Goethe and Europe + Goethe and America

An excerpt from, “Goethe and Europe” By Paul Michael Lützeler, South Atlantic Review, 2000:

I would to begin my paper by proposing three theses: first, that Goethe’s ideas on Europe developed through contacts with the Romantic generation; second, that his concept of European culture is pluralistic and dialogic rather than monistic and exclusive; and third, that in times of continental crises, the leading authors of the twentieth century have cited Goethe’s works as convincing examples of European culture. 

Goethe was not a writer of Europe essays,’ as were Novalis, Friedrich Schlegel, Coleridge, and Madame de Stael in that he produced no utopias depicting the Continent’s cultural, political, social, or religious unity. What he brought to the discussion was his vision of world literature, and this vision laid the groundwork for new ideas that went beyond national concerns, ideas of a growing European integration. Herder was the intellectual patron of the national movements of the nineteenth century, but Goethe was the spiritual father of European efforts toward international cooperation. While Herder stressed the insurmountable differences between the various cultures, Goethe concentrated on what they had in common. However, we must take into account the fact that Herder proposed his ideas in expansive treatises, while Goethe’s thoughts on the topic of world literature were short comments, interspersed in his letters, conversations, and essays. Goethe would never have formulated a thesis like this one of Herder’s: “Each nation’s happiness is centered in itself.” In order to illustrate the difference between Herder and Goethe, I would like to offer you a few more quotes from Herder’s essay Another Philosophy’ of the History of the Education of Mankind “Everything that fits my nature, everything that it can assimilate, is something I strive for, is something I want to be part of; everything beyond that I am protected against by my nature, protected against by unfeelingness, coldness and blindness; this negative emotion can even turn into contempt and disgust.” Then follows Herder’s praise of national prejudice: “Prejudice is good … since it makes you happy. It brings the nations to their centers, makes them more concise as a community, lets their character develop more freely, makes their desires and goals deeper and more passionate.” Herder continues: “This is why the most ignorant and most biased nation often is the highest ranking nation: the age of desire for hopeful travels to foreign countries is already a sign of sickness, of flatulence, unhealthy abundance, foreboding of death!” (44-46). Goethe’s ideas of building national identities were entirely different, as his deliberations on European and world literature showed. As important as Goethe’s theoretical remarks on world literature were, his literary praxis and his correspondence with other authors from all parts of Europe were at least as relevant. One must keep this practical aspect in mind. It is reflected when Goethe muses that the terms “European literature” and “general world literature” indicate above all “that the living and striving writers will become familiar with each other and that they will find themselves coerced through common interests and a communal spirit”(12: 363).1 Goethe believed that literature could empower nations to overcome the racial, linguistic, and cultural differences of millenia. He was convinced that spiritual exchange and mutual influences could exist beyond the boundaries of space and time. He was sure that the various nations should not be limited to merely attempting to understanding their own nature. These cosmopolitan views enabled Goethe to place the concept of world literature above that of national literature, and this concept had a lasting effect on the cultural understanding of the Europe essayists of the decades and centuries to follow. The fact that Goethe perceived the term “world literature” as a step up from and as a further development of the term “European literature” is sometimes overlooked. This perception is evident from a comment he made in 1828, in which he stated that he had “dared to announce a European, indeed a general world literature.” A transnational European literature would provide the model, as it were, for the next level of the internationalization of literatures toward what Goethe called the “approaching world literature” (12: 363), that is, toward a literature that would construct a bridge to other world cultures. The choice of the word “approaching” is indicative of the progressive nature of this development as well as of its avant-garde character. Goethe saw himself as the promoter and agent of this burgeoning literature. World literature would cross national as well as continental boundaries, an idea reflected in his well known comment to his assistant Eckermann: “National literature is not of much importance now; this is the era of world literature, and everyone should support this tendency” (12: 362). Furthermore, he stressed that the Germans would have “an honorable role” (12: 360) to play in the process of this internationalization. While this stance must not be conceived as a condemnation of national literatures per se, it is obvious that here Goethe adopted a position counter to Herder’s, since he emphasized the insuffiency of a nationally limited horizon within the cultural realm.

An excerpt from, “Goethe and America” By Christian F. Melz, College English, 1949: