Griticism Underway WALTER BENJAMIN'S ROMANTIC CONCEPT OF CRITICISM SAMUEL WEBER ‘ed tenet be han hn yom ‘tan pis rd me ed 9 ‘Wes, in the introduction 1 the Philosophy of Fine Ar, Hegel surveys the "reawakening” of the philosophical “Idea” and its corollary, the emergence of aesthetics a a rigorous “scence fof art the romantics oceupy 2 conspicuous but also equivocal place In the never infleren sequence ofthe dalectcal exposi tion, the discussion of irony,” under which Hegel here subsimes the romantic, follows tha of Kant on the one hand, and Schill, ‘Winckelmann, and Schelling on the other. The tertiary position ths reserved for romantic irony should by rights mara culminat ing turning point inthe progress of aesthetics: one in which the Fesidual subjectivsm of Kantian aesthetics and the abstract objec- tivism of Schiller and Schelling move to higher level of concept- laation at which they are both negated ad fled. And yet rom the outset itis clea that the romantics fr rom constituting peo fressive moment in the “rewakening” are for Heget more lke & Sermuet Weber | 308 ‘ad dream. From his opening characterization, Hegel raging and even contemptuous: In the ncghhorhood now ofthe rexwakening of he piso {es (co ouch boty upon the coun of fer developmen) ‘gut ‘Wibele and Fcc vom Sep, vid of movely In thei craving for the dine sd the ns sppropeaed ‘much ofthe pisopical esate oterie tery np ‘phic, eel cial natures wee cape of smobing® “The somanuis, essentially “real natures" and“unpilosophic,” are dus tobe Considered dangerous “neighboes for a“phlosophi ‘al Kea” inthe process of “eawakening” Tete “craving” (Sucbt) {or the new and the diferent nds ao adequate counterweight i a thoory consisting of"impovcrshed (artigen) philosophical a {redieals” “To be sue” Calletings), Heel concedes the oman tics have introduced “new criteria of evaluation and points of ‘iew" into the “dierent branches of ar.” Bat these achicrements hae Insists, are marred by the deletesious consequences of thane inferior philosophical ingredients—that i by thei adaptation af the Fchtean notion of an all posting all dssolving I and thelr application oft to the "ego ofthe Arist” AS a result, romanue theory and practice of at are based on the “most units” of uu, ony. The later, Hegel argues, ulimatey incompat ble with arse “seriousness” and “substane,” Romantie irony teens substantial content (Gebalf) asa mere refex ofthe positing [Rens of the indivi artist thereby tends inevitably toward “sf settindulgence” and even to "dishonesty and hypocrisy” Ing atempts to impress ts audience. Tor Hegel, then, romantic irony, understood 2s the conse ‘quence of “principle of absolute subjectivey"™ appears 18 & ‘movement that parodies and ultimately betrays the lalectialpro- fression of aesthetics rather than enacting it And yet when, a the Conclusion ofthe Introduction, Hegel articulates what he takes to be the authentic Aufhobung of aesthetics, the term to which hn resoes inorder 10 mask the passe rom arto philesopty sig fess thatthe relation of the dalecue to romanteism sf fom lsed or sted "But precisely on this highest level art now res above itself in forking the element of reconciled sensation ‘ofthe spit, and steps fom the poctry of representation over into tone isisrtcal Ratios | 306 the prose of thought [emphasis added} In appealing to the no- tion of prose to describe the discourse in which “it rises above Itself” Hegel invokes line of thought elaborated progeammat cally by the German romantics. All the more eeison, then, for Hegel foceflly—but also forelbiy—to seek to demarcate the a thentcally philosophical "prose of though” from its romantic hhomonymiy. And yet the stent and strenuous characte of his ‘efforts to pat the romantics in thee place sigest thatthe Ise {is far fom sete. eas though the romantics’ lack of serious ‘essa point on which Hegel places such emphasis, tended to con- feminate his own treatment of them, preventing him from taking them a5 seriously a8 thelr positon would Seem fo requce. AS 4 result, what left open is precisely the question f this postion: Isa tha ofa precursor or ofa usurper? Or could it be both? And If both how should the "prose” ofthe romantics be related tothe “prose of thought’? ‘To be sure, our understanding of romanticism has made great, strides in the century and a half since Hegel situated "irony" at the culmination of modern scsthetical theory while atthe sume time seeking to cclegate i 0 the margins of his lectures on aes thetlcs. And yet even today, the ambivalence of this gesture is never far away when the efforts made to put the romantics theie proper place historically, artstiealy, and policaly. A more ‘recent ease in point i farished by Paul de Man. In an essay fst Published (in French) in 1960, "The Intentional Structure of the Romantic Image,” de Man attacks “eaturalstc’ or even pantheis