bänden. Beigegeben ist Viehoff Portrait und 1 Faksimile seiner
Handschrift. Ed. Viktor Kiy. Trier: Fr. Lintz’sche Buchhandlung 1888.
24 Voigt, Ludwig: Hilfsbüchlein für den deutschen Unterricht. Vienna 1892.
25 Wackernagel, Wilhelm: Poetik, Rhetorik und Stilistik: Academische Vorle-
26 sungen. Ed. L. Sieber. Halle a. d. S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisen-
27 hauses 1873.
28
Wackernagel, Wilhelm: Poetik, Rhetorik und Stilistik: Academische Vorle-
sungen. Ed. L. Sieber. 2nd ed. Halle a. d. S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung
29 des Waisenhauses 1888.
30 Wackernagel, Wilhelm: Poetik, Rhetorik und Stilistik: Academische Vorle-
31 sungen. Ed. L. Sieber. 3rd ed. Halle a. d. S.: Verlag der Buchhandlung
32 des Waisenhauses 1906.
33
Wackernagel, Wilhelm: Poetik, Rhetorik und Stilistik: Academische Vorle-
sungen. Repr. ed. Hildesheim [et al.]: Olms 2003. (Bewahrte Kultur).
34 Wagner, Ernst: Das positive Wissen des Lehrers in der deutschen Sprache: Die
35 Grammatik, Stillehre, Metrik, Poetik und deutsche Litteraturgeschichte in
36 übersichtlicher Darstellung. Ein praktisches Hilfsbuch für Lehrer und
37 ACHTUNGRESchulamtskandidaten zur Vorbereitung auf die verschiedenen Examina
38
sowie ein Leitfaden für höhere Lehranstalten. Langensalza: Schulbuch-
handlung Greßler 1866.
39
40
3
übersichtlicher Darstellung. Ein praktisches Hilfsbuch für Lehrer und
SchulACHTUNGREamtskandidaten zur Vorbereitung auf die verschiedenen Examina
4 sowie ein Leitfaden für höhere Lehranstalten. 2nd ed. Langensalza: Schul-
5 buchhandlung Greßler 1887.
8
übersichtlicher Darstellung. Ein praktisches Hilfsbuch für Lehrer und
SchulACHTUNGREamtskandidaten zur Vorbereitung auf die verschiedenen Examina
9 sowie ein Leitfaden für höhere Lehranstalten. 3rd ed. Langensalza: Schul-
10 buchhandlung Greßler 1893.
11 Wagner, Johann Jakob: Dichterschule. Ulm: Verlag der Stettin’schen Buch-
12 handlung 1840.
13
Wagner, Johann Jakob: Dichterschule. 2nd ed. Ulm: Stettin’sche Verlags-
Buchhandlung 1850.
14 Waldberg, M. von: Teutsche Vers- und Reimkunst: Allgemeine deutsche Bi-
15 ographie.
16 Weber, Heinrich Leo: Erläuterungen zu den Gedichten unserer Schullesebüch-
17 er. Troppau: Buchholz & Diebel 1893.
18
Wegener, Heinrich: Deutsche Musterstücke in Poesie: Nebst kurzen Nach-
richten über die bedeutendsten Dichter und das Notwendigste über Metrik
19 und Poetik. Hanover: Meyer 1885.
20 Weinberger, Josef: Abriß der deutschen Poetik: Ein Hilfsbuch für Studierende
21 und Lehrer. Vienna: Deuticke 1915.
22 Wiesner, Johann: Lehrbuch für den Deutschen Unterricht in den Oberklassen
23
Österreichischer Mittelschulen. Vienna: Alfred Hölder 1909.
Wiesner, Johann: Deutsche Dichtungslehre für österreichische Mittelschu-
24 len. 3rd, corr. ed. Vienna: Hölder 1917.
25 Wirth, G[ustav]: Leitfaden für den Unterricht in der deutschen Poetik: Für hö-
26 here Lehranstalten. Berlin: Wohlgemuth 1881.
27 Wolf-Grütter, Leo: Hilfsbuch für den Deutschunterricht: Geschichte der deut-
28
schen Sprache, Poetik, deutsche Metrik. Bern: Francke 1929.
Wolff, Eugen: Prolegomena der litterar-evolutionistischen Poetik. Kiel: Lipsius
29 & Tischer 1890.
30 Wolff, Eugen: Poetik: Die Gesetze der Poesie in ihrer geschichtlichen En-
31 twicklung. Ein Grundriß. Oldenburg, Leipzig: Schulzesche Hof-Buch-
32 handlung & Hof-Druckerei 1899.
33
Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard: Poetischer Hausschatz des deutschen Volkes:
Vollständigste Sammlung deutscher Gedichte nach den Gattungen geord-
34 net. Begleitet von einer Einleitung […]. Leipzig [et al.]: Wigand [et al.]
35 1839.
36 Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard: Poetischer Hausschatz des deutschen Volkes:
37 Vollständigste Sammlung deutscher Gedichte nach den Gattungen geord-
38
net. Begleitet von einer Einleitung […]. 2nd ed. Leipzig [et al.]: Wigand
[et al.] 1840.
39
40

3
net. Begleitet von einer Einleitung […]. 3rd ed. Leipzig [et al.]: Wigand
[et al.] 1841.
6 net. Begleitet von einer Einleitung […]. 4th ed. Leipzig [et al.]: Wigand
7 [et al.] 1842.
8
10 [et al.] 1843.
13
net. Begleitet von einer Einleitung […]. 6th ed. Leipzig [et al.]: Wigand
[et al.] 1844.
17 [et al.] 1845.
18
19 net. Begleitet von einer Einleitung […]. 8th, fully corr. and augm. ed.
20 Leipzig: Wigand 1847.
23
net. Begleitet von einer Einleitung […]. 9th, fully corr. and augm. ed.
Leipzig: Wigand 1847.
28
33
net. Begleitet von einer Einleitung […]. 14th, fully corr. and augm. ed.
38
39
40
3
4
net. Begleitet von einer Einleitung […]. 21st, rev., corr. and augm. ed.
8 net. Begleitet von einer Einleitung […]. 22nd, rev., corr. and augm. ed.
9
Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard: Wolff’s Poetischer Hausschatz des deutschen
10 Volkes: Ein Buch für Schule und Haus. Ed. Carl Oltrogge. 24th, rev.
11 and augm. ed. Leipzig: Wigand 1867.
12 Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard: Wolff’s Poetischer Hausschatz des deutschen
13 Volkes: Ein Buch für Schule und Haus. Ed. Carl Oltrogge. 26th, rev.
Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard: Wolff’s Poetischer Hausschatz des deutschen
15
Volkes: Ein Buch für Schule und Haus. Ed. Carl Oltrogge. 28th, rev.
17 Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard: Wolffs Poetischer Hausschatz des deutschen
18 Volkes: Ein Buch für Schule und Haus. 29th, rev. and corr. ed. Leipzig:
19 Wigand 1900.
20
Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard: Wolffs Poetischer Hausschatz des deutschen
Volkes: Ausgabe für den Schul- und Unterrichtsgebrauch. Ed. Heinrich
21
Fränkel. 30., fully rev. ed. Leipzig: Wigand 1907.
22 Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard: Wolffs Poetischer Hausschatz des deutschen
23 Volkes. Ed. Heinrich Fränkel. 31st, fully rev. ed. Leipzig: Wigand 1907.
24 Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard: Wolffs Poetischer Hausschatz: Vollständigste
25 Auswahl deutscher Dichtungen von den ältesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart,
chronologisch und nach Gattungen geordnet. Nebst einer kurz gefaßten
26
Poetik und einem Verzeichnis der Dichter. Ed. Richard Zoozmann. Ber-
27 lin: Herlet 1863.
28 Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard: Wolffs Poetischer Hausschatz: Vollständigste
29 Auswahl deutscher Dichtungen von den ältesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart,
30 chronologisch und nach Gattungen geordnet. Nebst einer kurz gefaßten
31 Poetik und einem Verzeichnis der Dichter. Ed. Richard Zoozmann. Ber-
lin: Herlet 1911.
32
Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard: Handbuch der französischen Poesie, Poetik
33 und Geschichte der Poesie: La France poétique oder poetischer Hausschatz
34 der Franzosen. Eine vollständige Sammlung französischer Gedichte nach
35 den Gattungen geordnet von den frühesten Zeiten bis auf unsere Tage.
36 Leipzig: Volckmar 1843.
37
Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard: Il tesoretto: Hausschatz italienischer Poesie.
Auswahl aus den Werken von einhundert italienischen Dichtern seit den
38 frühesten Tagen bis zur Gegenwart in chronologischer Folge, nebst bio-
39 ACHTUNGREgraphischen Notizen über dieselben, zugleich Handbuch der italienischen
40 Poesie, Poetik und Geschichte der Poesie. Vienna: Gerold 1846.
1 Würzner, Alois: Leitfaden der deutschen Literaturgeschichte und Abriss der

2 Poetik für die oberen Klassen der österreichischen Realschulen: Mit
3
einer Übersichtstafel der deutschen, französischen und englischen Litera-
turgeschichte. Vienna: Alfred Hölder 1914.
4 Zauper, J[ohann] St[anislaus]: Grundzüge zu einer deutschen theoretisch-prak-
5 tischen Poetik aus Göthe’s Werken entwickelt. Vienna: Geistinger 1821.
6 Zauper, J[osef] St[anislaus]: Grundzüge zu einer deutschen theoretisch-prakti-
7 schen Poetik aus Goethe’s Werken entwickelt. 2nd, rev. and augm. ed.
8
Vienna: Gerold 1840.
Zauper, J[osef] St[anislaus]: Studien über Goethe: Als Nachtrag zur deutschen
9 Poetik aus Goethe. Vienna: Geistinger 1822.
10 Zauper, Josef Stanislaus: Praktische Anleitung zur Dichtkunst: Mit sorgfältig
11 gewählten Beispielen für Schulen und zum Privatunterricht. Ed. Carl Au-
12 gust Böttiger. Dresden: Walther 1829.
13
Zeynek, Gustav von: Deutsche Stilistik und Poetik: Ein Leitfaden für Schulen
mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Lehrerbildungsanstalten. Ed. Alois
14 Meixner. 9th ed. Graz: Leuschner & Lubensky’s Universitäts-Buchhand-
15 lung 1904.
16 Zimmermann, Gustav Adolf: Handbuch der deutschen Literatur Europa’s und
17 Amerika’s. Chicago: Enderis [et al.] 1876. (3 vols.).
18
Zimmermann, Gustav Adolf: Handbuch der deutschen Literatur Europa’s und
Amerika’s. Vol. 1: Musterstücke beschreibender und erzählender Prosa und
19 epischer Poesie: Nebst Briefen […]. Chicago: Enderis [et al.] 1876.
20 Zimmermann, Gustav Adolf: Handbuch der deutschen Literatur Europa’s und
21 Amerika’s. Vol. 2: Musterstücke von Prosa der Abhandlung, des Gesprächs
22 und der Rede und von lyrischer Poesie: Nebst Proben deutsch-amerika-
23
nischer Literatur. Chicago: Enderis [et al.] 1876.
Zimmermann, Gustav Adolf: Handbuch der deutschen Literatur Europa’s und
24 Amerika’s. Vol. 3: Abriss der Literatur-Geschichte, Verslehre, Poetik,
25 Rhetorik und Stilistik. Chicago: Enderis [et al.] 1876.
26 Zurbonsen, Fr[iedrich]: Deutsche Litteraturkunde: Leitfaden für höhere Schu-
27 len. Mit Anmerkungen aus der Poetik. Berlin: Nicolai 1891.
28
Zurbonsen, Fr[iedrich]: Deutsche Litteraturkunde: Leitfaden für höhere Schu-
len. Mit Anmerkungen aus der Poetik. 2nd ed. Berlin: Nicolai 1894.
29 Zurbonsen, Fr[iedrich]: Deutsche Litteraturkunde: Leitfaden für höhere Schu-
30 len. Mit Anmerkungen aus der Poetik. 3rd ed. Berlin: Nicolai 1900.
31 Zurbonsen, Fr[iedrich]: Deutsche Litteraturkunde: Leitfaden der deutschen
32 Literaturgeschichte. Mit Anmerkungen aus der Poetik. 13th ed. Berlin:
33
Nicolai 1921.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4 2. Selected Bibliography of German Aesthetics
5
6
7 Ast, Friedrich: System der Kunstlehre oder Lehr- und Handbuch der Aesthetik zu
8 Vorlesungen und zum Privatgebrauche entworfen. Leipzig: Hinrichs 1805.
9
Bölsche, Wilhelm: Die naturwissenschaftlichen Grundlagen der Poesie: Prole-
gomena einer realistischen Aesthetik. Leipzig: Reissner 1887.
10 Bölsche, Wilhelm: Die naturwissenschaftlichen Grundlagen der Poesie: Prole-
11 gomena einer realistischen Ästhetik. Mit zeitgenössischen Rezension und
12 einer Bibliographie der Schriften Wilhelm Bölsches. Ed. Johannes J. Braa-
13 kenburg. Repr. ed. Munich: Dt. Taschenbuch-Verl., Niemeyer 1976.
14 (Deutsche Texte, 40, Dtv 4269 Wissenschaftliche Reihe).
Bouterwek, Friedrich: Fr. Bouterwek’s Aesthetik. Leipzig: Martini 1806 – 1807.
15
(2 vols. + add.).
16 Bouterwek, Friedrich: Fr. Bouterwek’s Aesthetik. Vol. 1: Allgemeine Theorie des
17 Schönen in der Natur und Kunst: Mit einem Titelkupfer. Leipzig: Martini
18 1806.
19 Bouterwek, Friedrich: Fr. Bouterwek’s Aesthetik. Vol. 2: Theorie der schönen
20
Künste. Leipzig: Martini 1806.
Bouterwek, Friedrich: Fr. Bouterwek’s Aesthetik. Add. vol.: Idee zur Metaphysik
21 des Schönen: Sechs Abhandlungen. Eine Zugabe. Leipzig: Martini 1807.
22 Bouterwek, Friedrich: Aesthetik. 2nd, fully rev. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
23 Ruprecht 1815. (2 vols).
24 Bouterwek, Friedrich: Aesthetik. Vol. 1. 2nd, fully rev. ed. Göttingen: Van-
25 denhoeck & Ruprecht 1815.
Bouterwek, Friedrich: Aesthetik. Vol. 2. 2nd, fully rev. ed. Göttingen: Van-
26
denhoeck & Ruprecht 1815.
27 Bouterwek, Friedrich: Aesthetik. 3rd, corr. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
28 Ruprecht 1824 – 1825. (2 vols.).
29 Bouterwek, Friedrich: Aesthetik. Vol. 1. 3rd, corr. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
30 & Ruprecht 1824.
31 Bouterwek, Friedrich: Aesthetik. Vol. 2. 3rd, corr. ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht 1825.
32
Bouterwek, Friedrich: Aesthetik. Repr. of ed. 1824 – 1825. Göttingen: Van-
33 denhoeck & Ruprecht 1969. (2 vols.).
34 Bouterwek, Friedrich: Aesthetik. Vol. 1. Repr. of ed. 1824. Göttingen: Van-
36 Bouterwek, Friedrich: Aesthetik. Vol. 2. Repr. of ed. 1825 Göttingen: Van-
37
denhoeck & Ruprecht 1969.
Bouterwek, Friedrich: Aesthetik. Repr. of ed. 1824 – 1825. Bruxelles: Culture &
38 Civilisation 1969. (Aetas Kantiana, 41). (2 vols.).
39 Bouterwek, Friedrich: Aesthetik. Vol. 1. Repr. of ed. 1824. Bruxelles: Culture &
40 Civilisation 1969. (Aetas Kantiana, 41).
2. Selected Bibliography of German Aesthetics 349
1 Bouterwek, Friedrich: Aesthetik. Vol. 2. Repr. of ed. 1825. Bruxelles: Culture &
2 Civilisation 1969. (Aetas Kantiana, 41).
3
Bouterwek, Friedrich: Ästhetik. Repr. of ed. 1806. Hildesheim, New York:
Olms 1976.
4 Bouterwek, Friedrich: Ideen zur Metaphysik des Schönen: In vier Abhandlungen.
5 Eine Zugabe zur Aesthetik. Hildesheim, New York: Olms 1975.
6 Carriere, Moriz: Aesthetik: Die Idee des Schönen und ihre Verwirklichung durch
7 Natur, Geist und Kunst. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1859. (2 vols.).
8
Carriere, Moriz: Aesthetik: Die Idee des Schönen und ihre Verwirklichung durch
Natur, Geist und Kunst. Vol. 1: Die Schönheit. Die Welt. Die Phantasie.
9 Leipzig: Brockhaus 1859.
11 Natur, Geist und Kunst. Vol. 2: Die Bildende Kunst. Die Musik. Die Poesie.
12 Leipzig: Brockhaus 1859.
13
Natur, Geist und Kunst. 2nd, rev. ed. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1873. (2 vols.).
15 Natur, Geist und Kunst. Vol. 1: Die Schönheit. Die Welt. Die Phantasie. 2nd,
16 rev. ed. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1873.
18
Natur, Geist und Kunst. Vol. 2: Die Bildende Kunst. Die Musik. Die Poe-
sie. 2nd, rev. ed. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1873.
20 Natur, Geist und Kunst. 3rd, rev. ed. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1885. (2 vols.).
22 Natur, Geist und Kunst. Vol. 1: Die Schönheit. Die Welt. Die Phantasie. 3rd,
23
rev. ed. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1885.
24 Natur, Geist und Kunst. Vol. 2: Die Bildende Kunst. Die Musik. Die Poe-
25 sie. 3rd, rev. ed. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1885.
26 Carriere, Moriz: Das Wesen und die Formen der Poiesie. Ein Beitrag zur Phi-
27 losophie des Schönen und der Kunst; mit literarhistorischen Erläuterungen.
28
Leipzig: Brockhaus 1854.
Carriere, Moriz: Die Poesie: Ihr Wesen und ihre Formen mit Grundzügen der
29 vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte. 2nd, rev. ed. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1884.
30 Cohn, Jonas: Allgemeine Ästhetik. Leipzig: Engelmann 1901.
31 Dalberg, Carl von: Grundsätze der Ästhetik, deren Anwendung und künftige
32 Entwicklung. Erfurt: Keyser 1782.
33
Dalberg, Carl von: Grundsätze der Aesthetik, deren Anwendung und künftige
Entwickelung. Erfurt: Keyser 1791.
34 Diez, Max: Allgemeine Ästhetik. Leipzig: Göschen 1906. (Sammlung Göschen,
35 300).
36 Diez, Max: Allgemeine Ästhetik. Repr. ed. Leipzig: Göschen 1912. (Sammlung
37 Göschen, 300).
38
Diez, Max: Allgemeine Ästhetik. Repr. ed. Leipzig: Göschen 1919. (Sammlung
Göschen, 300).
39
40
1 Diez, Max: Allgemeine Ästhetik. Repr. ed. Leipzig: Göschen 1922. (Sammlung
2 Göschen, 300).
3
Eberhard, Johann August: Theorie der schönen Künste und Wissenschaften: Zum
Gebrauche seiner Vorlesungen. Halle a. d. S.: Verl. des Waisenhauses 1783.
4 Eberhard, Johann August: Theorie der schönen Künste und Wissenschaften: Zum
5 Gebrauche seiner Vorlesungen. 2nd, corr. ed. Halle a. d. S.: Verl. des Wai-
6 senhauses 1786.
7 Eberhard, Johann August: Theorie der schönen Künste und Wissenschaften: Zum
8
Gebrauche seiner Vorlesungen. 3rd, corr. ed. Halle a. d. S.: Verl. des Wai-
senhauses 1790.
9 Eberhard, Johann August: Handbuch der Aesthetik für gebildete Leser aus allen
10 Ständen: In Briefen herausgegeben. Halle a. d. S.: Hemmerde & Schwetschke
11 1803 – 1805. (4 vols.).
13
Ständen: In Briefen herausgegeben. Nebst einem Titelkupfer. Vol. 1. Halle
a. d. S.: Hemmerde & Schwetschke 1803.
15 Ständen: In Briefen herausgegeben. Vol. 2. Halle a. d. S.: Hemmerde &
16 Schwetschke 1803.
18
Ständen: In Briefen herausgegeben. Vol. 3. Halle a. d. S.: Hemmerde &
Schwetschke 1804.
20 Ständen: In Briefen herausgegeben. Vol. 4. Halle a. d. S.: Hemmerde &
21 Schwetschke 1805.
23
Ständen: In Briefen herausgegeben. 2nd, corr. ed. Halle a. d. S.: Hemmerde &
Schwetschke 1807 – 1820. (4 vols.).
25 Ständen: In Briefen herausgegeben. Nebst einem Titelkupfer. Vol. 1. 2nd,
26 corr. ed. Halle a. d. S.: Hemmerde & Schwetschke 1807.
28
Ständen: In Briefen herausgegeben. Vol. 2. 2nd, corr. ed. Halle a. d. S.:
Hemmerde & Schwetschke 1809.
30 Ständen: In Briefen herausgegeben. 2nd, corr. ed. Vol. 3. 2nd, corr. ed. Halle
31 a. d. S.: Hemmerde & Schwetschke 1814.
33
Ständen: In Briefen herausgegeben. Nebst einem Register über das ganze
Werk. Vol. 4. 2nd, corr. ed. Halle a. d. S.: Hemmerde & Schwetschke 1820.
35 Ständen: In Briefen herausgegeben. Nebst einem Titelkupfer. Faks. repr.
36 Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum 1972. (Athenäum Reprints). (2 vols.).
38
Ständen: In Briefen herausgegeben. Nebst einem Titelkupfer. Vol. 1. Faks.
repr. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum 1972. (Athenäum Reprints).
39
40
2 Ständen: In Briefen herausgegeben. Nebst einem Titelkupfer. Vol. 2. Faks.
3
repr. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum 1972. (Athenäum Reprints).
Eckardt, Ludwig: Vorschule der Aesthetik: Zwanzig Vorträge. Karlsruhe: Bie-
4 lefeld 1864 – 1865. (2 vols.).
5 Eckardt, Ludwig: Vorschule der Aesthetik: Zwanzig Vorträge. Vol. 1. Karlsruhe:
6 Bielefeld 1864.
7 Eckardt, Ludwig: Vorschule der Aesthetik: Zwanzig Vorträge. Vol. 2. Karlsruhe:
8
Bielefeld 1865.
Eschenburg, Johann Joachim: Entwurf einer Theorie und Literatur der schönen
9 Wissenschaften: Zur Grundlage bey Vorlesungen. Berlin, Stettin: Friedrich
10 Nicolai 1783.
11 Eschenburg, Johann Joachim: Entwurf einer Theorie und Literatur der schönen
12 Wissenschaften: Zur Grundlage bey Vorlesungen. 2nd, rev. ed. Berlin,
13
Stettin: Friedrich Nicolai 1789.
14 Wissenschaften: Zur Grundlage bey Vorlesungen. Frankfurt, Leipzig 1790.
16 Redekünste: Zur Grundlage bei Vorlesungen. 3rd, rev. and augm. ed. Berlin,
17 Stettin: Friedrich Nicolai 1805.
18
Redekünste: Zur Grundlage bei Vorlesungen. 4th, rev. and augm. ed. Berlin:
19 Aloys Doll [in comm.] 1812.
21 Redekünste: Zur Grundlage bei Vorlesungen. 4th, rev. and augm. ed. Berlin,
22 Stettin: Friedrich Nicolai 1817.
23
Eschenburg, Johann Joachim: Johann Joachim Eschenburg’s Entwurf einer
Theorie und Litteratur der schönen Redekünste. Ed. Moritz Pinder. 5th, fully
24 rev. ed. Berlin [et al.]: Friedrich Nicolai 1836.
26 Wissenschaften. Repr. ed. Hildesheim [et al.]: Olms 1976. (Documenta se-
27 miotica, Ser. 3).
28
Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Vorschule der Aesthetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel
1876. (2 vols.).
29 Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Vorschule der Aesthetik. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Breitkopf &
30 Härtel 1876.
31 Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Vorschule der Aesthetik. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Breitkopf &
32 Härtel 1876.
33
Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Vorschule der Aesthetik. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf &
Härtel 1898. (2 vols.).
34 Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Vorschule der Ästhetik. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Leipzig:
35 Breitkopf & Härtel 1897.
36 Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Vorschule der Ästhetik. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Leipzig:
38
Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Vorschule der Aesthetik. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf &
39
40
1 Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Vorschule der Aesthetik. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. Leipzig:
3
Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Vorschule der Aesthetik. Vol. 2. 3rd ed. Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Härtel 1925.
4 Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Vorschule der Aesthetik: 2 Bände in 1 Band. Beige-
5 bunden ist ,Zur experimentellen Aesthetik‘. Repr. ed. Hildesheim: Olms
6 1978.
7 Gietmann, Gerhard and Johannes Sörensen: Kunstlehre. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder
8
1899 – 1903. (5 vols.).
Gietmann, Gerhard and Johannes Sörensen: Kunstlehre. Vol. 1: Allgemeine
9 Ästhetik. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1899.
10 Gietmann, Gerhard and Johannes Sörensen: Kunstlehre. Vol. 2: Poetik und
11 Mimik. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1900.
12 Gietmann, Gerhard and Johannes Sörensen: Kunstlehre. Vol. 3: Musik-Ästhetik.
13
Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1900.
Gietmann, Gerhard and Johannes Sörensen: Kunstlehre. Vol. 4: Malerei, Bild-
14 nerei und schmückende Kunst. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1901.
15 Gietmann, Gerhard and Johannes Sörensen: Kunstlehre. Vol. 5: Ästhetik der
16 Baukunst. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1903.
17 Groos, Karl: Einleitung in die Aesthetik. Gießen: Ricker 1892.
18
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik. In:
G. W. F. H.: Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe durch einen Verein von Freun-
19 den des Verewigten. Ed. Ph. Marheineke, J. Schulze. Ed. Gans, Lp. v.
20 Henning, H. Hotho, K. Michelet, F. Förster. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
21 1835 – 1838, vol 10. (3 parts).
22 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik. In:
23
G. W. F. H.: Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe durch einen Verein von Freun-
den des Verewigten. Ed. Ph. Marheineke, J. Schulze. Ed. Gans, Lp. v.
24 Henning, H. Hotho, K. Michelet, F. Förster. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
25 1835, vol 10. Part 1.
27 G. W. F. H.: Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe durch einen Verein von Freun-
28
den des Verewigten. Ed. Ph. Marheineke, J. Schulze. Ed. Gans, Lp. v.
Henning, H. Hotho, K. Michelet, F. Förster. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
29 1837, vol 10. Part 2.
31 G. W. F. H.: Werke. Vollständige Ausgabe durch einen Verein von Freun-
32 den des Verewigten. Ed. Ph. Marheineke, J. Schulze. Ed. Gans, Lp. v.
33
Henning, H. Hotho, K. Michelet, F. Förster. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
1838, vol 10. Part 3.
35 G. W. F. H.: Sämtliche Werke. Ed. Georg Lasson. Leipzig: Meiner 1931,
36 vol. 10a. (Philosophische Bibliothek, 164).
38
G. W. F. H.: Werke. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1970, vols. 13 – 15.
(Theorie-Werkausgabe).
39
40

2 G. W. F. H.: Werke. 2nd (?) ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1973, vols. 13 –
3
15. (Theorie-Werkausgabe).
4 G. W. F. H.: Werke. 3rd (?) ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1975 – 1976,
5 vols. 13 – 15. (Theorie-Werkausgabe).
6 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik: Part 2. In:
7 G. W. F. H.: Werke. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1978, vol 14. (Theorie-
8
Werkausgabe).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik: Part 1. In:
9 G. W. F. H.: Werke. Werke. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1979, vol. 13.
10 (Theorie-Werkausgabe).
12 G. W. F. H.: Werke. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1980, vol. 14. (Theorie-
13
Werkausgabe).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik: Part 3. In:
15 Werkausgabe).
18
Werkausgabe).
19 G. W. F. H.: Werke. New ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1983, vols. 13 – 15.
20 (Theorie-Werkausgabe).
22 G. W. F. H.: Werke. New ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1986, vols. 13 – 15.
23
(Theorie-Werkausgabe).
24 G. W. F. H.: Werke. New ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1989 – 1990,
25 vols. 13 – 15. (Theorie-Werkausgabe).
27 G. W. F. H.: Werke. 3rd (?) ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1992 – 1993,
28
vols. 13 – 15. (Theorie-Werkausgabe).
29 G. W. F. H.: Werke. 4th (?) ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1994 – 1995,
30 vols. 13 – 15. (Suhrkamp-Taschenbücher Wissenschaft, 613).
33
vols. 13 – 15. (Suhrkamp-Taschenbücher Wissenschaft, 613).
35 vols. 13 – 15. (Suhrkamp-Taschenbücher Wissenschaft, 613).
37 G. W. F. H.: Werke. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 2001, vol. 13. (Suhrkamp-
38
Taschenbücher Wissenschaft, 613).
39
40
2 G. W. F. H.: Werke. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 2003, vol. 13. (Suhrkamp-
3
Taschenbücher Wissenschaft, 613).
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik. Ed. Rüdiger
4 Bubner. Stuttgart: Reclam 1971. (2 vols.).
5 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik. Ed. Rüdiger
6 Bubner. Vol. 1: Parts 1/2. Stuttgart: Reclam 1971.
8
Bubner. Vol. 2: Part 3: Die Poesie. Stuttgart: Reclam 1971.
9 Bubner. Vol. 2: Part 3: Die Poesie. Impr. Stuttgart: Reclam 1977.
11 Bubner. Vol. 1: Parts 1/2. Impr. Stuttgart: Reclam 1980.
13
Bubner. Vol. 2: Part 3: Die Poesie. Stuttgart: Reclam 1984.
17 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Kunst.
18
Berlin 1923. Nachgeschrieben von Heinrich Gustav Hotho. Hamburg:
Meiner 1998.
19 Herwig, Johann Justus: Grundriß der eleganten Litteratur. Würzburg: Rienner
20 1774.
21 Heusinger, J[ohann] H[einrich] G[ottlieb]: Handbuch der Aesthetik oder
22 Grundsätze zur Bearbeitung und Beurtheilung der Werke einer jeden schönen
23
Kunst, als der Poesie, Malerei, Bildhauerkunst, Musik, Mimik, Baukunst,
Gartenkunst Etc. Etc.: Für Künstler und Kunstliebhaber. Gotha: Justus
24 Perthes 1797. (2 vols.).
25 Heydenreich, Karl Heinrich: System der Aesthetik. Leipzig: Göschen 1790.
26 Heydenreich, Karl Heinrich: System der Aesthetik. Ed. Volker Deubel. Reprogr.
27 repr. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg 1978. (Texte zum literarischen Leben um
28
1800).
Hillebrand, Joseph: Lehrbuch der Literatur-Aesthetik: Oder Theorie und Ge-
29 schichte der schönen Literatur. Mainz: Kupferberg 1827. (2 vols.).
30 Hillebrand, Joseph: Lehrbuch der Literatur-Aesthetik: Oder Theorie und Ge-
31 schichte der schönen Literatur. Vol. 1. Mainz: Kupferberg 1827.
32 Hillebrand, Joseph: Lehrbuch der Literatur-Aesthetik: Oder Theorie und Ge-
33
schichte der schönen Literatur. Vol. 2. Mainz: Kupferberg 1827.
Hoffmann, Markus: Leitfaden der Aesthetik zum Schulgebrauch und zur
34 Selbstbelehrung. Vienna 1891.
35 Jungmann, Joseph: Die Schönheit und die schöne Kunst: Nach den Anschau-
36 ungen der sokratischen und der christlichen Philosophie in ihrem Wesen
37 dargestellt. Innsbruck: Wagner 1866.
38
Jungmann, Joseph: Aesthetik. 2nd, rev. and augm. ed. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder
1884.
39
40
1 Jungmann, Joseph: Aesthetik. 3rd, augm. and corr. ed. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder
2 1886. (2 vols.).
3
Jungmann, Joseph: Aesthetik. Vol. 1: Die ästhetischen Grundbegriffe. 3rd, augm.
and corr. ed. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1886.
4
Jungmann, Joseph: Aesthetik. Vol. 2: Die schönen Künste. 3rd, augm. and corr.
5 ed. 2 vols. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1886.
6 Kirchmann, Julius H. von: Aesthetik auf realistischer Grundlage. Berlin: Springer
7 1868. (2 vols.).
8 Kirchmann, Julius H. von: Aesthetik auf realistischer Grundlage. Vol. 1. Berlin:
Springer 1868.
9
Kirchmann, Julius H. von: Aesthetik auf realistischer Grundlage. Vol. 2. Berlin:
10 Springer 1868.
11 Kirstein, Anton: Entwurf einer Ästhetik der Natur und Kunst. Paderborn:
12 Schöningh 1896. (Wissenschaftliche Handbibliothek: Reihe 3, Lehrbücher
13 verschiedener Wissenschaften, 4).
14 Köstlin, Karl Reinhold: Aesthetik. Tübingen: Laupp 1869.
Köstlin, Karl Reinhold: Prolegomena zur Ästhetik. Tübingen: Laupp 1889.
15
(Tübinger Universitätsschriften 1888 – 1889).
16 Köstlin, Karl Reinhold: Prolegomena zur Ästhetik: Eine Abhandlung. Ver-
17 zeichnis der Doktoren welche die Philosophische Fakultät der Königlich
18 Württembergischen Eberhard-Karls-Universität in Tübingen im Dekanats-
19 jahr ernannt hat. Tübingen: Fues 1889.
20
Krug, Wilhelm Traugott: Versuch einer systematischen Encyclopädie der schönen
Künste. Leipzig: Hempel 1802.
21 Lange, Konrad: Das Wesen der Kunst: Grundzüge einer realistischen Kunstlehre.
22 Berlin: Grote 1901. (2 vols.).
24 Vol. 1. Berlin: Grote 1901.
Vol. 2. Berlin: Grote 1901.
26
Lange, Konrad: Das Wesen der Kunst: Grundzüge einer illusionistischen
27 Kunstlehre. Berlin: Grote 1907.
28 Lemcke, Carl: Populäre Aesthetik. Leipzig: Seemann 1865.
29 Lemcke, Carl: Populäre Aesthetik. 2nd, augm. and corr. ed. Leipzig: Seemann
30 1867.
31 Lemcke, Carl: Populäre Aesthetik. 3rd, augm. and corr. ed. Leipzig: Seemann
1870.
32
Lemcke, Carl: Populäre Aesthetik. 4th, augm. and corr. ed. Leipzig: Seemann
33 1873.
34 Lemcke, Carl: Populäre Aesthetik. 5th, augm. and corr. ed. Leipzig: Seemann
35 1879.
36 Lemcke, Carl: Ästhetik in Gemeinverständlichen Vorträgen. 6th, corr. ed.
37
Leipzig: Seemann 1890.
38 Dichtkunst. Königsberg, Leipzig: Zeisen & Hartung 1771 – 1772. (2 vols.).
40 Dichtkunst. Vol. 1. Königsberg, Leipzig: Zeisen & Hartung 1771.

