Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:41:20.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hegel contra Schlegel; Kierkegaard contra de Man

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Ayon Roy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At the turn of the nineteenth century, Friedrich Schlegel developed an influential theory of irony that anticipated some of the central concerns of post-modernity. His most vocal contemporary critic, the philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, sought to demonstrate that Schlegel's theory of irony tacitly relied on certain problematic aspects of Johann Gottlieb Fichte's philosophy. While Schlegel's theory of irony has generated seemingly endless commentary in recent critical discourse, Hegel's critique of Schlegelian irony has gone neglected. This essay's primary aim is to defend Hegel's critique of Schlegel by isolating irony's underlying Fichtean epistemology. Drawing on S⊘ren Kierkegaard's The Concept of Irony in the final section of this essay, I argue that Hegel's critique of irony can motivate a dialectical hermeneutics that offers a powerful alternative both to Paul de Man's poststructuralist hermeneutics and to recent cultural-studies-oriented criticism that tends to reduce literary texts to sociohistorical epiphenomena.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 124 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 107 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by The Modern Language Association of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Adorno, Theodor. Aesthetic Theory. Trans. Robert Hullot-Kentor. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1997. Print.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor. Ästhetische Theorie. 1970. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1992. Print.Google Scholar
Allemann, Beda. Ironie und Dichtung. Pfullingen: Neske, 1956. Print.Google Scholar
Behler, Ernst. “Friedrich Schlegels Vorlesungen über Transzendentalphilosophie: Jena 1800–1801.” Der Streit um die Gestalt einer Ersten Philosophie. Ed. Walter, Jaeschke. Hamburg: Meiner, 1999. 52–71. Print.Google Scholar
Behler, Ernst. German Romantic Literary Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behler, Ernst. Ironie und literarische Moderne. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1997. Print.Google Scholar
Behler, Ernst. Studien zur Romantik und zur idealistischen Philosophie. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1988. Print.Google Scholar
Behler, Ernst, and Hörisch, Jochen, eds. Die Aktualität der Frühromantik. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1987. Print.Google Scholar
Beiser, Frederick. The Romantic Imperative: The Concept of Early German Romanticism. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2003. Print.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Walter. Der Begriff der Kunstkritik in der deutschen Romantik. 1916. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1973. Print.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Walter. “The Concept of Criticism in German Romanticism.” Trans. David Lachterman, Howard Eiland, and Ian Balfour. Selected Writings I: 1913–1926. Ed. Bullock, Marcus and Jennings, Michael. Cambridge: Belknap, 1996. 116–200. Print.Google Scholar
Bohrer, Karl Heinz. Die Kritik der Romantik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1989. Print.Google Scholar
Bowie, Andrew. Aesthetics and Subjectivity: From Kant to Nietzsche. 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2003. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bubner, Rüdiger. “Von Fichte zu Schlegel.” Fichtes Wissenschaftslehre 1794: Philosophische Resonanzen. Ed. Hogrebe, Wolfram. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1995. 35–49. Print.Google Scholar
Bubner, Rüdiger. “Zur dialektischen Bedeutung romantischer Ironie.” Behler and Hörisch 85–95.Google Scholar
Chaouli, Michel. “The Politics of Permanent Parabasis.” Studies in Romanticism 42.3 (2003): 323–40. Print.Google Scholar
de Man, Paul. “The Concept of Irony.” Aesthetic Ideology. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1996. 163–84. Print.Google Scholar
de Man, Paul. “The Rhetoric of Temporality.” Blindness and Insight. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1983. 187–228. Print.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. L'écriture et la différence. Paris: Seuil, 1967. Print.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Glas. Trans. John P. Leavey, Jr., and Richard Rand. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1984. Print.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1976. Print.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Writing and Difference. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978. Print.Google Scholar
Egginton, William. “Cervantes, Romantic Irony and the Making of Reality.” MLN 117.5 (2002): 1040–68. Print.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. Introductions to the Wissenschaftslehre. Trans. Daniel Breazeale. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994. Print.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. Wissenschaftslehre nova methodo. Hamburg: Meiner, 1982. Print.Google Scholar
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. Zur theoretischen Philosophie. Ed. Fichte, I. H. Berlin: Veit und Comp, 1845–46. Print. Vol. 1 of Sämmtliche Werke.Google Scholar
Frank, Manfred. Einführung in die frühromantische Ästhetik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1989. Print.Google Scholar
Frank, Manfred. The Philosophical Foundations of Early German Romanticism. Trans. Elizabeth Millán-Zaibert. Albany: State U of New York P, 2004. Print.Google Scholar
Frank, Manfred. “Philosophische Grundlagen der Frühromantik.” Athenäum: Jahrbuch für Romantik 4 (1994): 37–130. Print.Google Scholar
