We have already witnessed an uprising
of a Wolffian school, particularly in the guise of two followers of
Wolff, Thümmig and Bilfinger, but now a second generation of
Wolffians starts to appear on the scene of German philosophy. Johann
Christoph Gottsched had already studied Thümmig's summarised
rendering of Wolff's ideas and would himself write another text book
of philosophy later in 1730s. Yet, his primary achievements on the
field of philosophy was the introduction of aesthetical questions to
German philosophy in the shape of a widely distributed book, Versuch
einer critischen Dichtkunst.
Gottsched (1700-1766) |
As the name of the work reveals, its
topic is the art of poetry and particularly the possibility of
evaluating poetic works through philosophical principles. As we shall
see again when considering Gottsched's text book on general
philosophy, he was quite fond of beginning with historical
discussions and especially with speculations on times before reliable
written histories. Thus, he suggests that poetry is the second eldest
art, preceded only by music, which also was a natural ingredient in
the first works of poetry, which were sang and not read.
At first poems were made
quite freely, Gottsched continues, but experience made it clear that
even poetry must have some rules – he explicitly mentions Aristotle
and Horace as masters in this field. Every art, Gottsched suggests,
strives to imitate nature – painting does it with images and music
with sounds, but poetry can use full field of all sensations, or at
least our mental recollections of such sensations. Just like every
other art, poetry must then strive for naturalness, Gottsched
concludes.
Mere description of natural entities is
still not poetry, according to Gottsched, or at least it occupies
only the lowest rung. A slightly more adequate type imitates the
speech patterns of certain persons – this is especially true of
dramatic works. Yet, the real meat of poetry lies in fables or story
telling – a good poem tells of activities of people, either of the
common folk, as in comedies, or of the noble and mighty, as in
tragedies or in epics, which Gottsched evaluates as the highest form
of poetry, recounting an event important to the fate of a whole
nation. It is clear without saying that Gottsched insists each story
to have a moral – the aim of poetry is to make people better.
Gottsched accepts the Wolffian
idea that stories present, as it were, events in other possible
worlds and thus might not follow rules of the actual world – a
story might have, for instance, talking animals as characters. Still, naturalness
is an important standard for good poetry: improbable events usually
hinder the enjoyment of a poem, Gottsched says. Of course, what seems
probable depends on the level of education. We cannot therefore
disparage Greeks for using divinities and other mythical entities as
characters, but in the modern world any use of magical effects would
seem incredible, Gottsched concludes.
Even if Gottsched strives for
naturalism, when it comes to stories, he does not insist on using a
natural style in poems. Indeed, he goes even so far as to suggest
that too naturalist style might turn into banalities, which are
against morality. In fact, poetic style is characterised by certain
wittiness, which combines seemingly distant ideas in a manner that is
rare in a straightforward historical telling of events: thus, while a
historical work describing a battle would just recount all the
events, a poem about the same battle might e.g. use some suggestive
similes making more philosophical points about the nature of warfare.
A good poet is then one who can
discover new and surprising connections between apparently quite
disparate topics. Yet, this is still not enough, Gottsched says. An
uneducated natural poet does not know about the rules of good poetry
and therefore might well fail to have a proper taste and be lured by
bad novels. Even if she manages to gain skills required for good
poetry, she might still lack the basic ethical education, which is an
essential requirement for educational poetry.
Judging just by these general
directives, one might concur with Egon Friedell that Gottsched was a
bit uptight in his aesthetic views. This impression is amply
confirmed by his actual reviews of certain well known poets.
Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
has some delightful moments, Gottsched admits, but it has one great
fault – the events of the play last longer than one day, which
makes the whole thing seem quite improbable, as what audience sees
happens only within few hours (I believe Gottsched is just one of
those persons with no ability for suspension of disbelief). And
Molière is also witty author, but he
sometimes uses characters reminiscent of commedia dell'arte
and especially that awfully unbelievable magical trickster, the
Harlequin. Besides, many of
his plays fail to have a proper moral.
But
truly vehement criticism
Gottsched lays upon opera, which
he calls the most absurd invention of human understanding.
This form of art Gottsched
considers to follow the sad tendency of modern forms of poetry that
they let the music control the substance of the poem too much. Indeed, even the very notion of opera shows its absurdity, because the idea of people singing all the time is just too incredible to believe. True,
the music can be divine, but the stories used are from the worst
kinds of books, featuring all sorts of unlikely events, magic and
wondrous things, making it all seem like a tale out of another
planet. But what is definitely worst is the complete absence of
morals that operas appear to endorse. As a life-long fan of Wagner I
cannot but wonder what Gottsched would have had to say about the
overtly
mythological story of Nibelungen.
GOTTSCHED: Dragons? No way! |
It
is not that Gottsched sees no justification for the existence of
opera – it can serve as an amusement of princes and nobles, serving
to ease their life of constant toil over state welfare. Even here
Gottsched recommends replacing opera with ballet, which at least
reveals the gentle grace of human anatomy. After all these remarks,
one cannot fail to see the irony that a person attempting to find
universal rules of good poetry can epitomise so well the essential
relativism of aesthetic judgements.
So much for
Gottsched's aesthetics, next I shall return to Wolff with yet another
part of his Latin works.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti