Yearbook for Spiritual Movement

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Title page of the first yearbook for intellectual movement, Berlin 1910

The yearbook for the spiritual movement is a magazine, the three volumes of which were published between 1910 and 1912 by Friedrich Wolters and Friedrich Gundolf , both members of the George Circle . With its aggressive rhetoric and polemical one-sidedness, the yearbook can be considered the most important pamphlet of the district. It is also an interesting source for criticism of science and modernity at the beginning of the 20th century.

Foundation of the yearbook

Stefan George, photographed by Jacob Hilsdorf , 1910

Stefan George had been considering plans to found a yearbook since the turn of the century. In 1903, for example, he would like to “continue to talk about the much-called 'yearbook'” with Hugo von Hofmannsthal . However, Hofmannsthal's unusually determined rejection is holding back the concrete implementation of such plans for the time being. The yearbook for the spiritual movement, finally published in 1910, was deliberately conceived as a polemical and polemical instrument of the George Circle and certainly had very little in common with the literary projects that George had in mind with Hofmannsthal.

The history of the yearbook can be for the most part indirectly accessible through contracts and invoices from the Holten printing company in Berlin and through the correspondence between Friedrich Wolters and Friedrich Gundolf. The concrete impetus for the publication of the yearbook was provided by Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Rudolf Borchardt and Rudolf Alexander Schröder , who set an example with their Hesperus yearbook of 1908/09. In it, Borchardt published a review of George's volume of poetry The Seventh Ring , which the circle could not stand on as a "presumptuous, embarrassing, sometimes rabid review". The internal impetus was then Kurt Hildebrandt's experience at the Berlin University, where he heard lectures from Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff , the leading classical philologist of the German Empire. His tales of Wilamowitz caused amusement within the circle and provided a welcome starting point for a polemic against contemporary science.

George finally decided to found the new magazine together with Gundolf in March 1909, Thomas Karlauf believes that co-editor Friedrich Wolters initially protested against the attribute of spirituality in the name of the yearbook, which he allegedly considered too one-sided. However, there is no evidence of such tensions in the letters. According to Wolters' ideas, Berthold Vallentin and Kurt Hildebrandt should initially act as editors. Vallentin hesitated because of his beginning judicial career, and Hildebrandt wanted to use a pseudonym - a lack of unconditionality that was immediately punished and could not be withdrawn. Wolters and Friedrich Gundolf officially took on this task themselves for all three yearbooks published from 1910 to 1912 . In addition, Hildebrandt says in his memoirs that “the real editor [was] the master himself”. Even Edgar Salin reported, citing Gundolf, George had "very worked through most of the posts just before printing." In general, it can be assumed that no article could appear without George's approval.

In 1910 the first yearbook for intellectual movement was published by Verlag der Blätter für die Kunst with an edition of 1,000 copies. The size of the yearbook was deliberately kept small in order not to have to set the sales price too high. The yearbook should reach as many readers as possible and also less well off, especially the younger students.

Friedrich Gundolf around 1916, photograph by Jacob Hilsdorf

The letters from Wolters and Gundolf show that it was the latter who took the lead in the publication of the yearbook. In one of them, for example, he warned Wolters (and not the only time) not to sacrifice too much time for his habilitation in order to be able to submit the planned contribution on time: “The yearbook must appear in the first few days of March. Otherwise it will probably never appear. Only in the case of musicians does it not matter whether something comes sooner or later: action and day are identical. ”The fact that the yearbook was designed primarily as a deliberately aggressive“ polemic ”can be proven by a statement by co-editor Wolters : "I think you should notice that the 'prince who were drunk with ointments' also have teeth and claws" (Stefan George himself called himself the prince who was drunk with ointments in order to parody criticism of his person).

The yearbook for the spiritual movement was thus a polemical instrument of the George circle in the fight for attention and reputation. The main opponents in this struggle were institutional science and modernity as a progressive social formation. The larger context of the yearbook can be seen in the philosophy of life that was fashionable at the time , which is invoked in several articles through the concept of Weltanschauung and the reference to Friedrich Nietzsche and Henri Bergson . The tone of the polemics became increasingly sharper in the course of the three yearbooks and appears to today's readers as chauvinistic and sometimes racist, but always radical. Later images of the enemy of National Socialism are at least partially present in the yearbook for the intellectual movement, so there is talk of the “degeneracy” of modernity as well as of a “constant deterioration in species”, although a nationalist position in the narrower sense is never explicitly represented. One can therefore assume that the gesture of the yearbook did indeed take part in the zeitgeist prevailing at the time. However, it must also be noted - and this is what makes the yearbook typical of the times - that later positions, such as critical theory, can also be found in various articles . For example, following Nietzsche, purely instrumental reason is criticized as well as the one-dimensionality of modern life under capitalism. The polemical goal of the rhetoric of the yearbook is by no means overcoming the much-vaunted crisis through reforms, but the total overthrow and the supposedly resulting tabula rasa .

The first year

The articles in the Yearbook for Spiritual Movement function in a remarkable unison according to a pattern of argument based on asymmetrical counter-terms. In almost every article of the three editions at least a two-part contradiction is built up in order to disqualify one side of the contradiction as inferior, but present the other as positive and desirable. The main opposing pairs in the yearbook are: life and shape versus death and standstill; Shape versus historicism ; eternally valid values ​​versus relativistic, eternally progressive modernity; new empire and organic community versus anonymous mass society; Unity of mind and body versus one-sided domination of the mind. As polemical battle concepts, these concepts evade a precise definition without exception. In the following overview of the articles published in the yearbook, they will be discussed in more detail. In accordance with the conventions of orthography that are common in the George Circle, the yearbook largely dispenses with capitalization of nouns and numerous commas.

The first edition of the yearbook contained five articles as well as a brief preliminary remark by the editors, in which the aims and addressees of the journal are named. The “multiple, divided, confused tendencies of the time” are to be counteracted by the “notion of an evaluative yearbook”, as stated in this preliminary remark. The style and intention of the annuarium are characterized by a conscious one-sidedness that can be “subordinated to an overall will - an idea”. In this way, especially in the youth, "the feeling for the endangered basic forces, [...] for seriousness, dignity and awe" should be aroused.

The first article in the yearbook was written by Karl Wolfskehl. In The Leaves for Art and the Latest Literature , he tries to determine the role and position of the George Circle in his time. The “movement” is initially distinguished from French symbolism , with which, according to Wolfskehl, it has nothing in common. He also strictly rejects the definition of the circle as a countercurrent to naturalism , since the circle pursues a purely original, i.e. non-reactive, but above all positive objective. Friedrich Nietzsche was the forerunner of the circle, whose merit was to have unearthed a “treasure trove of German spirituality” that was believed to have been lost “since the romantic world disappeared”. This positive reference to romanticism is surprising, since the articles in the yearbook are otherwise strongly influenced by anti-romantic polemics. Nietzsche's work is reduced to the conceptualization of the Apollonian and Dionysian instincts . According to Wolfskehl, Nietzsche's current diagnosis of the time is that Europe is “in danger of being either suffocated by the spirit, or flooded by the phantom images of the spirit”. According to Wolfskehl, Stefan George has been countering this danger with the pages for art since the 1890s. The movement is again separated from individualism and personality cult. With regard to Ludwig Klages , Wolfskehl determines the core of George's “philosophy”: “A being [can] only have value, only be alive if the ever-circling substance becomes an image in it”. According to Wolfskehl, this image of the substance is not only identical with life itself, but also a condition of the “shape” of a person. George's extraordinary shape made it possible for the circle of leaves to become “the only organically grown unity of people, works and wishes” in Europe. Wolfskehl also certifies that the circle had a positive effect on the German language and now asks why, after so much success, the closed nature of the circle is not being lifted. The “movement” is described in this context as a community of a few chosen people, to which everyone “worthy” would have access at any time - in this respect the circle is by no means closed. The previous successes in public are only superficial phenomena, on the contrary, Europe is still unable to understand the “reality of the images” due to its “degeneracy” and “overpopulation”. The only ray of hope in this crisis is “ Secret Germany ”, which is articulated in the journals for art and of course also in the yearbook, only this “secret Germany” can create a unity beyond “the deadly confusion and division of today's conditions”. The aim of the "movement" in this context is "to give the German being the indigenous expression that has remained denied it until now". Of all peoples, according to Wolfskehl, only the Germans have "not yet been fulfilled", which results in Germany's privileged position in terms of history and philosophy. Since the “poetic language of every people” also includes their fate, “secret Germany” can only bring about this salvation through poetry. The article mentions the term " Secret Germany ", which is important for the George Circle, for the first time in a publicly circulated publication.

In Das Bild Georges , Friedrich Gundolf deals with the “gestalt” Stefan Georges. Following Rudolf Borchardt's 1905 speech about Hofmannsthal , he first compares George with Hugo von Hofmannsthal, just as Borchardt had done in his speech, and comes to the conclusion that George is “judge, prophet and perpetrator”, where Hofmannsthal only “lober , spiegler, servant “of the present. Borchardt's mistake of praising Hofmannsthal as the larger of the two is understandable (more on this below), since there are also only three books, according to Gundolf, that do justice to the “gestalt” Georges as an “all human”: Ludwig Klages ' book Stefan George from 1902, just Borchardt's speech on Hofmannsthal and Friedrich Wolter's little monograph Herrschaft und Dienst from 1909. Gundolf's article summarizes these three works in the following and follows on from George's own interpretation. According to Gundolf, the basic knowledge of Ludwig Klages' monograph is that George's work is “a self-sufficient revelation of the universal forces, mythologically speaking, the gods”. Gundolf can only add more precisely: “Everything at George urges shape, yes, organization.” Borchardt, on the other hand, concentrated on outlining “George's position in time and against time”. As a “philologist” and “historian”, however, Borchardt basically misses the “substance” of Georges. This is followed by the astonishing assertion that Borchardt's eulogy for Hofmannsthal was actually exclusively related to George ex negativo. Only the “appearance” of George would have enabled Borchardt to portray a “figure” Hofmannsthal, through the negation of George. The claim is that Hofmannsthal only has a “gestalt” next to George, as a negative antithesis. Borchardt's comparison shows, on the one hand, that Georges' “form” surpasses Borchardt's forces, and on the other hand, that his portrayal only succeeds because Hofmannsthal is actually devoid of contours and substance. Borchardt's own works are "applied philology" and thus belong to the negatively connoted science, and are written in the "stationary German of Russian Jews". For Gundolf, it is certain that Hofmannsthal, as a poet, received his “spiritual substance” only from George and, accordingly, was only a George who was brought down to the dimensions of the limited Borchardt. The comparison between George and Hofmannsthal that Gundolf makes in the following deconstructs itself from today's perspective. On the one hand, Gundolf repeatedly claims that the comparison is completely impossible, since Hofmannsthal does not have an identity of its own. On the other hand, the assessment of the characteristics that Gundolf assigns to the Viennese is likely to be positive today. George is the poet of one-sidedness, of "soul distress" and "necessity". Hofmannsthal, on the other hand, is versatile, the "master of the means", yes, a "winged Mercury running messenger between heaven, earth and hell". The following summary of Friedrich Wolters' rule and service makes it clear that Hofmannsthal's virtuosity is viewed negatively . According to Gundolf, Wolters recognized that George not only embodied the “derived form of the poet”, but primarily the original of the “ruler”. To be “just” a poet, like Hofmannsthal, seems deficient in this context. A misunderstanding of George's works is impossible at the present time, since Wolters clearly stated the “meaning of the poetry”. George has "become the middle" and now separates "in the human matter chaff and wheat". For the renewal of the world there must be a “war” between “essential and apparent [...] until [...] one of the two is annihilated or transformed.” In order to achieve this renewal, George strives to “make” by “making the language body of the coming mind creates ”. Confused set pieces of Christian faith are here, as can be seen, mixed up with Nietzschean phrases. So it says at the end of the article that in George dawned on Germans "the foreboding of a new day and the solution to an old need."

In his essay On the Critique of Progress, Berthold Vallentin represents the counter-position to modern society in Europe that is constitutive for the George Circle. In the modern age, secondary, aimless and senseless “occupation” has taken the place of primary design possibilities for people, which find expression in a “work”. In the same way, an anonymous “society” has replaced the organic “community”, which must lead to the necessary downfall of man.

Rudolf Dührkoop : Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, leading classical philologist of the German Empire, around 1905

The longest contribution of this first volume, Hellas and Wilamowitz. On the ethos of tragedy , comes from Kurt Hildebrandt and polemicizes against Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff , the classical philologist who criticized Nietzsche in the 1870s for his tragedy . If one takes seriously the idea of ​​the “collective will” in the yearbook, the attack on Wilamowitz can be interpreted as one of the fundamental oppositions of the “movement”. The institutionalized science represented by Wilamowitz - Wilamowitz is considered to be one of those who contributed to the professionalization of classical philology as a discipline - is juxtaposed with the other "science" of Gestalt theory, which is later expressed in the longer publications of Gundolf, Kommerell and Kantorowicz , but is also represented in numerous contributions to the yearbook (e.g. in the article Gestalt von Wolters). The main point of criticism of Wilamowitz for Hildebrandt is its unacknowledged lack of artistic creativity. The one-sided analytical science of Wilamowitz is opposed to the demand to put "questions of style and lifestyle [... in the] focus of philology" in order to preserve its relevance to the world of life. Otherwise science would have to decay into a meaningless end in itself.

In Hugo Eick's art-historical essay on the legacy of the Rococo , the stereotypical criticism of modernism is first updated on the phenomenon of the novel, which is “a chatty mixture of the most varied of origins and needs”. According to Eick, it is often overlooked that these essential features of modernity are inherited from the inherently positive Rococo era , from which only the negative aspects have been taken over. For example, the rococo drama was a conscious play with deception, where today it is only “a sign of decay”.

This is followed by the guidelines by Friedrich Wolters that conclude the volume . In a gnomish gesture, Wolters creates a “worldview” that was perceived by the public as the doctrine of the George Circle. According to Wolters, two forces are essential to human beings: the creative and the regulating force. “Life” can only produce the creative force, while the organizing force “consumes” this life in a purely analytical way. In the age of modern science it has come to the point that the ordering force dictatorially overrides the creative principle on which the sterility of the present is based. The spiritual movement counteracts this situation with its program: "It seems to us that we need to practice on the cause of the great masters, to join together where a real core of life breaks open and its flame announces it." The keyword of the "master" is already there indicated that the “spiritual movement” is the George circle, the “denouncing flame” here as elsewhere also implies the threatening militaristic aspect of the necessary “deed”. Science and technology, Wolters continued, “still lack the worldview” that can only be provided by the creative principle and thus by art. Nevertheless, in view of the crisis that Wolters can no longer doubt, it is inappropriate to retreat to artistic creation. “The time of logical gymnastics is over and the struggle with the angel of life has started again. Criticism only wants to be understood as promoting the crisis: no longer as a separation of frozen things, but as a decision for living things. ”The intention and concept of the modern criticism practiced in the yearbook are summarized here succinctly. Reforms are no longer up to the crisis. That is why a new beginning under the sign of creative power is necessary. The militaristic aspects of this new beginning are still vaguely hinted at here; later articles in the yearbook will make them more precise in terms of their radical core.

The second year

In the second year of the yearbook, the scope of the "preliminary remark" tripled. The editors take the necessary space on several printed pages to respond to criticism of the first edition. They singled out two principal objections: one group of critics had complained that the views published in the yearbook were all already known (which corresponds to the current position of research, see below), the publication of the yearbook was thus superfluous, while another group said that the theses of the movement are unfounded. The editors interpret these complaints as signs of an expected resistance and believe that they can see from these objections that they are on the right track.

Following this belief, the yearbook remains true to the projected “one-sidedness” in the second edition. Karl Wolfskehl uses the first article in the volume, “Weltanschauung” in the yearbook , in order to meet critical objections in more detail. Wolfskehl sees the task of the yearbook in counteracting the “life-flattening, life-suffocating mechanizing endeavors of the last century”. He cites critics of modernism as diverse as Johann Wolfgang Goethe , Charles Baudelaire , Alexander Herzen , Jacob Burckhardt and Friedrich Nietzsche . The problem of the present is above all that “especially among the teachers and bearers of culture in the nation” the “instinct [...] for intellectual inauthenticity and meanness” is being lost. Wolfskehl combines the criticism of the scientific community (“teacher and culture bearer”) with a basic concept of Nietzsche's and Bergson's philosophy of life (“instinct”) in a manner typical of the time. The previous criticism of modernism from Goethe to Nietzsche has, according to Wolfskehl, only "required" and not "set". This positive role first fell to the pages for art and thus to the George Circle, which is now being continued in the yearbook for intellectual movement,

In essence and relationship , Friedrich Gundolf argues against the one-dimensionality of a purely instrumental reason. What "used to be medium has become an end in itself," he says, citing technology, traffic, work, science and sport as examples. The work in particular caused a “narrowing and crippling” of people who “lacked a strong center since abstractions took the place of the divine corporeal”. This corrosive tendency is exemplified by Henri Bergson's philosophy of life, which struggles with the ideal of the “creative man” against the sickness of “relativism”. In the present, this "struggle between the absolute and the relative has entered a new phase".

In his contribution to the critique of the press and theater, Berthold Vallentin polemics against the superficiality of modern journalism and theater.

In the essay On Hersagen von Gedichten , Robert Boehringer tries to determine the melody and rhythm of the lyrical performance in a dedicated demarcation from the music. The poem is a law “condensed into a structure”, which must be declaimed neither too natural nor too artificial, but above all “alive”. The “poetic sayings” lead the listener “into an orderly larger life”.

In Romantic and Dionysian, Kurt Hildebrandt continues the narrative of decadence that is common in the George circle and diagnoses modernity as an increasing “fragmentation” that must be fought in the name of wholeness. In the confessional postulate that Sparta was the “supreme model” of the ideal Platonic state, the aggressively militaristic aspect of the ideal sought by the movement is indicated.

About style by Ernst Gundolf defines style as the “eternal image of man” based on ancient models. The classicism imitate only something external antiquity and should be rejected because of it. In contrast, only “a spiritual movement” is able to create a new, lively style that is on a par with the ancient models.

The architect Paul Thiersch argues similarly in terms of form and cult . He outlines the goal of movement in emphatically pathetic sentences: “Most strongly, however, a spiritual movement points to a time that is not longing for the resurrection of a fallen or a disembodied, transcendent world, but the renewed revival of the eternal laws that unify all An organism center is conditioned by active forces. ”This new unit to be established would one day, Thiersch continues, also abolish the division of the arts into different disciplines. The article closes in a prophetic tone with reference to the unhappy consciousness of those who have recognized Stefan George as the only poet in a short time: "But the deed, the form, the denunciator in the word."

Friedrich Wolters' essay Gestalt closes the second yearbook with the evocation of one of the central concepts of the George Circle. "Shape" is primarily a battle term against the institutional science of the time. Numerous representatives of the humanities also diagnosed a crisis in the previously dominant current of historicism and looked for ways to overcome it. In this context, the George Circle was neither the first nor the only actor who wanted to overcome the historically relativized science with holistic design concepts. Until the 1930s, individual members of the group wrote various "Gestalt monographs" on great personalities from history and literature. The programmatic term for this deliberately unhistorical form of biography is already exposed here in the yearbook. Wolters follows on from the distinction made in his guidelines between creative and organizing power and postulates shape as the unity of the opposites of art and science. The primacy of a creative principle is retained and is canceled in the concept of “life”: “not perception, not form is first given, but a world, a spiritual life as shape through shape in a creative person”. As can be seen here, Wolters uses conscious tautologies in his argumentation that undermine scientific falsifiability through indeterminacy. The “conceptual symbol” gestalt, always invoked without an article, is purely self-referential and has no determinable content: “because its being is also its meaning”. The essay closes with the common prophecy that “the new empire” will one day arise from the figure. For this, however, the "spiritual ruler" named explicitly as Stefan George is necessary.

The third year and the end of the yearbook

In the third volume of the Yearbook for Spiritual Movement, the preliminary remark has grown into a separate introduction by the editors , which in its aggressively militaristic diction surpasses all previous articles. They wanted, it says, "to clearly define our positions again". According to this introduction, the fundamental aim of the yearbook is to contrast the “progressive look” with a “cyclical one”. The movement's enemy images are at least in principle named and attacked polemically: science, which misses everything essential in life, must be combated; likewise the rule of the mediocre in modern society and the "unrestrained progress" which led to a general population growth and the accompanying expansion of the masses. This in turn causes a “steadily increasing species deterioration” that can only be counteracted “by poison and fire”.