tic" readings ofthe romantics, arguing that Holerin, Rousseau, and Wordsworth are among "dhe frst moder writers to have pt Inco question, inthe language of poctry, the ontologial priority lof the sensory object"* That soc 4 prion” could he ascribed to romanticism a all indicates the complex dilerences that CO: habit more or less nes, this ingle term, Fora "ature ‘of “peimitvstie” perspective could acquire 3 certain plasty In English lterary histories is vetaly athinkable with regard to German romanticism. Thus, viewed fom a compaatis vantage point, de Man's esay can be described as an atempt t0 (Te) Introduce the perspective of German romanticism into English Janguage Hteraryceticsm, Semuct Weber (305 And yet if this is 0, why does de Man go to HOldrln eather than to Novalis or Friedrich Schlegel to find his exemplary text? ‘The “ltentional structure of the image” de Man ie seling to ela ‘orate sno more identical with tony” (partially inthe Hegelian Sease of ‘principle of absolste subjectivity") than ts with ‘na ture’, Rather, its iterative movement undoes the founding of sub fective seltconsciousness, however ionic, no less tah that of fhe natural object: "Poctc language can do nothing but originate anew over and over agin: tis always consuitutve ale to posit egurless of pesence but, by the same token, unable to give 4 Foundation to what it posits except as an intent of consciousness” “Through its intentioaalstucture, consciousness, gus language, i ‘esentally incapable of founding Wel and hence can never be {come fully seffconscious, however ron t may seek tobe. I {this unfullable bat aso unavoidable striving toward selidentiy ‘that defines the discontinuous relation of language to “the natural ‘objects For iis a the essence of langage tobe capable of orig ration, but of never achieving the absolut entity with ive tat exists in the natural object ™ ‘As “the fist modeen writers to have put into question, fa the language of poetry, the ontological priority ofthe sensory object.” ‘what the eomantics have ths problematized i ulkimatey the pei ‘ipl ofselFientiy tet In “aelute™form to “the natura “object.” which also defines, nt les absolute, mare relative for, subjective selfconsciousness. Tis questioning of selfideniy, however also alfects or infects the very generic term which onten sibly defines the nontatural objet and fel of de Man's attention: romanticism. For despite bis use ofthe word in the ttle of Bis ‘essy, de lan i not talking so mach about romanticism proper 2 certain of ts “precursors weting prior tothe consolidation of 2 fl edged, setFconseious movement Thus, the place ofthe ‘mantis, far from being fixed once and for all Is strangely in ‘motion strangely Because what its moving foward is anything dt clea: "The works of the early romantics... are at most wider ‘way toward renewed insighs and inhabit the mixed and sell: Contratictory regions that we encountered in the three pa Sages? Thus, what the “eatyromantis” are “underway toward 'srnot romandcism proper, but something which has Yet 0 be ‘thought and which 8 some sense romantics at est in ts fami.CrtialRaectons 306 lar forms, has obscured rather than aticulated, The necessiy of rereading romanticism i thus clearly stated atthe conclusion of| this ess 1h 1983, when, inthe prefice to the Rhetoric of Romant ‘fam, de Man attempts osm up the results ofthat rereading is ‘conciusion is that conclusion, a summing up, is precisely what |s missing Originally “part of «project that was fel historical” the essay collected in the volume fal to “coalesce” ino a coher ‘ent whole with the result that as far as the general question of| romantic is concerned... the ask of is hstorical defation [must be let o others" "The relation of romanticism to history thus remains an open, unsettled question. The only place, de Man remarks, where he Comes close to facing some ofthese questions about history and fragmentation” is his esty on Shelleys Truumpb of Life, Shelley Disigured." Despite the distance separating this text rom the 1960 essay, the decisive question of romantics stl articulated swith respect to the problem of the self Having retraced how Shelley's poem, le incomplete by the poet's deaths marked bot thematically and formally by radical randomness, de Man cor- ‘cludes by meadtating the way such fragmentation elicits and afects the proces of reading and reception. The lethal materiality ofthe ‘mutated text is “mosumentazed into historical and aesthetic “object” by iterary scholars an ert. The evaluation ofthis es ture, however, anything but simple Such monumentaliation Js by ao means neces 2 naive or evsive gesture, and it cer: tainly is nota gesture that anyone can pretend wo avoid making Te doesnot have to be alt, since it doesnot have to be tbe re pression of a seltbreatening knowledge (emphasis aded) ‘The challenge of certain romantic texts, then, I 