Search Results
Abstract
The contribution analyses the history of literature as conceived by August Wilhelm Schlegel (1767–1845), which is modelled on contemporary science, especially the comparative anatomy of George Cuvier and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Like these scientists, Schlegel proceeds by comparison and systematization as well as by historical classification. Following romanticist philosophy of Nature, Schlegel presumes a unifying principle, which is likewise at work in nature, in language(s), and in literature. Retracing its path, the philologist starts off from the language and literature of his present time to go back to Antiquity and even to Sanskrit.
Abstract
The contribution analyses the history of literature as conceived by August Wilhelm Schlegel (1767–1845), which is modelled on contemporary science, especially the comparative anatomy of George Cuvier and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Like these scientists, Schlegel proceeds by comparison and systematization as well as by historical classification. Following romanticist philosophy of Nature, Schlegel presumes a unifying principle, which is likewise at work in nature, in language(s), and in literature. Retracing its path, the philologist starts off from the language and literature of his present time to go back to Antiquity and even to Sanskrit.
Der Aufsatz beschäftigt sich mit den Anfängen einer literaturgeschichtlichen Tradition, die statt in Martin Opitz den ‘Vater der deutschen Dichtung’ zu sehen, die Qualitäten des älteren Georg Rudolf Weckherlin hervorhebt. Dies geschieht ab der Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts und besonders nachdrücklich dann bei Johann Gottfried Herder, Karl Philipp Conz und August Wilhelm Schlegel. Untersucht werden die Gründe, warum die Würdigung Weckherlins fast ausschließlich auf den Inhalt — den ‘Gehalt’ — von dessen Gedichten beschränkt bleibt, während die Opitzsche Versreform nicht in Frage gestellt wird und der Hinweis auf Weckherlin damit ohne Folgen für die dichterische Praxis bleibt.