This aggressive commitment to “poison and fire” is followed rather associatively by the rejection of the “modern woman”, ie the emancipated , self-determined woman who no longer subordinates herself to the man and the class system aimed at by the George Circle. According to the editors, this criticism has nothing to do with mean mysogony. With an explicitly homophobic gesture, one would also like to differentiate the “cult of friendship” practiced in the movement (compared to the relationship between Posa and Karlos in Schiller's Don Karlos ) from pathologized homosexuality. The editors expressly affirm the “Catholic tendencies” of the previous yearbooks. “The reason why we cannot turn to today's Catholicism is that it is on the way to becoming Protestant”. With explicit reference to Max Weber's thesis of Protestant ethics , the Protestant faith is identified with progress and capitalism (which Weber does not, of course, do), but Catholicism with sensuality and tradition. Similar to Wolters in his guidelines , the editors bring the core of their criticism of modernity to a concise formula at the end of the introduction: In order to exacerbate the obvious crisis, to finally bring about the tabula rasa, not only a war of the “cultural peoples” is necessary, it is There is also a "fight between Ormuzd and Ahriman , God against Satan, world against world."

The first contribution of the third yearbook are the role models of Friedrich Gundolf. History is defined as the “interaction of creative and receptive people”. Every movement, Gundolf continues, is defined by the fact that it receives the broadcast of a creative person who remains silent for others. However, such receptivity should be distinguished from the cult of great men as practiced in the 19th century. The aim of the spiritual movement is to preserve "the productive" of the art of their role models, where their opponents want to degrade them to mere ornamentation. Every model of movement embodies a unity of body and soul, of nature and culture. In the modern age such “necessary cultural saviors” could only be the “formbringer”, not the “formsprenger”, since only the “formbringer” would create shape, and that means what the Germans need most. The intellectual movement thus clearly sets itself apart from other modern artist collectives, such as the futurists , who from Gundolf's perspective are sure to shatter form . According to Gundolf, the “cosmic people” and thus models of spiritual movement are the ancient Greeks as a collective, Dante , Shakespeare and Goethe. What "was just material they added, what was only spirit they stout" is their principal achievement. This selection is significant for the critical relationship of the George Circle to modernity insofar as Gundolf believes that the resistance to everything great would steadily increase with the constant progression of scientification and rationalization, that progress makes the "human as a whole" absolutely impossible. In the context of the George Circle's work policy, individual monographs were later dedicated to precisely these models: for example Gundolf's habilitation thesis Shakespeare and the German Spirit (1911) or George's translation of the Divine Comedy .

In the following article On the Spirit of Music , Karl Wolfskehl criticizes music as a decadence of the bourgeoisie. According to Wolfskehl, “the will to create” is essential to all arts, only music lacks this basic artistic quality. For this reason, it lacks “shape”, and its apparently ordered form is only a gathering place where “chaos comes to chaos”. Starting from this determination, Hugo von Hofmannsthal is criticized without explicitly naming him: “Only the feeble, if not completely degenerate poets tend to allow music to connect with their works.” Hofmannsthal had collaborations with various composers at the turn of the century recorded, in 1911 the Rosenkavalier was premiered with music by Richard Strauss . As the essay continues, Wolfskehl associates music with logic and science. Her story is the hubris and decadence of the citizen, she herself is “the result of disintegration, a product of decay”. The work of Richard Wagner is the logical end point of this decay, a music of purely unformed chaos, which Wolfskehl sees as the culmination of romanticism. From this proclaimed end to music, Wolfskehl tries to make plausible the salvation prophecy of a “New Reich”, latent in the George Circle: When “the Reich is fulfilled, then the degeneration must come to an end and with it the rule of music."

Henri Bergson

In the following article Ernst Gundolf takes up a phenomenon of the times : Henri Bergson's philosophy reacts to Bergson's philosophy of life, which was very popular at the time (Bergson's L'évolution créatrice was published in 1907 , for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1927), which his brother Friedrich also opposed George's will was interested. Ernst Gundolf, in the sense of a cautious criticism, does not want to belittle the performance of the French philosopher, but only to point out "those who have been driven" by his system. The most important point of criticism for Gundolf is that Bergson delimits “the soul from body and substance”. In addition, he considers “the weight that the concept of duration [and thus that of development or evolution] has assumed in Bergson's philosophy […] dangerous in some respects.” According to Gundolf, this assessment leads to “creative being "At Bergson corresponds more to" the female than the male principle of ancient cosmogonies ", which is obviously perceived as negative. According to Gundolf, the necessary appreciation of “begetting” and “eternal” in Bergson's writings is missing.

In his essay Theater und Zeitgeist, Erich Kahler varies thoughts and arguments from Friedrich Gundolf's text about the models of the movement. Based on the inferior quality of contemporary theater, Kahler comes to the conclusion that in a world of “fragmentation” and the separation of body and soul it is impossible to embody this world in a symbol. The life of modern society has become so immaterial and inconspicuous that theater has absolutely no meaning. Accordingly, the only real art of this time, due to its creative nature, is poetry; only it can fulfill the task of art of being a servant of “eternal necessity”.

In the continuation of his article Romantic and Dionysian, Kurt Hildebrandt tries to prove the necessary unity of the opposites of Apollonian and Dionysian in the necessity of Goethe's trip to Italy . For the sober German it was crucial to get to know the intoxicating world of the south in order to create a new figure.