1 Fetace just ‘how such “selhreatening knowlege" canbe articulated without being simpy “repressed” To “sate the full power of this that in all ts negaiviy.” as The Trump of Life does in de Mans rea ng, “docs not prevent Shelly from alegoizing his own negative assurance, thus avakening the suspicion thatthe negation is a {erneinung, an tended exorcism,” Through sich alegorization, “selfehrestening, knowledge” 8 neither spy “repressed” noe ‘Simply alflemed (as "negative assurance), bu, ater, inscribed in 2 ay that elles suspicion and demands to be read. But how is Samuet Weber (307 such an allegorization tobe “ead i ot a8 part of what de Man deserbes here a “the endless prosopopocia by which the dead are made to have a fice and a voice which els the allegory of hele demise and allows us to apostrophize them in our tarn"?"? De Man's later writings are the attempt, f not to respond sinply ‘tw this question, then a lest to delineate some of its implications. For our purposes, however, enough fo note thatthe dsocs ‘on ofthe romantic work, and perbaps of romanticism ive, de pends on a process of alleorization for which the. prob lematizaton of sef and the process of reading are inseparably inked This link, so poweetlly at work in de Mans ater texts, con Lowes a line of thought fest laborated by Walter Benjamin. A ‘hough Benjamin's theory of allegory, developed ia his study of| "The Origins ofthe German Mourning Play (1925), swell known, less fala 6 the fat that this work tn many ways bulls om the ‘work Benjamin ad writen afew year earict on German ronan Wicism. Iisa work that cats considerable ight onthe role of ro- ‘manticisa inthe development of contemporary ctical theory nd a5 such deserves a wider ception than it has recelved ‘The text to which Iam referring bess the tile The Concept ‘of Oticiam in German Romanticism and was writen during the Fist World War Benjamin was 2 twentyseven year-old graduate stadent at the time, and the monograph was submitted by hin 3s 2 dissertation fo the Unlversty of Bera, fom which he recelved the doctorate summa cum lade Ie wast be Benji’ st ac. demic sceess and also is last. Since this text fis not yet been | teanslated into English and wil therefore be unfamiliar to most English language readers, i may be useful to begin with few pre liminary terminological clariicauons. ‘These ‘larfations ‘ill have «0 be preliminary, not least ofall eeause the very notion fof terminology touches on the most significant and enigmatic a pects of romanticism as Benjamin sees na letter writen in No ember 1918 t0 his fiend Gershom Scholem, Henjamin remarks that although its "out of the romantic concept of criticism that the modern notion has emerged nevertheles the romantics ‘used the term ina way very dlerent from that familiar toy, ‘namely, af “an entirely esoteric concept (one ofthe most hidden), based on mystical presuppositions insofar as knowledge i con: ceed”reat Reet | 308 Before 1 comment on what Benjamin here refers to a the “es tere” and mystical” agpeet of omantieism, should be under ‘ood that the romanticism referred to in this book is identied most exclusively withthe writings of Feicdich Schiegel and No- tall, Moreover, dhe woek of Schlegls held to be exemplary by Benjamin is largely limited to that published during the period ftom 1797 t 1801, centered around the short feof the period fi the Athenaeum (1798-1800). If ten, one of the ose sis eat moti that will emerge om this study of German romant- cam can be described as the problem of selfdelimitation (Seibstbeschrankurr), then Benjnie's book ise provides an ex templary instance of such sellimiing-—not merely in limiting its Source materials, both primary and secondary, toa minuscule ae- ‘on of German romantic writings on the notion of eritism, but tiso in detning fs own scope and syle. The real is what one Scholar has certed #0 be "3 professioaally done dissertation” although precisely a such i stopped ust short of wit Benjamin Considered to be the essential fest stake. The hater are ia- scribed both in his teers ofthe period and also In the margins fof the thesis tule, Benjamin describes his study a a ater Bot to present (darzustelon) the historical essence of romans” ss sich, but rather, to collet "materials" which might lad to such 2 delnton. That essence ee ad in 3 footnote “should pee umably be sought after ia the .. Mestanls” of the romantics, ‘which he characterizes by cling the following bre! passage from ‘contemporary crite "The thought of an ideal humanity pertec- lng tet a innitur is rejected stead, what is demanded isthe ‘fel of God! now, in time and on earth.