2 Dichtkunst. Vol. 2: Zweiter Theil, der die Rhetorik und Poetik in sich faßt.
3
Königsberg, Leipzig: Zeisen & Hartung 1772.
4
Dichtkunst. Faks. repr. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum 1971. (Athenäum Re-
5 prints). (2 vols.).
7 Dichtkunst. Faks. repr. Vol. 1. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum 1971. (Athenäum
8 Reprints).
9
Dichtkunst. Vol. 2: Zweiter Theil, der die Rhetorik und Poetik in sich faßt.
10 Faks. repr. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum 1972. (Athenäum Reprints).
11 Meier, Georg Friedrich: Georg Friedrich Meiers Anfangsgründe aller schönen
12 Wissenschaften und Künste. Halle im Magd. 1748 – 1750. (3 vols.).
14 Wissenschaften und Künste. Vol. 1. Halle im Magd.: Hemmerde 1748.
Meier, Georg Friedrich: Georg Friedrich Meiers Anfangsgründe aller schönen
15
Wissenschaften und Künste. Vol. 2. Halle im Magd.: Hemmerde 1749.
17 Wissenschaften und Künste. Vol. 3. Halle im Magd.: Hemmerde 1750.
18 Meier, Georg Friedich: Georg Friedrich Meiers Anfangsgründe aller schönen
19 Wissenschaften und Künste: Mit Übersetzung der in der Ästhetik angeführten
20
Stellen. 2nd ed. Halle im Magd.: Hemmerde 1754 – 1759. (3 vols.).
Meier, Georg Friedich: Georg Friedrich Meiers Anfangsgründe aller schönen
21
Wissenschaften und Künste: Mit Übersetzung der in der Ästhetik angeführten
22 Stellen. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Halle im Magd.: Hemmerde 1754.
Meier, Georg Friedich: Georg Friedrich Meiers Anfangsgründe aller schönen
26
Wissenschaften und Künste: Mit Übersetzung der in der Ästhetik angeführten
30 Stellen. Vol. 2. 3rd, augm. ed. Halle im Magd.: Hemmerde 1769.
31 Meier, Georg Friedrich: Die Anfangsgründe aller schönen Wissenschaften und
Künste. Repr. of the 2nd ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1976. (Documenta lin-
32
guistica, 5. Deutsche Grammatiken des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts). (3 vols.).
34 Künste. Vol 1. Repr. of the 2nd ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1976. (Documenta
35 linguistica, 5. Deutsche Grammatiken des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts).
37
Künste. Vol. 2. Repr. of the 2nd ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1976. (Documenta
linguistica, 5. Deutsche Grammatiken des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts).
39 Künste. Vol. 3. Repr. of the 2nd ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1976. (Documenta
40 linguistica, 5. Deutsche Grammatiken des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts).
1 Meier, Georg Friedrich: Frühe Schriften zur ästhetischen Erziehung der Deut-
2 schen. Ed. Günter Schenk and Hans-Joachim Kertscher. Halle a. d. S.: Hal-
3
lescher Verl. 1999 – 2002. (Schriftenreihe zur Geistes- und Kulturgeschichte:
Texte und Dokumente). (3 vols.).
4 Meier, Georg Friedrich: Frühe Schriften zur ästhetischen Erziehung der Deut-
5 schen. Ed. Günter Schenk and Hans-Joachim Kertscher. Vol. 1: Das Streben
6 nach den philosophischen Grundsätzen einer neuen deutschen Dichtung.
7 Halle a. d. S.: Hallescher Verl. 1999. (Schriftenreihe zur Geistes- und Kul-
8
turgeschichte: Texte und Dokumente).
Meier, Georg Friedrich: Frühe Schriften zur ästhetischen Erziehung der Deut-
9 schen. Ed. Günter Schenk and Hans-Joachim Kertscher. Vol. 2: Der „kleine
10 Dichterkrieg“ zwischen Halle und Leipzig. Halle a. d. S.: Hallescher
11 Verl. 2000. (Schriftenreihe zur Geistes- und Kulturgeschichte: Texte und
12 Dokumente).
13
Meier, Georg Friedrich: Frühe Schriften zur ästhetischen Erziehung der Deut-
schen. Ed. Günter Schenk and Hans-Joachim Kertscher. Vol. 3: Philoso-
14 phische Ästhetik – Literaturtheorie – neue deutsche Literatur. Halle a. d. S.:
15 Hallescher Verl. 2002. (Schriftenreihe zur Geistes- und Kulturgeschichte:
16 Texte und Dokumente).
17 Meumann, Ernst: System der Ästhetik. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer 1914. (Wissen
18
und Bildung, 124).
Meumann, Ernst: System der Ästhetik. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer 1919.
19 (Wissen und Bildung, 124).
20 Michaelis, Christian Friedrich: Entwurf der Aesthetik als Leitfaden bei akade-
21 mischen Vorlesungen über Kant’s Kritik der aesthetischen Urtheilskraft.
22 Augsburg: bey Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Späth 1796.
23
Michaelis, Christian Friedrich: Entwurf der Aesthetik als Leitfaden bei akade-
mischen Vorlesungen über Kant’s Kritik der aesthetischen Urtheilskraft.
24 Repr. ed. Brussels: Culture & Civilisation 1970. (Aetas Kantiana, 185).
25 Paul, Jean: Vorschule der Ästhetik: Nebst einigen Vorlesungen in Leipzig über die
26 Parteien der Zeit. Hamburg: Perthes 1804. (3 vols.).
28
Parteien der Zeit. Vol. 1. Hamburg: Perthes 1804.
Paul, Jean: Vorschule der Ästhetik: Nebst einigen Vorlesungen in Leipzig über die
29 Parteien der Zeit. Vol. 2. Hamburg: Perthes 1804.
31 Parteien der Zeit. Vol. 3. Hamburg: Perthes 1804.
33
Parteien der Zeit. 2nd, corr. and augm. ed. Stuttgart, Tübingen: Cotta 1813.
(3 vols.).
35 Parteien der Zeit. Vol. 1. 2nd, corr. and augm. ed. Stuttgart, Tübingen: Cotta
36 1813.
38
Parteien der Zeit. Vol. 2. 2nd, corr. and augm. ed. Stuttgart, Tübingen: Cotta
1813.
39
40
2 Parteien der Zeit. Vol. 3. 2nd, corr. and augm. ed. Stuttgart, Tübingen: Cotta
3
1813.
4 Parteien der Zeit. New augm. ed. Vienna: Gräffer & Härter 1815. (3 vols.).
6 Parteien der Zeit. Vol. 1. New augm. ed. Vienna: Gräffer & Härter 1815.
8
Parteien der Zeit. Vol. 2. New augm. ed. Vienna: Gräffer & Härter 1815.
9 Parteien der Zeit. Vol. 3. New augm. ed. Vienna: Gräffer & Härter 1815.
10 Paul, Jean: Werke. Vols. 49/51: Vorschule der Ästhetik. Berlin: Hempel 1879.
11 Paul, Jean: Vorschule der Ästhetik. Stuttgart, Berlin: Cotta 1897.
12 Paul, Jean: Vorschule der Ästhetik. In: J. P.: Werke. Ed. Rudolf Wustmann.
13
Leipzig: Bibliogr. Inst. 1908, vol. 4.
14 Parteien der Zeit. With an introd. by Johannes Volkelt. Ed. Josef Müller.
15 Leipzig: Meiner 1923.
16 Paul, Jean: Vorschule der Ästhetik. Levana. Vermischte Schriften. In: J. P.: Werke.
17 Ed. Eduard Berend. Berlin: Propyläen-Verlag 1923, vol. 5.
18
Paul, Jean: Vorschule der Ästhetik. In: J. P.: Sämtliche Werke. Im Auftrag der
Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Ed. Eduard Berend. Weimar:
19 Böhlau 1935, vol. 11.
20 Paul, Jean: Vorschule der Ästhetik. In: J. P.: Sämtliche Werke. Im Auftrag der
21 Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Ed. Eduard Berend. Weimar:
22 Böhlau 1980, vol. 11.
23
Paul, Jean: Vorschule der Ästhetik. Ed. Norbert Miller. Munich: Hanser 1963.
Paul, Jean: Vorschule der Ästhetik. Ed. Norbert Miller. 2nd ed. Munich: Hanser
24 1974.
25 Paul, Jean: Vorschule der Ästhetik. Levana oder Erziehlehre. Politische Schriften.
26 In: J. P.: Sämtliche Werke. Ed. Norbert Miller. Munich: Hanser 1963, vol. 5.
28
In: J. P.: Sämtliche Werke. Ed. Norbert Miller. 2nd (?) ed. Munich: Hanser
1967, vol. 5.
30 In: J. P.: Sämtliche Werke. Ed. Norbert Miller. 3rd ed. Munich: Hanser 1973,
31 vol. 5.
33
In: J. P.: Sämtliche Werke. Ed. Norbert Miller. 4th, rev. ed. Munich: Hanser
1980, vol. 5.
35 In: J. P.: Sämtliche Werke. Ed. Norbert Miller. 5th ed. Munich: Hanser 1987,
36 vol. 5.
38
In: J. P.: Sämtliche Werke. Ed. Norbert Miller. 6th, corr. ed. Darmstadt:
Wiss. Buchges. 2000, vol. 5.
39
40
1 Paul, Jean: Vorschule der Ästhetik. Ed. Wolfhart Henckmann. Hamburg: Meiner
2 1990. (Philosophische Bibliothek, 425).
3
Paul, Jean: Vorschule der Ästhetik. In: Philosophie von Platon bis Nietzsche.
Berlin: Directmedia 2004. (Digitale Bibliothek, 2). [CD-ROM].
4 Paul, Jean: Horn of Oberon: School for aesthetics. Transl. by Margaret R. Hale.
5 Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press 1973.
6 Paul, Jean: Indroducción a la Estética. Transl. by. Julián de Vargas. Buenos Aires:
7 Hachette 1976. (Las ideas y las formas).
8
Paul, Jean: Indroducción a la Estética. Transl. by. Julián de Vargas. Ed. Pedro
Aullón de Haro. Madrid: Ed. Verbum 1991. (Verbum ensayo).
9 Paul, Jean: Cours préparatoire d’esthétique. Transl. by Anne-Marie Lang and Jean
10 Luc Nancy. Lausanne: L’Age d’homme 1979.
11 Paul, Jean: Il comico, l’umorismo e l’arguzia: Arte e artificio del riso in una
12 Propedeutica all’estetica del primo Ottocento. Transl. by Eugenio Spedicato.
13
Padova: Il poligrafo 1994. (Saggi, 4).
Poelitz, Karl Heinrich Ludwig: Die Aesthetik für gebildete Leser. Leipzig: Hin-
14 richs 1807. (2 vols.).
15 Poelitz, Karl Heinrich Ludwig: Die Aesthetik für gebildete Leser. Vol. 1. Leipzig:
16 Hinrichs 1807.
17 Poelitz, Karl Heinrich Ludwig: Die Aesthetik für gebildete Leser. Vol. 2. Leipzig:
18
Hinrichs 1807.
Prölß, Robert: Katechismus der Ästhetik: Belehrungen über die Wissenschaft
19 vom Schönen und der Kunst. Leipzig: Weber 1878. (Webers Illustrierte
20 Katechismen, 11).
21 Prölß, Robert: Katechismus der Ästhetik: Belehrungen über die Wissenschaft
22 vom Schönen und der Kunst. 2nd, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Weber 1889.
23
(Webers Illustrierte Katechismen, 11).
Prölß, Robert: Ästhetik: Belehrungen über die Wissenschaft vom Schönen und
24 der Kunst. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Weber 1904. (Webers Illustrierte
25 Katechismen, 11).
26 Riedel, Friedrich Just: Theorie der schönen Künste und Wissenschaften: Ein
27 Auszug aus den Werken verschiedener Schritsteller. Jena: Cuno 1767.
28
Riedel, Friedrich Just: Theorie der schönen Künste und Wissenschaften. Vienna,
Jena: Cuno 1774.
29 Schasler, Max: Ästhetik: Grundzüge der Wissenschaft des Schönen und der Kunst.
30 Leipzig [et al.]: Freytag [et al.] 1886. (Das Wissen der Gegenwart, Deutsche
31 Universal-Bibliothek für Gebildete, 55/56). (2 vols.)
33
Vol. 1: Die Welt des Schönen. Leipzig [et al.]: Freytag [et al.] 1886. (Das
Wissen der Gegenwart, Deutsche Universal-Bibliothek für Gebildete, 55).
35 Vol. 2: Das Reich der Kunst. Leipzig [et al.]: Freytag [et al.] 1886. (Das
36 Wissen der Gegenwart, Deutsche Universal-Bibliothek für Gebildete, 56).
37 Schlegel, August Wilhelm von: Vorlesungen über schöne Litteratur und Kunst.
38
Ed. Jacob Minor. Heilbronn: Henninger 1884. (Deutsche Literaturdenk-
mäler des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts, 17 – 19). (3 vols.).
39
40
2 Vol. 1: Die Kunstlehre. Ed. Jacob Minor. Heilbronn: Henninger 1884.
3
(Deutsche Literaturdenkmäler des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts, 17).
Schlegel, August Wilhelm von: Vorlesungen über schöne Litteratur und Kunst.
4 Vol. 2: Geschichte der klassischen Litteratur 1802 – 1803. Ed. Jacob Minor.
5 Heilbronn: Henninger 1884. (Deutsche Literaturdenkmäler des 18. und 19.
6 Jahrhunderts, 18).
8
Vol. 3: Geschichte der romantischen Litteratur 1803 – 1804. Ed. Jacob Minor.
Heilbronn: Henninger 1884. (Deutsche Literaturdenkmäler des 18. und 19.
9 Jahrhunderts, 19).
10 Schlegel, August Wilhelm: Vorlesungen über Ästhetik I (1789 – 1803). With
11 commentary and afterword. Ed. Ernst Behler in collab. with Frank Jolles.
12 Paderborn: Schöningh 1989.
13
Schlegel, August Wilhelm: Vorlesungen über Ästhetik II/1 (1803 – 1827). With
an afterword by Georg Braungart. Ed. Ernst Behler. Paderborn: Schöningh
14 2007.
15 Schleiermacher, Friedrich: Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik: Aus Schleiermacher’s
16 handschriftlichem Nachlasse und aus nachgeschriebenen Heften. Repr. of
17 ed. 1842. Berlin [et al.]: de Gruyter 1974.
18
Schlötel, W[ilhelm]: Zur Aesthetik: Inauguralabhandlung zur Erlangung des
Doctorgrades der Philosophischen Facultät zu Göttingen. Göttingen: Van-
20 Schreiber, Alois [Wilhelm]: Lehrbuch der Aesthetik. Heidelberg: Mohr &
21 Zimmer 1809.
22 Schroeer, Tobias G. (ed.): Ch. Oesers Briefe an eine Jungfrau über die Haupt-
23
gegenstände der Ästhetik: Ein Weihgeschenk für Frauen und Jungfrauen. 5th,
ext. augm. and corr. ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1857.
25 gegenstände der Ästhetik: Ein Weihgeschenk für Frauen und Jungfrauen. 6th,
26 ext. augm. and corr. ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1859.
28
gegenstände der Ästhetik: Ein Weihgeschenk für Frauen und Jungfrauen. 7th,
augm. and corr. ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1862.
30 gegenstände der Ästhetik: Ein Weihgeschenk für Frauen und Jungfrauen. 8th,
31 ext. augm. and corr. ed. Leipzig: Friedrich Brandstetter 1865.
33
gegenstände der Ästhetik: Ein Weihgeschenk für Frauen und Jungfrau-
en. 10th, ext. augm. and corr. ed. Leipzig: Friedrich Brandstetter 1868.
35 gegenstände der Ästhetik: Ein Weihgeschenk für Frauen und Jungfrau-
36 en. 12th, augm. and corr. ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1871.
38
gegenstände der Ästhetik: Ein Weihgeschenk für Frauen und Jungfrau-
en. 13th, augm. and corr. ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1872.
39
40
3
en. 14th, augm. and corr. ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1873.
Schroeer, Tobias G. (ed.): Ch. Oesers Briefe an eine Jungfrau über die Haupt-
5 en. 15th, augm. and corr. ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1874.
8
en. 16th, corr. ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1874.
10 en. 17th, corr. ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1875.
13
en. 18th, corr. ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1875.
15 en. 19th, corr. ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1876.
18
en. 20th, corr. ed. Leipzig: Friedrich Brandstetter 1877.
19 gegenstände der Ästhetik: Ein Weihgeschenk für Frauen und Jungfrauen. 21st
20 ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1878.
23
en. 22nd, corr. ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1880.
25 en. 23rd ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1881.
28
en. 24th, rev. ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1883.
30 en. 26th ed. Leipzig: Brandstetter 1899.
32 gegenstände der Ästhetik: Ein Weihgeschenk für Deutschlands Töchter.
33
Berlin: Warschauer 1888.
Schubart, Christian Friedrich Daniel: Vorlesungen über die schönen Wissen-
34 schaften für Unstudierte: Herausgegeben von einem seiner ehmaligen Zu-
35 hörer [i.e. Christian Gottlob Ebner]. Augsburg: Stage 1777.
36 Schubart, Christian Friedrich: Kurzgefaßtes Lehrbuch der schönen Wissen-
37 schaften. 2nd, augm. and corr. ed. Münster, Osnabrück, Hamm: Perrenon
38
1781.
39
40
1 Schwinger, Reinhold and Heinz Nicolai (eds.): Innere Form und dichterische
2 Phantasie: Zwei Vorstudien zu einer neuen deutschen Poetik. Munich: Beck
3
1935.
Snell, Christian Wilhelm: Lehrbuch der Kritik des Geschmacks, mit beständiger
4
Rücksicht auf die Kantische Kritik der ästhetischen Urtheilskraft. Leipzig:
5 Müller 1795.
6 Steinbart, Gotthilf Samuel: Grundbegriffe zur Philosophie über den Geschmack:
7 Erstes Heft, welches die allgemeine Theorie sämtlicher schönen Künste, und
8 die besondere Theorie der Tonkunst enthält. Züllichau: Verlag der Way-
senhaus- und Frommannischen Buchhandlung 1785.
9
Steinbart, Gotthilf Samuel: Grundbegriffe zur Philosophie über den Ge-
10 schmack. 2nd (?) ed. Frankfurt, Leipzig 1786.
11 Stockhausen, Johann Christoph: Critischer Entwurf einer auserlesenen Biblio-
12 thek: Für den Liebhaber der Philosophie und schönen Wissenschaften. In
13 einigen Sendschreiben an einen Freund. Berlin: Haude & Spener 1752.
thek: Für den Liebhaber der Philosophie und schönen Wissenschaften. In
15
einigen Sendschreiben an einen Freund. 2nd, augm. and corr. ed. Berlin:
16 Haude & Spener 1758.
18 thek: Für den Liebhaber der Philosophie und schönen Wissenschaften. Zum
19 Gebrauch seiner Vorlesungen entworfen von Johann Christoph Stockhausen,
20
der Philosophie Doctor, und des Johannei zu Lüneburg Rector. 3rd, augm.
and corr. ed. Berlin: Haude & Spener 1764.
21
Stockhausen, Johann Christoph: Critischer Entwurf einer auserlesenen Biblio-
22 thek: Für den Liebhaber der Philosophie und schönen Wissenschaften. Zum
23 Gebrauch akademischer Vorlesungen. 4th, augm. and corr. ed. Berlin: Haude
24 & Spener 1771.
25 Sulzer, Johann Georg: Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste: In einzelnen,
nach alphabetischer Ordnung der Kunstwörter aufeinanderfolgenden, Arti-
26
keln abgehandelt. Ed. Daniel Nikolaus Chodowiecki. Leipzig: M.G. Wei-
27 demanns Erben, Reich 1771 – 1774. (2 vols.).
29 nach alphabetischer Ordnung der Kunstwörter aufeinanderfolgenden, Arti-
30 keln abgehandelt. Vol. 1: A Bis J. Leipzig: M.G. Weidemanns Erben, Reich
31
1771.
Sulzer, Johann Georg: Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste: In einzelnen,
32
33 keln abgehandelt. Vol. 2: K–Z. Leipzig: M.G. Weidemanns Erben, Reich
34 1774.
37
keln Abgehandelt. Impr. Leipzig: Weidemann & Reich 1773 – 1775. (2 vols.).
39 keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 1: Von A bis J. Impr. Leipzig: Weidemann & Reich
40 1773.

3
keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 2: Von K bis Z. Impr. Leipzig: Weidemann & Reich
1775.
4
6 keln Abgehandelt. Ed. Johann Christoph Heilmann. Repr. ed. Biel: In der
7 Heilmannischen Buchhandlung 1777. (2 vols.).
9
keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 1: Ersten Theils, Erster [Und Zweiter] Band, von A bis
10 E – Von E bis I. Repr. ed. Biel: In der Heilmannischen Buchhandlung 1777.
13 keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 2: Zweyten Theils, Erster [Und Zweiter] Band: Von
14 K bis R – Von R bis Z. Repr. ed. Biel: In der Heilmannischen Buchhandlung
1777.
15
17 keln Abgehandelt. Von Johann George Sulzer, Mitglied der Königlichen
18 Academie der Wissenschaften in Berlin Etc. Augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmann
19 1792 – 1799. (5 vols.).
20
22 Academie der Wissenschaften in Berlin Etc. Vol. 1. Augm. ed. Leipzig:
23 Weidmann 1792.
keln Abgehandelt. Von Johann George Sulzer, Mitglied der Königlichen
26
Academie der Wissenschaften in Berlin Etc. Vol. 2. Augm. ed. Leipzig:
27 Weidmann 1792.
Weidmann 1793.
32
36 Weidmann 1794.
37
40 Weidmann 1799.

3
keln Abgehandelt. Reprogr. repr. Hildesheim: Olms 1976 – 1970. (5 vols.).
5 keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 1. Reprogr. repr. Hildesheim: Olms 1970.
8
keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 2. Reprogr. repr. Hildesheim: Olms 1967.
10 keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 3. Reprogr. repr. Hildesheim: Olms 1967.
13
keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 4. Reprogr. repr. Hildesheim: Olms 1967.
15 keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 5: Register. Reprogr. repr. Hildesheim: Olms 1967.
18
keln Abgehandelt. 2nd repr. ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1994. (5 vols.).
20 keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 1: Mit einer Einleitung von Giorgio Tonelli. 2nd
21 repr. ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1994.
23
keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 2. 2nd repr. ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1994.
26 keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 3. 2nd repr. ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1994.
28
keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 4. 2nd repr. ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1994.
31 keln Abgehandelt. Vol. 5: Register: Über die in allen vier Teilen der neuen
32 vermehrten zweiten Auflage vorkommenden Schriftsteller. 2nd repr. ed.
33
Hildesheim: Olms 1994.
Sulzer, Johann Georg: Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste: Lexikon der
34 Künste und der Ästhetik (1771/1774). Berlin: Directmedia Publ. 2002. [CD-
35 ROM].
36 Sulzer, Johann Georg: Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste: Lexikon der
37 Künste und der Ästhetik (1771/1774). Berlin: Directmedia Publ. 2004. [CD-
38
ROM].
39
40
1 Sulzer, Johann Georg: Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste: Lexikon der
2 Künste und der Ästhetik (1771/1774). Frankfurt: Zweitausendeins 2005.
3
[CD-ROM].
Sulzer, Johann Georg: Johann Georg Sulzers Theorie der Dichtkunst: Zum
4 Gebrauch der Studirenden. Ed. Albrecht Kirchmayer. Munich: Lentner
5 1788 – 1789. (2 vols.)
6 Sulzer, Johann Georg: Johann Georg Sulzers Theorie der Dichtkunst: Zum
7 Gebrauch der Studirenden. Ed. Albrecht Kirchmayer. Vol. 1. Munich:
8
Lentner 1788.
Sulzer, Johann Georg: Johann Georg Sulzers Theorie der Dichtkunst: Zum
9 Gebrauch der Studirenden. Ed. Albrecht Kirchmayer. Vol. 2. Munich:
10 Lentner 1789.
11 Thiersch, Friedrich Wilhelm: Allgemeine Ästhetik in akademischen Lehrvor-
12 trägen. Berlin: Reimer 1846.
13
Utitz, Emil: Grundlegung der allgemeinen Kunstwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Enke
1914 – 1920. (2 vols.).
14 Utitz, Emil: Grundlegung der allgemeinen Kunstwissenschaft. Vol. 1. Stuttgart:
15 Enke 1914.
16 Utitz, Emil: Grundlegung der allgemeinen Kunstwissenschaft. Vol. 2. Stuttgart:
17 Enke 1920.
18
Utitz, Emil: Grundlegung der allgemeinen Kunstwissenschaft: Zwei Bände in
einem Band. Ed. Wolfhart Henckmann. Repr. ed. Munich: Fink 1972.
19 Vischer, Friedrich Theodor: Aesthetik oder Wissenschaft des Schönen: Zum
20 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Reutlingen [et al.]: Mäcken 1846 – 1858.
21 (4 vols.).
23
Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 1: Die Metaphysik des Schönen. Reut-
lingen [et al.]: Mäcken 1846.
25 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 2: Die Lehre vom Schönen in einseitiger
26 Existenz oder vom Naturschönen und der Phantasie. Sect. 1: Die Lehre vom
27 Naturschönen. Reutlingen [et al.]: Mäcken 1847.
28
Vischer, Friedrich Theodor: Aesthetik oder Wissenschaft des Schönen: Zum
Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 2: Die Lehre vom Schönen in einseitiger
29 Existenz oder vom Naturschönen und der Phantasie. Sect. 2: Die Lehre von
30 der Phantasie. Reutlingen [et al.]: Mäcken 1848.
32 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 3: Die Kunstlehre. Sect. 1: Die Kunst
33
überhaupt und ihre Theilung in die Künste. Reutlingen [et al.]: Mäcken 1851.
34 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 3: Die Kunstlehre. Sect. 2: Die Künste,
35 Iss. 1: Die Baukunst. Reutlingen [et al.]: Mäcken 1852.
38
Iss. 2: Die Bildnerkunst. Reutlingen [et al.]: Mäcken 1853.
39
40

3
Iss. 3: Die Malerei. Reutlingen [et al.]: Mäcken 1854.
5 Iss. 4: Die Musik. Reutlingen [et al.]: Mäcken 1857.
8
Iss. 5: Die Dichtkunst. Reutlingen [et al.]: Mäcken 1857.
9 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 4: Vollständiges Inhaltsverzeichniß, Na-
10 men- und Sachregister. Reutlingen [et al.]: Mäcken 1858.
12 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. 2nd ed. Munich: Meyer & Jessen 1922 – 1926.
13
(6 vols.).
14 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 1: Die Metaphysik des Schönen. 2nd ed.
15 Munich: Meyer & Jessen 1922.
17 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 2: Das Schöne in einseitiger Existenz. 2nd
18
ed. Munich: Meyer & Jessen 1922.
19 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 3: Die Kunstlehre. 2nd ed. Munich: Meyer
20 & Jessen 1922.
22 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 4: Kunstlehre: Bildnerkunst, Malerei. 2nd
23
ed.: Meyer & Jessen 1923.
24 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 5: Kunstlehre: Die Musik. 2nd ed. Mu-
25 nich: Meyer & Jessen 1923.
27 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 6: Kunstlehre: Dichtkunst. Register. 2nd
28
ed. Munich: Meyer & Jessen 1926.
29 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Repr. of the 2nd ed. Hildesheim [et al.]: Olms
30 1975. (6 vols.).
32 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 1: Die Metaphysik des Schönen. Repr. of
33
the 2nd ed. Hildesheim [et al.]: Olms 1975.
34 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 2: Das Schöne in einseitiger Existenz. Repr.
35 of the 2nd ed. Hildesheim [et al.]: Olms 1975.
37 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 3: Die Kunstlehre. Repr. of the 2nd ed.
38
Hildesheim [et al.]: Olms 1975.
39
40

2 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 4: Kunstlehre: Bildnerkunst, Malerei.
3
Repr. of the 2nd ed. Hildesheim [et al.]: Olms 1975.
4 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 5: Kunstlehre: Die Musik. Repr. of the 2nd
5 ed. Hildesheim [et al.]: Olms 1975.
7 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 6: Kunstlehre: Dichtkunst. Register. Repr.
8
of the 2nd ed. Hildesheim [et al.]: Olms 1975.
9 Gebrauche für Vorlesungen. Vol. 5/6: Kunstlehre: Die Musik. Kunstlehre:
10 Dichtkunst. Register. Impr. of the 2nd repr. ed. Hildesheim [et al.]: Olms
11 1996.
12 Volkelt, Johannes: System der Ästhetik. Munich: Beck 1905 – 1914. (3 vols.).
13
Volkelt, Johannes: System der Ästhetik. Vol. 1: Grundlegung der Ästhetik.
Munich: Beck 1905.
14 Volkelt, Johannes: System der Ästhetik. Vol. 2: Die ästhetischen Grundgestalten:
15 Ästhetische Typenlehre. Munich: Beck 1910.
16 Volkelt, Johannes: System der Ästhetik. Vol. 3: Kunstphilosophie und Meta-
17 physik der Ästhetik. Munich: Beck 1914.
18
Volkelt, Johannes: System der Ästhetik. 2nd ed. Munich: Beck 1925 – 1927.
(3 vols.).
19 Volkelt, Johannes: System der Ästhetik. Vol. 1: Grundlegung der Ästhetik. 2nd,
20 ext. rev. ed. Munich: Beck 1927.
21 Volkelt, Johannes: System der Ästhetik. Vol. 2: Die aesthetischen Grundgestalten:
22 Aesthetische Typenlehre. 2nd ed. Munich: Beck 1925.
23
Volkelt, Johannes: System der Ästhetik. Vol. 3: Kunstphilosophie und Meta-
physik der Ästhetik. 2nd ed. Munich: Beck 1925.
24 Weiße, Christian Hermann: System der Ästhetik als Wissenschaft von der Idee der
25 Schönheit. Leipzig: Hartmann 1830.
26 Weiße, Christian Hermann: System der Ästhetik als Wissenschaft von der Idee der
27 Schönheit. Repr. ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1966.
28
Weiße, Christian Hermann: Kleine Schriften zur Ästhetik und ästhetischen Kritik.
Aus dessen handschriftl. Nachlasse u. aus bereits Gedrucktem zsgest. Ed.
29 Rudolf Seydel. Repr. ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1966.
30 Wolff, Ernst Georg: Ästhetik der Dichtkunst: Systematik auf erkenntniskritischer
31 Grundlage. Zurich: Schulthess & Co. 1944.
32 Wolff, Eugen: Das Wesen wissenschaftlicher Literaturbetrachtung. Kiel, Leipzig:
33
Verlag von Lipsius & Tischer 1890.
Wolff, Eugen: Poetik: Die Gesetze der Poesie in ihrer geschichtlichen Ent-
34 wicklung. Ein Grundriß. Oldenburg, Leipzig: Schulzesche Hof-Buch-
36 Ziehen, Theodor: Vorlesungen über Ästhetik. Halle a. d. S.: Niemeyer 1923 –
37 1925. (2 vols.).
38
Ziehen, Theodor: Vorlesungen über Ästhetik. Vol. 1. Halle a. d. S.: Niemeyer
1923.
39
40
1 Ziehen, Theodor: Vorlesungen über Ästhetik. Vol. 2. Halle a. d. S.: Niemeyer

2 1925.
3
Zimmermann, Robert: Aesthetik. Vienna: Braumüller 1858 – 1865. (2 vols.).
Zimmermann, Robert: Aesthetik. Vol. 1: Historisch-kritischer Theil: Ge-
4 schichte der Aesthetik als philosophischer Wissenschaft. Vienna: Braumüller
5 1858.
6 Zimmermann, Robert: Aesthetik. Vol. 2: Systematischer Theil: Allgemeine
7 Aesthetik als Formwissenschaft. Vienna: Braumüller 1865.
8
Zimmermann, Robert: Ästhetik. Repr. ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1973. (2 vols.).
Zimmermann, Robert: Ästhetik. Vol. 1: Geschichte der Aesthetik als philoso-
9 phischer Wissenschaft. Repr. ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1973.
10 Zimmermann, Robert: Ästhetik. Vol. 2: Allgemeine Aesthetik als Formwissen-
11 schaft. Repr. ed. Hildesheim: Olms 1973.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
. 1
. 2
. 3
. 4 3. Selected Bibliography
. 5 of Early German Literary Theory
. 6
. 7
. 8 Auerbach, Erich: Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen
. 9 Literatur. Bern: Francke 1946.
10 Auerbach, Erich: Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen
11 Literatur. 2nd, rev. and augm. ed. Bern: Francke 1959. (Sammlung Dapl, 90).
12
Auerbach, Erich: Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen
Literatur. 3rd ed. Bern [et al.]: Francke 1959. (Sammlung Dapl, 90).
14 Literatur. 4th ed. Bern [et al.]: Francke 1967. (Sammlung Dapl, 90).
17
Literatur. 6th ed. Bern [et al.]: Francke 1977. (Sammlung Dapl, 90).
22
Literatur. 9th ed. Bern [et al.]: Francke 1994. (Sammlung Dapl, 90).
25 Auerbach, Erich: Mimesis: The representation of reality in western literature.
26 Transl. by Willard R. Trask. Princeton, NY: Princeton Univ. Press 1953.
27
Auerbach, Erich: Mimesis: The representation of reality in western literature.
Transl. by Willard R. Trask. Princeton, NY: Princeton Univ. Press 1991.
28 Auerbach, Erich: Mimesis: The representation of reality in western literature. 50th
29 anniversary ed. Princeton, NY [et al.]: Princeton Univ. Press 2003.
30 Auerbach, Erich: Mimesis: Zobrazení skutecnosti v západoevropsk’ych litera-
31 turách. Prague: Mladá fronta 1968. (Edice Ypsilon, 5).
32 Auerbach, Erich: Mimesis: La représentation de le réalité dans la littérature oc-
cidentale. Transl. by C. Heim. Paris: Gallimard 1968. (Bibliothèque des idées).
33
Auerbach, Erich: Mimesis: La représentation de le réalité dans la littérature oc-
34 cidentale. Transl. by C. Heim. Paris: Gallimard 1973. (Bibliothèque des idées).
35 Auerbach, Erich: Mimesis. La Habana: Ed. Arte y Literatura 1986. (Arte y so-
36 ciedad).
37 Auerbach, Erich: Mimesis: Todellisuudenkuvaus länsimaisessa kirjallisuudessa.
Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura 1992. (Soumalaisen kirjallisuuden
38
seuran toimituksia, 562).
39 Büttner, Ludwig: Gedanken zu einer biologischen Literaturbetrachtung. Mu-
40 nich: Max Hueber 1939.
370 3. Selected Bibliography of Early German Literary Theory
. 1 Elster, Ernst: Prinzipien der Literaturwissenschaft. Halle a. d. S.: Niemeyer 1897 –

. 2 1911. (2 vols.).
. 3
Elster, Ernst: Prinzipien der Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 1. Halle a. d. S.: Niemeyer
1897.
. 4 Elster, Ernst: Prinzipien der Litteraturwissenschaft. Vol. 2. Halle a. d. S.: Nie-
. 5 meyer 1911.
. 6 Elster, Ernst: Prinzipien der Literaturwissenschaft. Zwei Teile in einem Band.
. 7 Repr. ed. New York, London: Johnson 1972. (Classics in German literature
. 8
and philosophy).
Ermatinger, Emil: Das dichterische Kunstwerk: Grundbegriffe der Urteilsbildung
. 9 in der Literaturgeschichte. Leipzig, Berlin: B.G. Teubner 1921.
10 Ermatinger, Emil: Das dichterische Kunstwerk: Grundbegriffe der Urteilsbildung
11 in der Literaturgeschichte. 2nd ed. Leipzig, Berlin: B.G. Teubner 1923.
12 Ermatinger, Emil: Das dichterische Kunstwerk: Grundbegriffe der Urteilsbildung
13
in der Literaturgeschichte. 3rd, rev. ed. Leipzig, Berlin: B.G. Teubner 1939.
Ermatinger, Emil (ed.): Philosophie der Literaturwissenschaft. Berlin: Juncker &
14 Dünnhaupt 1930.
15 Hamburger, Käthe: Die Logik der Dichtung. Stuttgart: Klett 1957.
16 Hamburger, Käthe: Die Logik der Dichtung. 2nd, ext. rev. ed. Stuttgart: Klett
17 1968.
18
Hamburger, Käthe: Die Logik der Dichtung. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta 1977.
Hamburger, Käthe: Die Logik der Dichtung. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta 1994.
19 Hamburger, Käthe: Die Logik der Dichtung. Frankfurt a. M. [et al.]: Ullstein
20 1980. (Ullstein-Buch, 39007).
21 Hamburger, Käthe: Die Logik der Dichtung. Munich: Klett-Cotta in dtv 1987.
22 (dtv, 4458).
23
Hamburger, Käthe: The logic of literature. Transl. by M. J. Rose. Bloomington,
London: Indiana University Press 1973.
24 Hamburger, Käthe: The logic of literature. Transl. by M. J. Rose. 2nd, rev. ed.
25 Bloomington, London: Indiana University Press 1993. (A Midland Book,
26 828).
27 Hamburger, Käthe: Logique des genres littéraires. Transl by P. Cadiot. Paris: Ed.
28
du Seuil 1986.
Hartl, Robert: Versuch einer psychologischen Grundlegung der Dichtungsgat-
29 tungen. Vienna: Öster. Schulbücherverl. 1924. (Deutsche Kultur. Literar-
30 historische Reihe, 2).
31 Hefele, Hermann: Das Wesen der Dichtung. Stuttgart: Fr. Fromanns (H. Kurtz)
32 1923.
33
Hirt, Ernst: Das Formgesetz der epischen, dramatischen und lyrischen Dichtung.
Leipzig: Teubner 1923.
34 Hirt, Ernst: Das Formgesetz der epischen, dramatischen und lyrischen Dichtung.
35 Repr. ed. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg 1972.
36 Ingarden, Roman: Das literarische Kunstwerk: Eine Untersuchung aus dem
37 Grenzgebiet der Ontologie, Logik und Literaturwissenschaft. Halle a. d. S.:
38
Niemeyer 1931.
39
40
3. Selected Bibliography of Early German Literary Theory 371
. 1 Ingarden, Roman: Das literarische Kunstwerk: Mit einem Anhang von den
. 2 Funktionen der Sprache im Theaterschauspiel. 2nd, rev. and augm. ed. Tü-
. 3
bingen: Niemeyer 1960.
Ingarden, Roman: Das literarische Kunstwerk: Mit einem Anhang von den
. 4
Funktionen der Sprache im Theaterschauspiel. 3rd, rev. ed. Tübingen:
. 5 Niemeyer 1965.
. 6 Ingarden, Roman: Das literarische Kunstwerk: Mit einem Anhang von den
. 7 Funktionen der Sprache im Theaterschauspiel. 4th ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer
. 8 1972.
Ingarden, Roman: The literary work of art: An investigation on the borderlines of
. 9
ontology, logic, and theory of literature. With an appendix on the functions of
10 language in the theater. Transl. by G. G. Grabowicz. Evanston: Northwestern
11 University Press 1973. (Northwestern University studies in phenomenology
12 & existential philosophy).
13 Ingarden, Roman: The literary work of art: An investigation on the borderlines of
14 ontology, logic, and theory of literature. With an appendix on the functions of
language in the theater. Transl. by G. G. Grabowicz. 2nd ed. Evanston:
15
Northwestern University Press 1979. (Northwestern University studies in
16 phenomenology & existential philosophy).
19 language in the theater. Transl. by G. G. Grabowicz. 3rd ed. Evanston:
Northwestern University Press 1980. (Northwestern University studies in
20
phenomenology & existential philosophy).
23 language in the theater. Transl. by G. G. Grabowicz. 4th ed. Evanston:
24 Northwestern University Press 1986. (Northwestern University studies in
25 phenomenology & existential philosophy).
Ingarden, Roman: Erlebnis, Kunstwerk und Wert: Vorträge zur Ästhetik 1937 –
26
1967. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1969.
27 Ingarden, Roman: Gegenstand und Aufgaben der Literaturwissenschaft. Aufsätze
28 und Diskussionsbeiträge (1937 – 1964). Selected and introd. by Rolf Fieguth.
29 Tübingen: Niemeyer 1976. (Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissen-
30 schaft, 19).
31
Kayser, Wolfgang: Das sprachliche Kunstwerk: Eine Einführung in die Litera-
turwissenschaft. Bern: Francke 1948.
32
33 turwissenschaft. 2nd, augm. ed. Bern: Francke 1951.
34 Kayser, Wolfgang: Das sprachliche Kunstwerk: Eine Einführung in die Litera-
35 turwissenschaft. 3rd, augm. ed. Bern: Francke 1954.
turwissenschaft. 4th ed. Bern: Francke 1956.
37
38 turwissenschaft. 5th ed. Bern, Munich: Francke 1959.
40 turwissenschaft. 6th ed. Bern [et al.]: Francke 1960.
. 1 Kayser, Wolfgang: Das sprachliche Kunstwerk: Eine Einführung in die Litera-

. 2 turwissenschaft. 7th ed. Bern [et al.]: Francke 1961.
. 3
turwissenschaft. 8th ed. Bern [et al.]: Francke 1962.
. 4
. 5 turwissenschaft. 9th ed. Bern [et al.]: Francke, 1963.
. 7 turwissenschaft. 10th ed. Bern [et al.]: Francke 1964.
. 9
15
17 turwissenschaft. 16th ed. Bern, Munich: Francke 1973.
20
turwissenschaft. 18th ed. Tübingen [et al.]: Francke 1978.
21
24 turwissenschaft. 20th ed. Tübingen [et al.]: Francke 1992.
25 Kindermann, Heinz: Dichtung und Volkheit. Grundzüge einer neuen Litera-
turwissenschaft. Berlin: Junker & Dünnhaupt 1937.
26
Kindermann, Heinz: Dichtung und Volkheit: Grundzüge einer neuen Litera-
27 turwissenschaft. 2nd ed. Berlin: Junker & Dünnhaupt 1939.
28 Maaß, Joachim: Die Geheimwissenschaft der Literatur: Acht Vorlesungen zur
29 Anregung einer Ästhetik des Dichterischen. Berlin: Suhrkamp 1949.
30 Maaß, Joachim: Die Geheimwissenschaft der Literatur: Acht Vorlesungen zur
31 Anregung einer Ästhetik des Dichterischen. Vienna, Munich, Basel: Kurt
Desch 1955.
32
Meyer, Theodor A.: Das Stilgesetz der Poesie. Leipzig: Hirzel 1901.
33 Meyer, Theodor A.: Das Stilgesetz der Poesie. Reprogr. repr. Darmstadt: Wis-
34 senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1968.
35 Meyer, Theodor A.: Das Stilgesetz der Poesie. With an introd. by Wolfgang Iser.
36 Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1990. (Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft,
37
790).
Müller, Günther: Morphologische Poetik. Amsterdam: Pantheon 1943. (Heli-
38 con. Revue internationale des problèmes généraux de la littérature, 5).
39 Müller, Günther: Morphologische Poetik: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Eds. Helga
40 Egner and Elena Müller. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft 1968.
. 1 Müller, Günther: Morphologische Poetik: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Eds. Helga

. 2 Egner and Müller Elena. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges. 1974.
. 3
Obenauer, Karl Justus: Volkhafte und politische Dichtung: Probleme deutscher
Poetik. Leipzig: Armanen-Verlag 1936. (Weltanschauung und Wissenschaft,
. 4 5).
. 5 Oppel, Horst: Die Literaturwissenschaft in der Gegenwart: Methodologie und
. 6 Wissenschaftslehre. Stuttgart: Metzler 1939.
. 7 Oppel, Horst: Die Literaturwissenschaft in der Gegenwart: Methodologie und
. 8
Wissenschaftslehre. Repr. on demand. London: University Microfilms In-
tern. 1980.
. 9 Oppel, Horst: Morphologische Literaturwissenschaft: Goethes Ansicht und
10 Methode. Mainz a. Rh.: Kirchheim 1947.
11 Oppel, Horst: Morphologische Literaturwissenschaft: Goethes Ansicht und
12 Methode. Repr. ed. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges. 1967. (Libelli, 219).
13
Petersen, Julius: Zur Lehre von den Dichtungsgattungen. Stuttgart 1925.
Petersen, Julius: Die Wissenschaft von der Dichtung: System und Methodenlehre
14 der Literaturwissenschaft. Berlin: Junker & Dünnhaupt 1939.
15 Petersen, Julius: Die Wissenschaft von der Dichtung: System und Methodenlehre
16 der Literaturwissenschaft. Mit Beiträgen aus dem Nachlass. Ed. Erich
17 Trunz. 2nd ed. Berlin: Junker & Dünnhaupt 1944.
18
Pfeiffer, Johannes: Umgang mit Dichtung: Eine Einführung in das Verständnis des
Dichterischen. Leipzig: Meiner 1936.
19 Pfeiffer, Johannes: Umgang mit Dichtung: Eine Einführung in das Verständnis des
20 Dichterischen. 2nd, rev. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Meiner 1938.
22 Dichterischen. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Meiner 1940.
23
Dichterischen. 4th ed. Leipzig: Meiner 1942.
25 Dichterischen. Leipzig: Meiner 1946.
27 Dichterischen. 5th ed. Leipzig: Meiner 1947.
28
Dichterischen. 6th ed. Leipzig: Meiner 1949.
30 Dichterischen. 7th ed. Hamburg: Meiner 1952.
33
Dichterischen. 9th ed. Hamburg: Meiner 1958.
38
Pfeiffer, Johannes: Wege zur Dichtung: Eine Einführung in die Kunst des Lesens.
Hamburg: Wittig 1952.
39
40
. 1 Pfeiffer, Johannes: Wege zur Dichtung: Eine Einführung in die Kunst des Le-
. 2 sens. 2nd, rev. ed. Hamburg: Wittig 1953.
. 3
Pfeiffer, Johannes: Wege zur Dichtung: Eine Einführung in die Kunst des Le-
sens. 3rd ed. Hamburg: Wittig 1953.
. 5 sens. 4th ed. Hamburg: Wittig 1953.
. 7 sens. 5th ed. Hamburg: Wittig 1960.
. 8
Pfeiffer, Johannes: Wege zur Dichtung: Eine Einführung in die Kunst des Le-
sens. 6th ed. Hamburg: Wittig 1963.
10 sens. 7th ed. Hamburg: Wittig 1969.
11 Pfeiffer, Johannes: Wege zur Dichtung: Eine Einführung in die Kunst des Lesens.
12 Hamburg, Berlin: Deutsche Hausbücherei 1959.
13
Pfeiffer, Johannes: Was haben wir an einem Gedicht: Drei Kapitel über Sinn und
Grenze der Dichtung. Hamburg: Wittig 1955.
14 Pfeiffer, Johannes: Was haben wir an einem Gedicht: Sechs Kapitel über Sinn und
15 Grenze der Dichtung. Mit einem Anhang: Zu Heideggers Deutung der
16 Dichtung. 2nd, augm. ed. Hamburg: Wittig 1959.
17 Pfeiffer, Johannes: Was haben wir an einem Gedicht: Sechs Kapitel über Sinn und
18
Grenze der Dichtung. 3rd, rev. ed. Hamburg: Wittig 1966.
Pfeiffer, Johannes: Über das Dichterische und den Dichter: Beiträge zum Ver-
19 ständnis deutscher Dichtung. 2nd, corr. and augm. ed. Hamburg: Meiner
20 1956. [i.e., „Zwischen Dichtung und Philosphie“].
21 Pfeiffer, Johannes: Über das Dichterische und den Dichter: Beiträge zum Ver-
22 ständnis deutscher Dichtung. 3rd, augm. ed. Berlin: Verl. „Die Spur“ 1967.
23
Pfeiffer, Johannes: Die dichterische Wirklichkeit: Versuche über Wesen und
Wahrheit der Dichtung. Hamburg: Meiner 1962.
24 Ploetz, Hans Achim: Die Theorie der Dichtung: Kritische Beiträge zur gegen-
25 wärtigen Poetik. Berlin: Triltsch & Huther 1936.
26 Roetteken, Hubert: Poetik. Vol. 1: Vorbemerkungen. Allgemeine Analyse der
27 psychischen Vorgänge beim Genuß einer Dichtung. Munich: Beck 1902.
28
Roetteken, Hubert: Aus der speziellen Poetik. In: Euphorion: Zs. für Litera-
turgeschichte 25 (1924). [offprint].
29 Schwinger, Reinhold and Heinz Nicolai: Innere Form und dichterische Phan-
30 tasie: Zwei Vorstudien zu einer neuen deutschen Poetik. Ed. Karl Justus
31 Obenauer. Munich: Beck 1935.
32 Spoerri, Theophil: Von der dreifachen Wurzel der Poesie. Zurich [et al.]: Art. Inst.
33
Orell Füssli 1925.
Spoerri, Theophil: Präludium zur Poesie: Eine Einführung in die Deutung des
34 dichterischen Kunstwerks. Berlin: Furche 1929.
35 Spoerri, Theophil: Präludium zur Poesie: Eine Einführung in die Deutung des
36 dichterischen Kunstwerks. 2nd ed. Berlin: Furche 1929.
37 Spoerri, Theophil: Die Formwerdung des Menschen: Die Deutung des dichte-
38
rischen Kunstwerks als Schlüssel zur menschlichen Wirklichkeit. Berlin:
Furche-Verlag 1938.
39
40
. 1 Spoerri, Theophil: Der Weg zur Form: Dasein und Verwirklichung des Menschen
. 2 im Spiegel der europäischen Dichtung. Hamburg: Furche 1954.
. 3
Spoerri, Theophil: Kleines Präludium zur Poesie: Vom Geheimnis des Schönen
und von den Grenzen der Poesie. Hamburg: Furche 1957. (Furche-Bücherei,
. 4 152).
. 5 Walzel, Oskar: Gehalt und Gestalt im Kunstwerk des Dichters. Berlin-Neuba-
. 6 belsberg: Akad. Verl.-Ges. Athenaion 1923. (Handbuch der Literaturwis-
. 7 senschaft).
. 8
Walzel, Oskar: Gehalt und Gestalt im Kunstwerk des Dichters. Repr. ed. Berlin-
Neubabelsberg: Akad. Verl.-Ges. Athenaion 1929. (Handbuch der Litera-
. 9 turwissenschaft).
10 Walzel, Oskar: Gehalt und Gestalt im Kunstwerk des Dichters. Photomech. repr.
11 Potsdam [et al.]: Athenaion 1957. (Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft).
12 Walzel, Oskar: Gehalt und Gestalt im Kunstwerk des Dichters. Photomech.
13
repr. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Gentner 1957. (Handbuch der Literaturwissen-
schaft).
14 Walzel, Oskar: Das Wortkunstwerk: Mittel einer Erforschung. Leipzig: Quelle &
15 Meyer 1926.
16 Walzel, Oskar: Das Wortkunstwerk: Mittel seiner Erforschung. Reprogr. repr.
17 Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges. 1968.
18
Walzel, Oskar: Das Wortkunstwerk: Mittel seiner Erforschung. Reprogr. repr.
Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges. 1973.
19 Wehrli, Max: Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft. Bern: Francke 1951. (Wissen-
20 schaftliche Forschungsberichte, Geisteswissenschaftliche Reihe, 3).
21 Wehrli, Max: Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft. 2nd, rev. ed. Bern, Munich:
22 Francke 1969. (Wissenschaftliche Forschungsberichte, Geisteswissenschaft-
23
liche Reihe, 3).
Winkler, Emil: Das dichterische Kunstwerk. Heidelberg: Carl Winter 1924.
24 (Kultur und Sprache, 3).
25 Wolandt, Gerd: Philosophie der Dichtung: Wertstellung und Gegenständlichkeit
26 des poetischen Gedankens. Berlin: de Gruyter 1965.
27 Wolff, Ernst Georg: Ästhetik der Dichtkunst: Systematik auf erkenntniskritischer
28
Grundlage. Zurich: Schulthess & Co. 1944.
Wolff, Eugen: Das Wesen wissenschaftlicher Literaturbetrachtung. Kiel, Leipzig:
29 Verlag von Lipsius & Tischer 1890.
30 Wolff, Eugen: Poetik: Die Gesetze der Poesie in ihrer geschichtlichen Ent-
31 wicklung. Ein Grundriß. Oldenburg, Leipzig: Schulzesche Hof-Buch-
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4 4. Selected Bibliography of Non-German Rhetoric,
5 Poetics and Aesthetics
6
7
8 Atkins, Henry Gibson: A history of German versification: Ten centuries of me-
9 trical evolution. London: Methuen 1923.
10 Batteux, Charles: Principes de littérature. New ed. Göttingen, Leide: Bassom-
11 pierre 1755. (4 vols.).
12 Batteux, Charles: Principes de littérature. Vol. 1: Les beaux arts reduits à un même
principe. New ed. Göttingen, Leide: Bassompierre 1755.
13
Batteux, Charles: Principes de littérature. Vol. 2: Le cours de belles lettres. Part 1.
14 New ed. Göttingen, Leide: Bassompierre 1755.
15 Batteux, Charles: Principes de littérature. Vol. 3: Le cours de belles lettres. Part 2.
17 Batteux, Charles: Principes de littérature. Vol. 4: Le cours de belles lettres. Part 3.
Batteux, Charles: Cours des belles-lettres ou Principes de la littérature. New ed.
19
Frankfurt a. M.: Bassompierre, Vanden Berghen 1755. (4 vols.).
20 Batteux, Charles: Cours des belles-lettres ou Principes de la littérature. Vol. 1.
21 New ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Bassompierre, Vanden Berghen 1755.
New ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Bassompierre, Vanden Berghen 1755.
25
Batteux, Charles: Cours des belles-lettres ou Principes de la littérature. Vol. 4.
27 Batteux, Charles: Principes de la littérature. New ed. Paris: Desaint & Saillant
28 1764. (5 vols.).
29 Batteux, Charles: Principes de la littérature. Vol. 1. New ed. Paris: Desaint &
30 Saillant 1764.
Batteux, Charles: Principes de la littérature. Vol. 2. New ed. Paris: Desaint &
31
Saillant 1764.
33 Saillant 1764.
35 Saillant 1764.
Saillant 1764.
37
Batteux, Charles: Principes de la littérature. 5th ed. Paris: Saillant & Nyon [et al.]
38 1776. (4 vols.).
39 Batteux, Charles: Principes de la littérature. Vol. 1. 5th ed. Paris: Saillant & Nyon
40 [et al.] 1776.
4. Selected Bibliography of Non-German Rhetoric, Poetics and Aesthetics 377
1 Batteux, Charles: Principes de la littérature. Vol. 2. 5th ed. Paris: Saillant & Nyon
2 [et al.] 1776.
3
Batteux, Charles: Principes de la littérature. Vol. 3. 5th ed. Paris: Saillant & Nyon
[et al.] 1776.
4
Batteux, Charles: Principes de la littérature. Vol. 4. 5th ed. Paris: Saillant & Nyon
5 [et al.] 1776.
6 Batteux, Charles: Principes de la littérature: Par M. l’Abbé Batteux, Membre de
7 l’Académie Française et de celle des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. New ed.
8 Lyon: Amable Leroy 1802. (6 vols.).
9
Batteux, Charles: Principes de la littérature: Par M. l’Abbé Batteux, Membre de
l’Académie Française et de celle des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Vol. 1. New
10 ed. Lyon: Amable Leroy 1802.
12 l’Académie Française et de celle des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Vol. 2. New
15
ed. Lyon: Amable Leroy 1802.
20
ed. Lyon: Amable Leroy 1802.
24 Batteux, Charles: Principes de littérature. New, rev. and corr. ed. Paris: Delalain
25 1824. (5 vols.).
Batteux, Charles: Principes de littérature. Vol. 1: Les beaux arts reduits à un même
26
principe. New, rev. and corr. ed. Paris: Delalain 1824.
27 Batteux, Charles: Principes de littérature. Vol. 2: De l’apologue. De la poesie
28 pastorale. De la poesie epique. New, rev. and corr. ed. Paris: Delalain 1824.
29 Batteux, Charles: Principes de littérature. Vol. 3: De la poesie dramatique. De la
30 poesie lyrique. De la poesie didactique. De l’épigramme et de l’inscription.
31 New, rev. and corr. ed. Paris: Delalain 1824.
Batteux, Charles: Principes de littérature. Vol. 4: Des genres en prose. New, rev.
32
and corr. ed. Paris: Delalain 1824.
33 Batteux, Charles: Principes de littérature. Vol. 5: De la construction oratoire.
34 Nouvel eclaicissement sur l’inversion. Observations sur les accens et le muet.
35 New, rev. and corr. ed. Paris: Delalain 1824.
36 Batteux, Charles: Einleitung in die schönen Wissenschaften: Nach dem Fran-
37
zösischen des Herrn Batteux, mit Zusätzen vermehret von Karl Wilhelm
Ramler. Leipzig: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung 1756 – 1758. (4 vols.).
39 zösischen des Herrn Batteux, mit Zusätzen vermehret von Karl Wilhelm
40 Ramler. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung 1756.
378 4. Selected Bibliography of Non-German Rhetoric, Poetics and Aesthetics

3
Ramler. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung 1756.
Batteux, Charles: Einleitung in die schönen Wissenschaften: Nach dem Fran-
5 Ramler. Vol. 3. Leipzig: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung 1757.
8
Ramler. Vol. 4. Leipzig: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung 1758.
10 Ramler. 2nd, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1762. (4 vols.).
13
Ramler. Vol. 1. 2nd, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1762.
15 Ramler. Vol. 2. 2nd, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1762.
18
Ramler. Vol. 3. 2nd, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1762.
20 Ramler. Vol. 4. 2nd, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1762.
23
Ramler. 3rd, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1769. (4 vols.).
25 Ramler. Vol. 1. 3rd, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1769.
28
Ramler. Vol. 2. 3rd, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1769.
30 Ramler. Vol. 3. 3rd, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1769.
33
Ramler. Vol. 4. 3rd, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1769.
35 Ramler. Vienna: Trattner 1770 – 1771. (4 vols.).
38
Ramler. Vol. 1. Vienna: Trattner 1770.
39
40

3
Ramler. Vol. 2. Vienna: Trattner 1770.
4
5 Ramler. Vol. 3. Vienna: Trattner 1770.
8 Ramler. Vol. 4. Vienna: Trattner 1771.
9
10 Ramler. 4th, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1774. (4 vols.).
13 Ramler. Vol. 1. 4th, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1774.
15
Ramler. Vol. 2. 4th, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1774.
18 Ramler. Vol. 3. 4th, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1774.
20
Ramler. Vol. 4. 4th, augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1774.
21
Batteux, Charles: Principes de la littérature. Repr. of ed. 1775. Geneva: Slatkine
22 Reprints 1967.
23 Batteux, Charles: Einschränkung der schönen Künste auf einen einzigen
24 Grundsatz: Aus dem Französischen übersetzt von Johann Adolf Schlegel und
25 mit einem Anhange einiger eignen Abhandlungen versehen. Leipzig:
Weidmann 1751.
26
Batteux, Charles: Einschränkung der schönen Künste auf einen einzigen
27 Grundsatz: Aus dem Französischen übers. und mit verschiedenen eigenen
28 damit verwandten Abhandlungen begleitet [Von Johann Adolf Schle-
29 gel]. 2nd, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmann 1759.
30 Batteux, Charles: Herrn Abt Batteux Einschränkung der schönen Künste auf einen
31 einzigen Grundsatz: Aus dem Französischen übersetzt und mit verschiedenen
eigenen damit verwandten Abhandlungen begleitet von Johann Adolf
32
Schlegeln. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmann & Reich 1770.
33 (2 vols.).
36 eigenen damit verwandten Abhandlungen begleitet von Johann Adolf
37
Schlegeln. Vol. 1. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben &
Reich 1770.
40 eigenen damit verwandten Abhandlungen begleitet von Johann Adolf
1 Schlegeln. Vol. 2. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben &
2 Reich 1770.
3
Batteux, Charles: Einschränkung der schönen Künste auf einen einzigen
Grundsatz: Zwei Teile in Einem Band. Aus dem Französischen übersetzt und
4 mit Abhandlungen begleitet von Johann Adolf Schlegel. Repr. of ed. 1770.
5 Hildesheim: Olms 1976.
6 Bettinelli, Saverio: Dell’Entusiasmo delle belle arti. Milano: Galeazzi 1769.
7 Bettinelli, Saverio: Opere. Vol. 2: L’entusiasmo. Venice: Zatta 1780.
8
Bettinelli, Saverio: Über den Enthusiasmus der schönen Künste. Transl. by
Friedrich August Clemens Werthes. Bern: Typographische Gesellschaft
9 1778.
10 Bettinelli, Saverio: Vom Werth des Enthusiasmus: Geschichte seiner Wirkung in
11 der Philosophie, in der Wissenschaft und in der Regierungskunst. Transl. by
12 Friedrich August Clemens Werthes. New ed. Leipzig: Fleischer in commision
13
1794.
Bettinelli, Saverio: Dei Geni: Dell’Entusiasmo delle Belli Arti. II. Ed. Alessandro
14 Serra. Modena: Mucchi 1986. (Stumenti. 2: Psicologia dell’arte).
15 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres. In two volumes. London:
16 Printed for W. Strahan, T. Cadell, and W. Creech, in Edinburgh 1783.
17 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres: In three volumes. Dublin:
18
Printed for Messrs. Whitestone, Colles, Burnet, Moncrieffe, Gilbert [and 9
others] 1783.
19 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres: In three volumes. By H. B.,
20 D. D., one of the Ministers of the High Church, and professor of rhetoric and
21 belles lettres in the University of Edinburgh. Philadelphia: Printed and sold by
22 Robert Aitken, at Pope’s Head in Market Street 1784.
23
Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres: In three volumes. 2nd, corr.
ed. London: Printed for W. Strahan, T. Cadell, and W. Creech, in Edinburgh
24 1785.
25 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres: In three volumes. 3rd ed.
26 London: Printed for W. Strahan, T. Cadell, and W. Creech, in Edinburgh
27 1787.
28
Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres: In three volumes. 4th ed.
London: Printed for W. Strahan, T. Cadell, and W. Creech, in Edinburgh
29 1790.
30 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres: In three volumes. 5th ed.
31 London: Printed for W. Strahan, T. Cadell, and W. Creech, in Edinburgh
32 1793.
33
Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres: By H. B., D. D. & F. R. S. Ed.
one of the Ministers of the High Church, and professor of rhetoric and belles
34 lettres in the University of Edinburgh. 2nd American ed. From the 4th
35 London ed. Philadelphia: Mathew Carey 1793. (2 vols.).
36 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres: By H. B., D. D. & F. R. S. Ed.
37 one of the Ministers of the High Church, and professor of rhetoric and belles
38
lettres in the University of Edinburgh. Vol. 1. 2nd American ed. From the 4th
London ed. Philadelphia: Mathew Carey 1793.
39
40
1 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres: By H. B., D. D. & F. R. S. Ed.
2 one of the Ministers of the High Church, and professor of rhetoric and belles
3
lettres in the University of Edinburgh. Vol. 1. 2nd American ed. From the 4th
London ed. Philadelphia: Mathew Carey 1793.
5 London: Printed for W. Strahan, T. Cadell, and W. Creech, Edinburgh and
6 sold by T. Cadell jun. and W. Davis (successor to Mr. Cadell) 1796.
8
London: Printed for W. Strahan, T. Cadell, and W. Creech, Edinburgh and
sold by T. Cadell jun. and W. Davis (successor to Mr. Cadell) 1798.
9 Blair, Hugh: Essays on rhetoric: Abridged chiefly from Dr. Blair’s lectures on that
10 science. 2nd, augm. ed. London: for J. Murray 1785.
11 Blair, Hugh: Essays on rhetoric: Abridged chiefly from Dr. Blair’s lectures on that
12 science. 3rd, augm. ed. London: for J. Murray 1787.
13
Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres. Basil: Tourneisen 1788.
(3 vols.).
14 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres. Vol. 1. Basil: Tourneisen 1788.
17 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres. Basil: Decker 1801. (3 vols.).
18
Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres. Vol. 1. Basil: Decker 1801.
Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres. Vol. 2. Basil: Decker 1801.
19 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres. Vol. 3. Basil: Decker 1801.
20 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres. 6th American from the last
21 Edinburgh ed. New York: Burtus 1814.
22 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres: Complete in one volume.
23
London: Baynes 1824.
Blair, Hugh: Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres. Philadelphia, Pittsburgh: Kay
24 jun. and Brother 1839.
25 Blair, Hugh: Hugo Blair’s Vorlesungen über Rhetorik und schöne Wissen-
26 schaften. Transl. by Karl G. Schreiter. Liegnitz, Leipzig: bey David Siegert
27 1785 – 1789. (4 vols.).
28
Blair, Hugh: Hugo Blair’s Vorlesungen über Rhetorik und schöne Wissen-
schaften. Transl. by Karl G. Schreiter. Vol. 1. Liegnitz, Leipzig: bey David
29 Siegert 1785.
31 schaften. Transl. by Karl G. Schreiter. Vol. 2. Liegnitz, Leipzig: bey David
32 Siegert 1786.
33
Blair, Hugh: Hugo Blair’s Vorlesungen über Rhetorik und schöne Wissen-
schaften. Transl. by Karl G. Schreiter. Vol. 3. Liegnitz, Leipzig: bey David
34 Siegert 1788.
36 schaften. Transl. by Karl G. Schreiter. Vol. 4. Liegnitz, Leipzig: bey David
37 Siegert 1789.
38
Blair, Hugh: Lehrbuch der Rhetorik und Poetik nach Hugh Blair: Für deutsche
bearb. von Joseph Eiselein. Rotweil: Herder 1838. (2 vols.).
39
40
1 Blair, Hugh: Lehrbuch der Rhetorik und Poetik nach Hugh Blair. Für deutsche
2 bearb. von Joseph Eiselein. Vol. 1. Rotweil: Herder 1838.
3
Blair, Hugh: Lehrbuch der Rhetorik und Poetik nach Hugh Blair. Für deutsche
bearb. von Joseph Eiselein. Vol. 2. Rotweil: Herder 1838.
4 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. Ed. Harold F. Harding.
5 Repr. of ed. 1783. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press 1965. (Land-
6 marks in rhetoric and public address). (2 vols.).
8
Repr. of ed. 1783. Vol. 1. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press 1965.
(Landmarks in rhetoric and public address).
10 Repr. of ed. 1783. Vol. 2. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press 1965.
11 (Landmarks in rhetoric and public address).
12 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. Ed. Linda Ferreira-Buckley
13
and Michael Halloran. Repr. of ed. 1783. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
Univ. Press 2005. (Landmarks in rhetoric and public address).
14 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. Faks. repr. of ed. 1819.
15 Delmar, NY: Scholars’ Faksimiles and Reprints 1993. (Scholars’ Faksimiles
16 and Reprints, 467).
17 Blair, Hugh: Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres: With a memoir of the
18
author’s life. To which are added copious questions and an analysis of each
lecture. Ed. Abraham Mills. Repr. of ed. 1853. Whitefish, Mont.: Kessinger
19 Publ. appr. 2008. (Kessinger publications rare reprints).
20 Bosanquet, Bernard: A history of aesthetics library of philosophy. London: Swan
21 Sonnenschein [et al.] 1892.
22 Bosanquet, Bernard: A history of aesthetics. 2nd ed. London: Allen & Unwin
23
1904.
Bosanquet, Bernard: A history of aesthetics. Impr. of the 2nd ed. London: Allen &
24 Unwin 1922.
25 Bosanquet, Bernard: A history of aesthetics. 2nd impr. of 2nd ed. London: Allen &
26 Unwin 1949.
27 Bosanquet, Bernard: A history of aesthetics. 3rd ed. Cleveland: World Publ.
28
Co. 1961. (Meridian Books).
Bosanquet, Bernard: A history of aesthetics. Repr. of ed. 1904. In: B. B.: The
29 collected works of Bernard Bosanquet. Ed. William Sweet. Bristol:
30 Thoemmes 1999, Vol. 4.
31 Bovet, Ernest: Lyrisme, épopée, drame: Une loi de l’histoire littéraire. Expliquée
32 par l’évolution générale. Paris: Colin 1911.
33
Burke, Edmund: A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime
and beautiful. London: R. & J. Dodsley 1757. [Anon.].
34 Burke, Edmund: A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime
35 and beautiful: With an introductory discourse concerning taste, and several
36 other additions. 2nd ed. London: R. & J. Dodsley 1759. [Anon.].
38
and beautiful: With an introductory discourse concerning taste, and several
other additions. 3rd ed. London: Dodsley 1761. [Anon.].
39
40
3
other additions. 4th ed. London: Dodsley 1764. [Anon.].
4
5 other additions. To which is added, a vindication of natural society, after the
6 manner of a late noble writer, by the same author. 4th ed. Dublin: Sarah Cotter
7 1766.
9
other additions. 5th ed. London: Dodsley 1767. [Anon.].
12 other additions. 6th ed. London: Dodsley 1770. [Anon.].
other additions. To which is added, a vindication of natural society, after the
15
manner of a late noble writer, by the same author. 6th ed. Dublin: Graisberry
16 and Campell 1771. [Anon.].
20
26
other additions. New ed. London: Dodsley 1787. [Anon.].
29 other additions. New ed. Basil: Tourneisen 1792. [Anon.].
other additions. New ed. London: Dodsley 1793. [Anon.].
32
Burke, Edmund: The sublime and beautiful: With an introductory discourse
33 concerning taste, and several other additions. Oxford: Univ. of Oxford,
34 Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrews, Aberdeen, and Dublin 1796.
37
other additions. New ed. London: Vernor and Hood, F. and C. Rivington,
T.N. Longman, Cadell and Davies, J. Cuthell, [and four others] 1798.
40 other additions. London 1807.
3
other additions. New ed. London: Rivington [et al.] 1812.
5 other additions. New ed. London: Robertson, Bliss 1824.
8
other additions. London 1842.
Burke, Edmung: Recherches philosophiques sur l’origine des idées que nous avons
9 du beau et du sublime: Précédées d’une dissertation sur le gout. Transl. by
10 L’abbé D. F. [=L’abbé des françois]. London [i.e. Paris?]: Hochereau 1765.
11 Burke, Edmung: Burkes philosophische Untersuchungen über den Ursprung
12 unserer Begriffe vom Erhabenen und Schönen. Transl. of the 5th ed. Riga:
13
Johann Friedrich Hartknoch 1773.
14 and beautiful. Ed. J. T. Boulton. Repr. ed. with an introd. and notes. London:
15 Routledge and Kegan 1958.
17 and beautiful. Repr. of ed. 1759. Menston: Scolar Press 1970.
18
and beautiful. Ed. Adam Phillips. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press 1990. (The
19 World’s classics).
20 Burke, Edmund: Philosophische Untersuchungen über den Ursprung unserer
21 Ideen vom Erhabenen und Schönen. Transl. by Friedrich Bassenge. Ed.
22 Werner Strube. Hamburg: Meiner 1980. (Philosophische Bibliothek, 324).
23
Burke, Edmund: Philosophische Untersuchungen über den Ursprung unserer
Ideen vom Erhabenen und Schönen. Transl. by Friedrich Bassenge. Ed.
24 Werner Strube. 2nd ed. Hamburg: Meiner 1989. (Philosophische Bibliothek,
25 324).
26 Crousaz, Jean-Pierre de: Traité du beau: Où l’on montre en quoi consiste ce que
27 l’on nomme ainsi, par des exemples tirez de la plûpart des arts et des sciences.
28
Amsterdam: L’Honoré 1715.
Crousaz, Jean-Pierre de: Traité du beau: Où l’on montre en quoi consiste ce que
29 l’on nomme ainsi, par des Exemples tirez de la plûpart des Arts & des Scien-
30 ces. 2nd, rev., corr. and augm. ed. Amsterdam: L’Honoré & Chatelain 1724.
31 (2 vols.).
33
l’on nomme ainsi, par des Exemples tirez de la plûpart des Arts & des Sciences.
Vol. 1. 2nd, rev., corr. and augm. ed. Amsterdam: L’Honoré & Chatelain
34 1724.
36 l’on nomme ainsi, par des Exemples tirez de la plûpart des Arts & des Sciences.
37 Vol. 2. 2nd, rev., corr. and augm. ed. Amsterdam: L’Honoré & Chatelain
38
1724.
39
40
3
Repr. of ed. 1715. Geneva: Slatkine Repr. 1970.
Crousaz, Jean-Pierre de: Traité du beau: Où l’on montre en quoi consiste ce que
5 Ed. Francine Markovits. Repr. ed. Paris: Fayard 1985. (Corpus des oeuvres de
6 philosophie en langue française).
7 Diderot, Denis: Encyclopédie: Ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et
8
des métiers. Par une société de gens de lettre. Mis en ordre & publié par M.
Diderot, de l’académie royale des sciences & des belles-lettres de Prusse […].
9 Paris: Briasson [et al] 1751 – 1765.
10 Diderot, Denis: Philosophische Werke des Herrn Diderot. Transl. by Thiroux
11 D’Arconville and Marie Geneviève Charlotte. Vol. 1. Leipzig: in der Dy-
12 ckischen Buchhandlung 1774. (One Vol.).
13
DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture: Ut
pictura poesis. Paris: Mariette 1719. (2 vols.).
14 DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture: Ut
15 pictura poesis. Vol. 1. Paris: Mariette 1719.
16 DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture: Ut
17 pictura poesis. Vol. 2. Paris: Mariette 1719.
18
DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture. 2nd (?),
rev. and corr. ed. Utrecht: Etienne Neaulme 1732 – 1736. (3 vols.).
19 DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture. Vol. 1.
20 2nd (?), rev. and corr. ed. Utrecht: Etienne Neaulme 1732.
22 2nd (?), rev. and corr. ed. Utrecht: Etienne Neaulme 1732.
23
DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture. Vol. 3.
2nd (?), rev. and corr. ed. Utrecht: Etienne Neaulme 1736.
24 DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture. 4th (?),
25 rev., corr. and augm. ed. Paris: Mariette 1746. (3 vols.).
27 4th (?), rev., corr. and augm. ed. Paris: Mariette 1746.
28
4th (?), rev., corr. and augm. ed. Paris: Mariette 1746.
30 4th (?), rev., corr. and augm. ed. Paris: Mariette 1746.
31 DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture. 5th, rev.,
32 corr. and augm. ed. Paris: Pissot 1751. (3 vols.).
33
5th, rev., corr. and augm. ed. Paris: Pissot 1751.
35 5th, rev., corr. and augm. ed. Paris: Pissot 1751.
37 5th, rev., corr. and augm. ed. Paris: Pissot 1751.
38
DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture. 6th ed.
Paris: Pissot 1755. (3 vols.).
39
40
2 6th ed. Paris: Pissot 1755.
3
6th ed. Paris: Pissot 1755.
4
6 DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture. New ed.
7 Dresde: Walther 1760. (3 vols.).
New ed. Dresde: Walther 1760.
9
10 New ed. Dresde: Walther 1760.
12 New ed. Dresde: Walther 1760.
13 DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture. 7th ed.
14 Paris: Pissot 1770. (3 vols.).
15
7th ed. Paris: Pissot 1770.
20
DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Kritische Betrachtungen über die Poesie und Mahlerey.
Kopenhagen: Mummische Buchhandlung 1760 – 1761. (3 vols.).
21
DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Kritische Betrachtungen über die Poesie und Mahlerey.
22 Vol. 1. Kopenhagen: Mummische Buchhandlung 1760.
23 DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Kritische Betrachtungen über die Poesie und Mahlerey.
24 Vol. 2. Kopenhagen: Mummische Buchhandlung 1760.
25 DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Kritische Betrachtungen über die Poesie und Mahlerey.
Vol. 3. Kopenhagen: Mummische Buchhandlung 1761.
26
DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture. Repr. of
27 the 7th ed. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints 1967.
28 DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture. Repr. of
30 DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture. Repr. of
DuBos, Jean Baptiste: Reflexions critiques sur la poésie et sur la peinture. With an
32
introd. by Dominique Désirat. Repr. ed. Paris: École Nationale Supérieure
33 des Beaux-Arts 1994. (Collection Beaux-arts histoire).
34 Gerard, Alexander: An essay on taste: With three dissertations on the same subject
35 by Mr. d’Alembert, F.R.S. Mr. De Montesquieu. London: Bell 1759.
36 Gerard, Alexander: An essay on taste: With three dissertations on the same subject
37
by Mr. d’Alembert, F.R.S. Mr. De Montesquieu. 2nd, corr. and augm. ed.
London: Millar 1764.
38 Gerard, Alexander: An essay on taste: To which is now added part fourth: On the
39 standard of taste with observations concerning the imitative nature of poe-
40 try. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Edinburgh: Bell & Creech 1780.
1 Gerard, Alexander: Essais sur le gout, par Alexandre Gérard: Augmenté de trois
2 dissertations sur le même sujet. Transl. by Marc Antoine Eidous. Paris [et al.]:
3
Delain [et al.] 1766.
Gerard, Alexander: Versuch über den Geschmack: Nebst zwo Abhandlungen
4 über eben die Materie vom Herrn von Voltaire und Hrn. V. Alembert.
5 Breslau, Leipzig: Meyer 1766.
6 Gerard, Alexander: An essay on taste […] together with observations concerning
7 the imitative nature of poetry. Repr. of ed. 1780. Munich 1963.
8 Gerard, Alexander: An essay on taste together with observations concerning the
imitative nature of poetry. With an introd. by Walter J Hipple, jr. Faks. repr. of
9
ed. 1780. Gainesville, Florida: Scholars’ Facs. & Repr. 1963.
11 imitative nature of poetry. With an introd. by Walter J Hipple, jr. Faks. repr. of
12 ed. 1780. Impr. Gainesville, Florida: Scholars’ Facs. & Repr. 1978.
14
imitative nature of poetry. With an introd. by Walter J Hipple, jr. Faks. repr. of
ed. 1780. 2nd impr. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Scholars’ Facs. & Repr. 2007.
15 (Scholars’ facsimiles & reprints, 96).
16 Gerard, Alexander: An essay on taste. Repr. of ed. 1764. New York: Garland
17 1970.
18 Gerard, Alexander: An essay on genius. London: Strahan, Cadell, Creech 1774.
19 Gerard, Alexander: Versuch über das Genie. Transl. by Christian Garve. Leipzig:
Weidmanns Erben & Reich 1776.
20
Gerard, Alexander: An essay on genius. Ed. Bernhard Fabian. Repr. of ed. 1774.
21 Munich: Fink 1966. (Theorie und Geschichte der Literatur und der schönen
22 Künste, 3).
23 Gerard, Alexander: An essay on genius. Faks. repr. of ed. 1774. New York:
24 Garland 1970.
25
Gerard, Alexander: An essay on genius. Online ed. of ed. 1774. Farmington Hills,
Mich.: Thomson Gale 2004.
26
Gerard, Alexander: Versuch über das Genie. Repr. of ed. 1776. Munich: Saur
27 1991.
28 Gerard, Alexander: Versuch über das Genie. Repr. of ed. 1776. Bristol:
29 Thoemmes 2001. (The reception of British aesthetics in Germany, 7).
30 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Dublin: Coster 1762. (2 vols.).
31
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 1. Dublin: Coster 1762.
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 2. Dublin: Coster 1762.
32
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Millar 1763. (3 vols.).
33 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Millar 1763.
36 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. London: Millar,
37
Edinburgh: Kincaid & Bell 1765. (2 vols.).
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 1. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. London:
38 Millar, Edinburgh: Kincaid & Bell 1765.
39 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 2. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. London:
1 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. 4th, corr. and augm. ed. London: Millar,
2 Edinburgh: Kincaid & Bell 1769. (2 vols.).
3
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 1. 4th, corr. and augm. ed. London:
Millar, Edinburgh: Kincaid & Bell 1769.
4 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 2. 4th, corr. and augm. ed. London:
6 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. 5th ed. London: Johnston & Cadell;
7 Edinburgh: Kincaid, Creeck & Bell 1774. (2 vols.).
8
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 1. 5th ed. London: Johnston & Cadell;
Edinburgh: Kincaid, Creeck & Bell 1774.
9 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 2. 5th ed. London: Johnston & Cadell;
10 Edinburgh: Kincaid, Creeck & Bell 1774.
11 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. 6th ed. London: Robinson & Cadell;
12 Edinburgh: Creeck & Bell 1785. (2 vols.).
13
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 1. 6th ed. London: Robinson & Cadell;
Edinburgh: Creeck & Bell 1785.
14 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 2. 6th ed. London: Robinson & Cadell;
15 Edinburgh: Creeck & Bell 1785.
16 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. New ed. Basil: Tourneisen 1795. (3 vols.).
17 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 1. New ed. Basil: Tourneisen 1795.
18
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 2. New ed. Basil: Tourneisen 1795.
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 3. New ed. Basil: Tourneisen 1795.
19 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism: In two volumes. 2nd ed. From the 8th
20 London ed. Philadelphia: Carey 1816. (2 vols.).
21 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism: In two volumes. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. From the
22 8th London ed. Philadelphia: Carey 1816.
23
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism: In two volumes. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. From the
8th London ed. Philadelphia: Carey 1816.
24 Home, Henry: Grundsätze der Critik: In drey Theilen. Aus dem Englischen
25 übersetzt. Leipzig: in der Dyckischen Handlung 1763 – 1766. (3 vols.).
27 übersetzt. Vol. 1. Leipzig: in der Dyckischen Handlung 1763.
28
Home, Henry: Grundsätze der Critik: In drey Theilen. Aus dem Englischen
übersetzt. Vol. 2. Leipzig: in der Dyckischen Handlung 1763.
30 übersetzt. Vol. 3. Leipzig: in der Dyckischen Handlung 1766.
31 Home, Henry: Grundsätze der Kritik. Transl. by Johann Nikolaus Meinhard.
32 Leipzig: Dyck 1772. (2 vols.). [Transl. of the 4th ed.]
33
Home, Henry: Grundsätze der Kritik. Transl. by Johann Nikolaus Meinhard.
Vol. 1. Leipzig: Dyck 1772.
35 Vol. 2. Leipzig: Dyck 1772.
36 Home, Henry: Grundsätze der Kritik. Transl. by Johann Nikolaus Meinhard. 2nd
37 (?) ed. Leipzig: Dyck 1775. (2 vols.). [Transl. of the 4th ed.]
38
Vol. 1. 2nd (?) ed. Leipzig: Dyck 1775.
39
40

2 Vol. 2. 2nd (?) ed. Leipzig: Dyck 1775.
3
Home, Henry: Grundsätze der Kritik. Transl. by Johann Nikolaus Meinhard. 3rd,
corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Dyck 1790 – 1791. (3 vols.).
4
5 Vol. 1. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Dyck 1790.
7 Vol. 2. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Dyck 1790.
9
Vol. 3. 3rd, corr. and augm. ed. Leipzig: Dyck 1791.
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Reprogr. repr. of ed. 1762. Hildesheim:
10 Olms 1970. (Anglistica and Americana, 53). (3 vols.).
11 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 1. Reprogr. repr. of ed. 1762. Hil-
12 desheim: Olms 1970. (Anglistica and Americana, 53.1).
13 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 2. Reprogr. repr. of ed. 1762. Hil-
14 desheim: Olms 1970. (Anglistica and Americana, 53.2).
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 3. Reprogr. repr. of ed. 1762. Hil-
15
desheim: Olms 1970. (Anglistica and Americana, 53.3).
16 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism: With a new introd. by John Vladimir Price.
17 Reprogr. repr. of ed. 1785. London: Routledge, Thoemmes 1993.
18 (Thoemmes reprints). (2 vols.).
20
Vol. 1. Reprogr. repr. of ed. 1785. London: Routledge, Thoemmes 1993.
(Thoemmes reprints).
21
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism: With a new introd. by John Vladimir Price.
22 Vol. 2. Reprogr. repr. of ed. 1785. London: Routledge, Thoemmes 1993.
23 (Thoemmes reprints).
25 Reprogr. repr. of ed. 1785. London: Routledge, Thoemmes Press 2000.
(Thoemmes reprints). (2 vols.).
26
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism, With a new introd. by John Vladimir Price.
27 Vol. 1. Reprogr. repr. of ed. 1785. London: Routledge, Thoemmes Press
28 2000. (Thoemmes reprints).
30 Vol. 2. Reprogr. repr. of ed. 1785. London: Routledge, Thoemmes Press
31 2000. (Thoemmes reprints).
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Ed. Peter Jones. Repr. of ed. 1785. India-
32
napolis: Liberty Fund 2005. (Natural law and enlightenment classics. Major
33 works of Henry Home, Lord Kames). (2 vols.).
34 Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 1. Ed. Peter Jones. Repr. of ed. 1785.
35 Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 2005. (Natural law and enlightenment classics.
36 Major works of Henry Home, Lord Kames).
37
Home, Henry: Elements of criticism. Vol. 2. Ed. Peter Jones. Repr. of ed. 1785.
Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 2005. (Natural law and enlightenment classics.
38 Major works of Henry Home, Lord Kames).
39 Lacombe, Jacques: Dictionnaire portatif des beaux-arts: Ou abregé de ce qui
40 concerne l’architecture, la sculpture, la peinture, la gravure, la poesie et la
1 musique. Avec la définition des ces arts, l’explication des termes et des choses
2 qui leur appartiennent. Ensemble les noms, la datte de la naissance et de la mort
3
[…]. Paris: Estienne 1752.
Lacombe, Jacques: Dictionnaire portatif des beaux-arts: Ou abregé de ce qui
7 […]. 2nd (?) ed. Paris: Estienne, Herissant 1753.
8
Lacombe, Jacques: Dictionnaire portatif des beaux-arts: Ou abregé de ce qui
concerne l’architecture, la sculpture, la peinture, la gravure, la poesie et la
11 […]. 3rd (?) ed. Paris 1754.
13
concerne l’architecture, la sculpture, la peinture, la gravure, la poesie et la
musique. Avec la définition des ces arts, l’explication des termes et des choses
15 […]. 4th (?) ed. Paris: Herissant 1755.
18
musique. Avec la définition des ces arts, l’explication des termes et des choses
qui leur appartiennent. Ensemble les noms, la datte de la naissance et de la mort
19 […]. 5th (?) ed. Paris: Herissant & Estienne 1759.
23
qui leur appartiennent. Ensemble les noms, la datte de la naissance et de la mort
[…]. 6th (?) ed. Paris: Herissant & Estienne 1766.
24 O’Leary, John Gerard: English literary history and bibliography: A thesis. London:
25 Grafton & Co. 1928.
26 Pasquali, Luigi: Istituzioni di Estetica. Padova: Nella tipogr. del Seminario 1827.
27 (2 vols.).
28
Pasquali, Luigi: Istituzioni di Estetica. Vol. 1. Padova: Nella tipogr. del Seminario
1827.
29 Pasquali, Luigi: Istituzioni di Estetica. Vol. 2. Padova: Nella tipogr. del Seminario
30 1827.
31 Pasquali, Luigi: Istituzioni di Estetica. Bolongna: Tipogr. governativa della Volpe
32 1837.
33
Talia, Giovanni Battista: Saggio di Estetica. Venice: Tipografia di Alvisopoli
edit. 1822.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4 5. Other Primary Material
5
6
7 Akademische Blätter: Beiträge zur Litteraturwissenschaft [periodical]. Ed. Otto
8 Sievers. Braunschweig: Schwetschke 1884.
Alewyn, Richard: Johann Beer: Studien zum Roman des 17. Jahrhunderts.
9
Leipzig: Mayer & Müller 1932.
10 Anon.: Lehrplan und Instructionen für den Unterricht an den Gymnasien in
11 Österreich. 1900.
12 Anon.: Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben für die höheren Schulen in Preussen (1901).
13 1913.
Anon.: Richtlinien für die Lehrpläne der höheren Schulen Preussens (4 u. 5). 1925.
14
Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen [periodical]. Berlin:
15 E. Schmidt 1846 – 1948.
16 Archiv für den Unterricht im Deutschen in Gymnasien, Realschulen und an
17 höheren Lehranstalten [periodical]. Düsseldorf: Boetticher 1843 – 1844.
18 Avenarius, Richard: Philosophie als Denken der Welt gemäss dem Princip des
kleinsten Kraftmasses: Prolegomena zu einer Kritik der reinen Erfahrung.
19
Leipzig: Fues 1876.
20 Baader, Franz Xaver von: Gesammelte Schriften zur philosophischen Anthro-
21 pologie. In: F. X. B.: Franz von Baader’s sämtliche Werke. Ed. Franz
22 Hoffmann. Leipzig: Bethmann 1853, Vol. 1.4.
23 Bahnsen, Julius: Beiträge zur Charakterologie: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung
pädagogischer Fragen. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1867. (2 vols.).
24
Barrach, Siegmund: Über spekulative Aesthetik und Kritik: Ein Sendschreiben an
25 Herrn Dr. Robert Zimmermann, Professor der Philosophie an der Prager
26 Universität. Vienna: In Commission bei Tendler & Comp. 1854.
27 Beyer, Paul: Forschungsberichte: Ermatinger, Emil, Das dichterische Kunstwerk
28 und Hirt Ernst, Das Formgesetz der epischen, dramatischen und lyrischen
Dichtung. In: Euphorion 27 (1926), pp. 279 – 290.
29
Biese, Alfred: Das Metaphorische in der dichterischen Phantasie: Ein Beitrag zur
30 vergleichenden Poetik. Berlin: A. Haack 1889.
31 Biese, Alfred: [rev.] Prinzipien der Literaturwissenschaft. In: Zeitschrift für
32 deutsche Philologie 31 (1897), pp. 237 – 243.
33 Blätter für literarische Unterhaltung [periodical]. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1826 – 1898.
Bleibtreu, Carl: Revolution der Literatur. Leipzig: Friedrich 1886.
34
Boeckh, August: Enzyklopädie und Methodenlehre der philologischen Wissen-
35 schaften. Ed. Ernst Bratuscheck. Leipzig: Teubner 1877.
36 Boeckmann, Paul: Die Lehre von Wesen und Formen der Dichtung: Vom Geist
37 der Dichtung. Gedächtnisschrift für Robert Petsch. Ed. Fritz Martini.
38 Hamburg: Hoffmann & Campe 1949.
39
40
1 Boehm, Max Hilbert: Das eigenständige Volk: Volkstheoretische Grundlagen der

2 Ethnopolitik und Geisteswissenschaften. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
3
precht 1932.
Bölsche, Wilhelm: Hinter der Weltstadt: Friedrichshagener Gedanken zur äs-
4 thetischen Kultur. Mit Buchschmuck von John Jack Vrieslander. Leipzig:
5 Diederichs 1901.
6 Bötticher, Gotthold: Die Poetik unter den „exakten“ Wissenschaften. In: Zeit-
7 schrift für den deutschen Unterricht 2 (1888), p. 5.
8
Breul, Carl and Francis Edward Sandbach: Die englischen Universitäten: Rat-
schläge für das Studium in England. Zwei Aufsätze. Berlin, Leipzig: de
9 Gruyter 1929.
10 Brinkmann, Donald: Natur und Kunst: Zur Phänomenologie des ästhetischen
11 Gegenstands. Zurich, Leipzig: Rascher 1938.
12 Büchler, Karl: Die ästhetische Bedeutung der Spannung: Ein Beitrag zur Poetik.
13
Stuttgart: Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft 1908.
Büttner, Ludwig: Georg Büchner: Revolutionär und Pessimist. Ein Beitrag zur
14 Geistesgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Nuremberg: Carl 1948.
15 Büttner, Ludwig (ed.): Das europäische Drama von Ibsen bis Zuckmayer. Dar-
16 gestellt an Einzelinterpretationen. Frankfurt a. M.: Diesterweg 1960.
17 Büttner, Ludwig: Von Benn bis Enzensberger: Eine Einführung in die zeitge-
18
nössische deutsche Lyrik. 3rd, rev. ed. Nuremberg: Carl 1975 (1st ed. Nu-
remberg 1971).
19 Byron, George Gordon: Manfred: A dramatic poem. London: Murray 1817.
20 Carrière, Moriz Agnes: Liebeslieder und Gedankendichtung. Leipzig: Brockhaus
21 1883.
22 Clodius, Christian August: Versuche aus der Literatur und Moral. Leipzig:
23
Breitkopf 1767 – 1769. (4 vols.).
Clodius, Christian August Heinrich: Gedichte. Leipzig: Feind 1794.
24 Clodius, Christian August Heinrich: Fedor: Der Mensch unter Bürgern.
25 Bruchstücke aus dem Leben eines *** Offiziers. Leipzig: G. Fleicher d.
26 Jüng. 1805. (2 vols.).
27 Clodius, Christian August Heinrich: Von Gott in der Natur, in der Menschen-
28
geschichte, und im Bewußtseyn: Die Überzeugungen der Gottbekenner in
ihrer irrigen Trennung und ihrem ursprünglichen Zusammenhange. Allge-
29 meinfaßlich dargestellt. Leipzig: Göschen 1818 – 1822. (5 vols.).
30 Clodius, Christian August Heinrich: Eros und Psyche: Ein Gedicht in zwölf
31 Gesängen. Leipzig: Hirschfeld 1838.
32 Cohen, Hermann: Die dichterische Phantasie und der Mechanismus des Be-
33
wusstseins. In: Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 6
(1869), pp. 171 – 263.
34 Cohn, Jonas: Die Anschaulichkeit der dichterischen Sprache. In: Zeitschrift für
35 Ästhetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 2 (1907), pp. 182 – 201.
36 Csillagh, Karl: Aesthetik der Tonkunst in Verbindung mit einer ausführlichen
37 Grammatik und Poetik der Musiksprache: Aus kosmischen, akustischen,
38
ferner aus empirisch-psychologischen Grundsätzen entwickelt und in logi-
scher Ordnung zusammengestellt. Pressburg: Schreiber 1854.
39
40
5. Other Primary Material 393
1 Dante Alighieri: La divina commedia: L’Inferno. Comm. by Marcello Vicchio.