The small contribution Berlin Art in Athens takes Ludwig Hoffmann's expansion of the Athens traffic system as an occasion for a fundamental criticism of the phenomenon of traffic, which in itself is insubstantial and therefore impossible to shape.

In another short essay, Napoleon and the Spiritual Movement , Berthold Vallentin honors the French emperor as a model for the movement in a decidedly militaristic tone. Napoleon's principal achievement was the "preparation of the empire in all that is rich-free, the establishment of the state in all that is non-state". The movement's special approach to the phenomenon Napoleon is described in almost homoerotic terms: Only the “eros dedicated to his [Napoleon's] unforgettable body” can truly understand this hero. Napoleon is the “herald of our weapons” for the movement because he “does not represent a spiritual [...], but blood, blood, blood that wants to bleed”. The article ends with an aggressive declaration of war: the weapons of the “solemn demigod” would also serve the movement and were “only apparently [...] milder and less burning [... than] the bayonets from Jena”. But this appearance, according to Vallentin, only lasts as long as “you have not yet touched the overly sensitive skin of the crowd”.

The last contribution of the third yearbook is again from Friedrich Wolters. In human and species , these two concepts are defined as a pair of opposites. According to Wolters, the Enlightenment led to a one-sided rule of the Logos over Eros . This one-sidedness of modern society is comprehensible in the concept of the species, which rob the individual of his original possibilities and fix him to soulless progress. But since only the “incomprehensible and undetectable” can guide people's actions, the rational principle of progress brings about nothing but alienation. Wolters also rejects the concept of the individual as a mere derivation of the genus. As has already been observed in other articles, the movement here at least superficially distinguishes itself from popular positions of its time, in this case the cult of the great individual. For Wolters, the counter-concept of the genre is irreducible, and his collective sphere is the “grown community”. According to Wolters, this “real person” behaves in an almost contrary manner to the empty phrase of humanity, which is clearly expressed in the fact that “only peace is acceptable to him as a competitive price”. The classic humanistic position of propagating eternal peace as the highest goal of politics (for example in Kant's On Eternal Peace ) is rejected in the follow-up to Nietzsche. Humanity is the institutionalized rule of mediocrity, its stark contrast is the "creative man". In order to establish a new unit beyond the anonymized generic society, this is precisely what is necessary. “The ruler is needed,” says Wolters, and takes it for granted that “the great men must destroy on their own account”. The aim of this martial-militaristic presentation of utopia is an ideal state that is formed from the eros of an organic community and that eliminates the nonsense of democratic “general equality” in favor of “natural difference”. Wolters explicitly polemicizes in this context against equal rights for women. The article closes with an appeal to the youth, who are called upon to realize these plans, “as long as the pure fires of life are still burning in you”.

reception

The first edition of the Spiritual Movement Yearbook attracted more attention than any previous George Circle publication. The strategy of reaching the largest possible readership with aggressive rhetoric had been successful. Since Wolters believed that it was more a question of agitation than persuasion, polemics were just as welcome as approval. With this in mind, he reports to Gundolf about the response to the first issue: “The yearbook ignites in many corners. The oldest generation is almost the mildest […]. The youngest usually feel harshly touched [...]. ”In other letters he complains that the polemics are not yet sharp enough. The criticism of his own guidelines in the first yearbook pleases him as a desired result of conscious provocation: “that my 'three-way division' is probably not tenable; I've always listened to hear that and I'm as happy as a cuckoo when the chaffinch finds it too improbable. ”The editors also consider the goal of reaching younger readers in particular to have been achieved. In a letter to Wolters, Gundolf said, "The youth here - and everything else hardly arrives here, is unanimously happy and delighted ..."

In the press, the first yearbook was particularly attacked because of the claim to be absolute. An article in the Berliner Tageblatt entitled The Stefan-George-Apostel criticized the one-sided doctrinal tone of the first issue. Rudolf Borchardt responded in 1910 with a polemic that "moves on the verge of a duel challenge". In his article Intermezzo , he publicly accuses the George Circle of falsification, plagiarism and homosexuality (a criminal offense at the time). The introduction to the third yearbook is believed to be an answer to these allegations.

The polemics against the institutional science business also irritated sympathizers of the circle, although academic teachers are unlikely to have belonged to the narrower target group. The Berlin historian Kurt Breysig, for example, Friedrich Wolters' doctoral supervisor, responded to the yearbook with a declaration of principle in which the presentation of science as a purely secondary, “life-consuming” phenomenon is rejected. However, the font was not officially published until 1944.