-an Sal eased 3t every level of life—out of this categorical demand grows Schlegels new religion Benjamins ‘professionally done disser "ation is thus one intended 10 lead is Feades othe Himisof its subject matter and point them ia an “esoterie”drecton that tran Scends the purview of scholarly discourse, All he more interest {ng then is the fat that dhe “subject mater which isto perform this function i held by Beajami, and not without reason to be the antecedent of what tod, the Engishspesking world, tas came tbe known 3s criticism and its theory.” But the esoteri, ‘even mystical genealogy that Benjamin begins to elaborate i this Ssudy works t9 render the familiarity of modern critical theory Samet Weber | 309 ‘scange, i not downright uncanay. Fo what turns out tobe pect Har eo this subject matter that, ultimately, Its neither subject ‘nor matter—or, ater, tat aly "matters by vrte ofa certain ‘subjection co which owes its sar and gets underway. ln what follows attempt to retrace the emergence of this ine of thinking ‘What distinguishes romantic extcal theory rom is predeces- sor, as well a from its contemporaries, above all Goethe, is that fe conceives eniticlsan to he an integral and escnial part of the istic proces, of no less Importance or dignity than the work ‘fart iselt Benjamin sums up the distinctive speciiy of roman tic ertcal cheory in ewo tenets: Ast, the individual work of art thas an ntsnnically coherent structure and, sccond, an este characteristic ofthis stuctue, and hence ofthe individual work, is that i “ertczabe"— thai, It Fequies crea reflection in ‘order 1 fll atste function, Critic, #0 conceived, does ‘ot involve primary the evaluation ofan individeal work—this| sight be called the classical of neoclascal conception —bul, fathers falfliment or, a6 Novalis writes, ts “ollendung” Tis ‘wor, Benjamin emphasizes, must be readin ts double sense, en tain oa the one hand the completion of consummation of the ‘work and, on the othe, Its consumption or dissolution in the die ‘course of criticism, This double aspect of romantic critical theor)—the elevation of the indvidsal work to highly organ aed, autonomous structure with Is owa itis laws ad the ee ‘ation ofthe ertical process a the culmination and continuation (of those lws above and beyond the orginal work-allowsSche {el and Novalis tobe considered the founders of moder criticism, ‘And it would aot be dificult to extend Benjamin's nasi to eit ‘ism today, whether in ts formalist ration, focusing on the im manent analysis of the individual work or, in ts move peagaatic ‘versions, construing the literary text to be an artfct that con ‘umes 0° fulfils ise inthe reception or readings it receives In {this respect, litle has changed in the seventy year since Benjamin ‘wrote his dissertation, excep thatthe problem ofthe subject oc ‘copied 3 more prominent place inthe ne-kantian aesthetics that dominated Germany in the ewenties than fs docs today, wen Ie is often concealed in categories such 25 “implicit reader” oF community of interpretation”rial Refetions | $10 [Nevertheies, whether conscious of unconscious, it pre: ‘cisely such subjectivism, so Benjamin argues, that renders present ‘ay cites incapable of gasping what fsa stake in romantics “These romantes™—Benjamin ies Erwin Kircher" sought precisely to distance themselves from what was then called 0: ‘antics, and what stil s today" (Concept, 107) “What modera ‘rts fll to se” Benjamin asserts, is he importance ofthe no- tion of work,” which for Schlegel and Novalis s aot “the mere By product of subjectity, as offen misunderstood by modern 2 thors” but ater, the result ofthe laws ofthe spit (Getst)” The “determinate immanent structure” atibated by the erly roman: tics to the india work sno longer conceived in neoetasical ‘categories such as “harmony of organization’ instead, the relative autonomy ofthe individual work and its structure now depends fon" general notion ofa ata rellecive medium and of the work 482 center of reflection” (71), Its this notion of art as medium ‘of reflection that leads Benjamin vo assert that romantie ciicl theory i not in essence subjective,” that ¢"has to do exclusively ‘with te objective structure of ats de, [and] with ts maifes lations (Gebilde)—as works” (13). And again “Clie, which today Is grasped asthe most subjective of activities, was for the romantics 3 regulative of subjectivity, contingency and arbitra fess in the emergence of Works (80) ‘What i at stake, then in Benjamin's account of German ro: mantic critical theory is nothing less usa, iosyncsai, of you prefer, orginal than the effort to elaborate a notion oF prac tice of “relexiity” that would not ultimately be rooted #8 the premise ofa constitutive subject Hs fist move inthis diction {s 0 define the way in which the romantic use of reflection both Spends on and diverges fois mos immediate philosophical antecedent, Hehte.Schlegel's conception of reflection, 25 Benj ‘min describes it, consis of three moments or “levels” fst 6 ‘thought ints immediate form as thought of an object, what Sele gel ells “meaning” (Sinn second, is what he calls "reason," the fhinking which takes as is object the Sm, oe fst, immediate thought This eve could also be ealed reflection proper. The di tinctve specifiy of the romantics in regard to Fichte emerges in the way in which this second level of rection is iterpreted For Fiche, such reflection only makes sense, only “exists corel Samet Weber 311 tUve toa act of posing (Setzan) which in sen implies an 1) sits orjgin and agent" “Fehtean reflection resides nthe absolute thesis. outside of which ie means nothing Because i leas nto emptiness” "With Fete cefection relates to the I, withthe ro. ‘mantis i elates to pure thinking” unbounded, ai were by any being) or entity such as an Iv “Romantic thinking dissolves bebe. au) being ad positing nto reflection" Tis is why for ‘the romantes the estate of thought as reflection {snot ited by the positional act ofan It is second form of reflection proper, Dutinstead entails necesarily and structurally a third and fr more ambivalent level “the thinking of thinking of thinking (and $0 ‘n)” In shor, without the seleposting Ito limit and contain re Aectoa, the latter initiates 2 movement involving the "decompo sition” (Zersetzung) of what Benjamin calls the “archetypal, c& oneal form of reflection” (30) into a “pecular ambiguity” (Celgentimiicbe Doppetdeutighet: reflection proper fds Kee split asi were, int ether an objector a subject, or, rater, ato Dosh: the “dining of thinking” functions both as an object (of thir Jevel thought) and as 2subject—the thinking of thinking — ‘whic has “thinking” ints ntl form, a object This equiv Caton or ambiguity is what leads philosophers, fom Flchte gel, to search for away of transcending mere reflection in ordet to avoid the regress ad infinitum hat election in spare and unadulterated form would entail The omantis, 8 Benjamin de seribes them, do not draw back before this danger; on the con teary, even before Hegel, Schlegel sees Fite attempt t, 38 It ‘were, “enclose” reflection within the opposition of self positing Tand a counterposited Not, precisely as falling prey to the ‘regress ad infinitum: "Whenever the thowght ofthe |i not at fone with the concept ofthe World, such pure thinking of the ‘thought ofthe I leads only to eternal seit mirroring, fo an infinite series of mieror mages that contain only the sume and never ny {hing new” (55). The response ofthe romantics ito construe te fection not asthe act ofa, bat 3 the process of Self hat can no longer be contained oF compechendel in terms of the opps toa of Being and Posing, Tand Not, subject an objec, but ia terms ofthe Absolute: "Reflection expands tsef without limit and the thinking ths formed inrefcction becomes foress thought, ‘which is directed towards the Absolute” (31), This Absolute, unrca Repections | 312 hike that of let, however, determined “not asthe conscious fess ofan I buts reflection in the medium of a” (39). Sach re flection has two manifestations: the fist is the individual work of ft itsef the second, eticlem, Grits is second loglelly and Chronologically, since addresses already existing works, but is ‘ery secondacines makes ithe exemplary mandestation of a 25 ‘medium of absolute reflection, siace the individuation of rtce tiom in the work arrests the process atthe sme ime it determines It If ertciam arises (enstt) out of the Work and in this sense ‘epend on i the work a tun refers to an ide of absolute ec tion which, however, esrct and dssimulates precisely by gi ing it shape. Tis retictoa is ied and reflection reinstated tough the proces of extsm "The problems that emerge fom such an account are obvious and determine the course of Benjamins investigation, which f- tases on te question of selfimitation, Citing a remark of Novalis, Benjamin demonstrates thatthe romantics themselves were well wate ofthe dificult. "The possibilty of seflimiation i the pos Silty ofall synthesis, ofall izace. And the world bean with 4 tite” (55), Everything depends on the way in which art as the medin of absolute reflection, limits itself this acount. The Jay term here Is the notion of context coberencs or structure, Sil of which are attempts at translating the Fomantic notion of Zusarmmenbsang, in caling attention to the spstematic character ‘feomantle thought ia genera, Benjamin emphasizes thatthe no tion ofthe Abuolite as artistic reflection ls essentially synchronic, hot dischrone, despite Schlegel's famous definition of romantic poetry a8 ‘progressive universal poetry” (91). This definition, Ben- Jamin argues, has nothing to do with the notion of a temporal progress or becoming-—a notion sharply ceiticized by Schlegel (53), instead, seeks to artieulate the essentially unfinished pro- {ess by which the reflective medium dierentiats itself "Whats ‘Ssoenil is rather thatthe task of progressive universal poety is fiven in the most determinate Way in'2 medium of forms, a the {ers progressively ore exict, more pervasive organization and fordering (deston Jtscreitend genaiuere Durcbwaltung und ‘Onanungg) (92), What the abwolteinnitude of et hea volves [Snot the propresive realation of a selFdential ideal or entity, but the atcultion of medium understood to consist of» “con Somat Wber | 313 ‘ouun of forms This medium can he sid to “unl” the ind vidual work. qua “system” or “Zusammenbang” and cetiss, 2s tn “experiment” performed on the work, contines this process ‘of “unfolding.” The question now Becomes how such an unfolding Js wo be conceived? "Tobe sure this response s not explicitly given by Benjamin inthis text, since it would inevitably lead him to adress directly the ise which exceeds the bounds he has set hielo his the ‘Ss. Not surprisingly, however, i simpli in his reflections on the romantic approach tothe question of form: “Practical, Le. de- terminate reflection scflimitation comprise the individuality and form ofthe work” (73)-Form is conceived not as 2 means of exhib- ‘ing o representing dastelion) content, buts" peculiar mod fication of reflection limiting tsi” (76). Cetsm reflects and thereby dlimits—dhat i, disslver—the “postive” form ofthe in fivdual work by exposing ite appurtenance to the more general ‘medium of reflection which forthe somanties compris the de {ermining idea of at iselE The problem remains, however, of ex planing just how sch a general dea of reection can fii self {individual works and sll remain pare rection. The problem [s clear to the romantics, a the following semark of Novalis, cited by Benjamin, indicates “A work i formed when ii sharply im ‘ted everywhere, but oath Is limits limitless. everywhere the ‘Same and yet sublimely beyond se (7)-As individuation ofthe {general mediim of reicction, the Individual work ean full is finetion only insofar asks driven out of and beyond ise, and thus comes to he dissolved in—and tothe eel process The ‘alue” ofthe work can thus be measured bythe degre 1 which Itallows this proces (thai erties) to take place—by te de free to whic its “riticizable" (78), Such eticism, Benjani re fark, isnot primaelly beat on jdging (beurteilend) the indivi tal work, but rather on exposing its felations to al other works nd tally tothe sea of are” (78), Precisely ow the exposure Daarseting) of such “relations” i 0 lead 10 "the idea of ar” 38 feeneral medium of absolute eelecton femains an open question {Benjamin's account of the romantics. And yet, the posiblity fof a response can be glimpsed & his discussion of romantic irony ‘Benjamin dstngushes between two kinds of ony: the moreGreat Repections | 318 familie tony, et to demonstrate the sovereignty ofthe author — Hegel's “principle of absolute subjectivity™—who thereby takes himself ro be ee ofall material constraint This ony Benjamin designates as “mera irony” inorder to distinguish from asec ‘ond rasiety, which he finde both more “postive in character and abo less subjective; the “rony of form Unlike materia irony, that Of form cangot be ideatied with the sheer freedom ofthe subject, ‘Since all art Is “subordinated tothe “objective lwlness” of 3 certain formality (83). This irony thus “atacks" the “Ilusorines" fof the form of a work without, however, utterly abandoning i In {hus undermining the integrity of the individual work, formal leony resembles exis, which aso tends ulimately to ann late the work. All the more telling then, the dierence brought ‘out by Benjamin when he compares the two, formal ony and ext ow does irony’ destruction ofiuson in attic for reat to ‘he dstaction ofthe work ough ccs? Cates series fhe work tery tothe will othe One Caren Context (um ‘itn Zaarnnaneeln)o oyon he {0 render i indesrocae Formal ony no, ke forte ‘or rete an intentional behavior of an author It an aoe = [Sealy done, be considered te index fs sajective ck ot nas ater i must be valued as an objective moment inthe work sel represents the pardoxial attempt (Bsc) to “omnue buildings structure even thrngh demon (Ste elt ‘don parade Versuch dar Gabe noc dure ADD 2 ‘sen tough the ero demonsete the Work’ relation Co fhe de in the work el (5-47) Benjamin's description here of the romantic “ionising of form” marks decisive point in is interpretation of romanti ct cl theory fo his subsequent work no less than for curren efforts to rethink that status of reading and interpretation, whether “iter ary” or other. With respect to Benjamin’ later Work, this discus ‘ion of formal ony foreshadows the theory of allegory that he bill articulate some six years later in is second, and this time def Dikvely unsuecesful attempt at academic waiting (and an acs demic career), Tbe Origins of tbe German Mourning Play. Ia terms ofthe dsertaton self, the account of formal ony con tains he germs ofan alternative to the impasse of romantic crite thcory which Benjamin in no uncertain terms locates inthe ten dency conlate “the peotane withthe symbole form. Only athe cost of sich imprecise demarcation can all the concepts ‘of crite! theory be iategrated ito the realm of the Absolute, 2s the romantics Intended” (98), The erie of such 2 confusion tll be the point of departare of his theory of allegory in the Ort ‘gins. Although Benjamin himself docs not say so expicdy, what hn ell here the "profane form may be identied with the “Pos tive form of the individualized work, 3 form which can never be lxdequitely interpreted fits understood mecely asthe manifest tion of the selfdelimitation ofthe absolute, tht is, of reflection ise” To distinguish between profane” and a symbolic” form isto acknowiedge that ao postive of profane aesthetie reflection Is capable of “cootaining” the Absolute within its borders or of leading to t by any continuous path In contrast othe immanence ‘ofthe symbol (which a5 Benjamin wil state later in his discussion ‘oF allegory, is legitimate ony in theology, notin aesthetics), the profane form ofthe individual work of at involves a process of {elimitation which can never, 2s such, be asimilated to the Abso- Tate whether as election or in anyother guise. The romantic a temp to define caticism precisely in such terms is thus foreed to fely ultimately on an "axiomatic presupposition” that sidesteps father than addresses the decisive question, that ofthe relation of feflecton and form, by advancing, as an article of bei, “that re- flection i in Hel substantial and filed, and does not run of {no an empty infinity" (31). Tis Is why the “Tormal irony” 10 ‘which Benjamin refers i not part of romantic ential theory in the "proper sense” but of Meary practice wentied with the Gramatc writing of Teck rather than wit Schlegel or Novalis. The “unmistakable implication Is thatthe only way Out ofthe impasse fof romantic crtcsm—wwhich & pethaps that of enticism foul Courelies not in the effort to disoive the work i an absolute Sd uldinately selidentical crite reflection, but in a practice of| iuriting which, precisely by undermining the integrity of the Individual lor, st the same time allows the singular “work” t0 ssurive Te survives however a diferent kind of writing Such wait ing would be “rite” nso a relets—and, hence, alters—cl Repections | 316 an already “given “postive” frm ost of deimitations, But this Slteration would not be the transformation ofa “profane” form {nto a symbolic one, understood bythe romantics 28 "the pure ex pression of felectve selflimiation” since the “ronization of| oem" remains no less “profane” than the fem “survives (he tetb here to be understood both transitively and intransitive) TD asi, a does Benjamin, discreetly but firmly, onthe necessary distinction between profane and symbolic form isto emphasize that the reflective delimleations which constitte form ean never be gasped entirely or essentially in terms of “se” The romantics sought to disengage reflection from the subject by replacing the Fichtesn oppostion of land Not by an Absolute Sell. Benjania seeks to demonstate how this movement cannot and does not leave this “axiomatic presupposition” untouched orn fore. Thus, although in their dheoredeal pronouncements the romanties insist thatthe general mediom of reflection constituting the determining de of art must be conceived 36a "continuum of fom" when they se about analyzing the Kind of language and writing that most powerfully exempiics "te highest ofall symbolic forms” and “the Fomantie Mes of poetry acl” (99), the prosaic weting of the novel, they describe it precisely as discontinuous: “The writing fle of the novel should not form a continuum, it must bea sue ture articulated in each of ts peviods. Each stall piece must be detached, limited, ts own whole" (99) Such a discontinuous syle tof writing culminates inthe nation of prose asthe highest “ea of poetry”: in prose, “poctry expands itself... by contracting shandoning its incandescence Feverstof}), congealing,” and thus “assuming 2 prossic appearance” in which is components “no longer form the same intimate commianiy” as in poetry, But are therefore all the more capable of “presenting the limited” The ‘movement of phrase becomes “simpler, more monotonous, qu ‘ter the context "more flexible," the expression “more teanspar ‘ent and colotess” (Novalis, quoted p. 101). Thus, the enite 7 ‘manic “philosophy of art” s determined by an idea of Poetry 38 Prose” which in trn leads to concept that foe Benjani marks both the culmination and the limits of romanticism: that of the ‘Nuchiernbet or “sobeiety of ar” (103), This proposition, which isthe esentally new and fundamental thought ofthe romantic philosophy of arts mos fly articulated outside of omantiism proper, in the writings of Holder. The notion of sobriety, which, Benjamin afirms, "even today powerfully at woek with uafore- sceable consequences” goes