2 Cosenza: Brenner 2008.
3
Darnbacher, Max: Vom Wesen der Dichterphantasie. Stettin: Norddeutscher
Verlag für Literatur und Kunst 1921.
4
Darnbacher, Max: Vom Wesen der Dichterphantasie. Frankfurt a. M.: Siebener
5 Verl. 1921.
6 Darwin, Charles: Ausdruck der Gemüthsbewegungen bei den Menschen und
7 Thieren. Transl. by Gustav Carus. Stuttgart: Koch 1872.
8 Das innere Reich: Zeitschrift für Dichtung, Kunst und deutsches Leben [peri-
odical]. Munich: Langen-Müller 1934 – 1945.
9
Dehmel, Richard: Aber die Liebe: Ein Ehemanns- und Menschenbuch. Munich:
10 Alvert 1893.
11 Dessoir, Max: Die Anschaulichkeit der Sprache. In: Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und
12 allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 1 (1906), pp. 353 – 368.
13 Dilthey, Wilhelm: Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften: Versuch einer
14 Grundlegung für das Studium der Gesellschaft und der Geschichte. Leipzig:
Duncker & Humbl. 1883.
15
Dilthey, Wilhelm: Die Entstehung der Hermeneutik. In: Philosophische Ab-
16 handlungen: Christoph Sigwart zu seinem 90. Geburtstage, 28. März 1900,
17 gewidmet, ed. by Benno Erdmann [et al.]. Tübingen [et al.]: J.C.B. Mohr
18 1900, pp. 185 – 202.
19 Donat, Walter: Individualität und Gebundenheit in der gegenwärtigen deutschen
20
Dichtung. In: Japanisch-deutscher Geisteraustausch 1 (1928), pp. 1–33.
Du Prel, Carl: Psychologie der Lyrik: Beiträge zur Analyse der dichterischen
21 Phantasie. Leipzig: Ernst Günther 1880. (Darwinistische Schriften, 4).
22 Ebbinghaus, Hermann: Grundzüge der Psychologie. Leipzig: Veit 1903 – 1911. (3
23 vols.).
24 Eberhard, Johann August: Sittenlehre der Vernunft: Zum Gebrauch seiner
25 Vorlesungen. Berlin: Nicolai 1781.
Elster, Ernst: Weltlitteratur und Literaturvergleichung. In: Archiv für das Studium
26
der Neueren Sprachen und Literatur 107 (1901), pp. 33 – 47.
27 Elster, Ernst: Über die Elemente der Poesie und den Begriff des Dramatischen.
28 Marburg: Koch 1903.
29 Elster, Ernst: Prinzipien der Litteraturwissenschaft. Vol. 2: Stilistik. Halle a. d. S.:
30 Niemeyer 1911.
31 Elster, Ernst: Die wissenschaftliche Vorbildung für den deutschen Unterricht an
höheren Schulen. In: Zeitschrift für den deutschen Unterricht 6 (1912).
32
Elster, Ernst: World Literature and Comparative Literature. In: Yearbook of
33 comparative and general literature 35 (1986), pp. 7–13.
34 Ernst, Paul: Das deutsche Volk und der Dichter von heute. In: Des deutschen
35 Dichters Sendung in der Gegenwart, ed. by Heinz Kindermann. Leipzig:
36 Reclam 1933.
37
Eschenburg, Johann Joachim: Beispielsammlung zur Theorie und Literatur der
schönen Wissenschaften. Berlin [et al.]: Nicolai 1788 – 1795. (9 vols.).
38 Essener Volks-Zeitung: Zentralorgan für Rheinland und Westfalen. Verbreitetste
39 parteipolitische Tageszeitung des Ruhrkohlengebiets [periodical]. Essen
40 1868 – 1941.
1 Ezzolied. In: Althochdeutsche poetische Texte: Althochdeutsch / neuhoch-

2 deutsch. Ed. Karl A. Wipf. Stuttgart: Reclam 1992. (Reclams Universal-
3
Bibliothek, 8709).
Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Stapelia mixta. Leipzig: Voß 1824.
4 Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Gedichte. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel 1841.
5 Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Zend-Avesta oder über die Dinge des Himmels und des
6 Jenseits vom Standpunkt der Naturbetrachtung. Leipzig: Voß 1851. (3 vols.).
7 Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Elemente der Psychophysik. Leipzig: Breitkopf &
8
Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Kleine Schriften. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel 1875.
9 Fechner, Gustav Theodor: Die Tagesansicht gegenüber der Nachtansicht.
10 Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel 1879.
11 Feierfeil, Georg: Zu Wilhelm Scherer’s Poetik. In: Schulschriften aus Österreich 2
12 (1894), pp. 1–29.
13
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb: Reden an die deutsche Nation. Berlin: In der Real-
schulbuchhandlung 1808.
14 Fischer, Kuno: Diotima: Die Idee des Schönen. Philosophische Briefe. Pforz-
15 heim: Flammer & Hoffmann 1849.
16 Florin, Andreas: Praeparationen zur Behandlung lyrischer und epischer Gedichte.
17 Davos: Richter 1893.
18
Friedrich, Hugo: Die Struktur der modernen Lyrik: Von Baudelaire bis zur
Gegenwart. Hamburg: Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verlag 1956. (Rowohlts
19 deutsche Enzyklopädie, 25).
20 Friedrich, Hugo: Die Struktur der modernen Lyrik: Von der Mitte des 19. bis zur
21 Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Augm. ed. Hamburg: Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-
22 Verlag 1967. (Rowohlts deutsche Enzyklopädie, 25/26/26a).
23
Froehde, Oskar: Der Begriff und die Aufgabe der Literaturwissenschaft. In: Neue
Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik 147 (1893), pp. 422 – 445.
24 Gadamer, Hans-Georg: Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophi-
25 schen Hermeneutik. Tübingen: Mohr 1960.
26 Geibel, Emanuel: Brunhild: Eine Tragödie aus der Nibelungensage. Stuttgart,
27 Augsburg: Cotta 1857.
28
Gellert, Christian Fürchtegott: Von dem Einflusse der schönen Wissenschaften auf
das Herz und die Sitten: Eine Rede. Den Inhabern d. Verl. F. Enke […] zur
29 Feier d. hundertjähr. Bestehens d. Verlags am 1. Jan. 1937 gewidmet. Stutt-
30 gart: Hoffmann 1937.
31 George, Stefan: Das Jahr der Seele. Berlin: Verlag der Blätter für die Kunst 1897.
32 Gerber, Gustav: Die Sprache als Kunst. Bromberg: Mittler 1871 – 1874. (3 vols.).
33
Gibbon, Edward: The history of the decline and fall of the Roman empire.
London: Printed for W. Strahan and T. Cadell 1776 – 1788. (6 vols.).
34 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von: Iphigenie auf Tauris: Ein Schauspiel. Leipzig:
35 Göschen 1787.
36 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von: Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre: Ein Roman. Berlin:
37 Unger 1795 – 1796. (4 vols.).
38
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von: Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre oder die Entsa-
genden: Ein Roman. Stuttgart, Tübingen: Cotta 1821.
39
40
1 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von: Botanik als Wissenschaft (1788 – 1794). In:
2 J. W. G.: Goethe: Schriften zur Morphologie. Ed. Dorothea. Kuhn Frankfurt
3
a. M.: Dt. Klassiker-Verl. 1987, pp. 93 – 108.
Götzinger, M[ax] W[ilhelm]: Deutsche Dichter: Für Freunde der Dichtkunst
4 überhaupt und für Lehrer der deutschen Sprache insbesondere. Leipzig:
5 Hartknoch 1857.
6 Griese, Friedrich: Gesang des Sämanns. In: Mecklenburgische Monatshefte 10
7 (1934), p. 103.
8 Grimm, Hans: Volk ohne Raum. Munich: Langen 1926.
Grohmann, Johann Gottfried and Heinrich Blümner: Kurzgefasstes Handwör-
9
terbuch über die schönen Künste: Von einer Gesellschaft von Gelehrten.
10 Leipzig: Voss 1794 – 1795. (2 vols.).
11 Groos, Karl: Die Spiele der Menschen. Jena: Fischer 1899.
12 Gross, Walter: Rassenpolitische Erziehung. Berlin: Junker & Dünnhaupt 1934.
13 (Schriften der Deutschen Hochschule für Politik, 6).
14
Gross, Walter: Rassenpolitische Erziehung. Berlin: Junker & Dünnhaupt 1934.
Gundolf, Friedrich: Shakespeare und der deutsche Geist vor dem Auftreten
15
Lessings. Leipzig: Hesse & Becker 1911.
16 Hagedorn, Christian Ludwig von: Betrachtungen über die Mahlerey. Leipzig:
17 Wendler 1762. (2 vols.).
18 Hahn, Werner: Poetische Mustersammlung: Erklärungen und Beispiele zu den
19 Gattungen der Poesie für Schule und Haus. Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz 1882.
20
Haller, Albrecht von: Versuch Schweizerischer Gedichte. Bern: Bey Niclaus
Emanuel Haller 1732.
21 Hartmann, Eduard von: Philosophie des Schönen. Ed. Richard Müller-Freienfels
22 mit Benutzung des handschriftlichen Nachlasses Eduard von Hartmanns.
23 Leipzig: B. G. Teubner 1914. (Aus Natur und Geisteswelt, 460).
24 Hebbel, Friedrich: Die Nibelungen: Ein deutsches Trauerspiel in drei Abthei-
25 lungen. Hamburg: Hoffmann & Campe 1862. (2 vols.).
Hefele, Hermann: Zur Psychologie der Etappe. Jena: Diederichs 1918.
26
Hefele, Hermann: Das Gesetz der Form: Briefe an Tote. Jena: Diederichs 1919.
27 Hefele, Hermann: Literatur und Dichtung. Stuttgart: Frommann 1922.
28 Heidegger Martin: Sein und Zeit. Halle a. d. S.: Niemeyer 1927.
29 Helbock, Adolf: Was ist deutsche Volksgeschichte? Ziele, Aufgaben und Wege.
30 Berlin [et al.]: de Gruyter 1935.
31 Herbart, Johann Friedrich: Lehrbuch zur Einleitung in die Philosophie. 2nd,
augm. ed. Königsberg: Unzer 1821.
32
Herder, Johann Gottfried and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (eds.): Von deutscher
33 Art und Kunst: Einige fliegende Blätter. Hamburg: Bode 1773.
34 Herder, Johann Gottfried: Kalligone. Leipzig: Hartknoch 1800. (3 vols.).
35 Hermann, Gottfried: De poeseos generibus. Leipzig: Schulzius 1784.
36 Hettner, Hermann: Geschichte der deutschen Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert.
37
Braunschweig: Vieweg 1862 – 1870 (Literaturgeschichte des achtzehnten
Jahrhunderts, 3). (4 vols.).
38 Heyse, Paul: Don Juan’s Ende: Trauerspiel in fünf Akten. Berlin: Hertz 1883.
39 (Dramatische Dichtungen, 13).
40 Hillebrand, Joseph: Germanikus. Frankfurt a. M.: Varrantrapp 1817. (2 vols.).
1 Hillebrand, Joseph: Über Deutschlands National-Bildung. Frankfurt a. M.:

2 Wilmans, 1818.
3
Hillebrand, Joseph: Eugenius Severus: Oder einige Stationen aus der Lebensreise
eines Philosophen. Leipzig: bei Johann Friedrich Hartknoch 1819. (2 vols.).
4 Hillebrand, Joseph: Propädeutik der Philosophie. Heidelberg: Groos 1819. (2
5 vols.).
6 Hillebrand, Joseph: Grundriß der Logik und philosophischen Vorkenntnißlehre.
7 Heidelberg: Groos 1820.
8
Hillebrand, Joseph: Paradies und Welt oder Liebe und Schicksal: Ein Roman.
Mainz: Kupferberg 1822. (2 vols.).
9 Hillebrand, Joseph: Die Anthropologie als Wissenschaft. Mainz: Kupferberg
10 1822 – 1823. (3 vols.).
11 Hillebrand, Joseph: Aesthetica literaria antiqua classica: Sive Antiquorum Scri-
12 ptorum cum Graecorum tum Latinorum de Arte Literaria Praecepta. Mainz:
13
Kupferberg 1828.
Hillebrand, Joseph: Universalphilosophische Prolegomena oder encyclopädische
14 Grundzüge der gesammten Philosophie. Mainz: Kupferberg 1830.
15 Hillebrand, Joseph: Die deutsche Nationalliteratur: Seit dem Anfange des 18.
16 Jahrhunderts, besonders seit Lessing, bis auf die Gegenwart. Hist. u. ästhetisch-
17 kritisch dargest. Hamburg [et al.]: Perthes 1845 – 1846. (3 vols.).
18
Hoffner, Wilhelm [Wilhelm Dilthey]: Hölderlin und die Ursachen seines
Wahnsinnes. In: Westermanns Monatshefte 22 (1867), pp. 15 – 165.
19 Hölderlin, Friedrich: Heldentum: Auswahl für Soldaten. Ed. Amadeus Groh-
20 mann. Vienna [et al.]: Walter 1943.
21 Horace: Satires, epistles and Ars poetica. With a transl. by H. Rushton Fairclough.
22 Repr. ed. Campridge, Mass. [et al.]: Harvard Univ. Press 1999. (The Loeb
23
classical library, 194).
Hülle, Hedwig (ed.): Bremisches Album. Bremen: Heyse 1839.
24 Humboldt, Alexander von: Kosmos: Entwurf einer physischen Weltbeschrei-
25 bung. Stuttgart: Cotta 1845 – 1862. (4 vols.).
26 Humbold, Wilhelm von: Schriften zur Altertumskunde und Ästhetik. Die Vas-
27 ken. In: W. H: Werke. Ed. Andreas Flitner. Berlin: Rütten & Loenung 1961,
28
Vol. 2.
Husserl, Edmund: Philosophie der Arithmetik: Psychologische und logische
29 Untersuchungen. Halle a. d. S.: Pfeffer 1891.
30 Husserl, Edmund: Logische Untersuchungen. Halle a. d. S.: Niemeyer 1900 –
31 1901. (2 vols.).
32 Husserl, Edmund: Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenolo-
33
gischen Philosophie. Halle a. d. S.: Niemeyer 1913.
Ingarden, Roman: Intuition und Intellekt bei Henri Bergson: Darstellung und
34 Versuch einer Kritik. Halle a. d. S.: Waisenhaus 1921.
35 Ingarden, Roman: Der Streit um die Existenz der Welt. Tübingen: Niemeyer
36 1964 – 1974. (3 vols.).
37 Jeitteles, Ignaz: Aesthetisches Lexikon für alphabetisches Handbuch zur Theorie
38
der Philosophie des Schönen und der schönen Künste: Nebst Erklärung der
Kunstausdrücke aller ästhetischen Zweige, als: Poesie, Poetik, Rhetorik,
39
40
1 Musik, Plastik, Graphik, Architektur… A–K. Vienna: Gerold 1835 – 1837. (2

2 vols.)
3
Johnson, Samuel: The art of criticism: As exemplified in Dr. Johnsons’s Lives of the
most eminent English poets. London: For T. Hookham 1789.
4
Johst, Hanns: Schlageter: Schauspiel. Munich: Langen, Müller 1933.
5 Jolles, André: Einfache Formen: Legende, Sage, Mythe, Rätsel, Spruch, Kasus,
6 Memorabile, Märchen, Witz. Halle a. d. S.: Niemeyer 1930. (Sächsische
7 Forschungsinstitute in Leipzig: 2. Neugermanistische Abt., 2).
8 Jordan, Wilhelm: W. Jordan’s Nibelungen. Frankfurt a. M.: Jordan [et al.] 1867 –
1874. (4 vols.).
9
Journal für Freunde der Religion und Litteratur [periodical]. Augsburg: Bartl
10 1779 – 1780.
11 Jung, Alexander: Vorlesungen über die moderne Literatur der Deutschen.
12 Gdansk: Fr. Sam. Gerhard 1842.
13 Kant, Immanuel: Critik der Urtheilskraft. Berlin [et al.]: Lagarde & Friederich
14 1790.
Keiser, H. Al: Friedrich Bone: Lebensbild eines deutschen Schulmannes und
15
Schriftstellers. Mainz: Franz Kirchheim 1897.
16 Köhler, Felix: Poetik: Aufsatzlehre und Psychologie. Ein Leitfaden für Schulen.
17 Neisse: Jos. Graveurs Verl. 1890.
18 Körner, Josef: Romantiker und Klassiker: Die Brüder Schlegel in ihrer Beziehung
19 zu Schiller und Goethe. Berlin: Askanischer Verl. 1924.
20
Körner, Josef: Recht und Pflicht: Eine Studie über Kleists „Michael Kohlhaas“
und „Prinz von Homburg“. Leipzig [et al.]: Teubner 1926. (Zeitschrift für
21 Deutschkunde, Erg.-H. 19).
22 Kraus, Karl: Aphorismen: Sprüche und Widersprüche. Pro domo et mundo.
23 Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1986. (Schriften, 8).
24 Krieck, Ernst: Nationalpolitische Erziehung. Leipzig: Armanen-Verl. 1932.
25 Külpe, Oswald: Grundriss der Psychologie: Auf experimenteller Grundlage.
Leipzig: Engelmann 1893.
26
Lämmert, Eberhard: Bauformen des Erzählens. Stuttgart: Metzler 1965.
27 Lampe, Friedo: Das Gesamtwerk. Hamburg: Rowohlt 1955.
28 Lamprecht, Karl: Alte und neue Richtungen in der Geschichtswissenschaft.
29 Berlin: Gaertner 1896.
30 Lamprecht, Karl: Die historische Methode des Herrn von Below: Eine Kritik.
31
Berlin: Gaertner 1899.
Lamprecht, Karl: Die kulturhistorische Methode. Berlin: Gaertner 1900.
32
Lempicki, Sigmund von: Geschichte der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft bis zum
33 Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1920.
34 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim: Laokoon: Oder über die Grenzen der Mahlerey und
35 Poesie. Mit beyläufigen Erläuterungen verschiedener Punkte der alten
36 Kunstgeschichte. Berlin: Voß 1766.
37
Lewandowski, Herbert: Die Erfassung von Formeigentümlichkeiten beim lyri-
schen Dichtwerk. Stuttgart, Berlin: Deutsche Verl.-Anst. 1923.
38 Leyhausen, Wilhelm (ed.): Probleme der Poetik. Greifswald: Bamberg 1936.
39 Liebmann, Otto: Zur Analysis der Wirklichkeit: Philosophische Untersuchun-
40 gen. Strasbourg: Trübner 1876.
1 Linde, Ernst: Moderne Lyrik in schulgemässer Behandlung: Mit besonderer

2 Berücksichtigung des Aesthetischen. 2nd ed. Leipzig 1910.
3
Lingg, Hermann: Die Völkerwanderung: Epische Dichtung. Stuttgart: Cotta
1866 – 1868. (3 vols.).
4 Lippert, Rudolf: Deutsche Dichtung: Hilfsbuch für die Einführung in die
5 wichtigsten Erscheinungen der deutschen Nationalliteratur. Leipzig: Quelle
6 & Meyer 1908.
7 Lotze, Hermann: Logik. Leipzig: Weidmann 1843.
8
Lotze, Hermann: Über den Begriff der Schönheit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht 1845.
9 Lotze, Hermann: Mikrokosmus: Ideen zur Naturgeschichte und Geschichte der
10 Menschheit. Versuch einer Anthropologie. Leipzig: Hirzel 1856 – 1864.
11 (3 vols.).
12 Lotze, Hermann: Geschichte der Aesthetik in Deutschland. Munich: Cotta 1868.
13
(Geschichte der Wissenschaften in Deutschland, 7).
Luden, Heinrich: Grundzüge ästhetischer Vorlesungen zum academischen Ge-
14 brauche. Göttingen: Danckwerts 1808.
15 The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa. Transl. into Engl. prose by Kisari
16 Mohan Ganguli. 5th ed. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal 1990 – 1991.
17 (12 vols.).
18
Marbe, Karl: [rev.] Ernst Elster: Prinzipien der Literaturwissenschaft. Erster Band.
Halle a. d. S. 1897. In: Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie
19 (1898), pp. 327 – 343.
20 Markwardt, Bruno: Geschichte der deutschen Poetik. Berlin: de Gruyter 1937 –
21 1967. (Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, 13). (5 vols.).
22 Mauthner, Fritz: Beiträge zu einer Kritik der Sprache. Stuttgart: Cotta 1901 –
23
1902. (3 vols.).
Maydorn, Bernhard: Deutsche Sprachlehre. 4th ed. Frankfurt a. M., Berlin:
24 Diersterweg 1912.
25 Meyer, Theodor A.: Die ästhetische Erziehung in der Schule: Vortrag gehalten in
26 der Jahresversammlung des Württembergischen Philologenvereins, 29. April
27 1919. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) 1919.
28
Moritz, Karl Philipp: Über die bildende Nachahmung des Schönen. Braun-
schweig: Schul-Buchhandlung 1788.
29 Needham, Harold Alfred: Le développement de l’esthétique sociologique en
30 France et en Angleterre au xix siècle. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré
31 Champion 1926.
32 Newald, Richard: Einführung in die deutsche Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft.
33
Lahr: Schauenburg 1947.
Pablasek, Matthias: Tabellarische französische Grammatik. Vienna: Rohrmann
34 1839.
35 Pernéty, Antoine Joseph: Dictionnaire portatif de peinture, sculpture, gravure:
36 Avec un traité pratique des différentes manieres de peindre, dont la théorie est
37 developpée dans les articles qui en sont suscreptibles. Paris: Bauche 1756.
38
Pfeiffer, Johannes: Das lyrische Gedicht als ästhetisches Gebilde: Ein phäno-
menologischer Versuch. Halle a. d. S.: Niemeyer 1931.
39
40
1 Pfeiffer, Johannes: Existenzphilosophie: Eine Einführung in Heidegger und Jas-

2 pers. Leipzig: Meiner 1933.
3
Pfeiffer, Johannes: Zwischen Dichtung und Philosophie: Gesammelte Aufsätze.
Bremen: Storm 1947.
4
Philosophisches Magazin [periodical]. Ed. Johann August Eberhard. Halle a. d. S.:
5 Gebauer 1788 – 1792.
6 Philosophisches Archiv [periodical]. Ed. Johann August Eberhard. Berlin:
7 Maßdorf 1792 – 1795.
8 Platner, Ernst: Ernst Platners Philosophische Aphorismen nebst einigen Anlei-
tungen zur philosophischen Geschichte. Leipzig: Schwinckert 1776. (2 vols.).
9
Pongs, Herman: Das Bild in der Dichtung. Marburg: Elwert 1927, 1939. (2 vols.).
10 Raupach, Ernst Benjamin Salomo: Der Nibelungen-Hort. Hamburg: Hoffmann
11 & Campe 1834.
12 Riedel, Friedrich Just: Über das Publicum: Briefe an einige Glieder desselben.
13 Jena: bey Christian Heinrich Cuno 1768.
14 Rosenberg, Alfred: Der Mythos des 20. Jahrhunderts: Eine Wertung der seelisch-
geistigen Gestaltenkämpfe unserer Zeit. Munich: Hoheneichen-Verlag 1930.
15
Rosenberg, Alfred: Protestantische Rompilger. Der Verrat an Luther und der
16 Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts. Munich: Hoheneichen-Verlag 1937.
17 Rosenkranz, Karl: Aesthetik des Hässlichen. Königsberg: Bornträger 1853.
18 Rosenkranz, Karl: Die Poesie und ihre Geschichte: Eine Entwicklung der poe-
19 tischen Ideale der Völker. Königsberg: Gebrüder Bornträger 1855.
20 Rothe, Edmund: Poesie und Medicin: Vortrag gehalten in der literarischen
Gesellschaft des Bremer Künstlervereins. Bremen: Rocco 1885.
21
Ruge, Arnold: Die platonische Ästhetik. Halle a. d. S.: Verl. d. Buchh. d. Wai-
22 senhauses 1832.
23 Rüttgers, Severin: Literarische Erziehung: Ein Versuch über die Jugenschrif-
24 tenfrage auf soziologischer Grundlage. Langensalza, Berlin, Leipzig: Julius
25 Beltz 1931.
26
Saussure, Ferdinand de: Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne, Paris: Payot
1916.
27 Schäfer, Wilhelm: Der Schriftsteller. Frankfurt a. M.: Rütten & Loening 1910.
28 (Die Gesellschaft, 39).
29 Scheler, Max: Der Formalismus in der Ethik und materiale Wertethik. In: Jahr-
30 buch für Philosophie 1 (1913), pp. 405 – 565.
31 Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von: System des transcendentalen Idealismus.
Tübingen: Cotta 1800.
32
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von: Über das Verhältnis der bildenden
33 Künste zur Natur: Eine Rede zur Feier des 12. Oktober 1807, dem Na-
34 mensfest des Königs Maximilian Joseph von Baiern, gehalten in der öffent-
35 lichen Sitzung der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München.
36 Munich: Krüll 1807.
37
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von: Philosophie der Kunst. Reprogr. repr.
of ed. 1859. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchg. 1966.
38 Scheuchzer, Johann Jacob: Uresiphoites Helveticus: Sive itinera Alpina tria. In
39 quibus incolae, animalia, pantae, montium altitidines barometricae, coeli &
40 soli temperies, aquae medicatae, mineralia, metalla, lapides figurati, aliaque
1 fossilia; & quicquid insuper in natura, artibus, [et] antiquitate, per Alpes
2 Helveticas & Rhaeticas, rarum sit & notatu dignum, exponitur, [et] iconibus
3
illustratur. London: Clements 1702 – 1708. (3 vols.).
Schiller, Friedrich: Dom Karlos: Infant von Spanien. Leipzig: Göschen 1787.
4
Schiller, Friedrich: Über die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen in einer Reihe
5 von Briefen. In: F. S.: Kleinere Prosaische Schriften: Aus mehreren Zeit-
6 schriften. Vom Verfasser selbst gesammelt und verbessert. Leipzig: Crusius
7 1801, Vol. 3.
8 Schlegel, August Wilhelm: Über dramatische Kunst und Litteratur. Heidelberg:
Mohr & Zimmer 1809 – 1811. (3 vols.).
9
Schlegel, Friedrich: Gepräch über die Poesie. Cologne: Gehly [et al.] 1924.
10 Schneider, Wilhelm: Ausdruckswerte der deutschen Sprache: Eine Stilkunde.
11 Leipzig [et al.]: Teubner 1931.
12 Schopenhauer, Arthur: Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung: Vier Bücher, nebst
13 einem Anhange, der die Kritik der Kantischen Philosophie enthält. Leipzig:
14 Brockhaus 1819.
Schöppner, Alexander: Literaturkunde: Mit Proben aus den Meisterwerken der
15
alten und neuen Literatur. Zunächst zum Unterrichte in höheren weiblichen
16 Bildungsanstalten. 7th ed. Munich: Lindauer 1911.
17 Schulpe, Georg von: Die Übersetzungskunst: Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Poetik
18 und Literatur. Leutschau: Reiss.
19 Simmel, Georg: Die Probleme der Geschichtsphilosophie: Eine erkenntnis-
20
theoretische Studie. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot 1892.
Smith, Adam: The theory of moral sentiments. London: Millar [et al.] 1759.
21
Smith, Adam: An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations.
22 London: Strahan [et al.] 1776. (2 vols.).
23 Solger, Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand: Erwin: Vier Gespräche über das Schöne und die
24 Kunst. Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung 1815.
25 Spengler, Oswald: Der Untergang des Abendlandes: Umrisse einer Morphologie
der Weltgeschichte. With an afterword by Anton Mirko Koktanek. Repr. ed.
26
Munich: Dt. Taschenbuch-Verl. 1972. (2 vols.).
27 Spoerri, Theophil: Über Literaturwissenschaft und Literaturkritik. In: Trivium:
28 Schweizerische Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Stilkritik 1
29 (1943), pp. 1–43.
30 Spoerri, Theophil: Die Struktur der Existenz: Einführung in die Kunst der In-
31 terpretation. Zurich: Speer-Verlag 1951.
Sprachkunde. Zeitschrift zur Pflege und Förderung des Sprachstudiums [peri-
32
odical]. Berlin: Langenscheidt 1912 – 1943.
33 Sprengel, Johann Georg: Die neuere deutsche Dichtung in der Schule: Vortrag
34 gehalten im freien deutschen Hochstift zu Frankfurt am Main. Frankfurt a. M.
35 1911.
36 Staiger, Emil: Die Zeit als Einbildungskraft des Dichters: Untersuchungen zu
37
Gedichten von Brentano, Goethe und Keller. Zurich: Niehans 1939.
Staiger, Emil: Ein Rückblick: In: Heidegger, Perspektiven zur Deutung seines
38 Werks, ed. by Otto Pöggeler. Frankfurt a. M. 1984, pp. 242 – 245.
39 Stang, Georg: Die Pflege der Phantasie bei der deutschen Lektüre in den unteren
40 und mittleren Gymnasialklassen (Programm). Hof: Mintzel 1908.
1 Stein, K. Heinrich von: Die Entstehung der neueren Ästhetik. Stuttgart: Cotta
2 1886.
3
Steinthal, Heymann: Abriss der Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Dümmler 1871 –
1893. (2 vols. + Add.).
4 Steinthal, Heymann: Wilhelm Scherer, Poetik. In: Zeitschrift für Völkerpsy-
5 chologie und Sprachwissenschaft 19 (1889), pp. 87 – 97.
6 Stern, Wiliam: Die differentielle Psychologie in ihren methodischen Grundlagen.
7 Leipzig: Barth 1911.
8
Sulzer, Johann Georg: Johann Georg Sulzers, V. D. M. Versuch einiger morali-
scher Betrachtungen über die Werke der Natur. With an introd. by A. F. W.
9 Sack, Königl. Preußischen Consistorial- und Kirchenrath. Berlin: Haude
10 1745.
11 Tabori, George: Mein Kampf: Farce. Transl. by Ursula Tabori-Grützmacher.
12 Music by Stanley Walden. Vienna: Burgtheater 1987. (Programmbuch, 17).
13
Tägliche Rundschau. Unabhängige Zeitung für nationale Politik [periodical].
Berlin 1881 – 1933.
14 Tetens, Johann Nicolaus: Philosophische Versuche über die menschliche Natur
15 und ihre Entwicklung. Leipzig: Weidmann & Reich 1777. (2 vols.).
16 Theophrastus: Characters. Ed. James Diggle. Cambridge [et al.]: Cambridge
17 Univ. Press 2005. (Cambridge classical texts and commentaries, 43).
18
St Thomas Aquinas: Summa theologiae: Latin text and English translation, in-
troductions, notes, appendices and glossaries. Cambridge [et al.]: Cambridge
19 Univ. Press 2006. (61 vols.).
20 Trivium. Schweizer Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft [periodical].
21 Zurich: Atlantis-Verl. 1942 – 1952.
22 Uhsius redivivus: Die höhere Poesie: Ein volkstümlicher Unterricht, die wahre
23
Dichtkunst bald zu erlernen. Breslau: H. Fleischmann 1911.
Unger, Rudolf: Hamann und die Aufklärung: Studien zur Vorgeschichte des
24 romantischen Geistes im 18. Jahrhundert. With an afterword. 2nd ed. Halle
25 a. d. S.: Niemeyer 1925. (2 vols.).
26 Urbanek, Walter: Gespräche über Lyrik: Dokumente zur Poetik des Lyrischen.
27 Bamberg: Buchner 1961.
28
Viehoff, Heinrich: Handbuch der deutschen Nationalliteratur: Dichter und
Prosaiker. Ein Lesebuch für obere Classen höherer Lehranstalten und Freunde
29 der deutschen Literatur. Braunschweig: Westermann 1857 – 1858. (3 vols.).
30 Vischer, Friedrich Theodor von: Kritische Gänge. Tübingen: Fues 1844. (2 vols.).
31 Vischer, Friedrich Theodor: Faust: Der Tragödie dritter Theil in drei Acten. Treu
32 im Geiste des zweiten Theils des Göthe’schen Faust gedichtet. Tübingen:
33
Laupp 1862.
Vischer, Friedrich Theodor: Auch einer: Eine Reisebekanntschaft. Stuttgart
34 [et al.]: Hallberger 1879. (2 vols.).
35 Wackernagel, Wilhelm: Deutsches Lesebuch. Basel: Schweighauser 1835 – 1848.
36 (5 vols.).
37 Wagner, Johann Jakob: Kleine Schriften. Ed. Philipp Ludwig Adam. Ulm: Stettin
38
1839.
39
40
1 Weber, Hugo: Deutsche Sprache und Dichtung: Ein Hilfsbüchlein für den
2 Unterricht in der deutschen Nationalliteratur und ein Ratgeber zur Fortbil-
3
dung durch Schriftwerke. 19th ed. Leipzig: Julius Klinkhardt 1916.
Weise, Oskar: Musterstücke deutscher Prosa. Leipzig, Berlin: Teubner 1903.
4 Wellek, Rene and Austin Warren: Theory of Literature. 3rd, newly rev. ed. New
5 York: Harcourt, Brace & World 1956. (A Harvest book, 75).
6 Werner, Richard Maria: Lyrik und Lyriker: Eine Untersuchung. Hamburg
7 [et al.]: L. Voß 1890. (Beiträge zur Ästhetik, 1).
8
Wienbarg, Ludolf: Aesthetische Feldzüge: Dem jungen Deutschland gewidmet.
Hamburg: Hoffmann & Campe 1834.
9 Wolf, Friedrich August: Darstellung der Altertumswissenschaften. Berlin:
10 Realschul-Buchhandlung 1807. (Museum der Alterthumswissenschaft, 1).
11 Wolff, Christian: Vernünfftige Gedancken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des
12 Menschen, auch allen Dingen überhaupt. Halle a. d. S.: Renger 1720.
13
Wölfflin, Heinrich: Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Das Problem der Stil-
entwicklung in der neueren Kunst. Ed. Hubert Faensen. Dresden: Verlag der
14 Kunst 1984. (Fundus-Bücher, 87/88).
15 Wolfram von Eschenbach: Parzival. Auf der Grundlage der Handschrift D. Ed.
16 Joachim Bumke. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2008. (Altdeutsche Textbibliothek,
17 119).
18
Wundt, Wilhelm: Über die Definition der Psychologie. In: Philosophische
Studien 12 (1896), pp. 1–66.
19 Wundt, Wilhelm: Grundriss der Psychologie. 15th ed. Leipzig: Kröner 1922.
20 Zeitschrift des Vereins für Volkskunde: Neue Folge der Zeitschrift für Völker-
21 psychologie und Sprachwissenschaft [periodical]. Berlin, Leipzig: de Gruyter
22 1891 – 1928.
23
Zeitschrift für deutsche Bildung [periodical]. Frankfurt a. M.: Diesterweg 1925 –
1943.
24 Zeitschrift für vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte [periodical]. Berlin: Haack,
25 Felber 1886 – 1910. [1888 – 1891: Zeitschrift für vergleichende Litteratur-
26 geschichte und Renaissance-Litteratur].
27 Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft [periodical]. Ed. M.
28
Lazarus [et al.]. Berlin: Dümmler 1860 – 1890.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4 6. Research Literature
5
6
7 Abels, Kurt: Viehoff, Heinrich. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon: 1800
8 1950, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2002. [CD-
ROM].
9
Abrams, Meyer Howard: The mirror and the lamp: Romantic theory and the
10 critical tradition. New York: Norton 1958. (Norton Library, 102).
11 Adler, Hans: Die Prägnanz des Dunklen: Gnoseologie, Ästhetik, Geschichts-
12 philosophie bei Johann Gottfried Herder. Hamburg: Meiner 1990. (Studien
13 zum achtzehnten Jahrhundert, 13).
14 Ajouri, Philip: Anfänge der Gestaltpsychologie bei Christian von Ehrenfels und
Ernst Mach. In: Scientia Poetica 11 (2007), pp. 122 136.
15
Ajouri, Philip: Erzählen nach Darwin: Die Krise der Teleologie im literarischen
16 Realismus. Friedrich Theodor Vischer und Gottfried Keller. Berlin, New
17 York: de Gruyter 2007.
18 Albert, Claudia: Hölderlin. In: Deutsche Klassiker im Nationalsozialismus:
19 Schiller, Kleist, Hölderlin, ed. by C. A. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 1994,
20
pp. 189 247.
Albert, John E.: Husserl’s position between Dilthey and the Windelband-Rickert
21
school of Neo-Kantianism. In: Journal of the History of Philosophy 26 (1988)
22 2, pp. 279 296.
23 Allesch, Christian G.: Geschichte der psychologischen Ästhetik: Untersuchungen
24 zur historischen Entwicklung eines psychologischen Verständnisses ästheti-
25 scher Phänomene. Göttingen [et al.]: Verl. für Psychologie 1987.
Althaus, Hans Peter: Sprachtheorie und Belletristik: Die Etymtheorien von Emil
26
Winkler und Arno Schmidt. In: Sprachtheorie: Der Sprachbegriff in Wis-
27 senschaft und Alltag, ed. by Rainer Wimmer. Düsseldorf: Schwann 1987,
28 pp. 191 205. (Sprache der Gegenwart, 71).
29 Ameriks, Karl: Hegel’s aesthetics: New perspectives on its response to Kant and
30 Romanticism. In: Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 45/46 (2002),
31
pp. 72 92.
Amrein, Ursula: Diskurs der Mitte: Antimoderne Dichtungstheorien in der
32
Schweizer Germanistik vor und nach 1945. In: Schreiben gegen die Moderne:
33 Beiträge zu einer kritischen Fachgeschichte der Germanistik in der Schweiz,
34 ed. by Corina Caduff and Michael Gamper. Zurich: Chronos 2001, pp. 43
35 64.
36 André, Robert: Gespräche von Text zu Text: Celan, Heidegger, Hölderlin.
Hamburg: Meiner 2001.
37
Angelucci, Daniela: L’oggetto poetico: Conrad, Ingarden, Hartmann. Macerata:
38 Quodlibet 2004. (Estetica e critica).
39 Ansel, Michael: G. G. Gervinus’ Geschichte der poetischen National-Literatur
40 der Deutschen: Nationbildung auf literaturgeschichtlicher Grundlage.
1 Frankfurt a. M. [et al.]: Lang 1990. (Münchener Studien zur literarischen