The yearbook also generated a response in the literary environment of the George Circle. Borchardt took Gundolf's article on Das Bild Georges as an occasion for the final break with both Gundolf and Wolters, whom he himself had become friendly with at an earlier point in time. Henri Bergson , who was also important for Friedrich Gundolf during these years, commented on the first issue of the yearbook in a diplomatic and formal letter: “The idea of ​​dedicating a magazine to the intellectual movement seems to me very successful. It comes at the right time. "

The yearbook for intellectual movement is only known today in the context of literary studies. But even there it was little discussed for a long time, since most of the positions represented in it can already be found in other publications of the George Circle. In the yearbook, these positions were usually only bundled and given radical formulas. As a document of its time and a concentrated source of many concepts in the George Circle, the yearbook remains interesting for the intellectual movement.

swell

  • Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Edited by Friedrich Gundolf and Friedrich Wolters. 3 volumes, Verlag der Blätter für die Kunst, Berlin 1910–1912.
  • Friedrich Gundolf - Friedrich Wolters. An exchange of letters from the circle around Stefan George . Edited and introduced by Christophe Fricker. Böhlau, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2009, ISBN 978-3-412-20299-6 .

literature

  • Christophe Fricker : Introduction. In: Friedrich Gundolf - Friedrich Wolters. An exchange of letters from the circle around Stefan George. Edited and introduced by Christophe Fricker. Böhlau, Cologne et al. 2009, ISBN 978-3-412-20299-6 , pp. 7-53.
  • Thomas Karlauf : Stefan George. The discovery of the charism. Biography. Blessing, Munich 2007, ISBN 978-3-89667-151-6 .
  • Rainer Kolk: literary group formation. Using the example of the George Circle 1890–1945. Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen 1998, ISBN 3-484-63017-5 ( Communicatio 17), (also: Cologne, Univ., Habil.-Schr., 1996).
  • Michael Philipp: Introduction. In: Stefan George, Friedrich Wolters: Correspondence 1904–1930. Edited by Michael Philipp. Castrum Peregrini Presse, Amsterdam 1998, ISBN 90-6034-101-5 , pp. 1-61 ( Castrum Peregrini (Series) 233-234-235).

Web links

Commons : Yearbook for Spiritual Movement  - collection of images, videos and audio files

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ George to Hofmannsthal, June 5, 1903.
  2. ^ Rainer Kolk: Literary group formation. Using the example of the George Circle, 1890–1945 . Niemeyer, Tübingen 1998, p. 296.
  3. ^ So Edgar Salin: About Stefan George. Memory and testimony . Helmut Küpper formerly Georg Bondi, Munich / Düsseldorf 1954, p. 207. S. a. Thomas Karlauf: Stefan George. The discovery of the charism . Blessing, Munich 2007, p. 445.
  4. ↑ See Wolters' urgent request to include Vallentin as the third editor after all - the “story in January [di Vallentin's hesitation] was really just a nerve screw” - which was immediately refused. Wolters to Gundolf on February 10, 1910 ( Friedrich Gundolf - Friedrich Wolters. An exchange of letters from the circle of Stefan George . Edited and introduced by Christophe Fricker. Böhlau, Cologne / Weimar / Vienna 2009, p. 49f., Here p. 49) and answer of February 1910 (Gundolf, Wolters, Briefwechsel , pp. 50f.).
  5. ^ Hildebrandt after Kolk: group formation. P. 304.
  6. ^ Edgar Salin: To Stefan George. Memory and testimony . Helmut Küpper formerly Georg Bondi, Munich / Düsseldorf 1954, p. 325.
  7. ↑ Karlauf speaks with Hildebrandt of only 500 copies: Karlauf: Stefan George. P. 453, Fricker prints invoices from the printer and proves that there were 1000 for the first two issues: P. 20.
  8. ↑ Fricker: Introduction. P. 20f.
  9. ^ Gundolf-Wolters correspondence. P. 48.
  10. ^ Kolk: group formation. P. 304.
  11. ^ Gundolf-Wolters correspondence, p. 51.
  12. ^ Friedrich Gundolf, Friedrich Wolters: Foreword . In: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement , Volume 1, Berlin 1910, unpaginated.
  13. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 1f.
  14. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 4.
  15. ↑ Yearbook for the Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 5. That this is a rather free appropriation of Nietzsche's thoughts becomes clear in the indeterminacy of the threatening “sham structures”. If one were to assume at first that, in accordance with the early Nietzsche, it was an excess of Apollonian impulses, then the "Gestalt" doctrine of the George Circle, which seems to have strong Apollonian features, appears to oppose this danger to refer to the opposite.
  16. ↑ See Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 7.
  17. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 8.
  18. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 9.
  19. ↑ See Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 11.
  20. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 12.
  21. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 13.
  22. ↑ See Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 14.
  23. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 15f.
  24. ↑ a b Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 16.
  25. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 18.
  26. ↑ See Karlauf: Stefan George. P. 457, of course the term was not coined by George himself, cf. Ernst Kantorowicz: Das Geheime Deutschland. In: Robert L. Benson, Johannes Fried (ed.): Ernst Kantorowicz. Income from the double conference: Institute for Advance Study, Princeton, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt / Main. Stuttgart 1997. p. 78.
  27. ↑ Cf. Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) pp. 20f.
  28. ↑ See Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 19.
  29. ↑ See Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 22.
  30. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 25.
  31. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 26.
  32. ↑ a b Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 30.
  33. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 31.
  34. ↑ See Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) pp. 32f.
  35. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 33.
  36. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 34.
  37. ↑ Cf. Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) pp. 35f.
  38. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 36.
  39. ↑ See Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 42.
  40. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) pp. 44f.
  41. ↑ See Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 46.
  42. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 46.
  43. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 47f.
  44. ↑ a b Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910) p. 48.
  45. ↑ See e.g. B. Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910). P. 116.
  46. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910). P. 114.
  47. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910). P. 121.
  48. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 1 (1910). P. 126.
  49. ^ Friedrich Wolters, guidelines , in: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement , Volume 1, Berlin 1910, pp. 128–145, here p. 128.
  50. ↑ Friedrich Wolters, guidelines , in: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement , Volume 1, Berlin 1910, pp. 128–145, here p. 132.
  51. ↑ Friedrich Wolters, guidelines , in: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement , Volume 1, Berlin 1910, pp. 128–145, here p. 139.
  52. ↑ Friedrich Wolters, guidelines , in: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement , Volume 1, Berlin 1910, pp. 128–145, here p. 143.
  53. ↑ Friedrich Wolters, guidelines , in: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement , Volume 1, Berlin 1910, pp. 128–145, here p. 145.
  54. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 4.
  55. ↑ a b c Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 9.
  56. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 13.
  57. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 10.
  58. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 15.
  59. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 18.
  60. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 21.
  61. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 32.
  62. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 20.
  63. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 35.
  64. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 78.
  65. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 86.
  66. ↑ a b Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 88.
  67. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 94.
  68. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 117.
  69. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 122.
  70. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 121.
  71. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 122.
  72. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 136.
  73. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 136.
  74. ↑ See Kolk: Group formation. P. 378, see also z. B. Gestalt Psychology .
  75. ↑ See Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 147ff.
  76. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 146.
  77. ^ So Kolk after Stichweh, Kolk: Gruppebildung. P. 382.
  78. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 150.
  79. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 157.
  80. ↑ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement 2 (1911), p. 157.
  81. ^ Friedrich Gundolf, Friedrich Wolters: Introduction by the editors . In: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, pp. III – VIII, here p. III.
  82. ^ Friedrich Gundolf, Friedrich Wolters: Introduction by the editors . In: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, pp. III – VIII, here p. III.
  83. ^ Friedrich Gundolf, Friedrich Wolters: Introduction by the editors . In: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, pp. III – VIII, here p. IV.
  84. ^ A b Friedrich Gundolf, Friedrich Wolters: Introduction by the editors . In: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, pp. III – VIII, here SV
  85. ↑ Ibid. SV
  86. ^ Friedrich Gundolf, Friedrich Wolters: Introduction by the editors . In: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, pp. III – VIII, here p. VI.
  87. ↑ See also Jan Andres: “Women of Stranger Order”. Theses on the structural misogyny of the George circle . In: Ute Oelmann, Ulrich Raulff (ed.): Women around Stefan George . Wallstein, Göttingen 2010, pp. 37–57, here in particular p. 43.
  88. ^ Friedrich Gundolf, Friedrich Wolters: Introduction by the editors . In: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, pp. III – VIII, here p. VI.
  89. ^ Friedrich Gundolf, Friedrich Wolters: Introduction by the editors . In: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, pp. III – VIII, here p. VII.
  90. ^ Friedrich Gundolf, Friedrich Wolters: Introduction by the editors . In: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, pp. III – VIII, here p. VII.
  91. ^ Friedrich Gundolf, Friedrich Wolters: Introduction by the editors . In: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, pp. III – VIII, here p. VIII.
  92. ^ Friedrich Gundolf, Friedrich Wolters: Introduction by the editors . In: Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, pp. III – VIII, here p. VIII.
  93. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 3.
  94. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 3f.
  95. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, 5f.
  96. ↑ a b c Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 8.
  97. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 20.
  98. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 22.
  99. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 23.
  100. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 26.
  101. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 26.
  102. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 28.
  103. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, 31
  104. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 32
  105. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 33.
  106. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 35.
  107. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 42.
  108. ↑ Both quotes, Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 91.
  109. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 92.
  110. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 95.
  111. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 96.
  112. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 100.
  113. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 108.
  114. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 115.
  115. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 115.
  116. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 130.
  117. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 133.
  118. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 135.
  119. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 137.
  120. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 137.
  121. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 138.
  122. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 138.
  123. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 138.
  124. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, pp. 138f.
  125. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 139.
  126. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 139.
  127. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 141.
  128. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 141.
  129. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 142.
  130. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 142.
  131. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 143.
  132. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 144.
  133. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 145.
  134. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 148.
  135. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, pp. 148f.
  136. ^ Yearbook for Spiritual Movement . Volume 3, Berlin 1912, p. 151.
  137. ↑ See Fricker: Introduction. P. 15.
  138. ^ Gundolf-Wolters correspondence, p. 55.
  139. ^ Gundolf-Wolters correspondence, p. 59.
  140. ^ Gundolf-Wolters correspondence, p. 60.
  141. ^ Gundolf-Wolters correspondence, p. 58.
  142. ↑ See Gundolf-Wolters correspondence, p. 55.
  143. ^ Kolk: group formation p. 309.
  144. ^ Gundolf-Wolters correspondence, p. 309.
  145. ↑ Gundolf-Wolters Correspondence, p. 372.
  146. ↑ Gundolf-Wolters Correspondence, p. 372.
  147. ↑ See Gundolf-Wolters correspondence, p. 59.
  148. ↑ Gundolf-Wolters-Briefwechsel p. 61, in the original: "l'idée même de consacrer une publication périodique à 'la spiritual movement' me paraît très heureuse. Et elle vient à son heure. "
  149. ↑ See Kolk: Formation of Groups, p. 306.