The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0188 Monday, 27 April 2009
[1] From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 25 Apr 2009 16:04:40 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0182 Hegel and Shakespeare
[2] From: Felix de Villiers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 26 Apr 2009 08:34:28 +0200
Subj: Hegel and Shakespeare
[3] From: Jason Rhode <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 26 Apr 2009 18:20:59 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0182 Hegel and Shakespeare
[4] From: Jennifer Bates <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 27 Apr 2009 12:14:29 -0400
Subj: Hegel in Berlin and Reading Shakespeare
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Evett <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Saturday, 25 Apr 2009 16:04:40 -0400
Subject: 20.0182 Hegel and Shakespeare
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0182 Hegel and Shakespeare
Add to the Shakespeare-Hegel list David Schalkwyk's work on Shakespeare
and the many aspects of love.
David Evett
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Felix de Villiers <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 26 Apr 2009 08:34:28 +0200
Subject: Hegel and Shakespeare
Hegel and Shakespeare
I have found a book advertised on the Internet which has a chapter on
Hegel and Shakespeare
Roger Paulin The Critical Reception of Shakespeare in Germany, 1682-1914.
If well-written, it could be very interesting as it treats the reception
of Shakespeare by a whole variety of German authors, Gottsched, Lessing,
Wieland, Hegel, the Schlegels, Goethe, Heine etc.etc. in chronological order
Here is a bit of meat perhaps for readers who are not specialising in
this subject, from the site, Hegel's Aesthetics (Stanford encyclopedia
of Philosophy:
"The third fundamental form of romantic art depicts the formal freedom
and independence of character. Such freedom is not associated with any
ethical principles or, indeed, with any of the formal virtues just
mentioned, but consists simply in the "firmness" (Festigkeit) of
character (Aesthetics, 1: 577; PKA, 145 -- 6). This is freedom in its
modern, secular form. It is displayed most magnificently, Hegel
believes, by characters, such as Richard III, Othello and Macbeth, in
the plays of Shakespeare. Note that what interests us about such
individuals is not any moral purpose that they may have, but simply the
energy and self-determination (and often ruthlessness) that they
exhibit. Such characters must have an internal richness (revealed
through imagination and language) and not just be one-dimensional, but
their main appeal is their formal freedom to commit themselves to a
course of action, even at the cost of their own lives. These characters
do not constitute moral or political ideals, but they are the
appropriate objects of modern, romantic art whose task is to depict
freedom even in its most secular and amoral forms. (Felix: this subject
obviously needs to be enlarged)
"Hegel also sees romantic beauty in more inwardly sensitive characters,
such as Shakespeare's Juliet. After meeting Romeo, Hegel remarks, Juliet
suddenly opens up with love like a rosebud, full of childlike naivety.
Her beauty thus lies in being the embodiment of love. Hamlet is a
somewhat similar character: far from being simply weak (as Goethe
thought), Hamlet, in Hegel's view, displays the inner beauty of a
profoundly noble soul (Aesthetics, 1: 583; PKA, 147 -- 8)."
Felix
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jason Rhode <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Sunday, 26 Apr 2009 18:20:59 -0500
Subject: 20.0182 Hegel and Shakespeare
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0182 Hegel and Shakespeare
>This is a query posted for a friend. Does anyone know anything
>about Hegel's personal experience of Shakespeare on stage
>(i.e., in Berlin) or actually even on the page (did he read
>English? did he know German translations?)? Or does anyone
>know of someone who might have written on this?
Click here to get what you want:
http://www.google.com/search?as_sitesearch=www.marxists.org%2Freference%2Farchive%2Fhegel%2F&hl=en&ie=8859-1&oe=8859-1&as_occt=body&num=30&btnG=Google+Search!&as_epq=Shakespeare&as_oq=
The Doctrine of Essence (Appearance):
www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slappear.htm
The Positivity of the Christian Religion by Hegel 1795
www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pc/ch02.htm
Hegel's History of Philosophy
www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpplato.htm
Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Introduction
www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/printrod.htm
[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jennifer Bates <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Monday, 27 Apr 2009 12:14:29 -0400
Subject: Hegel in Berlin and Reading Shakespeare
In my forthcoming book Hegel and Shakespeare on Moral Imagination (SUNY
2010), I address this question briefly in the Introduction. I've
attached the section. Please realize that the book is now under contract
so I am guessing you will need to reference the book.
Excerpted from Jennifer Bates' forthcoming book Hegel and Shakespeare on
Moral Imagination (SUNY 2010):
(From my "Introduction" -NB the footnotes here are not numbered as they
appear in the "Introduction")
3) In What Language Did Hegel Read Shakespeare?
<PROSEQUOTATION>
We know from Rosencrantz's biography that, in his early school years,
Hegel had a German translation of Shakespearean drama (though it remains
unknown what edition it was).1 We do know that he used the German
edition of Johann Joachim Eschenburg (1743-1820).2 Terry Pinkard
elaborates that "One of [Hegel's] teachers, a Mr. Loffler, gave him at
the age of eight a present of Shakespeare's works translated by
Eschenburg, with the advice that although he would not understand them
at that point, he would soon learn to understand them. (Hegel recorded
years later in his teenage diary a laudatory remembrance of Loffler when
he died)."3
The real question is whether Hegel read Shakespeare in English.4 Pinkard
claims that he did read some:
He also took great interest in the offerings in the various theaters in
Paris. He was even able to see the great English actor Charles Kemble,
and the legendary Irish actress Henrietta Smithson, perform Shakespeare
at the newly opened English Theater in Pars; he followed the plays by
reading along in the English editions he had procured, although it did
seem to him that the actors were speaking rather fast.5
There is evidence for the claim that Hegel read Shakespeare in English.6
In a letter dated November 5, 1823 from Hegel's friend Peter Gabriel van
Ghert, Ghert promises a single-volume collected works of Shakespeare
from London.7 There are also two letters that Hegel wrote to his wife in
1827 from Paris in which he indicates that he went to see Shakespeare
plays played in English; he writes in one of the letters that he
deplores the English troop's acting but adds that he was nonetheless
able to follow because he "read along word for word in the handbook."8
<NOTES>
1 "'Shakespeare's Schauspiele zum Geschenk' Welche Shakespeare-Ausgabe
Besa? Hegel?" in Auf Hegels Spuren: Beitrage zur Hegel-forschung
Friedhelm Nicolin, Lucia Sziborsky and Helmut Schneider (Meiner Verlag,
1996), s. 27-35. p. 27.
2 Ibid. That this was the edition Hegel used was confirmed by the
current Director of the Hegel-Archiv in Bochum, Germany, Professor
Jaeschke. Eschenburg revised Wieland's prose translations, and is
viewed by some to be the "first great German Shakespeare scholar" who
left nothing significant about Shakespeare unrecorded (Paulin p. 37 and
120, cited in Hofele, see my note 51 above).
3 Pinkard, Terry, Hegel: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2000), p. 5.
4 We ought not to be fooled simply by the fact that in the Surkamp
German edition of Aesthetics, Hegel cites Shakespeare's Hamlet in
English. (In later passages in the Surkamp, the Shakespeare passages
appear in Schlegel's translation without the English.) See Asthetik s.
300-301; Aesth. p. 231.
5 Pinkard, Hegel, A Bibliography, p. 551.
6 I am grateful to Ian McHugh and John Harvey for their efforts in
finding substantiations of Pinkard's claim.
7 Hegel, Briefe III, [**], letter 466 p. 35. Of lesser interest is the
fact that, in Hegel's school Stambuch, a fellow student wrote him a
passage in English from Shakespeare. "Hegels Stambuch" in Hegel, Briefe
IV, heraus. von Johannes Hoffmeitser, Band 4 heraus. von Rolf Flechsig,
(Hamburg: Verlag von Felix Meiner 1960) entry number 58 by M. Seiz, p. 57.
8 ". . . denn ich las Wort fur Wort im Buchelchen nach." Hegel, Briefe
III, letter 562 p. 192. In the letters, Hegel mentions that he saw
Othello and Romeo and Juliet. Of Hegel's dislike for the Shakespearean
troop in Paris, Pinkard writes:
He was certainly not impressed with British methods of acting; they
seemed too melodramatic - involving too much "growling" and "grimacing,"
as he put it - to be enjoyable; Hegel also remarked that it was "amazing
how they [the British] botch Shakespeare," a common sentiment among the
Romantic Germans and interesting for the fact that Hegel expressed it in
that context; after all, only one year later he was chiding Ludwig Tieck
in print for expressing very much that same view - "the English, one
would think, understand their Shakespeare; they would at the least
severely ridicule the petit bourgeois narrow-minded obscurity of the
continent if we were . . . to elevate our studies above their esteem
for their poet (Pinkard Hegel p. 551-52).
McHugh suggests that Paul Schlick's description of 19th C. English stage
craft might enlighten us: the actors would use "highly artificial style,
and the artifice was insisted upon, to allow the conventions to work.
Those conventions included spectacle, song, dance, acrobatics, and a
wide range of performing arts which we today associate more with the
circus, but which in Dickens' day were readily adapted for the stage."
(see Schlick, "Introduction" to Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1990, p. xxii-xxiii). Since stage-craft is not
our concern in this book, I leave this for the historians to clarify.
</NOTES>
</PROSEQUOTATION>
Best,
Jennifer
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.