beyond the scope of his study; he therefore merely points to Holderin's emphasis on the calculable ly" and, hence. dhe clement of repetition at work inthe proce: ‘dares of poctry. It is sich calculable repetition that expan the ‘eflcct of formal irony in assuring a certain “survival” ofthe work Srehat disitegrites inthe Iron ry fsrictly the iusion, what remains indestructible, however i the aucleus of the work, Con ‘Ssting notin ecstasy, which canbe decomposed, But i the avo late (unantastbar) prosaic figure” (106), Everything depends, we se. onthe way i which the “calculable Inws” and tytms of 2 ‘erin sepeive language——both prosaic and poetic—are to be conceived and, even mote, © be practiced. Here, this question ‘yl bring Benjamin to a tem that defines dhe horizoa of his “the 5s" but also opens the way 1 his major work on the Mourning Pay and on Allegory. Tha term is Darstellung—evsalyeaslated as presentation” of “exposition.” Here, however, coward the con: Clusion of the book, used in 2 diferent sense to describe the Tanction of ertctm inthe ight ofthe “sobriety of art” Sine Ben jamin will define the word himself, Il cite in German: ein the “Dastcung” ofthe prosae acews in each Work, ‘Ihe concept *Dartelng" thereby tobe understood In he Chemica sense, athe generation of one substance (Ereuging ‘ines tof) hugh dterminte pron to wich others a nce is what Schlegel mest when he sido Wiel Mente thatthe work does not merely judge sl, Ie alo set i i orth (tel i dar) (109, pas ne) “The romantic ides of enitcism thus tens out to consist a pro- ‘ess of subjection" “others” are subjeted so that something ean ‘mater. Ae rest of tis subjection t the othe, criticism "stellt ich dag” sets Hel forth, ets fort, departing from itself to be ‘come something else, something lacking proper name and whieh enjamin, and afer him de Mas, wal ell "allegory Might not eomantiism, then, tur out to be the name under ‘which the awareness oft alegoical character has imposed iterca Reecions / 318 ‘on contemporary criticism? And through this imposition, hein: ‘ication of ertcla underway? 1, Fee Seg Scrton sur Ltt (Mah, 1972) 9.338, sosaggh Ea i ip fine eM a Oni ‘tp 5 fd 91 Hegel refering eray decor in which eens snpesane” has ate he rede he tray ety fhe ‘tum anders Hel ava ere veer meaning Hence “pom” lement of erate pears the wt the pose hog a pe Es {6 Pl de Ma, The Rtn of Romani (New Yr, 1983) 9.16. 5 8 10. Poe tor of Romantic, po. ii 1S Wacr Bejani, Gammel Son kt, 1980) 1.380, 1 Benamin do mace ue os inresofeces rt om 10, ‘te scaled inchs cre (te ser thes) ee | ements dy af egy He oe hs saree seca Erwccisrmin Seg! hd aes femme at mig be ele {ies of oe Ft wih x Din sone "spac Dement Reis econ (New Yak 1986) ps ‘ae Pein ttn Dia i Ty heer arson of Bennie woul: Te Cnc oft ‘rcs Geran Remar” At Ces fee, gi en | {eps Raa cles Nova, howeer Bs notes ‘nea piu, Wot exctanety ne we al crea te sete Sitersre (Dunn fos) = unr by he ty Geren Ss = ‘he exemplary stance of a an ices, Benin age poat oe robin ots exception which oes ont arcuate te ae ice beeen naa en CA fame eee Roma Sammuet Weber | 319 cc she ne pce ne ay ib 14) Te © cere smc te yeh in enc Hence the mow ccm aa ace gi tassion Kame yt np “cen Ewch: Pn romano, 106 ey Bn ‘and Wolng csc“ St Resign Demareang ‘isin (Siexpls,1986) and Toe Deb of ac nett ‘and natn (Sep 18°) ct fom ot epson a ns eco tere ep of ‘hese ot eecton” 7Romantic Revolutions CRITICISM AND THEORY KENNETH R JOHNSTON, GILBERT CHAITIN, KAREN HANSON, AND HERBERT MARKS.“Te taloming cy ve spp pein bsantly ene om sn re ted ae nth peomaatn, Do alos." Ne ‘de (Aum 9m 1-9, yeh Che Monumen an nao ‘Sonor nnn Dies 1 (ae 967) 67 i, tk ne Ain nat ar Cranes Ta ret Rar 8g sme oN) 70-8 99-15, Ade Wir Taig Lange ‘ostmors t oee prain Dias 17 (ae 987) 8-3 1 199 ytd ater res A ge rset No pt of hi ak may he epic ia a ny fo a by ‘i mene ccm wr cana acs potoceping nd sc yy iio se er pth it iaery rte Recto eine cnet Sly ‘cpm ts pron "Nt Son ination Scenes “Rm 0 Pape fe Pe aha Manrh, AST 239 1984 o brary of Congres Cataloging in-Publication Data oman evn ke ad ary ee by Reeth See eal) Isp 0-388-88182- (al pope) HN 0-255-20960-X (OD "mp scape Ames nsunre 19h cry Hy ‘cota tng rare y= 1234s 6 95 92 ow — GPs CONTENTS Romantic Revoutions: An Introduction & 1. Moe Spelt of Wordsworth Introduction 3 KENNETH R JOINSTON "Wis ifr this. 7; Wordsworth and the Birth ofthe Gods 8 Facing Language: Wordsworth’ Fist Poetic Spins 26 “ANDI WARIS Monument and lasription: Wordsworth's "Rade Embeyo™ and the Remaining of History 50 ‘Cons Gust Secondary Literature: Geoey Hartman, Wordsworth, nd the Invepretaton of Moderaty ™ Down G. Marsiats 1, Romanticism witbout Wordsworth Introduction 101 Kane Hasson Representative Men, Spins ofthe Age, and Other Romantic Types 108 iss KCI Plotting the Revolution: The Political Naraives of Romantic Poetry and Crises 133 awa Be