2 Kultur in Deutschland, 10).
3
Arendt, Hans-Jürgen: Gustav Theodor Fechner: Ein deutscher Naturwissen-
schaftler und Philosoph im 19. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt a. M. [et al.]: Lang
4
1999. (Daedalus: Europäisches Denken in deutscher Philosophie, 12).
5 Armand, Louis (ed.): Contemporary poetics: Redefining the boundaries of
6 contemporary poetics in theory and practice. For the twenty-first century.
7 Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern Univ. Press 2007.
8 Ash, Mitchel G.: Psychologie und Deutschland um 1900: Reflexiver Diskurs des
Bildungsbürgertums, Teilgebiet der Philosophie, akademische Disziplin. In:
9
Konkurrenten in der Fakultät: Kultur, Wissen und Universität um 1900, ed.
10 by Christoph König and Eberhard Lämmert. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer-Ta-
11 schenbuch-Verl. 1999, pp. 78 93.
12 Aumüller, Matthias: Innere Form und Poetizität: Die Theorie Aleksandr Pote-
13 bnjas in ihrem begriffsgeschichtlichen Kontext. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang 2005.
14 (Slavische Literaturen, 35).
Avé-Lallemant, Eberhard: Die phänomenologische Bewegung: Ursprung, An-
15
fang und Ausblick. In: Husserl und die phänomenologische Bewegung:
16 Zeugnisse in Text und Bild, ed. by Hans Rainer Sepp. Freiburg i. Br., Munich:
17 Alber 1988, pp. 61 75.
18 Baasner, Rainer: Günther Müllers morphologische Poetik und ihre Rezeption.
19 In: Zeitenwechsel: Germanistische Literaturwissenschaft vor und nach 1945,
20
ed. by Wilfried Barner and Christoph König. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer-Ta-
schenbuch-Verl. 1996, pp. 256 267.
21 Bachmann-Medick, Doris: Die ästhetische Ordnung des Handelns: Moralphi-
22 losophie und Ästhetik in der Popularphilosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts.
23 Stuttgart: Metzler 1989.
24 Barth, Bernhard: Philosophie der Kunst: Göttliche Imagination und ästhetische
25 Einbildungskraft. Freiburg i. Br., München: Alber 1991.
Batts, Michael S.: A history of histories of German literature 1835 1914.
26
Montreal [et al.]: McGill-Queen‘s Univ. Press 1993.
27 Bauer, Barbara: Jesuitische ‘ars rhetorica’ im Zeitalter der Glaubenskämpfe.
28 Frankfurt a. M.: Lang 1986.
29 Bayerdörfer, Hans-Peter: Poetik als sprachtheoretisches Problem. Tübingen:
30 Niemeyer 1967. (Studien zur deutschen Literatur, 8).
31 Bayertz, Kurt: Die Deszendenz des Schönen: Darwinisierende Ästhetik im
Ausgang des 19. Jahrhunderts. In: Fin de sciècle: Zu Naturwissenschaft und
32
Literatur der Jahrhundertwende im deutsch-skandinavischen Kontext.
33 Vorträge des Kolloquiums am 3. und 4. Mai 1984, ed. by Klaus Bohnen, Uffe
34 Hansen and Friedrich Scmöe. Copenhagen, Munich: Fink 1984, pp. 88
35 110. (Kopenhagener Kolloquien zur deutschen Literatur, 11. Text und
36 Kontext, 20).
37
Bayertz, Kurt: Biology and beauty: Science and aesthetics in fin-de-sciècle
Germany. In: Fin de siècle and its legacy, ed. by Mikuláš Teich and Roy Porter.
38 Cambridge [et al.]: Cambridge Univ. Press 1990, pp. 278 295.
39 Beierwaltes, Werner: Einleitung zu F. W. J. Schelling: Texte zur Philosophie der
40 Kunst. Stuttgart: Reclam 1982.
6. Research Literature 405
1 Bell, Matthew: The German tradition of psychology in literature and thought:

2 1700 1840. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press 2005.
3
Benham, Gary: Kant and the ends of aesthetics. London: Macmillan 2000.
Bernstein, Jay M. (ed.): Classic and romantic German aesthetics. Cambridge:
4 Cambridge Univ. Press 2003.
5 Bessière, Jean, Eva Kushner, Roland Mortier and Jean Weisgerber (eds.): Histoire
6 des poétiques. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France 1997.
7 Bödeker, Hans Erich: Konzept und Klassifikation der Wissenschaften bei Johann
8
Georg Sulzer (1720 1779). In: Schweizer im Berlin des 18. Jahrhunderts, ed.
by Martin Fontius and Helmut Holzhey. Berlin: Akademie 1996, pp. 325
9 339.
10 Boden, Margaret: Mind as machine: A history of cognitive science. Oxford:
11 Oxford Univ. Press 2006. (2 vols.).
12 Boden, Petra: Julius Petersen: Ein Wissenschaftsmanager auf dem Philologen-
13
thron. In: Euphorion 88 (1994) 1, pp. 82 102.
Böhler, Michael: Der ‘neue’ Zürcher Literaturstreit: Bilanz nach zwanzig Jahren.
14 In: Formen und Formgeschichte des Streitens: Der Literaturstreit. Vol. 2, ed.
15 by Franz-Josef Worstbrock and Helmut Koopmann. Tübingen: Niemeyer
16 1986, pp. 250 262. (Akten des 7. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses,
17 Göttingen 1985).
18
Böhler, Michael: Länderspezifische Wissenschaftsvarianten in der Germanistik?
In: Schreiben gegen die Moderne: Beiträge zu einer kritischen Fachge-
19 schichte der Germanistik in der Schweiz, ed. by Corina Caduff and Michael
20 Gamper. Zurich: Chronos 2001, pp. 13 42.
21 Böhm, Max Hildebert: Das eigenständige Volk: Volkstheoretische Grundlagen
22 der Ethnopolitik und Geisteswissenschaften. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
23
Ruprecht 1932.
Bohrer, Karl Heinz: Das ‘Erhabene’ als ungelöstes Problem der Moderne: Martin
24 Heideggers und Theodor W. Adornos Ästhetik. In: Das absolute Präsens: Die
25 Semantik ästhetischer Zeit, ed. by K. H. B. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1994,
26 pp. 92 120.
27 Bollberg, Cathrin: Wackernagel, Karl Heinrich Wilhelm. In: Internationales
28
Germanistenlexikon: 1800 1950. Vol. 3, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin,
New York 2003, pp. 1965 1967.
29 Bollenbeck, Georg and Gerhard Kaiser (eds.): Die janusköpfigen 50er Jahre.
30 Wiesbaden: Westdt. Verl. 2000. (Kulturelle Moderne und bildungsbürger-
31 liche Semantik, 3).
32 Bollenbeck, Georg: Vom allmählichen Abhandenkommen des Platzierungssinns:
33
Denkstil und Resonanzkalkül in ‘verteilersprachlichen’ Texten Emil Staigers.
In: Semantischer Umbau der Geisteswissenschaften nach 1933 und 1945, ed.
34 by G. B. and Clemens Knobloch. Heidelberg: Winter 2001, pp. 132 157.
35 Bollenbeck, Georg and Clemens Knobloch (eds.): Semantischer Umbau der
36 Geisteswissenschaften nach 1933 und 1945. Heidelberg: Winter 2001.
37 Bollmus, Reinhard: Das Amt Rosenberg und seine Gegner: Studien zum
38
Machtkampf im nationalsozialistischen Herrschaftssystem. Munich: Olden-
burg 2006.
39
40
1 Bollnow, Otto Friedrich: Dilthey: Eine Einführung in seine Philosophie. Leipzig

2 [et al.]: Teubner 1936.
3
Böschenstein, Bernhard: Emil Staigers „Grundbegriffe“: Ihre romantischen und
klassischen Ursprünge. In: Zeitenwechsel: Germanistische Literaturwissen-
4
schaft vor und nach 1945, ed. by Wilfried Barner and Christoph König.
5 Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl. 1996, pp. 268 281.
6 Bowie, Andrew: Aesthetics and subjectivity: From Kant to Nietzsche. Man-
7 chester, New York: Manchester Univ. Press 1990.
8 Breithaupt, Fritz: Emil Staiger und das Anthropologische. In: Monatshefte 95
(2003) 1, pp. 6 13.
9
Breuer, Dieter: Günther Kopsch: Rhetoriklehrbücher des 16. bis 20. Jahrhun-
10 derts. Eine Bibliographie. In: Rhetorik, ed. by Helmut Schanze. Frankfurt
11 a. M.: Athennaion 1974, pp. 217 355.
12 Bruch, Rüdiger vom and Ulrich Herbert: Geschichte der Deutschen For-
13 schungsgemeinschaft: 1920 1970. (= DFG Pressemitteilung 6 (2008)).
14 Bube, Tobias: Wilhelm Dilthey und die Engländer: Die poetisch-historische
Verhinderung eines interkulturellen Transfers von gesellschaftlicher Ur-
15
teilskraft. In: Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache 28 (2002), pp. 139 183.
16 Buchenau, Stefanie and Élisabeth Décultot (eds.): Esthétiques de l’Aufklärung.
17 Paris: CNRS Éd. 2006. (Revue Germanique Internationale, 4).
18 Bucher, André: Zur Rezeption der klassischen Moderne in der Schweizer Ger-
19 manistik: Untersuchungen zu Ermatinger, Faesi, Muschg und Staiger. In:
20
der Germanistik in der Schweiz, ed. by Corina Caduff and Michael Gamper.
21 Zurich: Chronos 2001, pp. 65 83.
22 Bunzel, Wolfgang: „Muth und Opferkraft für die Idee“: Briefe Moriz Carrieres an
23 Arnold Ruge und Theodor Echtermeyer (1839/41). In: Internationales
24 Jahrbuch der Bettina-von-Arnim-Gesellschaft 8/9 (1996/97), pp. 39 73.
25 Bunzel, Wolfgang: Das deutschsprachige Prosagedicht: Theorie und Geschichte
einer literarischen Gattung der Moderne. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2005.
26
Burdorf, Dieter: Poetik der Form: Eine Begriffs- und Problemgeschichte.
27 Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 2001.
28 Busch, Stefan: „Und gestern, da hörte uns Deutschland“: NS-Autoren in der
29 Bundesrepublik. Kontinuität und Diskontinuität bei Friedrich Griese,
30 Werner Beumelburg, Eberhard Wolfgang Möller und Kurt Ziesel. Würz-
31
burg: Königshausen & Neumann 1998.
Büttiker, Geroges: Ernest Bovet (1870 1941). Basel, Stuttgart: Helbing &
32
Lichtenhahn 1971. (Basler Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft, 122).
33 Clairmont, Heinrich: „Kritisiren heißt einen Autor besser verstehn als er sich selbst
34 verstanden hat“: Zu Hegels Solger-Rezension. In: Die Jahrbücher für wis-
35 senschaftliche Kritik: Hegels Berliner Gegenakademie, ed. by Christoph
36 Jamme. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog 1994, pp. 257
279. (Spekulation und Erfahrung: Abt. 2, Untersuchungen 27).
37
Collette, Jacques: Enthousiasme et ironie: La dialectique artistique selon K. W. F.
38 Solger. In: Les études philosophiques 1992, pp. 487 498.
39 Costelloe, Timothy M.: Hume’s aesthetics: The literature and directions for re-
40 search. In: Hume-Studies 30 (2004) 1, pp. 87 126.
1 Dainat, Holger: Von der Neueren deutschen Literaturgeschichte zur Literatur-

2 wissenschaft: Die Fachentwicklung 1890 bis 1913/14. In: Wissenschaftsge-
3
schichte der Germanistik im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by Jürgen Fohrmann and
Wilhelm Voßkamp. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 1994, pp. 494 537.
4
Dainat, Holger: Zur Berufungspolitik in der Neueren deutschen Literaturwis-
5 senschaft 1933 1945. In: Literaturwissenschaft und Nationalsozialismus, ed.
6 by Holger Dainat and Lutz Danneberg. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2003, pp. 55
7 86. (Studien und Texte zur Sozialgeschichte der Literatur, 99).
8 Danneberg, Lutz and Hans-Harald Müller: Verwissenschaftlichung der Litera-
turwissenschaft: Ansprüche, Strategien, Resultate. In: Zeitschrift für Allge-
9
meine Wissenschaftstheorie / Journal for General Philosophy of Science 1
10 (1979), pp. 162 191.
11 Danneberg, Lutz: Methodologien: Struktur, Aufbau und Evaluation. Berlin:
13 Danneberg, Lutz: Zur Theorie der werkimmanenten Interpretation. In: Zei-
14 tenwechsel: Germanistische Literaturwissenschaft vor und nach 1945, ed. by
Wilfried Barner and Christoph König. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer-Taschen-
15
buch-Verl. 1996, pp. 313 342.
16 Danneberg, Lutz and Jörg Schönert: Zur Transnationalität und Internationalität
17 von Wissenschaft. In: Wie international ist die Literaturwissenschaft? Me-
18 thoden- und Theoriediskussion in den Literaturwissenschaften. Kulturelle
19 Besonderheiten und interkultureller Austausch am Beispiel des Interpretati-
20
onsproblems (1950 1990), ed. by L. D. and Friedrich Vollhardt. Stuttgart:
Metzler 1996, pp. 7 85.
21 Danneberg, Lutz, Wolfgang Höppner and Ralf Klausnitzer (eds.): Stil, Schule,
22 Disziplin: Analyse und Erprobung von Konzepten wissenschaftsgeschicht-
23 licher Rekonstruktion (I). Frankfurt a. M. [et al.]: Lang 2005.
24 Danneberg, Lutz: Dissens, ad personam-Invektiven und wissenschaftliches Ethos
25 in der Philologie des 19. Jahrhunderts: Wilamowitz-Moellendorf ‘contra’
Nietzsche. In: Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie / Literaturtheorie in der
26
Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]: Lang
27 2007, pp. 93 147. (Publikationen der Zeitschrift für Germanistik, NF 17).
28 Decher, Friedhelm: Einheit von Offenbarung und Spekulation: Anmerkungen
29 zum mystischen Grundzug der Solgerschen Philosophie. In: Prima Philo-
30 sophia 13 (2000) 3, pp. 231 241.
31
Décultot, Elisabeth: Éléments d’une histoire interculturelle de l’esthétique :
L’exemple de la „Théorie générale des beaux-arts“ de Johann Georg Sulzer.
32
In: Revue germanique internationale 10 (1998), pp. 141 160.
33 Décultot, Elisabeth and Mark Ledbury (eds.): Théories et débats esthétiques au dix-
34 huitième siècle: Eléments d’une enquête. Paris: Champion 2001.
35 Décultot, Élisabeth: Ästhetik / esthétique: Étapes d’une naturalisation (1750
36 1840). In: Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 2 (2002), pp. 157 178.
37
Décultot, Élisabeth: Von der Seelenkunde zur Kunsttheorie: Zu Sulzers „Un-
tersuchung über den Ursprung der angenehmen und unangenehmen Emp-
38 findungen“ (1751/52). In: Scientia Poetica 12 (2008), pp. 69 88.
39 Deghaye, Pierre: De Husserl à Günther Müller. In: Études Germaniques 20
40 (1965), pp. 366 369.
1 Delft, Klaus van: Kritische Apologie des Nationalsozialismus: Hans Grimms

2 Konservative Revolution? In: Leid der Worte: Panorama des literarischen
3
Nationalsozialismus, ed. by Jörg Thunecke. Bonn: Bouvier 1987, pp. 255
277.
4 Desroches, Dominic: Existence esthetique, musique et language : Retour sur la
5 reception critique de Kierkegaard par Adorno. In: Horizons Philosophiques
6 16 (2006) 2, pp. 21 38.
7 Deupmann, Christoph: Eugen Wolff. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon:
8
18001 950, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2003.
[CD-ROM].
9 Dittrich, Andreas: Jargon der Eigentlichkeit? Die Kontroverse zwischen Hei-
10 degger und Adorno über die philosophische Lesbarkeit ästhetischer Texte. In:
11 Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie / Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse,
12 ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]: Lang 2007,
13
pp. 223 234. (Publikationen der Zeitschrift für Germanistik, NF 17).
Doležel, Lubomír: Occidental poetics: Tradition and progress. Lincoln, NE
14 [et al.]: Nebraska Univ. Press 1990.
15 Dummett, Michael: Origins of analytical philosophy. London: Duckworth 1993.
16 Dürbeck, Gabriele: Einbildungskraft und Aufklärung: Perspektiven der Philo-
17 sophie, Anthropologie und Ästhetik um 1750. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1998.
18
(Studien zur deutschen Literatur, 148).
Eagleton, Terry: Literary theory: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell 1983.
19 Eibl, Karl: Animal Poeta: Bausteine zur biologischen Kultur- und Literatur-
20 theorie. Paderborn: Mentis 2004.
21 Eibl, Karl, Katja Mellmann and Rüdiger Zymner (eds.): Im Rücken der Kulturen.
22 Paderborn: Mentis 2007.
23
Elliott, Brian: Phenomenology and imagination in Husserl and Heidegger.
London [et al.]: Routledge 2005.
24 Enders, Horst: Zur Popular-Poetik im 19. Jahrhundert: ‘Sinnlichkeit’ und ‘in-
25 neres Bild’ in der Poetik Rudolph Gottschalls. In: Beiträge zur Theorie der
26 Künste im 19. Jahrhundert. Vol. 1, ed. by Helmut Koopmann and J. Adolf
27 Schmoll gen. Eisenwerth. Frankfurt a. M. 1971, pp. 66 84. (Studien zur
28
Philosophie und Literatur des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, 12).
Engel, Manfred and Jürgen Lehmann: The aesthetics of German idealism and its
29 reception in European romanticism. In: Nonfictional romantic prose: Ex-
30 panding borders, ed. by Steven P. Sondrup and Virgil Nemoianu. Amsterdam,
31 Philadelphia: Benjamins 2004, pp. 69 96.
32 Epstein, Hans: Die Metaphysizierung in der literaturwissenschaftlichen Be-
33
griffsbildung und ihre Folgen: Dargelegt an drei Theorien über das Litera-
turbarock. Berlin: Eberlin 1929. (Germanische Studien, 73).
34 Eschenbach, Gunilla: Imitation und Parodie in George-Kreis. Ts., Diss. Hamburg
35 2009.
36 Espagne, Michel: Wilhelm Wundt: La „psychologie des peuples“ et l’histoire
37 culturelle. In: Revue germanique internationale 10 (1998), pp. 73 91.
38
Falk, Eugene E.: The poetics of Roman Ingarden. Chapel Hill: North Carolina
Univ. Press 1981.
39
40
1 Fischer, Jens Malte: „Zwischen uns und Weimar liegt Buchenwald“: Germanisten
2 im Dritten Reich. In: Merkur (1987), pp. 12 25.
3
Fischer, Ludwig: Gebundene Rede: Dichtung und Rhetorik in der literarischen
Theorie des Barock in Deutschland. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1968. (Studien zur
4 deutschen Literatur, 10).
5 Fix, Ulla: Was ist aus André Jolles „Einfachen Formen“ heute geworden? Eine
6 kulturanalytische und textlinguistische Betrachtung. In: Sprache und Kom-
7 munikation im Kulturkontext, ed. by Volker Hertel. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang
8
1996, pp. 105 120.
Flood, John: Poetry and song on the Isle of Wight: A Mannheim fourty-eighter
9 enjoys a Victorian holiday. In: Expedition nach der Wahrheit: Poems, essays,
10 and papers in honour of Theo Stemmler, ed. by Stefan Horlacher and Marian
11 Islinger. Heidelberg: Winter 1996, pp. 381 397.
12 Flood, John: Ginger beer and sugared cauliflower: Adolphus Bernays and language
13
teaching in nineteenth-century London. In: Vermittlungen: German studies
at the turn of the century. Festschrift für Nigel B. R. Reeves, ed. by Rüdiger
14 Görner and Hellen Kelly-Holmes. Munich: Iudicium 1999, pp. 101 115.
15 Fohrmann, Jürgen: Literaturgeschichte als Stiftung von Ordnung: Das Konzept
16 der Literaturgeschichte bei Herder, August Wilhelm und Friedrich Schlegel.
17 In: Historische und aktuelle Konzepte der Literaturgeschichtsschreibung:
18
Zwei Königskinder? Zum Verhältnis von Literatur und Literaturwissenschaft,
ed. by Wilhelm Voßkamp and Eberhard Lämmert. Tübingen 1986, pp. 75
19 84. (Akten des VII. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses).
20 Fohrmann, Jürgen: Das Projekt der deutschen Literaturgeschichte: Entstehung
21 und Scheitern einer nationalen Poesiegeschichtsschreibung zwischen Hu-
22 manismus und deutschen Kaiserreich. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 1989.
23
Føllesdal, Dagfin: Husserl und Frege: Ein Beitrag zur Beleuchtung der Entstehung
der phänomenologischen Philosophie. Oslo: Aschehoug 1958.
24 Forum „Credibility: The new challenge“. In: The German Quarterly 80 (2007) 4,
25 pp. 421 426.
26 Frank, Manfred and Gerhard Kurz (eds.): Materialien zu Schellings philosophi-
27 schen Anfängen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1975.
28
Frank, Manfred: Einführung in die frühromantische Ästhetik: Vorlesungen.
Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1989.
29 Frank, Manfred: Selbstgefühl: Eine historisch-systematische Erkundung.
30 Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 2002.
31 Friday, Jonathan: Art and enlightenment: Scottish aesthetics in the 18th Century.
32 In: Hume-Studies 31 (2005) 3, pp. 184 186.
33
Frühwald, Wolfgang: Der Zwang der Verständlichkeit: August Wilhelm Schle-
gels Begründung romantischer Exoterik aus der Kritik rationalistischer
34 Poetologie. In: Die literarische Frühromantik, ed. by Silvio Vietta. Göttin-
35 gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1983, pp. 129 148.
36 Fürbeth, Frank, Pierre Krügel, Ernst E. Metzner and Olaf Müller (eds.): Zur
37 Geschichte und Problematik der Nationalphilologien in Europa: 150 Jahre
38
Erste Germanistenversammlung in Frankfurt am Main (1846 1996). Tü-
bingen: Niemeyer 1999.
39
40
1 Gabriel, Gottfried: Einleitung. In: Hermann Lotze: Logik. Erstes Buch. Vom
2 Denken und Logik. Drittes Buch. Vom Erkennen. Hamburg: Meiner 1989,
3
pp. XI–XXXV.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg: Stefan George (1868 1933). In: Die Wirkung Stefan
4 Georges auf die Wissenschaft: Ein Symposium, ed. by Hans-Joachim Zim-
5 mermann. Heidelberg: Winter 1985, pp. 39 49. (Supplemente zu den
6 Sitzungsberichten der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philo-
7 sophisch-Historische Klasse 4).
8
Garber, Klaus: Kulturelle Räume und präsentimentale Mentalität: Das Werk über
Johann Beer und den Roman des 17. Jahrhunderts. In: Zum Bilde Richard
9 Alewyns, ed. by K. G. Munich: Fink 2005.
10 Gärtner, Marcus: Kontinuität und Wandel in der neueren deutschen Literatur-
11 wissenschaft nach 1945. Bielefeld: Aisthesis-Verl. 1997.
12 Gasché, Rudolph: The idea of form: Rethinking Kant’s aesthetics. Stanford:
13
Stanford Univ. Press 2003.
Gaut, Berys and Dominic McIver Lopes (eds.): The Routledge companion to
14 aesthetics. 2nd ed. London, New York: Routledge 2005.
15 Gawlina, Manfred: Das Medusenhaupt der Kritik: Die Kontroverse zwischen
16 Immanuel Kant und Johann August Eberhard. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter
17 1996.
18
Gebhard, Walter: Die Erblast des 19. Jahrhunderts: Organismusdiskurs zwischen
Goethes Morphologie und Nietzsches Lebensbegriff. In: Faszination des
19 Organischen: Konjunkturen einer Kategorie der Moderne, ed. by Hartmut
20 Eggert, Erhard Schütz and Peter Sprengel. Munich: Iudicium-Verl. 1995,
21 pp. 13 36.
22 Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie: Heinrich Gustav Hotho: Kunst als Bildungser-
23
lebnis und Kunsthistorie in systematischer Absicht. Oder entpolitisierte
Version der ästhetischen Erziehung des Menschen. In: Kunsterfahrung und
24 Kulturpolitik im Berlin Hegels, ed. by A. G.-S. and Otto Pöggeler. Bonn:
25 Bouvier 1983, pp. 229 261.
26 Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie and Otto Pöggler (eds.): Welt und Wirkung von
27 Hegels Ästhetik. Bonn: Bouvier 1986. (Hegel-Studien).
28
Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie: Friedrich Theodor Vischer: „Der große Repe-
tent deutscher Nation für alles Schöne und Gute, Recht und Wahre“. In: „O
29 Fürstin der Heimath! Glükliches Stutgard“: Politik, Kultur und Gesellschaft in
30 deutschen Südwesten um 1800, ed. by Otto Pöggeler and Christoph Jamme.
31 Stuttgart 1988, pp. 329 351.
32 Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie: Heideggers Bestimmung des Kunstwerks: Im
33
Rückblick auf „Sein und Zeit“. In: Philosophie und Poesie: Otto Pöggeler
zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by A. G.-S. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-
34 Holzboog 1988, pp. 143 168.
35 Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie: Ästhetik oder Philosophie der Kunst: Die
36 Nachschriften und Zeugnisse zu Hegels Berliner Vorlesungen. In: Hegel-
37 Studien 26 (1991), pp. 92 110.
38
Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie: Einführung in die Ästhetik. Munich: Fink 1995.
39
40
1 Gethmann-Siefert, Annemarie: Hegels Ästhetik: Die Transformation der Berliner

2 Vorlesungen zum System. In: Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 56
3
(2002) 2, pp. 274 292.
Glendinning, Simon: In the name of phenomenology. London: Routledge 2007.
4
Göbel, Helmut: Zum politischen Drama und Theater im Nationalsozialismus:
5 Hanns Johsts „Schlageter“ als politisches Märtyrerdrama und die national-
6 sozialistischen Massenveranstaltungen. In: Aspekte des politischen Theaters
7 und Dramas von Calderón bis Georg Seidel, ed. by Horst Turk and Jean-Marie
8 Valetin. Bern [et al.]: Lang 1996, pp. 269 288.
Göbel, Wendelin: Friedrich Theodor Vischer: Grundzüge seiner Metaphysik und
9
Ästhetik. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 1983. (Epistemata. Philo-
10 sophische Schriften, 15).
11 Gossens, Peter: Walzel, Oskar. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon: 1800
12 1950. Vol. 1, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2003,
13 pp. 1980 1983.
14 Goubet, Jean-François and Oliver-Pierre Rudolph (eds.): Die Psychologie
Christian Wolffs: Systematische und historische Untersuchungen. Tübingen:
15
Niemeyer 2004. (Studien zur Europäischen Aufklärung, 22).
16 Goubet, Jean-François and Gérard Raulet (eds.): Aux sources de l’esthétique: Les
17 débuts de l’esthétique philosophische en Allemagne. Paris: Éd. de la Maison
18 des Sciences de l’Homme 2005. (Collection Philia).
19 Graff, Gerald: Professing literature: An institutional history. Chicago: Chicago
20
Univ. Press 1987.
Graham, Gordon: Expressivism: Croce and Collingwood. In: The Routledge
21 companion to aesthetics, ed. by Berys Baut and Dominic McIver Lopes. 2nd
22 ed. London, New York: Routledge 2005, pp. 133 145.
23 Grimm, Reinhold and Jost Hermans (eds.): Methodenfragen der deutschen Li-
24 teraturwissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft 1973. (Wege der
25 Forschung, 290).
Grüttner, Michael: Die nationalsozialistische Wissenschaftspolitik und die Geis-
26
teswissenschaften. In: Literaturwissenschaft und Nationalsozialismus, ed. by
27 Holger Dainat and Lutz Danneberg. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2003, pp. 13 39.
28 (Studien und Texte zur Sozialgeschichte der Literatur, 99).
29 Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich: Schluss mit Stimmung: Der existentialistische Sound
30 der Dekonstruktion. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 24 January 2007,
31
No. 20, p. N3.
Guyer, Paul: The value of beauty: Historical essays in aesthetics. Cambridge:
32
Cambridge Univ. Press 2005.
33 Guyer, Paul: Freedom of imagination: From beauty to expression. In: Interna-
34 tionales Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus / International Yearbook of
35 German Idealism 4 (2006), pp. 312 334.
36 Gyllenhammer, Paul R.: The passivity of optimalizing practices: A development
37
of Husserl’s transcendental aesthetics. In: Southwest Philosophy Review 19
(2003) 1, pp. 97 105.
38 Häfner, Ralph: Johann Gottfried Herders Kulturentstehungslehre: Studien zu den
39 Quellen und zur Methode seines Geschichtsdenkens. Hamburg: Meiner
40 1995. (Studien zum achtzehnten Jahrhundert, 19).
1 Hamburger, Käte: Theodor A. Meyers Sprachtheorie der Dichtung. In: Probleme

2 der Moderne: Studien zur deutschen Literatur von Nietzsche bis Brecht.
3
Festschrift für Walter Sokel, ed. by Benjamin Bennett, Anton Kaes and
William J. Lillyman. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1983, pp. 183 195.
4
Harkin, Maureen: Theorizing popular practice in eighteenth century aesthetics:
5 Lord Kames and Alexander Gerard. In: Aesthetic subjects, ed. by Pamela R.
6 Matthews and David McWhirter. Minneapolis, London: Minnesota Univ.
7 Press 2003, pp. 171 189.
8 Hartmann, Petra: Geschichtsschreibung für die Gegenwart: Theodor Mundt und
Ludolf Wienbarg. In: Forum Vormärz Forschung: 1848 und der deutsche
9
Vormärz 3 (1997), pp. 43 54.
10 Haß, Ulrike and Christoph König (eds.): Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik von
11 1960 bis heute. Göttingen: Wallstein 2003. (Marbacher Wissenschaftsge-
12 schichte, 4).
13 Hauser, Kai: Lotze und Husserl. In: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 85
14 (2003), pp. 152 178.
Hausmann, Frank-Rutger: Auch im Krieg schweigen die Musen nicht: Die
15
Deutschen Wissenschaftlichen Institute im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Göttingen:
16 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2001.
17 Hausmann, Frank-Rutger: Martin Heidegger, Hugo Friedrich und Stéphane
18 Mallarmé. In: Romanistische Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 30 (2006)
19 3/4, pp. 377 394.
20
Hausmann, Frank-Rutger: „Deutsche Geisteswissenschaft“ im Zweiten Welt-
krieg: Die „Aktion Ritterbusch“ (1940 1945). 3rd ed. Heidelberg: Syn-
21 chron 2007.
22 Haverkamp, Anselm: Heidegger und die Literaturwissenschaft: Die poetologi-
23 schen Quellen der seinsgeschichtlichen Subjektkritik. In: Heidegger-
24 Handbuch: Leben, Werk, Wirkung, ed. by Dieter Thomä [et al.]. Stuttgart,
25 Weimar: Metzler 2003, pp. 492 499.
Heidelberger, Michael: Die innere Seite der Natur: Gustav Theodor Fechners
26
wissenschaftlich-philosophische Weltauffassung. Frankfurt a. M.: Kloster-
27 mann 1993.
28 Heidelberger, Michael: Fechners wissenschaftlich-philosophische Weltauffas-
29 sung. In: Fechner und die Folgen außerhalb der Naturwissenschaften: In-
30 terdisziplinäres Kolloquium zum 200. Geburtstag Gustav Theodor Fechners,
31 ed. by Ulla Fix. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2003, pp. 25 42.
Henckmann, Wolfhart: Symbolische und allegorische Kunst bei K. W. F. Solger.
32
In: Früher Idealismus und Frühromantik: Der Streit um die Grundlagen der
33 Ästhetik (1795 1805), ed. by Walter Jaeschke and Helmut Holzhey.
34 Hamburg: Meiner 1990, pp. 214 240. (Philosophisch-literarische Streit-
35 sachen, 1).
36 Herrmann, Hans Peter: Naturnachahmung und Einbildungskraft. Bad Homburg
37
[et al.]: Gehlen 1970.
Herrmann, Ulrich: Materialien und Bemerkungen über die Konzeption und die
38 Kategorien der „Geistesgeschichte“ bei Wilhelm Dilthey. In: Literaturwis-
39 senschaft und Geistesgeschichte, ed. by Christoph König and Eberhard
40 Lämmert, Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl. 1993, pp. 46 57.
1 Hlobil, Thomáš: Aesthetics in the lecture lists of the universities of Halle, Leipzig,
2 Würzburg, and Prague (1785 1805). In: Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert 29
3
(2005) 1, pp. 13 50.
Hoffner, Wilhelm [Wilhelm Dilthey]: Hölderlin und die Ursachen seines
4 Wahnsinnes. In: Westermanns Monatshefte 22 (1867), pp. 15 165.
5 Hölter, Achim: Johann Joachim Eschenburg: Germanist und Komparatist vor
6 dem Scheideweg. In: Germanistik und Komparatistik, ed. by Hendrik Birus.
7 Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 1995, pp. 571 592. (Germanistische Symposien
8
Berichtsbände, 16).
Homann, Arne: Diltheys Bruch mit der Metaphysik: Die Aufhebung der He-
9 gelschen Philosophie im geschichtlichen Bewußtsein. Freiburg i. Br.: Alber
10 1995.
11 Höppner, Wolfgang: Die Beziehung von Dichter und Publikum als Grundver-
12 hältnis des literarischen Verkehrs. In: Weimarer Beiträge 35 (1989) 1,
13
pp. 208 232.
Höppner, Wolfgang: Das „Ererbte, Erlebte und Erlernte“ im Werk Wilhelm
14 Scherers: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Germanistik. Cologne [et al.]:
15 Böhlau 1993. (Europäische Kulturstudien. Literatur, Musik, Kunst im his-
16 torischen Kontext, 5).
17 Horn, András: Das Schöpferische in der Literatur: Theorien der dichterischen
18
Phantasie. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 2000.
Iannelli, Francesca: Friedrich Theodor Vischer zwischen Hegel und Hotho:
19 Edition und Kommentar der Notizen Friedrich Theodor Vischers zu Hothos
20 Ästhetikvorlesung von 1833. In: Hegel-Studien 37 (2002), pp. 11 53.
21 Iannelli, Francesca: Das Siegel der Moderne: Hegels Bestimmung des Hässlichen
22 in den Vorlesungen zur Ästhetik und die Rezeption bei den Hegelianern.
23
Munich: Fink 2007. (Hegelforum).
Ingarden, Roman: Das literarische Kunstwerk: Mit einem Anhang von den
24 Funktionen der Sprache im Theaterschauspiel. 4th ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer
25 1972.
26 Iser, Wolfgang: Vorwort. In: Meyer, Theodor A.: Das Stilgesetz der Poesie.
27 Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1990, pp. 13 20.
28
Jacobs, Wilhelm G.: Geschichte und Kunst in Schellings „System des transcen-
dentalen Idealismus“. In: Der Streit um die Grundlagen der Ästhetik 1795
29 1805, ed. by Walter Jaeschke. Hamburg: Meiner 1999, pp. 201 213.
30 Jäger, Georg: Das Gattungsproblem in der Ästhetik und Poetik von 1780 bis 1850.
31 In: Zur Literatur der Restaurationsepoche, ed. by Jost Hermand and Manfred
32 Windfuhr. Stuttgart: Metzler 1970, pp. 371 404.
33
Jäger, Georg: Die Herbartianische Ästhetik: Ein österreichischer Weg in die
Moderne. In: Die österreichische Literatur: Ihr Profil im 19. Jahrhundert
34 (1830 1880), ed. by Herbert Zemann. Graz: Akad. Dr. u. Verl.-Anst. 1982,
35 pp. 195 219. (Die österreichische Literatur. Eine Dokumentation ihrer
36 historischen Entwicklung).
37 Jankowsky, Kurt R.: Wilhelm Wackernagel (1806 1869): A philologist in need
38
of being rediscovered. In: Multiple perspectives on the historical dimension of
language, ed. by K. R. J. Münster: Nodus Publ. 1996, pp. 115 128.
39
40
1 Jaumann, Herbert: Critica: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Literaturkritik

2 zwischen Quintilian und Thomasius. Leiden [et al.]: Brill 1995. (Brill’s studies
3
in intellectual history, 62).
Jaumann Herbert: Oswald Spengler „Der Untergang des Abendlandes“ (1918/
4
1922). In: Große Theorien von Freud bis Luhmann, ed. by Walter Erhart and
5 H. J. Munich: Beck 2000, pp. 52 72. (Beck’sche Reihe, 1398).
6 Jenaczek, Friedrich: Josef Weinheber: „Notturno“. Anmerkungen zu Leistung
7 und Grenzen des Literaturpädagogen Johannes Pfeiffer. In: Jahrbuch des
8 Wiener Goethe-Vereins 86 88 (1982 1984), pp. 361 385.
Johannsen, Jochen: Heeren versus Pölitz: Herders „Ideen“ im Streit zwischen
9
empirischer und philosophischer Geschichte. In: Vom Selbstdenken: Auf-
10 klärung und Aufklärungskritik in Herders „Ideen zur Philosophie der Ge-
11 schichte der Menschheit“. Contributions to the conference of the Interna-
12 tional Herder Society, ed. by Regine Otto and John H. Zammito. Heidelberg:
13 Winter 2001, pp. 199 213.
14 Jurgensen, Manfred: Deutsche Literaturtheorie der Gegenwart: Georg Lukács,
Hans Mayer, Emil Staiger, Fritz Strich. Munich: Francke 1973.
15
Kanzmaier, Irene: Stamm und Landschaft: Josef Nadlers Konzeption der deut-
16 schen Literaturgeschichte. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2008. (Quellen und
17 Forschungen zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte, 48).
18 Kayser, Wolfgang: Das sprachliche Kunstwerk. 4th ed. Bern: Francke 1956.
19 Kearney, Richard and David Rasmussen (eds.): Continental aesthetics: Ro-
20
manticism and postmodernism. An anthology. Cambridge: Blackwell 2001.
Kertscher, Hans-Joachim and Günter Schenk (eds.): Frühe Schriften zur ästhe-
21
tischen Erziehung der Deutschen. Halle a. d. S.: Hallescher Verlag 1999 –
22 2002. (3 vols.).
23 Ketelsen, Uwe-Karsten: Klaustrophobie im Kloster Lippoldsberg: Hans Grimms
24 Roman „Volk ohne Raum“. Ein Bilderbuch rechter Ideologie in Deutsch-
25 land. In: Literatur und Drittes Reich, ed. by U.-K. K. Schernfeld: SH-
Verl. 1992, pp. 199 215.
26
Kiemle, Annalise: Anschauungen über das Wesen des dichterischen Kunstwerks
27 von 1750 1920. Berlin: Funk 1930.
28 Kindt, Tom: Wilhelm Dilthey (1833 1911). In: Wissenschaftsgeschichte der
29 Germanistik in Porträts, ed. by Christoph König, Hans-Harald Müller and
30 Werner Röcke. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2000, pp. 53 68.
31 Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Müller: Dilthey gegen Scherer: Geistesgeschichte
contra Positivismus. Zur Revision eines wissenschaftshistorischen Stereotyps.
32
In: Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesge-
33 schichte 74 (2000) 4, pp. 685 709.
34 Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Müller: Konstruierte Ahnen: Forschungspro-
35 gramme und ihre ‘Vorläufer’. Dargestellt am Beispiel des Verhältnisses der
36 geistesgeschichtlichen Literaturwissenschaft zu Wilhelm Dilthey. In: Lite-
37
raturwissenschaft und Wissenschaftsforschung: DFG-Symposion 1998, ed.
by Jörg Schönert. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 2000, pp. 150 173.
38 Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Müller: Was war eigentlich der Biographismus –
39 und was ist aus ihm geworden? Eine Untersuchung. In: Autorschaft: Posi-
40 tionen und Revisionen, ed. by Heinrich Detering. Stuttgart, Weimar:
1 Metzler 2002, pp. 355 375. (Germanistische Symposien. Berichtsbände,

2 XXIV).
3
Kindt, Tom and Hans-Harald Müller: Nationalphilologie und ‘Vergleichende
Literaturgeschichte’ zwischen 1890 und 1910: Eine Fallstudie zur Konzeption
4
der Wissenschaftshistoriographie der Germanistik. In: Stil, Schule, Disziplin:
5 Analyse und Erprobung von Konzepten wissenschaftsgeschichtlicher Re-
6 konstruktion (I), ed. by Lutz Danneberg, Wolfgang Höppner and Ralf
7 Klausnitzer. Frankfurt a. M. [et al.]: Lang 2005, pp. 335 361. (Berliner
8 Beiträge zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 8).
Kindt, Tom: Denn sie wissen nicht, was sie tun: Stanley Fish vs. Wolfgang Iser. In:
9
Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie / Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse,
11 pp. 353 368. (Publikationen der Zeitschrift für Germanistik, NF 17).
12 Kirsch, Mechthild: Heinz Kindermann: Ein Wiener Germanist und Theater-
13 wissenschaftler. In: Zeitenwechsel: Germanistische Literaturwissenschaft vor
14 und nach 1945, ed. by Wilfried Barner and Christoph König. Frankfurt a. M.:
Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl. 1996, pp. 47 59.
15
Kivy, Peter: The seventh sense: Francis Hutcheson and eighteenth-century British
16 aesthetics. In: British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (2005) 4, pp. 445 447.
17 Klausnitzer, Ralf: Koexistenz und Konkurrenz: Theoretische Umgangsformen
18 mit Literatur im Widerstreit. In: Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie / Li-
19 teraturtheorie in der Kontroverse, ed. by R. K. and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern
20
[et al.]: Fischer Taschenbuch-Verl. 2007, pp. 15 48. (Publikationen der
Zeitschrift für Germanistik, NF 17).
21 Klausnitzer, Ralf and Guido Naschert: Gattungstheoretische Kontroversen?
22 Konstellationen der Diskussion von Textordnungen im 20. Jahrhundert. In:
24 ed. by R. K. and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]: Fischer-Taschenbuch-
25 Verl. 2007, pp. 369 412. (Publikationen der Zeitschrift für Germanistik,
NF 17).
26
Klein, Albert, Jochen Vogt and Florian Vaßen: Methoden der Literaturwissen-
27 schaft. Düsseldorf: Bertelmann Universitätsverlag 1971 1972. (2 vols.).
28 Klingenberg, Anneliese: Leipzigs Stimme im Streit Eschenburgs mit Voltaire. In:
29 Von der Elbe bis an die Seine: Kulturtransfer zwischen Sachsen und Frank-
30 reich im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by Michel Espagne and Matthias
31
Middell. Leipzig: Universitätsverlag 1993, pp. 117 123. (Deutsch-Fran-
zösische Kulturbibliothek, 1).
32
Klinger, Cornelia: Johann Georg Sulzer. In: Ästhetik und Kunstphilosophie von
33 der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, ed. by Julian Nida-Rümelin and Monika
34 Betzler. Stuttgart: Kröner 1998, pp. 766 770.
35 Klöckener, Bernhard: Theodor A. Meyers „Stilgesetz der Poesie“ und der äs-
36 thetische Diskurs der Jahrhundertwende. In: Poetica 29 (1997), pp. 270
305.
37
Kluckhohn, Paul: Geistesgeschichte. In: Reallexikon der deutschen Literatur-
38 geschichte. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter 1958, p. 538.
39 Koch, Gerd: Dichtertage bei Hans Grimm in Lippoldsberg. In: Zeitschrift für
40 Germanistik 2 (1994), pp. 337 349.
1 Kohl, Katrin: Poetologische Metaphern: Formen und Funktionen in der deut-

2 schen Literatur. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2007.
3
Köhler, Kai: Elster, Ernst. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon: 1800 1950.
Vol. 1, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2002,
4 pp. 430 432.
5 Köhnke, Klaus Christian: Entstehung und Aufstieg des Neukantianismus: Die
6 deutsche Universitätsphilosophie zwischen Idealismus und Positivismus.
7 Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1986, pp. 109 167.
8
Kolk, Rainer: Reflexionsformel und Ethikangebot: Zum Beitrag von Max
Wehrli. In: Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, ed. by Christoph
9 König, Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl. 1993, pp. 38 45.
10 König, Christoph: Individualität, Autonomie, Originalität: Zur Rezeption Dil-
11 theys in den ersten Jahren der „Deutschen Vierteljahrsschrift“. In: Deutsche
12 Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 2 (1993),
13
pp. 197 220.
Korte, Hermann: Eschenburgs europäischer Lektürekanon: Ein Kapitel aus der
14 Frühgeschichte moderner Kanonbildung um 1800. In: Literarische Kanon-
15 bildung, ed. by Heinz Ludwig Arnold and H. K. Munich: Ed. Text + Kritik
16 2002, pp. 101 117.
17 Košenina, Alexander: Johann Jakob Engels sokratische Lehrmethode am Joa-
18
chimsthaler Gymnasium zu Berlin (1776 1802). In: Johann Jakob Engel:
Philosoph für die Welt, Ästhetiker und Dichter, ed. by A. K. Hannover-
19 Laatzen: Wehrhahn 2005, pp. 189 204.
20 Kösser, Uta: Fechners Ästhetik im Kontext. In: Fechner und die Folgen außerhalb
21 der Naturwissenschaften: Interdisziplinäres Kolloquium zum 200. Geburts-
22 tag Gustav Theodor Fechners, ed. by Ulla Fix. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2003,
23
pp. 113 130.
Kossler, Matthias: ‘Leib’ und ‘Bedeutung’ in der Ästhetik Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand
24 Solgers. In: Jahrbuch der deutschen Schillergesellschaft 43 (1999), pp. 278
25 304.
26 Krantz, Susan: Brentano’s empirical aesthetics. In: Brentano-Studien 9 (2001) 1,
27 pp. 215 228.
28
Krieck, Ernst: Nationalpolitische Erziehung. Leipzig: Armanen 1932.
Kühlmann, Wilhelm: „Schuldig sein und auch – gerichtet“: Ein Versuch zum ‘Fall
29 Josef Weinheber’. In: Die Schuldfrage: Untersuchungen zur geistigen Si-
30 tuation der unmittelbaren Nachkriegszeit, ed. by Carsten Dutt. Heidelberg:
31 Manutius. [in print].
32 Kuhn, Dorothea: Typus und Metamorphose. In: Goethe-Studien, ed. by Renate
33
Grumach. Marbach a. N.: Dt. Schillergesellschaft 1988. (Marbacher Schrif-
ten, 30).
34 Kuhn, Dorothea: „Die Metamorphose der Pflanzen ward als Herzenserleichte-
35 rung geschrieben“: Goethes Voraussetzungen und Ziele. In: In der Mitte
36 zwischen Natur und Subjekt: Johann Wolfgang Goethes „Versuch, die
37 Metamorphose der Pflanzen zu erklären“ (1790 1990). Sachverhalte, Ge-
38
danken, Wirkungen, ed. by Gunter Mann, Dieter Mollenhauer and Stefan
Peters. Frankfurt a. M.: Kramer 1992, pp. 19 31.
39
40
1 Kullmann, Wolfgang: Die Teleologie in der aristotelischen Biologie: Aristoteles

2 als Zoologe, Embryologe und Genetiker. Heidelberg: Winter 1979.
3
Kullmann, Wolfgang: Zum Gedanken der Teleologie in der Naturphilosophie des
Aristoteles und seiner Beurteilung in der Neuzeit. In: Zum teleologischen
4 Argument in der Philosophie: Aristoteles, Kant, Hegel, ed. by Jürgen-Eck-
5 hardt Pleines. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 1991, pp. 150 171.
6 Kusch, Martin: Psychologism: A case study on the sociology of philosophical
7 knowledge. London [et al.]: Routledge 1995.
8
Laak, Lothar van: ‘Dichterisches Gebilde’ und Erlebnis: Überlegungen zu den
Beziehungen zwischen Wilhelm Dilthey und dem George-Kreis. In: George-
9 Jahrbuch 5 (2004/5), pp. 63 81.
10 Ladenthin, Volker: Legitimation von Wissenschaft: Emil Staigers Aufsatz „Die
11 Kunst der Interpretation“ als Paradigma. In: 1955 2005: Emil Staiger und
12 „Die Kunst der Interpretation“ heute, ed. by Joachim Rickes, V. L. and
13
Michael Baum. Bern [et al.]: Lang 2007, pp. 135 154. (Publikationen zur
Zeitschrift für Germanistik, 16).
14 Lamarque, Peter (ed.): Aesthetics in Britain. London: Oxford Univ. Press 2000.
15 Lamarque, Peter and Stein Haugham Olsen (eds.): Aesthetics and the philosophy of
16 art: The analytic tradition. Cambridge: Blackwell 2004.
17 Lamblin, Annie: Sulzer: Genèse et réception de sa „Théorie générale des Beaux-
18
Arts“. In: Le texte et l’idée 18 (2003), pp. 39 72.
Lämmert, Eberhard: Ein Weg ins Freie: Versuch eines Rückblicks auf die Ger-
19 manistik vor und nach 1945. In: Zeitenwechsel: Germanistische Literatur-
20 wissenschaft vor und nach 1945, ed. by Wilfried Barner and Christoph König,
21 Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl. 1996, pp. 411 417.
22 Lamprecht, Karl: Alte und neue Richtungen in der Geschichtswissenschaft.
23
Berlin: Gaertner 1896.
Lamprecht, Karl: Die historische Methode des Herrn von Below: Eine Kritik.
24 Berlin: Gaertner 1899.
25 Lamprecht, Karl: Die Kulturhistorische Methode. Berlin: Gaertner 1900.
26 Langbehn, Regula Rohland de: La teoría de las „formas simples“ de André Jolles
27 (1874 1946): Una reconsideración. In: Hispanic Research Journal: Iberian
28
and Latin American Studies 3 (2002) 3, pp. 243 260.
Lausberg, Heinrich: Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der
29 Literaturwissenschaft. Munich: Hueber 1960.
30 Lauschke, Marion and Manfred Zahn (eds): Immanuel Kant: Der Streit mit Johann
31 August Eberhard. Hamburg: Meiner 1998. (Philosophische Bibliothek, 481).
32 Lehnerer, Thomas: Selbstmanifestation ist Kunst: Überlegungen zu den syste-
33
matischen Grundlagen der Kunsttheorie Schleiermachers. In: Internationaler
Schleiermacher-Kongreß Berlin 1984, ed. by Kurt-Victor Selge. Berlin, New
34 York: de Gruyter 1985, pp. 409 422. (Schleiermacher-Archiv I, 1).
35 Lepper, Marcel: Wissenschaftsgeschichte als Theoriegeschichte. In: Geschichte
36 der Germanistik 29/30 (2006), pp. 33 39.
37 Lepper, Marcel: Wissenschaftsgeschichte im Deutschen Literaturarchiv Marbach.
38
In: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes 1 (2006), pp. 110
121.
39
40
1 Lepper, Marcel: Am Quell? Zur Geschichte der Hölderlin-Philologie. In: Ge-

2 schichte der Germanistik 31/32 (2007), pp. 25 33.
3
Lepper, Marcel: Die strukturalistische Kontroverse, die keine war: Die Konferenz
von Baltimore und die Folgen. In: Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie /
4 Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer and Carlos
5 Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]: Lang 2007, pp. 311 326. (Publikationen der
6 Zeitschrift für Germanistik, NF 17).
7 Lepper, Marcel: Gegen die Naïveté der Wissenschaft? Hölderlin-Editoren im
8
Deutschen Literaturarchiv. In: Zeitschrift für Germanistik 17 (2007) 2,
pp. 498 502.
9 Lessing, Hans-Ulrich: Dilthey und Lazarus. In: Dilthey-Jahrbuch für Philosophie
10 und Geschichte der Geisteswissenschaften 3 (1985), pp. 57 83.
11 Levinson, Jerrold (ed.): The Oxford handbook of aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford
12 Univ. Press 2003.
13
Lindemann, Klaus: Theorie, Geschichte, Kritik: August Wilhelm Schlegels
Prinzipienreflexion als Ansatz für eine neue Literaturtheorie? in: Zeitschrift
14 für Deutsche Philologie 93 (1974), pp. 560 579.
15 Lohmann, Petra: Die Funktionen der Kunst und des Künstlers in der Philosophie
16 Johann Gottlieb Fichtes. In: Grundlegung und Kritik: Der Briefwechsel
17 zwischen Schelling und Fichte 1794 1802, ed. by Jörg Jantzen, Thomas
18
Kisser and Hartmut Traub. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi 2005, pp. 113
132. (Fichte Studien, 25).
19 Lohner, Edgar: August Wilhelm Schlegel. In: Deutsche Dichter der Romantik:
20 Ihr Leben und Werk, ed. by Benno von Wiese. Berlin: Schmidt 1971,
21 pp. 135 162.
22 Lories, Danielle: Remarks on aesthetic intentionality: Husserl or Kant. In: In-
23
ternational Journal of Philosophical studies 14 (2006) 1, pp. 31 49.
Luft, Sebastian: Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms: Between reason and
24 relativism. A critical appraisal. In: Idealistic Studies 34 (2004) 1, pp. 25 47.
25 Lütteken, Laurenz: Die musikalische Bibliothek Johann Joachim Eschenburgs:
26 Ein Rekonstruktionsversuch. In: Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert 20 (1996) 1,
27 pp. 45 72.
28
MacDonald, Paul S.: Husserl and the cubist on a thing in space. In: Journal of the
British Society for Phenomenology 36 (2005) 3, pp. 258 276.
29 Makkreel, Rudolf A.: Dilthey: Philosoph der Geisteswissenschaften. Transl. by
30 Barbara M. Kehm. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1991.
31 Malinowski-Charles, Syliane: Entre rationalisme et subjectivisme: L’esthétique de
32 Jean Pierre de Crousaz. In: Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 136 (2004),
33
pp. 7 21.
Mallmann, Marion: „Das Innere Reich“: Analyse einer konservativen Kultur-
34 zeitschrift im Dritten Reich. Bonn: Bouvier 1978. (Abhandlungen zur Kunst-
35 , Musik und Literaturwissenschaft, 248).
36 Malsch, Gabriele: Systole – Diastole, Motus cordis – Motus in omnibus: Zur
37 Geschichte eines Begriffspaares. In: Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 41 (1999),
38
pp. 86 118.
39
40
1 Manger, Klaus: Zum Todestag des Schriftstellers und Literarhistorikers Conrad

2 Beyer (1834 1906). In: Jahrbuch der Akademie gemeinnütziger Wissen-
3
schaften zu Erfurt 2006, pp. 37 41.
Mansour, Julia: Fehdehandschuh des kritischen Freundesgeistes: Die Kontroverse
4 um Käte Hamburgers „Die Logik der Dichtung“. In: Kontroversen in der
5 Literaturtheorie / Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer
6 and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]: Lang 2007, pp. 235 247. (Publikationen
7 der Zeitschrift für Germanistik, NF 17).
8
Marbe, Karl: [rev.] Ernst Elster: Prinzipien der Literaturwissenschaft. Erster Band.
Halle 1897. In: Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 1898,
9 pp. 327 343.
10 Maren-Grisebach, Manon: Methoden der Literaturwissenschaft. Bern, Munich:
11 Francke 1970. (Dalp-Taschenbücher, 397).
12 Margolin, Uri: The (in)dependence of poeticy today. In: PTL: A Journal for
13
Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 4 (1980), pp. 545 586.
Martini, Fritz: Poetik. In: Deutsche Philologie im Aufriß, ed. by Wolfgang
14 Stammler. 2nd, rev. ed. Berlin: E. Schmidt 1952.
15 Martus, Steffen: Wilhelm Scherer als Klassiker des Umgangs mit Klassikern. In:
16 Klassiker der Germanistik: Local Heroes in Zeiten des Global Thinking, ed. by
17 Petra Boden and Uwe Wirth. Bielefeld: Aisthesis-Verl. 2006, pp. 8 26.
18
Martus, Steffen: Werkpolitik: Zu Literaturgeschichte kritischer Kommunikation
vom 17. bis ins 20. Jahrhundert. Mit Studien zu Klopstock, Tieck, Goethe und
19 George. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2007.
20 Masur, Gerhard: Wilhelm Dilthey and the history of ideas. In: Journal of the
21 History of Ideas 13 (1952) 1, pp. 94 107.
22 Matt, Peter von: In memoriam Max Wehrli. In: Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 34
23
(1999) 1, pp. 1 6.
Maurer, Michael: Aufklärung und Anglophilie in Deutschland. Göttingen, Zu-
24 rich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1987. (Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen
25 Historischen Instituts London, 19).
26 Maurer, Michael: Johann Joachim Eschenburg und das Barock: Ein Beitrag zur
27 Problematik der Kontinuität vom 17. zum 18. Jahrhundert. In: Europäische
28
Barock-Rezeption. Vol. 1, ed. by Klaus Garber. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz
1991, pp. 337 349. (Wolfenbütteler Barock-Forschungen, 20).
29 Meijers, Anthonie: Gustav Gerber und Friedrich Nietzsche: Zum historischen
30 Hintergrund der sprachphilosophischen Auffassung des frühen Nietzsche. In
31 Nietzsche-Studien 17 (1988), pp. 369 390.
32 Meijers, Anthonie and Martin Stingelin: Konkordanz zu den wörtlichen Ab-
33
schriften und Übernahmen von Beispielen und Zitaten aus Gustav Gerber:
Die Sprache als Kunst (Bromberg 1871) in Nietzsches Rhetorik-Vorlesung
34 und in „Über Wahrheit und Lüge im außermoralischen Sinne“. In: Nietz-
35 sche-Studien 17 (1988), pp. 350 368.
36 Mellmann, Katja: Emotionalisierung: Von der Nebenstundenpoesie zum Buch als
37 Freund. Eine emotionspsychologische Analyse der Literatur der Aufklä-
38
rungsepoche. Paderborn: Mentis 2006. (Poetogenesis, 4).
39
40
1 Mellmann, Katja: Vorschlag zu einer emotionspsychologischen Bestimmung von

2 ‘Spannung’. In: Im Rücken der Kulturen, ed. by Karl Eibl, K. M. and Rüdiger
3
Zymner. Paderborn: Mentis 2007, pp. 241 268.
Mitscherling, Jeff: Roman Ingarden’s ontology and aesthetics. Ottava: Ottawa
4 Univ. Press 1997.
5 Moore, Gregory: Art and evolution: Nietzsche’s physiological aesthetics. In:
6 British Journal for the History of Philosophy 10 (2002) 1, pp. 109 126.
7 Müller, Dorit: „Lufthiebe streibarer Privatdocenten“: Kontroversen um die
8
theoretische Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (1890 1910). In:
Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie / Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse,
11 Müller, Götz: Zur Bedeutung Jean Pauls für die Ästhetik zwischen 1830 und 1848:
12 Weisse, Ruge, Vischer. In: G. M.: Jean Paul im Kontext: Gesammelte
13
Aufsätze. Ed. Wolfgang Riedel. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 1996,
pp. 7 28.
14 Müller, Hans-Harald: Die Übertragung des Barockbegriffs von der Kunstwis-
15 senschaft auf die Literaturwissenschaft und ihre Konsequenzen bei Fritz Strich
16 und Oskar Walzel. In: Europäische Barock-Rezeption, ed. by Klaus Garber
17 [et al.]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1991, pp. 95 112. (Wolfenbütteler Ar-
18
beiten zur Barockforschung, 20).
Müller, Hans-Harald: Wilhelm Scherer (1841 1886). In: Wissenschaftsge-
19 schichte der Germanistik in Porträts, ed. by Christoph König, H.-H. M. and
21 Müller, Hans-Harald: Richard Moritz Meyer: Ein Repräsentant der Scherer-
22 Schule. In: Akten des X. Internationalen Germanistenkongresses Wien 2000:
23
Zeitenwende – Die Germanistik auf dem Weg vom 20. ins 21. Jahrhundert,
ed. by Peter Wiesinger. Bern: Lang 2003, pp. 225 230.
24 Müller, Hans-Harald: Stil-Übungen: Wissenschaftshistorische Anmerkungen zu
25 einem (vor-)wissenschaftlichen Problem. In: Literaturwissenschaft und
26 Linguistik von 1960 bis heute, ed. by Ulrike Haß and Christoph König.
27 Göttingen: Wallstein 2003, pp. 235 243.
28
Müller, Hans Harald: Die Lebendigen und die Untoten: Lassen sich Auseinan-
dersetzungen zwischen Wissenschaftskonzeptionen als ‘Kontroversen’ re-
29 konstruieren? Am Beispiel von Positivismus und Geistesgeschichte. In:
33
Müller, Hans-Harald: Zur Genealogie der werkimmanenten Interpretation. In:
Konzert und Konkurrenz: Die Künste und ihre Wissenschaften im
34 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by Christian Huck, Sandra Richter and Oliver Scholl. [in
35 print].
36 Müller, Hans-Harald and Sandra Richter: Nationale Philologien – europäische
37 Zeitschriften: Zur Rezeption von Poetik und Literaturtheorie in den wis-
38
senschaftlichen und literaturkritischen Zeitschriften zwischen 1880 und 1930.
[in print].
39
40
1 Müller, Oliver: Subtile Stiche: Hans Blumenberg und die Forschergruppe „Poetik
2 und Hermeneutik“. In: Kontroversen in der Literaturtheorie / Literatur-
3
theorie in der Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf Klausnitzer and Carlos Spoerhase.
Bern [et al.]: Lang 2007, pp. 249 264. (Publikationen der Zeitschrift für
4 Germanistik, NF 17).
5 Müller-Seidel, Walter: Diltheys Rehabilitierung Hölderlins: Eine wissen-
6 schaftsgeschichtliche Betrachtung. In: Hölderlin und die Moderne: Eine
7 Bestandsaufnahme, ed. by Gerhard Kurz, Valérie Lawitschka and Jürgen
8 Wertheimer. Tübingen: Attempto 1995, pp. 41 73.
Müller-Vollmer, Kurt: Towards a phenomenological theory of literature: A study
9
of Wilhelm Dilthey’s „Poetik“. The Hague: Mouton & Co. 1963. (Stanford
10 Studies in Germanics and Slavics, 1).
11 Mulligan, Kevin and Barry Smith: Mach and Ehrenfels: The foundation of Gestalt
12 theory. In: Foundations of Gestalt theory, ed. by B. S. Munich, Vienna:
13 Philosophia 1988, pp. 124 157.
14 Nachtsheim, Stefan: Lage und Aufgabe der zeitgenössischen Kunst in der Kul-
turphilosophie Jonas Cohns. In: Ideengeschichte und Kunstwissenschaft:
15
Philosophie und bildende Kunst im Kaiserreich, ed. by Ekkehard Mai and
16 Stephan Waetzoldt. Berlin: Mann 1983, pp. 153 170.
17 Nebrig, Alexander: Walzel und die „Ausdruckskunst“: Der Formdiskurs in
18 Philologie und Avantgarde. In: Geschichte der Germanistik 31/32 (2007),
19 pp. 42 50.
20
Newald, Richard: Einführung in die deutsche Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft.
Lahr: Schauenburg 1947.
21 Norton, Robert E.: Herder’s aesthetics and the European enlightenment. Ithaca,
22 London: Cornell Univ. Press 1991.
23 Nowack, Walter: Zur Lehre von den Gesetzen der Ideenassoziation seit Herbart
24 bis 1880. Langensalza: Beyer 1925.
25 Oberhausen, Michael: [rev.] Lauschke, Zahn. In: Kant-Studien 92 (2001) 2,
pp. 249 254.
26
Oesterle, Günther: Entwurf einer Monographie des ästhetisch Häßlichen: Die
27 Geschichte einer ästhetischen Kategorie von Friedrich Schlegels Studium-
28 Aufsatz bis zu Karl Rosenkranz’ Ästhetik des Häßlichen als Suche nach dem
29 Ursprung der Moderne. In: Zur Modernität der Romantik, ed. by Dieter
30 Bänsch. Stuttgart: Metzler 1977, pp. 227 297.
31 Oesterle, Günther: Friedrich Schlegels Entwurf einer Theorie des ästhetisch
Häßlichen. In: Friedrich Schlegel und die Kunsttheorie seiner Zeit, ed. by
32
Helmut Schanze. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchges. 1985, pp. 397
33 451. (Wege der Forschung, 609).
34 Osterkamp, Ernst: Friedrich Gundolf (1880 1931). In: Wissenschaftsgeschichte
35 der Germanistik in Porträts, ed. by Christoph König, Hans-Harald Müller and
37
Owensby, Jacob: Dilthey and the narrative of history. Ithaca, London: Cornell
Univ. Press 1994.
38 Paetzold, Heinz: Ästhetik des deutschen Idealismus: Zur Idee ästhetischer Ra-
39 tionalität bei Baumgarten, Kant, Schelling, Hegel und Schopenhauer.
40 Wiesbaden: Steiner 1983.
1 Palombari, Stefano: Weltgesetz und Tetrade: Struktur und Besonderheit der

2 Philosophie des Johann Jakob Wagner. In: Rückert-Studien: Jahrbuch der
3
Rückert-Gesellschaft 10 (1996), pp. 13 46.
Paulin, Roger: Johann Joachim Eschenburg und die europäische Gelehrtenre-
4
publik am Übergang vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert. In: Internationales Archiv
5 für Sozialgeschichte der Literatur 11 (1986), pp. 51 72.
6 Pénisson, Pierre: Heymann Steinthal et la psychologie linguistique des peuples. In:
7 Revue Germanique International 10 (1998), pp. 41 50.
8 Pester, Reinhardt: Hermann Lotze: Wege seines Denkens und Forschens.
Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 1997.
9
Pfanner, Helmut F.: Hanns Johst: Vom Expressionismus zum Nationalsozialis-
10 mus. The Hague, Paris: Mouton 1970.
11 Piché, Claude: The place of aesthetics in Fichte’s early system. In: New essays on
12 Fichte’s later Jena ‘Wissenschaftslehre’, ed. by Daniel Breazeale and Tom
13 Rockmore. Evanstin: Northwestern Univ. Press 2002, pp. 299 316.
14 Pilger, Andreas: Nationalsozialistische Steuerung und die ‘Irritationen’ der Lite-
raturwissenschaft. In: Literaturwissenschaft und Nationalsozialismus, ed. by
15
Holger Dainat and Lutz Danneberg. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2003, pp. 107
16 126. (Studien und Texte zur Sozialgeschichte der Literatur, 99).
17 Pinna, Giovanni: L’ironia metafisica: Filosofia e teoria estetica in Karl Wilhelm
18 Ferdinand Solger. Genoa: Pantograf 1994.
19 Piper, Ernst: Alfred Rosenberg: Hitlers Chefideologe. Munich: Pantheon 2007.
20
Pittrof, Thomas: Obenauer, Karl Justus. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon:
1800 1950. Vol. 2, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter
21 2003, pp. 1342 – 1343.
22 Plett, Heinrich F. (ed.): Renaissance-Poetik. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 1994.
23 Ploetz, Hans Achim: Die Theorie der Dichtung: Ein Beitrag zur gegenwärtigen
24 Poetik. Berlin: Triltsch & Huther 1936.
25 Plooy, Heilna Du: Literatur uit die lewe: André Jolles se „Einfache Formen“. In:
Journal of Literary Studies 4 (1985), pp. 20 37.
26
Pöggeler, Otto: Spur des Worts: Zur Lyrik Paul Celans. Freiburg i. Br., Munich:
27 Alber 1986.
28 Pöggeler, Otto: Mystical elements in Heidegger’s thought and Celan’s poetic
29 traces. In: Wordtraces: Readings of Paul Celan, ed. by Aris Fioretos. Balti-
30 more: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press 1994, pp. 74 109.
31 Pöggeler, Otto: Romantische oder existentielle Deutung des Dichterischen? Die
unterdrückte Auseinandersetzung von Johannes Pfeiffer mit Ludwig Klages.
32
In: Perspektiven der Lebensphilosophie: Zum 125. Geburtstag von Ludwig
33 Klages, ed. by Michael Großheim. Bonn: Bouvier 1999, pp. 157 168.
34 (Abhandlungen zur Philosophie, Psychologie und Pädagogik, 253).
35 Poggi, Stefano: Am Beginn des Psychologismusstreites in der deutsches Philo-
36 sophie: Psychologie und Logik bei den Herbartianern. In: Herbarts Kultur-
37
system: Perspektiven der Transdisziplinarität im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by
Andreas Hoeschenand and Lothar Schneider. Würzburg: Königshausen &
38 Neumann 2001, pp. 135 148.
39 Polaschegg, Andrea: Tigersprünge in den hermeneutischen Zirkel oder Gedichte
40 nicht verstehen: Gattungspoetische Überlegungen (lange) nach Emil Staiger,
1 1955 2005. In: Emil Staiger und „Die Kunst der Interpretation“ heute, ed.
2 by Joachim Rickes, Volker Ladenthin and Michael Baum. Bern [et al.]: Lang
3
2007, pp. 87 109. (Publikationen zur Zeitschrift für Germanistik, 16).
Pott, Sandra: Poetiken: Poetologische Lyrik, Poetik und Ästhetik von Novalis bis
4
Rilke. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2004.
5 Pott, Sandra: Internationale, nationale und transnationale Poetik: Hugh Blair auf
6 dem Kontinent und einige Bemerkungen über den Transfer poetologischen
7 Wissens seit 1790. In: Triangulärer Transfer: Großbritannien, Frankreich und
8 Deutschland um 1800, ed. by S. P. and Sebastian Neumeister. Heidelberg:
Winter 2006, pp. 99 114.
9
Pott, Sandra: Von der Erfindung und den Grenzen des Schaffens: Fallstudien zur
10 Inventio-Lehre in Poetik und Ästhetik. In: Imagination und Invention, ed. by
11 Toni Bernhart and Philipp Mehne. Berlin: Akad.-Verl. 2006, pp. 217 242.
12 (Paragrana, Supplement 2).
13 Pouivet, Roger: Aesthetics and the philosophy of art. In: The British Journal of
14 Aesthetics 45 (2005) 1, pp. 88 94.
Rath, Matthias: Der Psychologismusstreit in der Philosophie. Freiburg i. Br.,
15
Munich: Alber 1994.
16 Reck, Alexander: Meyer, Theodor Alexander. In: Internationales Germanis-
17 tenlexikon: 1800 1950. Vol. 1, ed. Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de
18 Gruyter 2003, pp. 1220 f.
19 Reck, Alexander: Friedrich Theodor Vischer: Parodien auf Goethes Faust.
20
Heidelberg: Winter 2007.
Red.: Petersen, Julius. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon: 1800 1950.
21
Vol. 2, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2003,
22 pp. 1385 1388.
23 Reicher, Maria E.: Zur Metaphysik der Kunst: Eine logisch-ontologische Un-
24 tersuchung des Werkbegriffs. Graz: dbv-Verl. für die Techn. Univ. Graz
25 1998. (Dissertationen der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, 111).
Richter, Sandra: Charakter und Figur: Zur Rezeption der Charakterologie des
26
Theophrast von Eresos seit dem 16. Jahrhundert bis zu Wielands „Abderiten“.
27 In: Medizinische Schreibweisen, ed. by Nicolas Pethes and S. R. Tübingen:
28 Niemeyer 2008, pp. 145 – 169. (Studien und Texte zur Sozialgeschichte der
29 Literatur, 117).
30 Richter, Sandra: Lyrik im Ausgang aus der Stummfilmzeit: Claire Golls „Lyrische
31 Films“ (1922). In: Literatur intermedial, ed. by Wolf Gerhard Schmidt and
Thorsten Valk. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2009, pp. 67 86. (Spectrum
32
Literaturwissenschaft, 19).
33 Richter, Sandra: Unsichere Schönheit: Der Ursprung der Ästhetik aus der Kritik
34 des Skeptizismus. In: Unsicheres Wissen: Skeptizismus und Wahrschein-
35 lichkeit (1550 – 1850), ed. by Carlos Spoerhase, Dirk Werle and Markus Wild.
36 Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2009, pp. 159 178. (Historia Hermeneutica,
37
7).
Richter, Sandra: Anschaulichkeit vs. Sprachlichkeit: Ein paradigmatischer
38 Scheingegensatz in Poetik und Ästhetik (ca. 1850 bis 1950). In: Konzert und
39 Konkurrenz: Die Künste und ihre Wissenschaften im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by
40 Oliver Huck, S. R. and Christian Scholl. [in print].
1 Richter, Sandra: Außer Konkurrenz? Die „ars poetica“ des Horaz in Kommentar
2 und Poetik des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. In: Welche Antike?, ed. by Ulrich
3
Heinen [et al.]. [in print].
Richter, Sandra: Die Kontingenz der Kontingenzästhetik: Vischers ästhetische
4
Schriften als transitorische Dokumente. In: Papers of the Vischer-conference:
5 Stuttgart, June 2009. [in print].
6 Richter, Sandra: Wie kam das Bild in die Lyriktheorie? Präliminarien zu einer
7 visuellen Theorie der Lyrik. In: Das lyrische Bild, ed. by Nina Herres, Csongor
8 Lörincz and Ralf Simon. Munich: Fink. [in print].
Riedel, Wolfgang: Erkennen und Empfinden: Anthropologische Achsendrehung
9
und Wende zur Ästhetik bei Johann Georg Sulzer. In: Der ganze Mensch:
10 Anthropologie und Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert, ed. by Hans-Jürgen Schings.
11 Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 1994, pp. 410 439. (Germanistische Sympo-
12 sien, Berichtsbände XV).
13 Ritter, Alexander: „Auslanddeutsche Literatur“: Ideologische und fachtheoreti-
14 sche Definition. Dokumentarisches zu Heinz Kindermann und seiner na-
tional-konservativen literaturwissenschaftlichen Programmatik. In: Deut-
15
sche Regionalliteraturen in Rumänien 1918 1944, ed. by Peter Motzan and
16 Stefan Sienerth. Munich: Südostdt. Kulturwerk 1997, pp. 21 32.
17 Ritzer, Monika: Bild und Sinn: Fechners Ästhetik und ihre Rezeption im
18 19. Jahrhundert. In: Fechner und die Folgen außerhalb der Naturwissen-
19 schaften: Interdisziplinäres Kolloquium zum 200. Geburtstag Gustav
20
Theodor Fechners, ed. by Ulla Fix. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2003, pp. 131
152.
21 Robert, Jörg: Methode, System, Enzyklopädie: Transformationen des Wissens
22 und Strukturwandel der Poetik im 16. Jahrhundert. In: Enzyklopädistik
23 1550 – 1650: Typen und Transformationen von Wissensspeichern und Me-
24 dialisierungen des Wissens, ed. by Martin Schierbaum. Münster: Lit 2009,
25 pp. 173 192.
Rodi, Frithjof: Morphologie und Hermeneutik: Zur Methode von Diltheys
26
Ästhetik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1969.
27 Rodi, Frithjof: Das strukturierte Ganze: Studien zum Werk von Wilhelm Dilthey.
28 Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft 2003.
29 Rodi, Frithjof: Drei Bemerkungen zu Diltheys Aufsatz „Die Entstehung der
30 Hermeneutik von 1900“. In: Revue Internationale de Philosophie 57 (2003)
31
4, pp. 425 438.
Roebling, Hilmar: Zur Kunsttheorie F. Th. Vischers. In: Beiträge zur Theorie der
32
Künste im 19. Jahrhundert. Vol. 1, ed. by Helmut Koopmann and Adolf J.
33 Schmoll gen. Eisenwerth. Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann 1971, pp. 97 112.
34 (Studien zur Philosophie und Literatur des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, 12/1).
35 Rohfelder, Herbert P.: A study of Alfred Rosenberg’s organization for national
36 socialist ideology. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. Microfilms 1964.
37
Rosenberg, Rainer: Literaturwissenschaftliche Germanistik: Zur Geschichte
ihrer Probleme und Begriffe. Berlin: Akademie-Verl. 1989.
38 Rosenberg, Rainer: Die Semantik der ‘Szientifizierung’: Die Paradigmen der
39 Sozialgeschichte und des linguistischen Strukturalismus als Modernisie-
40 rungsangebote an die deutsche Literaturwissenschaft. In: Semantischer
1 Umbau der Geisteswissenschaften, ed. by Georg Bollenbeck and Clemens

2 Knobloch. Heidelberg: Winter 2001, pp. 122 131.
3
Ross, Alosin: The work of the art-work: Art after Heidegger’s origin of the work
of art. In: Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 37 (2006) 2,
4
pp. 199 215.
5 Rühle, Volker: Transformationen der idealistischen Ästhetik im Blick auf Kant
6 und Schelling. In: Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft
7 47 (2002) 1, pp. 191 215.
8 Saatela, Simo: „Perhaps the most important thing in connection with aesthetics“:
Wittgenstein on ‘aesthetic reactions’. In: Revue Internationale de Philosophie
9
56 (2002), pp. 49 72.
10 Saintsbury, Georges: A history of criticism and literary taste in Europe: From the
11 earliest to the present day. Edinburgh, London: Blackwood 1961. (3 vols.).
12 Sarbu, Aldár: English as an academic discipline: Some history. In: Neohelicon 32
13 (2005) 2, pp. 443 – 456.
14 Sauder, Gerhard: Körner, Joseph. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon:
1800 1950. Vol. 2, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter
15
2003, pp. 974 976.
16 Sauerland, Karol: Diltheys Erlebnisbegriff: Entstehung, Glanzzeit und Verküm-
17 merung eines literaturhistorischen Begriffes. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter
18 1972.
19 Sawyer, R. Keith: Improvisation and the creative process: Dewey, Collingwood,
20
and the aesthetics of spontaneity. In: Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 58
(2000) 2, pp. 149 161.
21
Schlaffer, Heinz: Emil Staigers „Grundbegriffe der Poetik“. In: Monatshefte 95
22 (2003) 1, pp. 1 5.
23 Schlott, Michael (ed.): Wirkungen und Wertungen: Adolph Freiherr Knigge im
24 Urteil der Nachwelt (1796 1994). Eine Dokumentensammlung. Göttin-
25 gen: Wallstein 1998. (Das Knigge-Archiv, 1).
Schmidt, Harald: Schlegel, August Wilhelm. In: Internationales Germanisten-
26
lexikon: 1800 1950. Vol. 3, ed. by Christoph König, Berlin, New York: de
27 Gruyter 2003, pp. 1596 1598.
28 Schmidt, Sarah: Plädoyer für eine Betrachtung der ‘Mittelzustände’ vernünftiger
29 Tätigkeiten: Oder das künstlerische Denken als innere Geselligkeit. In:
30 Christentum, Staat, Kultur: Akten des Kongresses der Internationalen
31 Schleiermacher-Gesellschaft in Berlin, März 2006, ed. by Andreas Arndt,
Ulrich Barth and Wilhelm Gräb. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2008,
32
pp. 613 636.
33 Schmidt, Wolf Gerhard: Homer des Nordens und Mutter der Romantik: James
34 Macphersons „Ossian“ und seine Rezeption in der deutschsprachigen Lite-
35 ratur. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2003/04. (4 vols.).
36 Schmidt-Biggemann, Wilhelm: Philosophia perennis: Historische Umrisse
37
abendländischer Spiritualität in Antike, Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit.
Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1998.
38 Schmitz-Emans, Monika, Uwe Lindemann and Manfred Schmeling (eds.): de
39 Gruyter Lexikon Poetiken: Autoren, Texte, Begriffe. Berlin, New York: de
40 Gruyter 2009.
1 Schneider, Wilhelm: Ausdruckswerte der deutschen Sprache. Leipzig, Berlin:

2 Teubner 1931.
3
Scholes, Robert: The rise and fall of English: Reconstructing English as a di-
scipline. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press 1998.
4
Schönert, Jörg (ed.): Literaturwissenschaft und Wissenschaftsforschung: DFG-
5 Symposion 1998. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 2000. (Germanistische Sym-
6 posien. Berichtsbände, 21).
7 Schönert, Jörg: „Einführung in die Literaturwissenschaft“: Zur Geschichte eines
8 Publikationstypus der letzten 50 Jahre. In: Jahrbuch der ungarischen Ger-
manistik (2001), pp. 63 72.
9
Schütt, Julian: Ermatinger, Emil. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon: 1800
10 1950. Vol. 1, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter 2003,
11 pp. 448 f.
12 Seruya, Teresa: Kayser, Wolfgang. In: Internationales Germanistenlexikon:
13 1800 1950. Vol. 2, ed. by Christoph König. Berlin, New York: de Gryter
14 2003, pp. 904 906.
Sevin, Dieter: Joachim Maass. In: Deutschsprachige Exilliteratur seit 1933. Vol. 1,
15
ed. by John M. Spalek and Joseph Strelka. Bern: Francke 1989, pp. 599 621.
16 Shusterman, Richard: Somaesthetics and Burke’s sublime. In: British Journal of
17 Aesthetics 45 (2005) 4, pp. 323 341.
18 Sideris, Lisa: One step up, two steps back: Aesthetics, ethics and savagery in
19 Darwin’s theory of evolution. In: Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal 84
20
(2001) 3/4, pp. 365 388.
Simon, Ralf: Das Gedächtnis der Interpretation: Gedächtnistheorie als Funda-
21
ment für Hermeneutik, Ästhetik und Interpretation bei Johann Gottfried
22 Herder. Hamburg: Meiner 1998. (Studien zum achtzehnten Jahrhundert, 23).
23 Simonis, Annette: Gestalttheorie von Goethe bis Benjamin: Diskursgeschichte
24 einer deutschen Denkfigur. Cologne, Weimar, Vienna: Böhlau 2001.
25 (Kölner Germanistische Studien, NF 2).
Simons, Peter M.: Strata in Ingarden’s ontology. In: Kunst und Ontologie: Für
26
Roman Ingarden zum 100. Geburtstag, ed. by Wlodzimierz Galewicz, Eli-
27 sabeth Ströker and Wladyslaw Strozewski. Amsterdam [et al.]: Rodopi 1994,
28 pp. 119 140. (Elementa. Schriften zur Philosophie und ihrer Problemge-
29 schichte, 62).
30 Solms, Friedhelm: Disciplina aesthetica. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta 1990.
31 Sondrup, Steven P. and Virgil Nemoianu (eds.): Nonfictional romantic prose:
Expanding borders. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins 2004. (Coordina-
32
ting committee for a comparative history of literatures in European languages).
33 Söring, Jürgen: Sprach-Reflexion und Sprach-Denken: Martin Heidegger und
34 die Konkrete Poesie. In: Poetica: Zeitschrift für Sprach- und Literaturwis-
35 senschaft 16 (1984) 1/2, pp. 110 137.
36 Sparn, Walter: Perfektibilität: Protestantische Identität ‘nach der Aufklärung’. In:
37
Theologie und Aufklärung: Festschrift für Gottfried Hornig, ed. by Wolfgang
E. Müller and Hartmut H. R. Schulz. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann
38 1992, pp. 339 357.
39 Spiegelberg, Herbert: The phenomenological movement. The Hague: Nijhoff
40 1982.
1 Spoerhase, Carlos: Ingarden, Roman. In: Kindlers Literaturlexikon, ed. by Heinz