Frischmann, Bärbel. Vom transzendentalen zum frühromantischen Idealismus. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2005. Print.Google Scholar
Götze, Martin. Ironie und absolute Darstellung. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2001. Print.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art. Trans. T. M. Knox. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1975. Print.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Berliner Schriften 1818–1831. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1970. Print. Vol. 11 of Werke.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Trans. H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Greek Philosophy to Plato. Trans. E. S. Haldane. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1995. Print. Vol. 1 of Lectures on the History of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts oder Naturrecht und Staatswissenschaft im Grundrisse. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1970. Print. Vol. 7 of Werke.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Medieval and Modern Philosophy. Trans. E. S. Haldane and Frances Simson. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1995. Print. Vol. 3 of Lectures on the History of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Phänomenologie des Geistes. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1970. Print. Vol. 3 of Werke.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Phenomenology of Spirit. Trans. A. V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1977. Print.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik I. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1970. Print. Vol. 13 of Werke.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie I. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1971. Print. Vol. 18 of Werke.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie III. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1971. Print. Vol. 20 of Werke.Google Scholar
Immerwahr, Raymond. “The Subjectivity or Objectivity of Friedrich Schlegel's Poetic Irony.” Germanic Review 26.3 (1951): 173–91. Print.Google Scholar
Kierkegaard, S⊘ren. The Concept of Irony. Trans. Howard Hong and Edna Hong. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1989. Print.Google Scholar
Kierkegaard, S⊘ren. Om Begrebet Ironi. 1841. Köbenhavn: Gyldendal, 1962. Print.Google Scholar
Lang, Berel. “The Limits of Irony.” New Literary History 27.3 (1996): 571–88. Print.Google Scholar
Lukács, Georg. Die Theorie des Romans. Berlin: Cassirer, 1920. Print.Google Scholar
Matarrese, Craig B. “Satisfaction or Supersession? Expression, Rationality, and Irony in Hegel and Rorty.” Clio: A Journal of Literature, History, and the Philosophy of History 36.1 (2006): 41–58. Print.Google Scholar
Millán-Zaibert, Elizabeth. Friedrich Schlegel and the Emergence of Romantic Philosophy. Albany: State U of New York P, 2007. Print.Google Scholar
Neuhouser, Frederick. Fichte's Theory of Subjectivity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pippin, Robert. Modernism as a Philosophical Problem. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. Print.Google Scholar
Pöggeler, Otto. Hegels Kritik der Romantik. 1956. München: Fink, 1998. Print.Google Scholar
Reid, Jeffrey. “Hegel on Schleiermacher and Postmodernity.” Clio: A Journal of Literature, History, and the Philosophy of History 32.4 (2003): 457–72. Print.Google Scholar
Roy, Ayon. “From Deconstruction to Decreation: Wallace Stevens' Notes toward a Poetics of Nobility.” Wallace Stevens Journal 29.2 (2005): 249–62. Print.Google Scholar
Roy, Ayon. “Postmodern Convexity and Hegelian Dialectics in Ashbery's ‘Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror.‘” Gingko Tree Review 4.1 (2007): 25–46. Print.Google Scholar
Roy, Ayon. “The Specter of Hegel in Coleridge's Biographia Literaria.” Journal of the History of Ideas 68.2 (2007): 279–304. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rush, Fred. “Irony and Romantic Subjectivity.” Philosophical Romanticism. Ed. Kompridis, Nikolas. London: Routledge, 2006. 173–95. Print.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich. Charakteristiken und Kritiken I. Ed. Eichner, Hans. München: Schöningh, 1967. Print. Vol. 2 of Kritische Ausgabe.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich. Fragmente zur Poesie und Literatur. Ed. Hans, Eichner. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1981. Print. Vol. 16 of Kritische Ausgabe.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich. “On Incomprehensibility.” Lucinde and the Fragments. Trans. Peter Firchow. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1971. 257–71. Print.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich. Philosophical Fragments. Trans. Peter Firchow. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1991. Print.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich. Philosophische Lehrjahre 1796–1806. Ed. Behler, Ernst. München: Schöningh, 1963. Print. Vol. 18 of Kritische Ausgabe.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich. Philosophische Vorlesungen 1800–1807. Ed. Anstett, Jean-Jacques. München: Schöningh, 1964. Print. Vol. 12 of Kritische Ausgabe.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers. Trans. Richard Crouter. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988. Print.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Über die Religion: Reden an die Gebildeten unter ihren Verächtern. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1967. Print.Google Scholar
Stevens, Wallace. “Man Carrying Thing.” The Collected Poems of Wallace Stevens. New York: Knopf, 1961. 350–51. Print.Google Scholar
Strohschneider-Kohrs, Ingrid. Die romantische Ironie in Theorie und Gestaltung. 1958. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2002. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzel, Oskar. “Methode? Ironie bei Friedrich Schlegel und bei Solger.” Helicon 1 (1938): 33–50. Print.Google Scholar