2 Ludwig Arnold. 3rd, corr. ed. Tübingen: Metzler 2009.
3
Spoerhase, Carlos: Die ‘Dunkelheit’ der Dichtung als Herausforderung der Phi-
lologie. In: Konzert und Konkurrenz: Die Künste und ihre Wissenschaften im
4 19. Jahrhundert, ed. by Christian Huck, Sandra Richter and Oliver Scholl. [in
5 print].
6 Sprengel, Peter: Darwinismus und Literatur: Germanistische Desiderate. In:
7 Scientia Poetica 1 (1997), pp. 140 182.
8
Staiger, Emil: Ein Rückblick. In: Heidegger: Perspektiven zur Deutung seines
Werks, ed. by Otto Pöggeler. Königstein: Athenäum 1984, pp. 242 245.
9 Stegmaier, Werner: Philosophie der Fluktuanz: Dilthey und Nietzsche. Göt-
10 tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1992. (Neue Studien zur Philosophie, 4).
11 Stegmaier, Werner: Nietzsches Philosophie der Kunst und seine Kunst der Phi-
12 losophie: Zur aktuellen Forschung und Forschungsmethodik. In: Nietzsche-
13
Studien 34 (2005), pp. 348 374.
Stella, V., G. Uscatescu, F. Tessitore and M. G. Montaldo Spigno: Benedetto
14 Croce e l’estetica europea. In: Atti del IV e V Seminario Teoresi e poeticità
15 nella cultura europea: Genova, 6 7 dicembre 1989 e 28 29 novembre
16 1991, ed. by Maria Adelaide Raschini. L’Aquila: Japadra 1993.
17 Stengel, Kathrin: Ethics as style: Wittgenstein’s aesthetics, ethics and ethical
18
aesthetics. In: Poetics Today 25 (2004) 4, pp. 609 625.
Stephenson, Roger H.: The aesthetics of Weimar Classicism: Ernst Cassirer and
19 the German tradition of thought. In: Publications of the English Goethe
20 Society 74 (2005), pp. 67 82.
21 Stockhorst, Stefanie: Reformpoetik: Kodifizierte Genustheorie des Barock und
22 alternative Normenbildung in poetologischen Paratexten. Tübingen: Nie-
23
meyer 2008. (Frühe Neuzeit, 128).
Stöckmann, Ingo: Vor der Literatur: Eine Evolutionstheorie der Poetik Alteu-
24 ropas. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2001. (Communicatio, 28).
25 Streim, Gregor: Introspektion des Schöpferischen: Literaturwissenschaft und
26 Experimentalpsychologie am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts. Das Projekt der
27 ‘empirisch-induktiven’ Poetik. In: Scientia Poetica 7 (2003), pp. 148 170.
28
Ströker, Elisabeth: Fiktive Welt im literarischen Kunstwerk: Zu einer Kontro-
verse zwischen Roman Ingarden und Käte Hamburger. In: Kunst und On-
29 tologie: Für Roman Ingarden zum 100. Geburtstag, ed. by Wlodzimierz
30 Galewicz, E. S. and Wladyslaw Strozewski. Amsterdam: Rodopi 1994,
31 pp. 141 165.
32 Strube, Werner: Analytische Philosophie der Literaturwissenschaft: Untersu-
33
chungen zur literaturwissenschaftlichen Definition, Klassifikation, Inter-
pretation und Textbewertung. Paderborn [et al.]: Schöningh 1993.
34 Sweet, William: British idealist aesthetics: Origins and themes. In: Bradley Studies
35 7 (2001) 2, pp. 131 161.
36 Tadday, Ulrich: Christian August Heinrich Clodius’ „Entwurf einer systemati-
37 schen Poetik“ von 1804 und die Anfänge einer Ästhetik der romantischen
38
Oper. In: Die Musikforschung 51 (1998), pp. 25 33.
39
40
1 Tallis, Raymond: License my raving hands: Does neuroscience have anything to

2 teach us about the pleasure of reading John Donne? In: The Times Literary
3
Supplement 11 (2008), pp. 13 15.
Tam, Thomas: On wonder, appreciation, and the tremendous in Wittgenstein’s
4 aesthetics. In: British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (2002) 3, pp. 310 322.
5 Thielen, Joachim: Wilhelm Dilthey und die Entwicklung des geschichtlichen
6 Denkens in Deutschland im ausgehenden 19. Jahrhundert. Würzburg: Kö-
7 nigshausen & Neumann 1999. (Trierer Studien zur Kulturphilosophie, 3).
8
Thiermann, Werner: Zur Geschichte des Leipziger psychologischen Institutes
1875 1945. Leipzig 1981.
9 Thomé, Horst: Autonomes Ich und ‘Inneres Ausland’: Studien über Realismus,
10 Tiefenpsychologie und Psychiatrie in deutschen Erzähltexten (1848 1914).
11 Tübingen: Niemeyer 1993. (Hermaea, 70).
12 Thomé, Horst: Geschichtsspekulationen als Weltanschauungsliteratur: Zu Os-
13
wald Spenglers „Der Untergang des Abendlandes“. In: Literatur und Wis-
sen(schaften): 1890 1935, ed. by Christine Maillard and Michael Titzmann.
14 Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 2002, pp. 193 212.
15 Thomé, Horst: Weltanschauung. In: Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie.
16 Vol. 12. Basel: Schwabe 2004, cols. 453 460.
17 Thouard, Denis: Dalla grammatica allo stile: Schleiermacher e Adelung. Rif-
18
lessioni sull’individuazione nel linguaggio. In: Lingue e Stile 3 (1994),
pp. 373 391.
19 Thouard, Denis: Critique et herméneutique dans le premier romantisme alle-
20 mand: Textes de F. Schlegel, F. Schleiermacher, F. Ast, A. W. Schlegel, A. F.
21 Bernhardi, W. Dilthey. Introduits, traduits, annotés. Paris: Septentrion 1996.
22 Tigerstedt, E. N.: The poet as creator: Origins of a metaphor. In: Comparative
23
Literature Studies 5 (1968) 4, pp. 455 488.
Till, Dietmar: Affirmation und Subversion: Zum Verhältnis von ‘platonischen’
24 und ‘rhetorischen’ Elementen in der frühneuzeitlichen Poetik. In: Zeit-
25 sprünge: Forschungen zur Frühen Neuzeit 4 (2000) 3, pp. 181 210.
26 Till, Dietmar: Transformationen der Rhetorik: Untersuchungen zum Wandel der
27 Rhetoriktheorie im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2004.
28
Till, Dietmar: Poetik a. d. Grundlagen: ‘Rhetorisierte’ Poetik. In: Rhetorik:
Begriff, Geschichte, Internationalität, ed. by Gert Ueding. Tübingen: Nie-
29 meyer 2005, pp. 143 151.
30 Titzmann, Michael: Strukturwandel der philosophischen Ästhetik: Der Sym-
31 bolbegriff als Paradigma. Munich: Fink 1978.
32 Topel, Renate: Die allgemeine Psychologie Wilhelm Wundts: Wundt und
33
Helmholtz. Zwei Beiträge zur Theorie der Sinneswahrnehmung. Leipzig
1982.
34 Traub, Hartmut: Über die Pflichten des ästhetischen Künstlers: Der § 31 des
35 Systems der Sittenlehre im Kontext von Fichtes Philosophie der Ästhetik. In:
36 Die Sittenlehre J. G. Fichtes (1798 1812), ed. by Christoph Asmuth and
37 Wilhelm Metz. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi 2006, pp. 55 106. (Fichte-
38
Studien, 27).
39
40
1 Trautmann-Waller, Céline: Aux origines d’une science allemande de la culture :

2 Linguistique et psychologie des peuples chez Heymann Steinthal. Paris:
3
CNRS Editions 2006.
Trautmann-Waller, Céline and Carole Maigné: Formalismes esthétiques et
4 héritage herbartien: Vienne, Prague, Moscou. Hildesheim: Olms 2009.
5 Trautmann-Waller, Céline: Zwischen Kunstgeschichte, Formalismus und Kul-
6 turanthropologie: Was hatte die Berliner Völkerpsychologie über Kunst zu
7 sagen? In: Konzert und Konkurrenz: Die Künste und ihre Wissenschaften im
8
19. Jahrhundert, ed. by Oliver Huck, Christian Scholl and Sandra Richter. [in
print].
9 Turk, Horst: Literaturtheorie. Vol. 1: Literaturwissenschaftlicher Teil. Göttin-
10 gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1976.
11 Tymieniecka, Anna-Teresa (ed.): Ingardeniana III: Roman Ingarden’s aesthetics
12 in a new key and the independent approaches of others. The performing arts,
13
the fine arts, and literature. Doredrecht: Kluwer 1991. (Analecta Husserliana,
33).
14 Ulrichs, Lars-Thade: Das ewig sich selbst bildende Kunstwerk: Organismus-
15 theorien in Metaphysik und Kunstphilosophie um 1800. In: Internationales
16 Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus / International Yearbook of German
17 Idealism 4 (2006), pp. 256 290.
18
Vetter, Helmut: Zur Begrifflichkeit der Phänomenologie am Beispiel von Husserl
und Heidegger. In: Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 48 (2006), pp. 203 225.
19 Viëtor, Karl: Deutsche Literaturgeschichte als Geistesgeschichte. In: Publications
20 of the Modern Language Association 60 (1945), pp. 899 916.
21 Vietta, Silvio: Kanon- und Theorieverwerfungen in der Germanistik der siebziger
22 Jahre: Aus der Diskussion. In: Germanistik der siebziger Jahre: Zwischen
23
Innovation und Ideologie, ed. by S. V. and Dirk Kemper. Munich: Fink 2000,
pp. 9 58.
24 Vollhardt, Friedrich: Das Kunstwerk als ein „in sich selbst Vollendetes“: Zur
25 Entstehung und Wirkung der Autonomieästhetik in Deutschland. In: Kon-
26 greß Junge Kulturwissenschaft und Praxis: Kreativität und Leistung. Wege
27 und Irrwege der Selbstverwirklichung, ed. by Konrad Adam. Köln: Bachem
28
1986, pp. 79 85. (Veröffentlichungen der Hanns Martin Schleyer Stiftung,
20).
29 Vollhardt, Friedrich: Die Kritik der anthropologischen Begründung barocker
30 Staatsphilosophie in der deutschen Literatur des 18. Jahrhunderts: J. M. v.
31 Loën und J. A. Eberhard. In: Europäische Barock-Rezeption. Vol. 1, ed. by
32 Klaus Garber. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1991, pp. 377 395. (Wolfenbüt-
33
teler Arbeiten zur Barockfoschung, 20).
Vollhardt, Friedrich: [rev.] Friedhelm Solms: Disciplina Aesthetica. Zur Früh-
34 geschichte der ästhetischen Theorie bei Baumgarten und Herder. In: Das
35 achtzehnte Jahrhundert 16 (1992) 1, pp. 70 74.
36 Vollhardt, Friedrich: Selbstreferenz im Literatursystem: Rhetorik, Poetik, Äs-
37 thetik. In: Literaturwissenschaft, ed. by Jürgen Fohrmann and Harro Müller.
38
München: Fink 1995, pp. 249 272.
39
40
1 Voßkamp, Wilhelm: Kontinuität und Diskontinuität: Zur deutschen Literatur-

2 wissenschaft im Dritten Reich. In: Wissenschaft im Dritten Reich, ed. by
3
Peter Lundgreen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1985, pp. 140 162.
Walther, Gerrit: Friedrich August Wolf und die Hallenser Philologie: Ein auf-
4 klärerisches Phänomen? In: Universitäten und Aufklärung, ed. by Notker
5 Hammerstein. Göttingen: Wallstein-Verl. 1995, pp. 125 136. (Das Acht-
6 zehnte Jahrhundert, Suppl. 3).
7 Waszek, Norbert: „Aux sources de la Querelle“ dans les „Lettres sur l’Education
8
Esthétique de l’Homme“ de Schiller: Adam Ferguson et Christian Garve. In:
Crise et conscience du temps, ed. by Jean-Marie Paul. Nancy: Nancy Univ.
9 Press 1998, pp. 111 129.
10 Waszek, Norbert: Übersetzungspraxis und Popularphilosophie am Beispiel
11 Christian Garves. In: Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert 31 (2007) 1, pp. 42 61.
12 Weber, Alexander: Der Frühsozialist Thomas Hodgskin und die Anfänge der
13
Germanistik in Großbritannien. In: Internationales Archiv für Sozialge-
schichte der deutschen Literatur 31 (2006) 1, pp. 51 76.
14 Wehrli, Max: Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft. 2nd ed. Bern: Francke 1969.
15 (Wissenschaftliche Forschungsberichte. Geisteswissenschaftliche Reihe, 3).
16 Wehrli, Max: Zur Sprache unserer Wissenschaft. In: Der gesunde Gelehrte: Li-
17 teratur-, Sprach- und Rezeptionsanalysen. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag
18
von Hans Bänziger, ed. by Armin Arnold and C. Stephen Jäger. Herisau:
Schläpfer 1987, pp. 16 25.
19 Wehrli, Max: Was ist / war Geistesgeschichte? In: Literaturwissenschaft und
20 Geistesgeschichte, ed. by Christoph König and Eberhard Lämmert. Frankfurt
21 a. M.: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl. 1993, pp. 23 37.
22 Wehrli, Max: Germanistik in der Schweiz 1933 1945 [1993]. In: M. W.:
23
Gegenwart und Erinnerung: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Ed. Fritz Wagner and
Wolfgang Maaz. Hildesheim, Zurich: Weidmann 1998, pp. 307 320.
24 Wehrli, Max: Vom Schwinden des Werk-Begriffs [1990]. In: M. W.: Gegenwart
25 und Erinnerung: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Ed. Fritz Wagner and Wolfgang
26 Maaz. Hildesheim, Zurich: Weidmann 1998, pp. 64 74.
27 Weimar, Klaus: Historische Einleitung zur literaturwissenschaftlichen Herme-
28
neutik. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr 1975.
Weimar, Klaus and Christoph Jermann: ‘Zwiesprache’ oder Literaturwissenschaft.
29 In: Neue Hefte für Philosophie 23 (1984), pp. 113 157.
30 Weimar, Klaus: Das Muster geistesgeschichtlicher Darstellung: Rudolf Unger’s
31 Einleitung zu „Hamann und die Aufklärung“. In: Literaturwissenschaft und
32 Geistesgeschichte, ed. by Christoph König and Eberhard Lämmert, Frankfurt
33
a. M.: Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verl. 1993, pp. 92 105.
Weimar, Klaus: Geschichte der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft bis zum Ende des
34 19. Jahrhunderts. Paderborn: Fink 2003 (1st ed. 1989).
35 Weimar, Klaus: Oskar Walzels Selbstmißverständnisse. In: Mitteilungen des
36 Deutschen Germanistenverbandes 53 (2006), pp. 40 58.
37 Wellbery, David: Positionen der Literaturwissenschaft: Acht Modellanalysen am
38
Beispiel von Kleists „Das Erdbeben von Chili“. Munich: Beck 1985.
(Beck’sche Elementarbücher).
39
40
1 Wellbery, David: Stimmung. In: Historisches Wörterbuch ästhetischer Grund-

2 begriffe. Vol. 5, ed. by Karlheinz Barck [et al.]. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler
3
2003, pp. 703 33.
Wellek, René: A history of modern criticism: 1750 1950. New Haven, London:
4 Yale Univ. Press 1950. (4 vols.).
5 Wels, Volkhard: Zur Vorgeschichte des Begriffs der ‘kreativen Phantasie’. In:
6 Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 50 (2005) 2,
7 pp. 199 226.
8
Wels, Volkhard: Der Begriff der Dichtung vor und nach der Reformation. In:
Fragmenta Melanchthoniana: Melanchthons Wirkung in der europäischen
9 Bildungsgeschichte, ed. by Günter Frank and Sebastian Lalla. Heidelberg:
10 Winter 2007, pp. 81 104.
11 Weninger, Robert: Streitbare Literaten: Kontroversen und Eklats in der deut-
12 schen Literatur von Adorno bis Walser. Munich: Beck 2004.
13
Werner, Renate: Ästhetische Kunstauffassung am Beispiel des ‘Münchner
Dichterkreises’. In: Bürgerlicher Realismus und Gründerzeit, ed. by Edward
14 McInnes and Gerhard Plumpe. Munich: Deutscher-Taschenbuch
15 Verl. 1996, pp. 308 342. (Hansers Sozialgeschichte der deutschen Literatur
16 vom 16. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart, 6).
17 Wesche, Jörg: Literarische Diversität: Abweichungen, Lizenzen und Spielräume
18
in der deutschen Poesie und Poetik der Barockzeit. Tübingen: Niemeyer
2004. (Studien zur deutschen Literatur, 173).
19 Wiener, Claudia: Johann Jakob Wagner: Dichter-Lehrer wider Willen. In:
20 Rückert-Studien: Jahrbuch der Rückert-Gesellschaft 10 (1996), pp. 7 12.
21 Wild, Markus: „Schon unser Briefwechsel hat das Gedicht allzu schwer belastet“:
22 Staiger und Heidegger über Mörike „Auf eine Lampe“. In: Kontroversen in
23
der Literaturtheorie / Literaturtheorie in der Kontroverse, ed. by Ralf
Klausnitzer and Carlos Spoerhase. Bern [et al.]: Lang 2007, pp. 207 222.
24 (Publikationen der Zeitschrift für Germanistik, NF 17).
25 Willems, Gottfried: Das Konzept der literarischen Gattung: Untersuchungen zur
26 klassischen deutschen Gattungstheorie, insbesondere zur Ästhetik F. Th.
27 Vischers. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1981. (Hermaea, 15).
28
Willems, Gottfried: Anschaulichkeit: Zur Theorie und Geschichte der Wort-
Bild-Beziehungen und des literarischen Darstellungsstils. Tübingen: Nie-
29 meyer 1989. (Studien zur deutschen Literatur, 103).
30 Winkel Holm, Isaak: Monstrous aesthetics: Literature and philosophy in Søren
31 Kierkegaard. In: Nineteenth-Century Prose 32 (2005) 1, pp. 52 74.
32 Winko, Simone: Gefühl, Affekt, Stimmung, Emotion: Kodierte Gefühle. Zu
33
einer Poetik der Emotionen in lyrischen und poetologischen Texten um 1900.
Berlin: Schmidt 2003.
34 Winko, Simone and Tilmann Köppe: Theorien und Methoden der Literatur-
35 wissenschaft. In: Handbuch Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 2, ed. by Thomas
36 Anz. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler 2007, pp. 285 372.
37 Wolf, Thomas: Konstitution und Kritik der Wissenschaften bei Heidegger. In:
38
Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 57 (2003) 1, pp. 94 110.
Wolff, Baronin (ed.): Die Goldenen Verse des Pythagoras. Munich: Barth 1926.
39
40
1 Wübben, Yvonne: Propaganda, polemisch: Zur Aktualität von Emil Staigers

2 Stilkritik. In: Klassiker der Germanistik: Local Heroes in Zeiten des Global
3
Thinking, ed. by Petra Boden and Uwe Wirth. Bielefeld: Aisthesis-
Verl. 2006, pp. 60 72.
4 Young, Brian and Richard Whatmore (eds.): Palgrave advances in intellectual
5 history. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2006.
6 Young, Julian: Heidegger’s philosophy of art. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
7 2001.
8
Young, Julian: Death and transfiguration: Kant, Schopenhauer and Heidegger on
the sublime. In: Inquiry 48 (2005) 2, pp. 131 144.
9 Zande, Johan van der: Johann Georg Sulzer‘s „Allgemeine Theorie der schönen
10 Künste“. In: Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert 22 (1998) 1, pp. 87 101.
11 Zelle, Carsten: Die doppelte Ästhetik der Moderne: Revisionen des Schönen von
12 Boileau bis Nietzsche. Stuttgart: Metzler 1995.
13
Zeuch, Ulrike: Umkehr der Sinneshierarchie: Herder und die Aufwertung des
Tastsinns seit der frühen Neuzeit. Tübingen: Niemeyer 2000. (Communi-
14 catio, 22).
15 Žmegač, Viktor (ed.): Methoden der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft: Eine
16 Dokumentation. Frankfurt: Athenäum-Verlag 1971.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1
2
3
4 7. Prints
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40 Fr[iedrich] Bouterwek: Aesthetik. 2 vols. Leipzig: Martini 1806, vol. 1, title page.
434 7. Prints
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Friedrich Bouterwek: Aesthetik. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
25 2
1815, vol. 1, title page.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
7. Prints 435
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Theophil Spoerri: Präludium zur Poesie. Eine Einführung in die Deutung des
21 dichterischen Kunstwerks. Berlin [1929], p. 321.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
436 7. Prints
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
7. Prints 437
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
438 7. Prints
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39 Eckart Peterich: Das Mass der Musen. Überlegungen zu einer Poetik. 2nd ed.
40 Freiburg i.Brsg.: Herder 1947, [s.p.].
Index of Names
Abrams, Meyer Howard: 31 (fn. 15). Beyer, Conrad: 23, 123, 175.
Adorno, Theodor W.: 219, 221. Bierbaum, Otto Julius: VIII.
Alewyn, Richard: 227 (fn. 43), 231, Blair, Hugh: IX, 55, 61, 66, 110f.
270. Blumenberg, Hans: 27 (fn. 8).
Alverdes, Paul: 254. Bodmer, Johann Jakob: 44, 79, 139,
André, Yves-Marie: 56. 174.
Andres, Bonaventura: 63. Boeckh, August: 26 (fn. 5), 105.
Aristotle: 36, 47f, 71, 90, 92, 107, 127, Boehm, Max Hilbert: 253, 254 (fn. 21).
132, 154f, 167, 171, 176, 180, 244, Boehringer, Robert: 199.
247, 265. Boileau, Nicolas: 16 (fn. 25), 48
Arnim, Achim von: VIII, 132 (fn. 13). (fn. 34).
Arnim, Bettina von: 132 (fn. 13). Bollnow, Otto Friedrich von: 152.
Ast, Friedrich: XI, 89, 91-93. Bölsche, Wilhelm: 141.
Auerbach, Erich: 286. Boor, Helmut de: 282.
Avenarius, Richard: 149. Bopp, Franz: 133.
Borinski, Karl: 12, 160.
Baader, Franz Xaver von: 127, 132. Bos, Charles du: 52, 66.
Bahnsen, Julius: 126. Bosanquet, Bernard: 15 (fn. 25), 29.
Bally, Charles: 204 (fn. 3). Bouterwek, Friedrich: XII, 55, 100-
Balzac, Honoré de: 162. 105, 107, 134.
Basch, Viktor: 274. Bovet, Ernest: 223, 225.
Batteux, Charles: 40, 42 (fn. 10), 48, Brandes, Johann Christian: 79.
167. Brawe, Joachim Wilhelm von: 79.
Baumgart, Hermann: 176. Breitinger, Johann Jacob: 117 (fn. 76),
Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb: 4, 139, 174.
16, 19, 28, 35, 40, 42, 45-48, 50- Brentano, Franz: 142, 211, 213, 235,
52, 55, 58, 62f, 69, 82f, 90 (fn. 5), 236 (fn. 76).
92, 95, 167. Brinkmann, Donald: 285.
Bayle, Pierre: 45, 51 (fn. 44). Büchner, Georg: 260.
Becker, Oskar: 228f. Büttner, Ludwig: XIII, 21, 250, 260-
Beer, Johannes: 227 (fn. 43). 265, 275-277.
Beneke, Otto: 149. Bunsen, Christian Carl Josias: 132.
Benjamin, Walter: 200 (fn. 59). Burdach, Konrad: 173.
Benn, Gottfried: 260 (fn. 52). Burke, Edmund: 40, 59, 62, 82, 92,
Bergson, Henri: 213, 223. 137, 167.
Bernay, Adolphus: 29 (fn. 14). Byron, George Gordon Lord: 125.
Bernhardi, August Ferndinand: 91
(fn. 9). Caldéron de la Barca, Pedro: 90, 162,
Bettinelli, Xaver: 40. 259 (fn. 51).
Beumelburg, Werner: 259 (fn. 47). Calmberg, Adolf: 13f.
440 Index of Names
Carriere, Moritz: XII, 20, 36, 122f, Dufrennes, Michel: 218.

125, 129, 131-138, 142-146, 151, Dusch, Johann Jakob: 79.
159, 161, 166, 172.
Carus, Carl Gustav: 168 (fn194), 200. Ebbinghaus, Hermann: 181f.
Cassirer, Ernst: 240 (fn. 97), 281. Eberhard, Johann August: XI, 19, 41
Celan, Paul: 221. (fn. 5), 43, 49f, 56f, 59-62, 64-67,
Cervantes, Miguel de: 191. 69, 87, 107, 123.
Chalyväus, Heinrich Moritz: 132. Eckardt, Ludwig: 132, 137.
Chamberlain, Houston Stewart: 261. Egger, Alois: 137.
Chateaubriand, François-René: 150. Ehrenfels, Christian von: 200.
Claudius, Matthias: 231. Elster, Ernst August Eduard Jakob: XII,
Clauß, Ludwig Ferdinant: 275. 20, 37, 173, 176-182, 223, 272,
Clodius, Christian August Heinrich: 274.
XI, 19, 65, 67, 68-74, 103, 107. Emerson, Ralph Waldo: 98.
Clodius, Christian August: 68. Engel, Johann Jacob: XI, 19, 41 (fn. 5),
Cohen, Hermann: 171 (fn. 208). 42 (fn. 9), 43, 49f, 56, 59-62, 65-
Cohn, Jonas: 16 (fn. 31), 206. 67, 69, 107.
Collingwood, Robin George: 29, 244 Enzensberger, Hans Magnus: 260
(fn. 9). (fn. 52).
Confucius: 69. Erdmann, Johann Eduard: 186 (fn. 2).
Croce, Benedetto: 98, 223, 244f, 285. Ermatinger, Emil: XII, 20, 28, 37, 193-
Crousaz, Jean-Pierre de: 40, 44 (fn. 18), 197, 199, 201, 223, 226, 233, 237f,
46, 56f. 244, 247, 271f.
Cysarz, Herbert: 203, 223. Ernesti, Johann August: 50.
Ernst, Paul: 258.
Eschenburg, Johann Joachim: XI, 41
Dalberg, Carl Theodor von: 41. (fn. 5), 43, 49-55, 58-62, 64, 67,
Dante, Alighieri: 191, 223. 69, 101, 107.
Darnbacher, Max: 180 (fn. 17). Euler, Leonard: 44.
Darwin, Charles: 114 (fn. 64), 133, 134 Ezzo: 171.
(fn. 21), 146, 151, 160f, 168, 276.
Dehmel, Richard: 161, 197. Faesi, Robert: 197, 233.
Derrida, Jacques: 220. Fechner, Gustav Theodor: XII, 17, 20,
Dessoir, Max: 209. 114, 129-131, 133, 136-142, 144-
Dewey, John: 244 (fn. 9). 151, 153, 156-158, 165-167, 172,
Dickens, Charles: 126. 176, 179, 181, 184, 207, 261
Diderot, Denis: 40. (fn. 56), 298.
Diez, Max: 16 (fn. 32). Feder, Georg Heinrich: 101.
Dilthey, Wilhelm: XII, 3f, 10, 16, 19f, Ferguson, Adam: 29 (fn. 11).
26f, 30, 36, 91 (fn. 9), 129, 131, Fichte, Johann Gottlieb: 95, 96 (fn. 34),
136, 145, 151-162, 165, 169f, 172, 132, 134, 142, 179, 186.
174, 178-180, 186-194, 197, 212, Firmian (Count): 41.
219 (fn. 1), 223, 226, 246, 252, Fischart, Johann: 105.
257f, 270, 276, 285, 291, 296. Fischer, Kuno: 121.
Disraeli, Benjamin (First Earl of Bea- Fock, Gorch: 275.
consfield): 128. Foucault, Michel: 182.
Döblin, Alfred: 194. Fränkel, Heinrich: 11 (fn. 9).
Dragomirescu, Michel: 276. Frege, Gottlob: 142, 212 (fn. 4/5).
Index of Names 441
Freud, Sigmund: 265 (fn. 74), 279. Günther, Hans Friedrich Karl: 261f,
Friedrich, Hugo: 221 (fn. 9), 232. 275.
Fries, Jakob Friedrich: 135. Gundolf, Friedrich: 188, 199, 201f,
Froehde, Oskar: 177. 223, 228, 237, 264, 273.
Gutzkow, Karl: 126f.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg: 3, 160
(fn. 153), 223f. Hagedorn, Christian Ludwig von: 42
Gaitanides, Hans: 284. (fn. 10).
Garve, Christian: 29 (fn. 11), 66. Hahn, Werner: 23, 147 (fn. 89).
Gebler, Tobias Philipp Freiherr von: Haller, Albrecht von: 45, 125.
79. Hamann, Johann Georg: 35, 49, 76-78,
Geibel, Emanuel: 124, 127. 189.
Gellert, Christian Fürchtegott: 50, 52, Hamburger, Käte: 207 (fn. 12), 216,
79, 170. 245.
George, Stefan: VIII, 15 (fn. 24), 109 Harnack, Adolf von: 273.
(fn. 40), 159-161, 165, 197, 199, Harsdörffer, Georg Philipp: 242.
222, 231, 251. Hartl, Robert: 225f.
Gerard, Alexander: 40, 41 (fn. 5), 52, Hartmann von Aue: 181.
59, 62. Hartmann, Eduard von: 119, 123, 125,
Gerber, Gustav: 205. 214 (fn. 15), 261 (fn. 56).
Gerstenberg, Heinrich Wilhelm von: Hartsen, Frederik Anton von: 137.
79. Hauptmann, Gerhart: 163.
Gervinus, Georg Gottfried: 10 (fn. 7), Hebbel, Friedrich: 127, 162.
125. Hefele, Hermann: XII, 20, 37, 201-
Gibbon, Edward: 80. 204, 210, 223f, 235.
Gietmann, Gerhard: 111. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: XII,
Gleim, Johann Wilhelm Ludwig: 45. 11, 28f, 35f, 55, 72f, 89f, 96
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von: 15 (fn. 34), 100, 107-109, 111-122,
(fn. 24), 20, 44, 60, 68, 76, 81, 108, 127, 129, 132, 133 (fn. 21), 136f,
114, 120f, 139, 149, 153, 156, 161- 140, 142, 148, 152 (fn. 113), 167,
163, 170-172, 179, 183f, 199, 200 174, 188, 191, 193, 204, 206, 226,
(fn. 59), 234f, 236 (fn. 76/77), 265 (fn. 72), 280, 289.
247, 250, 256, 258, 264-270, 278. Heidegger, Martin: XII, 38, 98, 164
Goette, Rudolf: 151, 172. (fn. 174), 196, 202, 211 (fn. 2), 212
Goll, Claire: VIII. (fn. 6), 217, 219-223, 228f, 231f,
Goodman, Nelson: 218. 235-237, 239f, 246f, 253, 256,
Gottschall, Rudolf Karl: XII, 15, 20, 276, 278, 285f, 294.
100, 121-128, 147, 290. Heine, Heinrich: 163, 177, 179.
Gottsched, Christoph: 35, 174. Heinze, Paul: 151, 172.
Greb, Franz Ludwig: 113 (fn. 58). Helbock, Adolf: 254.
Griese, Friedrich: 258f. Helmholtz, Hermann: 142 (fn. 68),
Grimm, Hans: 229, 254, 259. 153.
Grimm, Jakob: 105, 126, 133. Herbart, Johann Friedrich: XII, 36, 69,
Grimm, Wilhelm: 105, 126. 73, 112, 116, 118, 129f, 139, 141f,
Grohmann, Amadeus: 222. 148f, 153, 159, 172, 186 (fn. 2),
Groos, Karl: 16 (fn. 30), 184, 260 199f, 225, 289, 291.
(fn. 56). Herder, Johann Gottfried: XI, 12, 13
Gross, Walter: 259 (fn. 50). (fn. 17), 19, 35, 49, 76-82, 87, 92,
442 Index of Names
102, 110, 116, 121, 133, 158, 167, Ibsen, Henrik: 260 (fn. 52).
289f. Ingarden, Roman: XII, 20, 200f, 210-
Herwig, Johann Justus: XI, 19, 76, 78- 218, 243f, 247, 267, 270, 276, 286,
80, 289f. 291.
Hesse, Hermann: 279. Iser, Wolfgang: 207 (fn. 14), 209, 218,
Hettner, Hermann: 133 (fn. 21). 292 (fn. 9).
Heusinger, Johann Heinrich Gottlob:
XI, 65-67, 72, 74f, 103, 121, 154, Jacobi, Friedrich Heinrich: 45, 79, 101.
290. Jäger, Gustav: 146.
Heydenreich, Karl Heinrich: 63. Jahn, Friedrich Ludwig: 105.
Heyne, Christian Gottlob: 50, 101. Jakob, Ludwig Heinrich: 63.
Heyse, Paul: 150, 171. Jaspers, Karl: 228, 231f.
Hillebrand, Joseph Heinrich: XI, 65, Jauß, Hans Robert: 218.
72-75, 103, 107. Jeitteles, Ignatz: 87f.
Hindenburg, Paul von: 258. Johnson, Samuel: 58.
Hirschfeld, Christian Cay Lorenz: 78. Johst, Hanns: 259.
Hitler, Adolf: 249, 252, 258f, 261 Jolles, Johannes Andreas (André): 244,
(fn. 55), 266. 266f, 291.
Hodgskin, Thomas: 30 (fn. 14). Jordan, Wilhelm: 127.
Hoffmann von Fallersleben, Heinrich: Jung, Alexander: 18.
105. Jungmann, Josef: 110f, 290.
Jurczok, Fritz: 101 (fn. 4).
Hofmann, Franz: 132.
Hofmannsthal, Hugo von: 163, 279.
Kafka, Franz: 279.
Hogarth,William: 137, 148. Kant, Immanuel: XI, 11, 13 (fn. 17), 15
Hölderlin, Friedrich: 89, 159, 192, (fn. 25), 17, 19, 28, 35, 40, 55f, 62-
220-222, 276, 286. 69, 72, 74-76, 82-84, 91f, 94f, 96
Hölty, Ludwig Christoph Heinrich: (fn. 34), 100-102, 107, 112
108. (fn. 53), 125, 132, 135, 137, 158,
Home, Henry (Lord Kames): 40, 41 167, 172, 213 (fn. 8), 220 (fn. 5),
(fn. 5), 54, 59, 62, 66, 92. 226, 265 (fn. 72), 289, 291.
Homer: 78 (fn. 6), 139, 167. Kayser, Wolfgang: XIII, 21, 163, 214
Horace: 47, 54, 92, 94, 121, 127, 140, (fn. 14), 242-246, 248, 271, 277f,
167, 172, 234. 283, 285.
Hospers, John: 244 (fn. 9). Kellen, Tony: 23.
Hotho, Heinrich Gustav: 55, 113 Keller, Gottfried: 114 (fn. 64), 235, 236
(fn. 63), 115f, 118, 120. (fn. 76).
Humboldt, Alexander von: 59, 179. Kerner, Justinus: 127, 171.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von: 12, 59, 136, Kiemle, Annelise: 129 (fn. 2).
156 (fn. 133), 168 (fn. 191), 205. Kierkegaard, Søren: XII, 219f, 223,
Hume, David: 29 (fn. 11), 149. 226, 232, 297.
Husserl, Edmund: XII, 38, 141, 142 Kindermann, Heinz: XIII, 21, 37, 194,
(fn. 67), 200, 210-215, 217f, 219 249f, 255-260, 265.
(fn. 1), 220, 221 (fn. 7), 228, 231f, Kirchmayer, Albert: 43 (fn. 14).
235, 238, 239 (fn. 88), 264, 276, Kirstein, Anton: 111.
291, 296. Kiy, Viktor: 145.
Hutcheson, Francis: 29 (fn. 11), 53, Klages, Ludwig: 228 (fn. 46), 229, 232.
137. Kleist, Ewald Christian von: 79.
Index of Names 443
Kleist, Heinrich von: 181, 222 (fn. 13), Lipps, Theodor: 17, 164, 181, 199, 210,
278. 212, 223f, 261 (fn. 56).
Klopstock, Friedrich Gottlieb: 15 Locke, John: 149.
(fn. 24), 68, 79, 108. Loën, Johann Michael von: 59 (fn. 76).
Kluckhohn, Paul: 187. Lohenstein, Daniel Caspar von: 16
Knies, Karl: 165. (fn. 26).
Knigge, Adolph Freiherr: 10 (fn. 7). Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth: 150.
Koch, Christian Friedrich: 11. Loreye, Joseph: XI, 89, 91, 93-95, 98.
Koch, Franz: 272, 275. Lotze, Rudolph Hermann: XII, 15
Kolbenheyer, Erwin Guido: 259. (fn. 25), 20, 114, 131-133, 136-
Kommerell, Max: 285. 138, 142-146, 149, 151, 157, 159,
Körner, Joseph: 277f. 172, 212.
Köstlin, Karl: 137. Luden, Heinrich: 40, 42.
Krannhals, Paul: 275. Luhmann, Niklas: 265 (fn. 74).
Kraus, Karl: 209. Luther, Martin: 78, 262 (fn. 58).
Kretschmann, Denis: 79.
Krieck, Ernst: 259 (fn. 50). Maass, Joachim: XIII, 15, 279-281,
Krug, Wilhelm Traugott: 63, 64 (fn. 7). 290.
Külpe, Oswald: 181, 261 (fn. 56). Mach, Ernst: 200.
Kußmaul, Alfred: 150. Macpherson, James: 78.
Mallarmé, Stéphane: 221.
Mann, Thomas: 251, 279.
La Harpe, Jean-François de: 58. Marbe, Karl: 182.
Lachmann, Karl: 105. Markwardt, Bruno: 250.
Lacombe, Jacques: 45. Marmontel, Jean-François: 167.
Lafontaine, Jean de: 68. Martini, Fritz: 20 (fn. 3).
Lagarde, Paul de: 175. Mastalier, Karl: 79.
Lämmert, Eberhard: 77 (fn. 5), 142 Matthisson, Friedrich von: 108.
(fn. 65), 187 (fn. 5), 188 (fn. 9), Maupassant, Guy de: 162.
189 (fn. 12/14), 251 (fn. 9), 270, Maupertuis, Pierre-Louis Moreau de:
Lampe, Friedo: 229, 280. 44.
Lamprecht, Karl: 181f. Mauthner, Fritz: 209.
Lange, Konrad: 16 (fn. 27). Mayer, Philipp: 87.
Lausberg, Heinrich: 8. Meier, Georg Friedrich: 4 (fn. 6), 40,
Lazarus, Moritz: 133, 153. 41 (fn. 4), 51, 55f, 69.
Lehmann, Rudolf: 76 (fn. 1), 80 Meinong, Alexius: 213.
(fn. 21), 206, 210, 215. Meißner, August Gottlieb: 87.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm: 56. Melanchthon, Philipp: 7 (fn. 1/3).
Lemcke, Carl: 16, 180. Mendelssohn, Moses: 41, 56.
Lempicki, Sigmund von: 26 (fn. 4), Meumann, Ernst: 16 (fn. 28).
273. Meyer, Richard Moritz: 165.
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim: 14, 56, 72, Meyer, Theodor Alexander: XII, 20,
79, 92, 95, 119, 121, 167, 169, 172, 37, 115 (fn. 68), 119 (fn. 86), 161,
176, 178, 197, 206-208. 163, 196, 204-210, 217, 242, 244,
Lessing, Karl Gotthelf: 173. 247, 268, 278, 291, 294.
Liebmann, Otto: 147. Michaelis, Christian Friedrich: 50, 64f,
Lindner, Johann Gotthilf: 49, 65. 70.
Lingg, Hermann: 127. Michaelis, Johann Benjamin: 79.
444 Index of Names
Minckwitz, Johannes: 22, 205f. Pasquali, Luigi: 55.

Minor, Jacob: 197. Paul, Jean: 100, 102, 108, 115f, 121,
Möller, Eberhard Wolfgang: 259 125, 137, 171.
(fn. 47). Paulus: 226.
Montesquieu, Charles-Louis Baron de: Pernéty, Antoine Joseph: 45.
77. Peterich, Eckart: 250f.
Morgenstern, Christian: 197. Petersen, Julius: XIII, 21, 26 (fn. 5),
Morhof, Daniel: 51 (fn. 44). 173, 200, 217, 238, 242, 250, 270-
Mörike, Eduard: 44, 114, 120, 221, 277, 284.
234. Petrarca, Francesco: 191.
Moritz, Karl Philipp: 55, 64f, 70. Pfeiffer, Johannes: XIII, 20, 164
Moos, Paul: 261 (fn. 56). (fn. 174), 209 (fn. 24), 219, 228-
Müller, Günther: XIII, 20, 38, 244, 233, 235, 280, 285.
250, 264-270, 277, 291. Pinder, Moritz Eduard: 55f.
Müller, Johannes: 153, 156 (fn. 135). Platen, August von: 96, 108, 162.
Müller, Max: 133. Platner, Ernst: 40, 52.
Müller-Freienfels, Richard: XII, 36, Plato: 84, 89, 91, 102, 117, 127, 131f,
119 (fn. 85), 131, 136, 160-163, 134, 167, 171, 203.
189, 261 (fn. 56). Ploetz, Hans Achim: 21 (fn. 4), 200f,
Mundt, Theodor: 100. 217.
Muschg, Walter: 197, 233. Plotinus: 198f, 203 (fn. 76).
Poe, Edgar Allan: 162.
Nadler, Josef: 227, 236f, 254. Pölitz, Karl Heinrich Ludwig: 12, 13
Napoleon Bonaparte: 128. (fn. 16).
Newald, Richard: 21 (fn. 5), 282. Pongs, Hermann: 229.
Nicolai, Friedrich: 56, 60. Pope, Alexander: 48 (fn. 34).
Nietzsche, Friedrich: 15 (fn. 25), 26 Pouilly, Louis Jean Lévesque de: 66.
(fn. 6), 129, 133, 152 (fn. 113), Prantl, Carl von: 68 (fn. 19/21), 72
162, 165, 188f, 193 (fn. 13), 200 (fn. 42).
(fn. 59), 203, 205, 207 (fn. 12), Prölß, Robert: 16 (fn. 32).
211, 226f, 230, 257. Pyritz, Hans: 270f.
Nivelle, Armand: 44 (fn. 18). Pythagoras: 69.
Nohl, Hermann: 228.
Novalis (Hardenberg, Georg Friedrich
Philipp Freiherr von): VIII, 24 Quintilian: 15 (fn. 24), 84, 148.
(fn. 14), 61, 89, 100 (fn. 2).
Nowack, Walter: 118 (fn. 77), 149 Raupach, Ernst Benjamin Salomo:
(fn. 98). 127.
Reni, Guido: 41 (fn. 7).
O’Leary, John Gerard: 273. Richards, Ivor Armstrong: 284.
Obenauer, Karl Justus: XIII, 21, 37, Rickert, Heinrich: 212, 219 (fn. 1).
173, 249-258, 260, 275f. Riedel, Friedrich Just: 41, 42 (fn. 8), 54,
Obermann, J.[…]: 159. 65, 79.
Oersted, Hans Christian: 137. Riedlinger, Albert Secheh: 205 (fn. 3).
Oeser, Adam Friedrich: 60. Rilke, Rainer Maria: VIII, 24 (fn. 14),
Oppel, Horst: 26 (fn. 5), 270. 100 (fn. 2), 197, 231, 279, 286.
Ritter, Heinrich: 132.
Pascal, Blaise: 223, 226, 297. Roethe, Gustav: 271.
Index of Names 445
Roetteken, Hubert: XII, 37, 173, 176, Schmidt of Werneuchen, Friedrich

181-185, 206-209, 223. Wilhelm August: 126.
Roscher, Wilhelm: 165. Schmidt, Arno: 164.
Rosenberg, Alfred: 261f. Schmidt, Siegfried J.: 218.
Rosenkranz, Karl: 18, 108 (fn. 38), Schneider, Wilhelm: 164 (fn. 174).
121-123, 132. Schopenhauer, Arthur: 90 (fn. 5), 127.
Rothe, Richard: 132. Schröder, Rudolf Alexander: 229, 231.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques: 68, 226. Schröter, Manfred: 90 (fn. 5).
Rückert, Friedrich: 96, 151. Schubart, Christian Friedrich Daniel:
Ruge, Arnold: 100 (fn. 3), 115 (fn. 67), 41,83, 84 (fn. 37).
132 (fn. 14), 137. Schwabe, Johann Joachim: 78.
Russell, Bertrand: 142. Seidler, Herbert: XIII, 242, 245-248,
277.
Sachs, Hans: 254. Shaftesbury, Earl of: 46.
Sack, August Wilhelm Friedrich: 44. Shakespeare, William: 54, 90, 108, 132
Saintsbury, George: 6 (fn. 13). (fn. 13), 156, 175, 188.
Sauer, August: 278. Siebeck, Hermann: 149.
Saussure, Ferdinand de: 205 (fn. 3). Sieber, Ludwig: 106.
Scaliger, Julius Caesar: 117. Sievers, Eduard: 177.
Schäfer, Wilhelm: 259. Simmel, Georg: 182.
Schasler, Max: 15 (fn. 25), 136. Simonides: 119.
Scheler, Max: 215, 240. Simrock, Carl: 105.
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph: Smith, Adam: 46, 146.
XI, 19f, 36, 55, 88-99, 118f, 121, Snell, Christian Wilhelm: 63-65.
131f, 137, 142, 186, 206, 226, Socrates: 58, 166, 280.
289f. Solger, Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand: 11,
Scherer, Wilhelm: VII, XII, 3, 12, 15, 23, 112f, 121.
19, 36, 123, 129, 131, 146, 153, Sophocles: 150, 162.
161, 164-174, 177, 180, 182f, 201, Spencer, Herbert: 168.
206, 236f, 252, 274, 291, 294, 296. Spengler, Oswald: 261, 265f, 286.
Scheuchzer, Johann Jacob: 44. Spoerri, Theophil: XIII, 20, 27f, 38,
Schiller, Friedrich: 29 (fn. 11), 44, 70, 201, 222-228, 232, 235f, 239, 247,
74, 76, 81, 96 (fn. 34), 108, 120f, 286, 290, 297.
132 (fn. 13), 134, 136, 154, 156, Spranger, Eduard: 200.
162f, 177, 179, 222 (fn. 13), 278. Springorum, Friedrich: 46 (fn. 26).
Schlegel, August Wilhelm: VIII, XI, Staël, Anne Louise Germaine de: 81.
11, 19, 56f, 76, 77 (fn. 5), 80-89, Staiger, Emil: XIII, 20, 27f, 38, 173,
91-93, 95, 104, 109, 112, 119, 139, 188, 194, 197, 219-223, 233-241,
144f, 277, 289. 244, 247f, 269, 276, 285f, 290
Schlegel, Friedrich: 57, 61, 77 (fn. 5), (fn. 4), 291, 294, 297.
80, 83, 89, 91-93, 95, 104, 108 Steinbart, Gotthilf Samuel: 48f, 55.
(fn. 38), 156 (fn. 133), 197, 254, Steinthal, Heymann: 10 (fn. 8), 12,
277. 133, 149, 153, 170, 205, 207.
Schlegel, Johann Elias: 173. Stern, William: 162 (fn. 168).
Schleiermacher, Friedrich: 14, 56, 81, Sterne, Laurence: 108.
91 (fn. 9), 97-99, 153, 244, 294. Stockhausen, Johann Christoph: 51.
Schlosser, Johann Ludwig: 79. Storz, Gerhard: 20 (fn. 3), 206 (fn. 11).
Schmid, Johann Ernst Christian: 78. Strauss, David Friedrich: 114, 120.
446 Index of Names
Strich, Fritz: 225 (fn. 31), 264, 290 Voltaire (François Marie Arouet): 45,
(fn. 4). 54.
Suarez, Francisco: 111. Voss, Johann Heinrich: 94.
Sulzer, Johann Georg: XI, 19, 42-50,
53, 55, 57-59, 62, 66, 69, 76f, 82, Wackernagel, Wilhelm: XII, 12
289. (fn. 14), 14, 100, 105-109, 111,
Swift, Jonathan: 108. 125, 290.
Szondi, Peter: 27, 91, 223. Wagner, Johann Jakob: XI, 89, 91, 95-
97, 261 (fn. 56).
Walter von der Vogelweide: 105.
Taine, Hippolyte: 162, 195.
Walzel, Oskar: XII, 20, 37, 44, 46
Talia, Giovanni Battista: 55. (fn. 27), 168 (fn. 191), 197-201,
Tetens, Johann Nikolaus: 40, 52. 210, 215, 223, 225 (fn. 31), 242,
Theophrastos of Eresos: 126. 247f, 267, 272, 291.
Thiersch, Friedrich Wilhelm: 136. Wartenburg, Graf Paul York von: 153.
Thomas Aquinas (St.): 110f. Wehrli, Max: XIII, 21, 28 (fn. 10), 38,
Thomasius, Christian: 14, 15 (fn. 24). 188 (fn. 9), 189 (fn. 11/14), 196,
Tieck, Ludwig: 15 (fn. 24), 81, 108. 233 (fn. 64), 234, 238, 271, 279,
Trakl, Georg: 197, 231. 281-288, 291, 301.
Trendelenburg, Friedrich Adolph: Weinheber, Josef: 209, 233.
132. Weiss, Peter: 233.
Trier, Jost: 284. Weiße, Christian Felix: 79.
Trunz, Erich: 238 (fn. 85), 272. Weiße, Christian Hermann: 100
Tumarkin, Anna: 44 (fn. 18). (fn. 3), 112f, 115 (fn. 67), 121, 132.
Tumlirz, Karl: 13 (fn. 16), 176 (fn. 2). Wellek, Renée: 6 (fn. 13), 218 (fn. 31).
Twardowski, Kazimierz: 213. Werner, Richard Maria: 210.
Tyler, Edward Burnett: 168. Wieland, Christoph Martin: 45, 51, 66,
79, 126 (fn. 120).
Uhland, Ludwig: 105, 108. Wienbarg, Ludolf: 100.
Ulrici, Hermann: 132. Wiese, Benno von: 82 (fn. 25), 271.
Unger, Rudolf: 189, 223, 257. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich
Usener, Hermann: 190. von: 26 (fn. 6).
Utitz, Emil: 17 (fn. 33). Wilhelm, Eugen: 12.
Uz, Johann Peter: 79. Willamov, Johann Gottlieb: 79.
Wille, Bruno: 141.
Winckelmann, Johann Joachim: 92,
Vega, Lope de: 191. 102, 104, 138, 148.
Viehoff, Heinrich: XII, 36, 131, 136, Windelband, Wilhelm: 141, 212, 219
144-151, 153, 160f, 163, 165, 168, (fn. 1).
172, 178. Winkler, Emil: 163f, 223, 244 (fn. 9),
Vierordt, Karl von: 149. 245.
Viëtor, Karl: 188, 271. Wirth, Johann Ulrich: 132.
Vischer, Friedrich Theodor: XII, 16, Wittgenstein, Ludwig: 211.
19, 36, 44, 100, 112-124, 127, 129, Wolandt, Gerd: 21 (fn. 6).
131, 148, 151, 165, 167, 171, 180, Wolf, Friedrich August: 14.
182, 184, 200, 204, 206-209, 247, Wolff, Baronin: 69 (fn. 25).
289, 291, 296. Wolff, Christian: 4, 46, 50, 56f, 59, 62,
Volkelt, Johannes: 17, 183f,199. 82, 140, 143.
Index of Names 447
Wolff, Ernst Georg: 196f, 286. Zedler, Johann Heinrich: 45.

Wolff, Eugen: XII, 36, 131, 173-175, Zeising, Adolf: 125, 132.
290. Ziehen, Theodor: 16 (fn. 29).
Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard: 10, 11 Ziesel, Kurt: 259 (fn. 47).
(fn. 9/10). Zimmermann, Gustav Adolf: 11.
Wölfflin, Heinrich: 224 (fn. 24), 225, Zimmermann, Robert: XII, 15
271. (fn. 25), 36, 112, 116, 118, 129,
Wolfram von Eschenbach: 191. 137, 139f, 148, 199f, 261 (fn. 56),
Wriede, Hinrich: 275. 291.
Wundt, Wilhelm: 142, 150, 163, 176- Zola, Émile: 162, 170.
178, 180-182, 184, 206f. Zoroaster: 133.
Zuckmayer, Carl: 260 (fn. 52).
Subject Index
Actio ! pronuntiatio 151, 155-157, 159f, 162f, 169-

Alter deus: 97, 192. 172, 175, 179f, 192, 195, 197, 207,
Amateur/dilettante: 66, 171. 215-217, 219, 232f, 235-237, 239,
Amplificatio (amplification): 9. 243, 250, 252-255, 258f, 263, 274-
Anthropology: XIIf, 14, 20, 27, 36, 38, 276, 278f, 281, 283, 289, 292f,297.
42, 43 (fn. 11), 59, 73, 77, 83f, 106, Autonomy (aesthetical): 44, 55, 64f, 74,
109, 116-118, 120, 127 (fn. 125), 91-93, 105, 134f, 147, 236, 250f.
146, 153 (fn. 117), 155, 159, 190,
210, 219, 223-229, 233, 235f, 239, Beauty: 9, 15 (fn. 25), 16 (fn. 32), 29
241, 245f, 253, 256, 286, 289f, (fn. 11), 40, 41 (fn. 7), 46 (fn. 25),
293-295. 47, 49, 50, 52, 57f, 63f, 69, 71-74,
Antipathy: 9, 46. 90 (fn. 8), 94f, 102-104, 106f, 110,
Apperception: 9, 118, 149, 157, 163, 113, 115-117, 119 (fn. 85), 120,
180. 123-125, 133-136, 138-140, 143-
Aptum (appropriateness) ! Decorum 145, 147f, 150f, 199 (fn. 55), 285.
Argumentatio (argumentation): 9, 296. „Bildung“ ! Education
Ars and techné: 9, 107. Biology: XIII, 127, 133 (fn. 21), 155f,
Ars poetica: 7, 121. 168f, 210, 228, 236, 250, 256, 258,
Arts: 4, 9, 16, 40, 42f, 45, 47-49, 51-53, 260, 262, 264f, 267, 269-271, 275,
55, 57, 59, 64, 67, 71, 73f, 78, 81, 277, 292, 294.
84, 88, 90, 93, 95, 103, 110, 118f, Biopoetics ! Neuropoetics
124, 135, 144, 183 (fn. 33), 186, Book market ! Market
206, 218 (fn. 32), 223, 283.
Artwork of Language („Sprachkunst-
werk“): XIII, 205, 242, 247. Canonical texts: 35, 51 (fn. 43), 292
Association of ideas („Ideenassoziati- (fn. 7).
on“): 118, 149. Catharsis: 9.
Audience: 7, 9, 24f, 35, 41, 50, 57, 59, Character ! Temper
64, 66, 71, 78f, 81, 86, 108-111, Characterology: 126.
119 (fn. 85), 120, 156, 164, 167, Classical philology: 10, 91.
172, 184, 189, 193, 201, 207, 209, Close reading ! „Werkimmanenz“
217f, 229, 231f, 246, 250, 269, „Cognitio sensitiva“ (sensitive cogni-
280, 282, 292f, 296, 297, 301. tion): 4.
„Auslandsgermanistik“ (German stu- Cognitive poetics ! Neuropoetics
dies of foreign countries): 28f. Comparative poetics: 6, 8, 29, 51, 154,
Author: XIII, 7f, 10, 12, 14f, 19, 28, 30 168, 177, 251.
(fn. 15), 36f, 40f, 45, 47, 51, 53f, Compassion: 9, 230.
60f, 69, 71, 77 (fn. 3), 79, 84 Compositio (composition): 9, 110,
(fn. 41), 94-96, 100, 104, 108f, 127, 158f, 162, 210, 255 (fn. 27),
117, 119, 121, 124, 127f, 130, 147, 263, 266.
450 Subject Index
Context: VIIf, 8, 37f, 41f, 46, 57, 81, Epistemology: X, XII, 16, 25, 37, 135,
91, 110, 118, 120, 163, 183, 187f, 142, 163, 190, 194, 196, 210, 212,
191f, 195f, 199, 202, 204f, 208, 226, 270, 289.
211, 214, 223, 228f, 243f, 248, „Erfahrungsseelenlehre“: XI, 42, 49f,
257, 266, 271f, 274, 277, 281f, 61 (fn. 84), 69, 72, 102, 142, 145f,
284, 286, 288, 294. 289f.
Cosmology: XI, 19, 68, 70, 72f, 91, 95, Erotics: 8.
131, 289. Ethos: 9, 26 (fn. 6).
Creativity: XII, 3, 11, 53, 60, 64 (fn. 8), Evolution: XII, 7 (fn. 1/2), 9, 129
69, 71, 74, 83f, 93, 113, 118, 155, (fn. 3), 131, 133, 146, 165 , 168,
171f, 195, 201-204, 216, 221, 227, 173-175, 219, 225, 257f.
230-232, 244 (fn. 9), 255, 267, 284 Existentialism: XIIf, 20, 27, 38, 210,
Criteria: 35, 52, 53, 58, 66f, 73-75, 80, 219, 223, 228f, 231f, 246, 289f,
104, 125, 138, 143, 208, 234, 281, 293-295.
286, 293. Exordium: 9.
Criticism: VII, 6 (fn. 13), 15, 28, 37, 38,
Experience: 3, 20 (fn. 3), 37, 42, 50, 61,
40-43, 48, 54, 58, 60, 62, 67, 71,
70, 81, 114, 130, 141, 145f, 155f,
78, 86, 101f, 121, 128, 130, 163,
169, 185, 209, 211, 217f, 238, 244, 158-163, 170, 180, 182, 188-190,
270, 273, 290. 192-196, 198, 203f, 207, 212, 215,
Cultural history: 12, 73. 217, 226, 232, 236-238, 246, 258,
269, 273, 276, 278-281, 293.
„Dasein“ (there-being): 86, 161, 221,
231, 236f, 239f, 245, 247. Fantasy (productive/reproductive): 3,
Decorum: 9, 14, 296f. 8, 11 (fn. 10), 53, 83f, 93, 104,
Delectare (delight, rejoice): 7, 9, 59, 108f, 112, 115-119, 148-151, 155,
252. 157, 162, 169 (fn. 198), 170-172,
„Dichtungstrieb“ ! Furor poeticus 180f, 184, 191, 202, 255, 259, 263,
Dispositio (disposition): 9, 14, 117, 127, 274, 293, 301.
167. Fascism: 222, 229, 249-261, 264, 266,
Docere (teach): 7, 9, 53, 55, 133, 144, 271f, 275f, 280, 294.
281. Figur: 9, 11, 13 (fn. 16), 16 (fn. 26), 97.
Drama: 53, 61, 86, 93, 95, 113, 124, Form: 8 (fn. 5), 14, 22 (fn. 7), 23
136, 145, 192, 225f, 238-240, 247,
(fn. 13), 24 (fn. 15), 35, 37, 41f, 45,
249, 259f.
53, 61f, 74, 85f, 90, 92, 104, 108,
Eclecticism: 35. 119f, 123, 125, 140, 144, 148, 151
Education: 7 (fn. 1/3), 10 (fn. 7), 25 (fn. 108), 154f, 156 (fn. 133), 167,
(fn. 1), 31, 52 (fn. 48), 53, 55 170f, 174, 179, 181, 186, 191
(fn. 61), 57, 60, 62, 64, 72, 87, 92- (fn. 22), 194f, 197-204, 207-210,
94, 96, 122, 133, 154, 156f, 190, 224, 231-233, 245, 252, 255, 262,
213, 235, 251. 264, 266f, 270, 276-278, 286, 291.
Elocutio: 9, 14, 22, 127, 167. Fundamental concepts („Grundbe-
Eloquence: 11, 13, 30, 42, 260. griffe“): 20f, 38, 48, 55, 195
Emotion ! Sensation (fn. 34), 218 (fn. 30), 225, 231
Empiricism: 3, 92, 115, 137, 153f, 189. (fn. 52), 233-235, 238-240, 286,
Enthusiasm: 8, 40, 44, 87, 127, 141, 294.
293. Furor poeticus: 8, 293.
Subject Index 451
„Gehalt“ (content): 115, 179, 198f- Image: VIII, 41 (fn. 7), 57, 69, 78, 90,
201, 215, 248. 106, 109, 116-118, 134, 147f, 152,
„Geisteswissenschaft“: XII, 3, 10, 20, 156f, 159, 180, 183f, 187, 207-
37, 151ff, 177f, 181, 185-191, 209, 217, 229 (fn. 47), 230-234,
194f, 201f, 212, 234 (fn. 69), 246, 240, 258, 285.
249 (fn. 2), 253 (fn. 16/21), 256, Imagination: VIII, 3 (fn. 4), 4, 8, 13
260, 270, 273, 279, 282, 288 (fn. 16), 16, 30 (fn. 17), 52, 54, 61,
(fn. 1). 64f, 73, 84 (fn. 40), 89 (fn. 1), 90
Genius: 8, 35, 47, 52, 54, 61, 68, 70, 92, (fn. 8), 92, 94, 107, 117 (fn. 76),
97, 116f, 126f, 171, 191, 202, 254 109, 148f, 154 (fn. 121), 156f, 168,
(fn. 26), 263, 276. 170, 173, 180, 184 (fn. 34), 192f,
Genre (and the evolution of genre): 211 (fn. 2), 215, 235f, 269, 276,
XIII, 9f, 13f, 22, 36, 38, 40, 42, 47f, 293.
53, 55, 60f, 66f, 69, 71, 79, 86, 92- Imitatio veterum: 86, 93, 192.
95, 97, 100, 104, 107, 109, 112, Implied poetics: 23.
119, 124, 135f, 144f, 151, 161, Inventio (invention): VIII, 7, 9, 14, 58,
165, 181, 192, 195f, 201, 203f, 83, 85, 91, 114f, 117f, 167.
224-226, 233, 235, 238-241, 244
(fn. 9), 247f, 268, 280, 283, 286, Journalism: 15, 121, 279f.
288f, 293. Judgement: 4, 9, 15, 19, 22, 43, 51, 54f,
Genus grande/sublime: 9. 63, 65-67, 74-76, 90, 94, 102, 108,
Genus humile/subtile: 9. 122 (fn. 97), 130, 139, 152, 154,
Genus medium/mixtum: 9. 171f, 176, 184, 187, 189, 196f,
„Gestalt“: 119, 162, 198-201, 215, 248, 216, 232, 246, 252, 274, 276, 280-
266-269, 295. 282.
Grammar: 11, 85 (fn. 46), 159, 230,
236, 273. Kairos: 227, 231.
„Grundbegriffe“ ! Fundamental Kalokagathia: 102, 104.
concepts Kiss of the muses: 8, 232, 250f, 255.
Language: X, XIIf, 12f, 20, 24, 28, 37,

Hermeneutics: X, XII, 5, 26f, 91, 219- 59f, 69, 71-74, 81, 83, 85, 90, 93,
228, 237 (fn. 79), 276, 288f. 104-106, 111, 113, 118, 123f,
Historia litteraria: 51. 133f, 136, 140, 161, 164, 167, 183,
History of literature: 10, 29 (fn. 13), 72, 188, 192, 201f, 205f, 208-210, 220
81 (fn. 24), 87, 133, 155, 178, 197, (fn. 2), 227, 228 (fn. 44), 230-232,
236, 275. 235, 240, 242f, 245, 247, 256, 262,
Holism: 269. 264, 266-269, 272, 278, 282-284,
Homiletics: 111. 289.
Humanities ! „Geisteswissenschaft“ Linguistics: 12, 37, 119, 164, 205f, 208,
Humour: 9, 100, 108, 115, 120, 124, 243f, 268 (fn. 87), 281, 284, 285
137, 150, 157, 180. (fn. 30), 288f, 294.
Literary science: XIIf, 8 (fn. 4), 20f, 25-
Idealism: XII, 19, 20, 29, 35f, 72, 81 28, 30, 37f, 77 (fn. 5), 91 (fn. 10),
(fn. 24), 89f, 92, 95f, 99-104, 112 130 (fn. 7/8), 161, 173, 175
(fn. 57), 113, 124, 129 (fn. 1), 134f, (fn. 230), 177-179, 181, 182
138, 142f, 145, 159f, 188, 197, (fn. 24), 187, 189f, 193, 196
212f, 238, 252, 289. (fn. 42), 198 (fn. 52), 203 (fn. 70),
452 Subject Index
208 (fn. 18), 214, 216, 220 (fn. 3), Mimic art: 9.
223, 225 (fn. 31), 228, 234, 238 Morphology: XIII, 20, 38, 153, 200
(fn. 85), 239 (fn. 91), 243, 245f, (fn. 59), 250, 264-270, 286.
249, 251 (fn. 9), 253-258, 264, Movere (move): 9, 49, 110f.
266, 270-273, 275 (fn. 119), 276- Music: 41f, 53, 66, (fn. 12), 69, 88
278, 280-287, 290, 291 (fn. 5/6), (fn. 64), 92f, 97, 114, 118f, 135,
295, 296 (fn. 14), 301. 150.
Literary theory: VIIf, XIII, 20f, 24, 38, Mythology, myth: 9, 80, 85f, 90, 95,
82, 165, 177, 193, 220, 229 112, 191, 208, 261f, 266 (fn. 78).
(fn. 47), 273, 277f, 280, 283, 288,
290-293, 295-297, 301. „Nacherleben“: 163, 182f.
„Literaturwissenschaft“ ! Literary Narratio: 9.
science Narration: 113.
Loci ! Topoi National philology: 5, 10, 289.
Logic: VII, 3, 10, 20, 115, 142, 154, National Socialism ! Fascism
178, 180f, 212, 270, 273, 280. Naturalistic fallacy: 155, 159, 189, 289,
Logostheology: XI, 36, 88f, 91f, 289. 293.
Loneliness: 94. Nature and art: 9.
Lyric poetry: VIII, 53, 61, 85, 87, 90, Neurophysiology: 48f, 153.
93, 104, 109, 111, 113, 119, 124- Neuropoetics: 129, 241, 292.
126, 136, 139, 145, 161-163, 183, Novel: 37f, 66-68, 72, 95, 114, 121,
186, 195f, 203f, 239, 260, 276. 126, 128, 141, 145, 155, 214, 279.
Mania: 8, 116, 293. Officia oratoris: 9.

Market: 9, 24, 30, 42, 121, 187, 291, Ontology: XII, 20, 37f, 59, 210f, 213-
294f. 215, 219f, 221 (fn. 8), 228, 235,
Mastership: 62. 239.
Mathematics: 44, 144, 192, 213. Oratio ligata: 7.
Matter: 54, 100, 116, 118, 123, 143, Ordo artificialis: 9.
162, 167, 170, 195, 206, 230. Ordo naturalis: 9.
Media: 9, 25, 277, 292. Ornatus: 9.
Memoria (memory): 9, 14, 109, 116,
156, 184, 190, 293. Painting: 42, 48, 53, 83, 97, 114, 119,
Metaphysics: 4 (fn. 5), 5, 30, 36, 64, 71, 135, 139, 148.
73, 101-103, 115f, 121, 124, 151, Partes orationis: 9.
174, 180, 186, 212f, 216. Pathos: 9, 247.
Methodology: XIf, 21, 25-28, 35f, 38, People („Volk“): XIII, 3, 7, 10, 23, 37,
40, 42, 48, 60, 82, 84, 91, 97f, 131, 46, 57, 60, 76-80, 86f, 104, 124,
134, 142, 145, 152f, 155, 166f, 133, 153, 157, 163, 169, 175, 179,
175, 178, 186f, 189f, 201f, 208, 204, 215, 227 (fn. 44), 249 (fn. 1),
217, 223, 228, 230, 235 (fn. 74), 251-259, 262f, 275, 289.
242f, 257, 259-261, 264, 266, Perception: 5, 9, 48, 49, 57, 92, 97,
270f, 273, 276, 279f, 283, 293f. 107f, 115f, 124, 148, 156f, 179,
Metre: 7, 9-12, 22, 97, 126, 150, 157, 189, 195, 204, 207f, 212f, 221,
167, 210. 224, 261 (fn. 56), 269.
Mimesis (imitation): 9, 19 (fn. 1), 52, Performance : 9, 28, 30.
59, 71, 93, 107, 131, 147, 176, 184, Peroratio: 9.
247, 252, 286, 293. Personal style: 9, 14, 293.
Subject Index 453
Perspicuitas (perspicuity, clarity): 9, 53, 207, 210-212, 219, 226, 229, 232,
125, 140f, 158, 172. 235, 243, 252, 274, 292, 296.
Persuasio (persuasion): 9, 12, 13, 53. Psychology: XII, 3f, 10 (fn. 8), 16, 19,
Phenomenology: XII, 37f, 154 36f, 42f, 46, 50, 52, 69, 71, 73f, 76,
(fn. 124), 211-214, 217, 219-221, 84 (fn. 39), 100, 103, 116-119,
228f, 233, 235, 239f, 276f, 285. 124, 129, 130f, 133f, 136, 141f,
Philosophy of language ! linguistics 146, 150f, 153, 155-157, 159, 160-
Philosophy: XI, 4f, 9, 12, 15, 19, 21 165, 170-172, 174-178, 180
(fn. 6), 28f, 35-37, 40-69, 72, 74- (fn. 18), 181-186, 189f, 192f, 195,
76, 82, 87, 89-97, 100-103, 111- 199 (fn. 55), 200 (fn. 59), 201, 203,
114, 121, 132-134, 137, 139, 142, 207, 210-213, 217, 219, 225f, 229,
144, 147, 152-154, 187f, 193f, 232, 235, 241 (fn. 102), 243f, 246,
205, 209, 211-214, 219-223, 228, 252, 272, 274, 278, 289, 292, 294,
240, 242f, 253, 270, 284f, 289- 296.
291, 296. Public: 10, 12, 14, 19, 23, 28, 31, 35, 41,
Physics: 98, 116, 137. 50, 54 (fn. 57), 60, 66, 75, 96, 101,
Picture ! Image 121-123, 126, 145, 154, 159f, 169,
Pleasure („Lust“): 17, 48f, 52, 57, 59, 172, 187, 214, 234f.279, 281, 289f,
67, 73, 135, 137f, 140f, 143, 146f, 293, 295-297.
149, 150f, 157f, 161, 168, 176, Puritas (purity): 9, 281.
181, 183f, 224, 246, 292 (fn. 11).
Poet ! Author Race: 20, 37, 160, 162, 227f, 229
Poeta doctus: VII, 8, 281. (fn. 47), 250, 253 (fn. 16), 254,
258, 259 (fn. 50), 261-264, 275,
Poeta magus: 8.
277, 290, 294.
Poeta vates: 8, 94, 222, 254f. Reader ! Audience
Poiesis: 36, 83f, 87. Reality: 67, 74, 92, 116f, 124, 138f,
Polemics: 56, 61, 68, 81, 84, 93, 102, 147 (fn. 89), 155, 157, 161, 187,
122-125, 137, 139, 154, 159, 165, 192, 194, 208, 211, 216f, 231, 267-
167, 180, 188, 194, 196, 202, 204, 269, 286.
208, 210, 222, 234, 243, 252. Reception: 9, 15, 30, 43, 47 (fn. 29),
Politics: 15 (fn. 24), 41 (fn. 7), 55 55, 81, 106, 112, 121 (fn. 95), 131,
(fn. 61), 113 (fn. 63), 132, 222, 150, 160 (fn. 154), 171-173, 181,
249, 251 (fn. 9), 253 (fn. 16/21), 184, 188, 196, 199f, 217-222, 237
272, 277, 282, 289, 295. (fn. 79), 252 (fn. 15), 274, 279,
Popular poetics: 22f. 292f, 295, 301.
Presentation: 7, 9, 14, 28, 51, 54, 74, Re-experiencing ! „Nacherleben“
108, 120, 132, 179, 199, 214, 230, Religion: XII, 51, 57, 68, 70, 78, 80
245, 248, 293, 296. (fn. 17), 85f, 91, 93, 100, 105-107,
Probare (prove): 9. 109, 111, 132, 190, 227, 261f, 290.
Production (of a literary work): 5, 8, Rhyme: 9, 126, 236.
14f, 24, 28, 47f, 83, 98, 148, 170f, Rhythm: 9, 85, 86 (fn. 53), 104, 106,
201, 232. 126, 150, 157, 192 (fn. 24), 224,
Pronuntiatio: 9, 14, 293. 230f, 236.
Psyche ! Soul Rules: 27, 35, 47f, 54, 67, 71, 128, 144,
Psychologism: 37, 73, 76 (fn. 2), 129 152, 155, 192, 202, 233, 253, 290.
(fn. 5), 141f, 155, 159 (fn. 151),
161, 163f, 174, 182, 185f, 189, Satire: 9, 48, 67, 108, 120, 137, 181.
454 Subject Index
Scepticism: 88, 101, 194, 196, 260, 263, Tension: 158, 227, 241 (fn. 102), 263.
271, 285f. Text/textual structure: 9, 28, 55, 215,
School poetics: VIII, 22-24, 87, 111. 230, 243, 301.
Science: VII, XIIf, 3, 16f, 20, 25, 40, Theology: 9, 44, 46, 48, 56f, 59, 62,
49, 51f, 58f, 63, 82, 113, 126, 130f, 106, 110f, 192, 220, 223, 273.
144, 147, 152f, 155, 170, 174, 186, There-being ! „Dasein“
192, 209, 212, 223, 226, 228, 235f, Time: 8, 118, 124, 135, 144, 180, 216,
246, 252f, 257, 270, 272f, 282, 219, 235f, 239f, 247, 264, 276,
284f, 295. 286, 295.
Sculpture: 45, 48, 53, 67, 92f, 97, 114. Topoi: 9, 18, 21,24 (fn. 15), 31 (fn. 19),
Sensation: VIII, 4, 16, 24 (fn. 15), 42, 94, 111, 117, 147, 166, 198, 201,
54, 61, 93, 95, 107,108-111, 124, 229, 243, 258, 293.
135, 140f, 146, 157, 168, 178f, Tradition: 3-6, 8, 12, 14, 21f, 30, 38,
182, 184, 192, 246, 292 (fn. 10). 42f, 45, 47, 49, 53, 56f, 60-62, 67f,
Simplex et unum: 9. 79, 86f, 89, 94, 98, 103, 105, 107,
Soul: 3, 36, 42, 47, 51f, 54, 61, 68f, 79, 109-111, 114, 119, 121, 125, 132,
95, 107-109, 138, 143, 146, 149, 134, 143f, 161, 166, 169-172, 176,
151, 157 (fn. 138), 161f,171f, 182, 183, 188, 192-196, 199, 204, 211,
195, 224, 227, 228 (fn. 44), 232, 222, 225, 227, 235f, 240, 250,
246, 253, 256, 262, 289f, 293. 264f, 275, 285, 290f.
Sound: 83, 97, 102, 108f, 117, 135, Translation: 30, 68, 78, 81, 83, 85, 105,
144, 146, 162, 179, 183, 215, 230, 122 (fn. 101), 150, 205 (fn. 1), 206,
236, 252, 264, 269 (fn. 92), 273, 217 (fn. 30), 218 (fn. 31), 238, 256,
294 (fn. 13). 281.
„Sprachkunstwerk“ ! Artwork of Tropos: 9, 11, 13 (fn. 16), 16 (fn. 26),
Language 61, 106.
„Stimmung“ (mood): 24 (fn. 15), 70, Type, Typology: XIf, 3, 18, 19, 21, 28,
217, 219, 230-232, 239, 285, 286 37, 59, 68, 70f, 74, 82, 86f, 90, 95,
(fn. 35), 294. 100, 108, 111, 119, 126, 138, 151,
Style: XIII, 9, 11f, 14, 30, 38, 73, 97, 155, 158, 160-163, 167, 169, 170,
104, 106, 111, 119, 142, 159, 161- 179, 181-183, 188, 190, 192, 195,
163, 180f, 192, 196, 201, 219, 223, 196, 201-203, 217, 220, 224-226,
228, 234, 239, 245, 247, 250, 278, 230, 233, 237f, 242f, 247f, 253,
281, 283, 285f, 293, 295. 265-269, 275, 283, 286, 289, 292,
Sublime: 9, 40, 52, 59, 62, 63f, 66, 72, 296f.
74, 82, 103, 108, 111, 115, 119,
125, 128, 220, 255. Ugliness: 9, 79, 108f, 119, 138.
Symbol: 15 (fn. 25), 112, 125 (fn. 115), Ut pictura poesis: 9.
162, 164, 168, 183, 207, 224, 231,
240 (fn. 97), 261, 263, 281. Value: 16, 29 (fn. 11), 58, 77, 86, 90,
Sympathy: 9, 46, 146f. 106, 108, 152, 154, 163f, 169-172,
184, 190, 195f, 204, 215 (fn. 17),
Taste: 4, 6 (fn. 13), 8, 35, 40, 47-49, 52, 217, 233f, 253, 280, 284, 286.
54f, 57, 60, 62-64, 67, 82, 87, 101f, Verse form: 9, 23, 28, 109f, 126.
154, 172, 184, 192, 203, 293. Versificator: 8.
Temper: 8, 13 (fn. 16), 30, 47, 53, 94,
119, 124, 126, 128, 146, 156, 163, „Weltanschauung“: 85, 96f, 133, 136,
179, 191, 216, 226, 278, 293. 160, 178, 195, 198, 211f, 252, 261,
Subject Index 455
265 (fn. 74), 275f, 280, 289, 294, World view ! „Weltanschauung“
297. Writer ! Author
„Werkimmanenz“: 199, 208, 234, 243,
277.

A History of Poetics (German Scholarly Aesthetics and Poetics in International Context, 1770-1960) - Sandra Richter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A History of Poetics (German Scholarly Aesthetics and Poetics in International Context, 1770-1960) - Sandra Richter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sandra Richter

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Richter, Sandra, 1973-

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

쑔 2010 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York

1 Centre of Literary Theory at the University of Göttingen (director: Si-

1 - (published under my maiden name Sandra Pott) International, natio-

1 sity of Hamburg (German Research Foundation) as well as Philip Ajouri

1. Poetics as Field of Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

II. Aesthetics and Academic Poetics in Germany

1. Eclectic Poetics: Popular Philosophy (1770 – 1790) . . . . . . . . 40

2. Transcendental Poetics and Beyond: Immanuel Kant’s Critical

3. Historical and Genetic Poetics: Johann Justus Herwig (1774),

4. Logostheological Poetics Beyond Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph

5. Post-Idealist Poetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

6. Pre-Empirical and Empirical Poetics since 1820 . . . . . . . . . . 129

7. Comprehensive Poetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

8. Poetics and “Geisteswissenschaft” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

9. The Turn Towards Language: Theodor A. Meyer (1901) . . 205

10. Phenomenological and Ontological Poetics: Edmund Husserl

11. Anthropology, Existentialism and Hermeneutics: the

(a) On the Way to Hermeneutical Poetics: Theophil Spoerri

12. The After-Life of the ‘Artwork of Language’

13. Poetics under the Fascist Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

14. New Approaches in a Reproductive Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

15. Conclusion: Tendencies, Trends and Sunken Ideas . . . . . . . . 288

III. Bibliographies and Prints

1. Bibliography of German Poetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449

1 In his famous book on Truth and Method (1960) Hans-Georg Gadamer

1 Christian Wolff’s rational psychology (1727) 5 and to Alexander Gottlieb

1 traditions of poetological thinking.13 For that purpose, I will firstly ask

1 In the period in question here, poetics explores its boundaries in a

1 tions until 1901) includes an introduction to poetics.9 This introduction

1 as ‘poetic speech’ (“poetische Rede”).19 The public seems to have es-

1 Things are different, fourthly, with the relation of poetics to criti-

1 by Baumgarten, refers to theories of the beautiful and the epistemology

1 to have inspired post-idealist poetics to embrace empirical studies. Ru-

1 concepts of poetics’ (“Grundbegriffe der Poetik”).4 Already in 1947

1 velopment could be shown for Conrad Beyer’s voluminous and scien-

1 ics but also a self-reflexive method of poetological thinking, I have to

1 panorama of scholarly aesthetics and poetics, of its most important ques-

1 the reflection on philological activities.7 Poetics did not even need to

1 If I speak about ‘German poetics’, German is only an abbreviation. I

1 General poetics is, in part, a German peculiarity but also a European

1 writings) 19 and to the various approaches to the aesthetic components of

1 Kant’s Kritik der Urteilskraft, Hegel’s Philosophie des Schçnen – canonical

1 This tendency characterised the field of aesthetics and poetics between

1 entific knowledge’. At the same time, serious (non-Fascist) scholars like

1 light of the history of poetics which was deemed to be old-fashioned

1 high level of abstraction.3 Furthermore, the description of aesthetic sen-

1 ery’ of the ‘Other of reason’.11 Yet this dichotomous thought is dis-

1 seems to have started working on the Allgemeine Theorie der schçnen

1 garten, ignores a moralizing treatise on ‘belles lettres’ which had had a

1 the area in a philosophical way and to have named it.29 Following

1 Secondly, the perception of these various arts requires art to be ex-

1 (1788 – 1795), one of the first attempts to publish an ‘international’

1 thetische Gedanken”) – true or at least probable, necessary, clear, witty,

1 Eschenburg strives for an aesthetics grounded in morals. In accord-

1 Other aspects emanate from these distinctions and can be applied to

1 these tendencies whose representatives claimed to be more innovative

1 on the contrary, opted for an aesthetics grounded in natural theology, an

1 from 1787 to 1794 he served as a director of Berlin’s court theatre, be-