ABSTRACT CHRISTIAN LUDWIG LISCOW: A PRECURSOR OF MODERN IRONY BY John James Stickler The purpose of this study is to examine Liscow's use of satire and irony and to determine to what extent he prefigures and exhibits modern tendencies. The first chapter, "Changing Modes of Satire and Irony," seeks to establish definitions of the major literary terms referred to throughout the thesis, namely, irony, satire, and parody. Discussion of parody is limited to a working defini- tion, but irony and satire are considered from both an histor- ical and a modern point of view. Chief interest centers upon the scope of irony with particular reference to its applica- tions by Thomas Mann and Robert Musil, who are regarded as most exemplary of modern ironists. Liscow has been spoken of as both an ironist and a satirist. This is partly because in his day irony and satire were close complements of each other; sometimes they were even considered to be synonymous. Irony is distinguished from satire most perceptibly, however, when one notes the differing posture of the satirist and the iro- nist toward a moral norm or any absolute-the satirist defends or protects it; the ironist neither accepts it nor rejects it but simply shrugs his shoulders, because he lives in a world that has discarded absolute values. Since Liscow is a rather obscure figure today, the second John James Stickler chapter, ”Liscow in Conflict With His Age,” contains perti- nent biographical and historical data which serve to identify him with his age and particularly with the hostile milieu that he countered with satire and irony. Liscow is shown to be outside the mainstream of his times by highlighting some of his life circumstances and the attitudes that are reflected by them. Irony entails as much a way of thinking as it does application of a literary device; therefore, Liscow's atti# tudes toward his life and times assume a vital aesthetic significance. His problematic view of life encouraged the dialectic and the opposition which manifested themselves in his writings as irony. Liscow's writings are analyzed in the third chapter, "Liscow's Satires: Transcending the Stereotype,” in order to ascertain his motivations and the manner of his satire, parb ody, and especially, irony. Liscow's skill as an ironist culminates in his Vortrefflichkeit 222 Nohtwendigkeit‘ggg elenden Scribenten, the work which best illustrates the range of his irony. Specific findings concerning Liscow's affinities with the twentieth century are stated at the end of this chapter. His modern tendencies are evident in his artistic detachment, in his scepticism toward authority and dogma, in the ambiguity of his personal positions, and in his permeating sustained irony. In the last chapter Liscow's irony is contrasted more conclusively with that of modern ironists in order to point out significant areas of divergence. Liscow is seen as a John James Stickler precursor of changes in irony and one who shares the intel- lectual impetus prominent in a lineage of important writers in whom the authorial point of view is changing from the idealism of the Enlightenment to a progressively greater realism. Gradually satire and irony become virtually oppos- ing forces, because satire is aggressive in its ridicule and is tendentious, having for its purpose to correct or improve according to some norm, while irony is increasingly marked by a gentler concern for absurdities which frequently in- volve the author himself; the ironist does not recognize absolutes and norms but sees two or more sides to everything. Thus traditional satire and "modern" irony have become mutually exclusive, because they now have very different purposes. In the eighteenth century they were closely wedded, with irony perhaps "subservient" to satire. This is no longer possible. Liscow's place in this is to have been one 'who reflects the beginnings of the changes that teak place in the as-yetdunwritten history of irony. CHRISTIAN LUDWIG LISCOW: A PRECURSOR OF MODERN IRONY By John James Stickler A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of German and Russian 1971+ H7” ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my thanks to my dissertation director Professor mark 0. Kistler for the valuable advice and guidance I received in the preparation of this dis— sertation. I wish also to acknowledge my indebtedness to the members of the dissertation committee, Professor William N. Hughes, Professor Udo MHnnich, and Professor Kurt W. Schild. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Changing Modes of Satire and Irony 8 Liscow in Conflict With His Age 38 Liscow's Satires: Transcending the Stereotype 63 Conclusion 120 Footnotes 130 Bibliography 1&2 iii INTRODUCTION The satirical writings of Christian Ludwig Liscow have not enjoyed currency in the two centuries since he died. His name, if his work is included for discussion in German literary histories, appears when there is concern for des- cribing the many modes of writing and the various attitudes prevalent in the ”Fruhaufklarung." Many of those who mention Liscow tend toward either high praise or utter damnation, with little middle ground in evidence. The remarks of one of his most severe critics, Hermann Hettner, are particularly interesting to a modern reader. Hettner wrote in 1870: Und wo ist in Liscow auch nur der leiseste Funke dichterischer Gestaltungskraft? Die einzige Form, welche Liscow handhabt, ist weit mehr noch als bei Rabener die Form der unmittelbaren Ironie; er lobt was er tadelt. Diejenige Schrift, welche gewvhn- lich am meisten geruhmt wird, die Satire Von der Vortrefflichkeit und Notwendigkeit der elenden Skribenten,IeideE an diesem Fehler grade am irgsten.l Hettner's criticism that Liscow overused direct irony in his ‘writings contrasts sharply with L. Wienbarg's appraisal of Liscow (printed 18h5) as ”den grassten ironischen Schrift- steller Deutschlands."2 Such divergent views indicate how controversial Liscow was (and is), but also point up the great changes that have taken place in the way irony has been I 2 regarded by the cultivated public over the past two hundred to two hundred and fifty years. Perhaps Hettner was simply seconding Goethe's criticism of Rabener, of whom Goethe wrote: ”In den Hussern Formen ist er zwar mannigfaltig genug, aber durchaus bedient er sich der direkten Ironie zu viel, dass er namlich das Tadelnswflrdige lobt und das Lobenswurdige tadelt, welches rednerische Mittel nur hochst selten angewendet 'werden sollte."3 Or perhaps Hettner was defending the irony of nineteenth century romantics before an earlier Swiftian type. Responding to the Wienbarg statement above, Klaus Lazarowicz wrote in 1963, "Diese Einstufung ist zwar einiger— massen willkarlich, sie unterschatzt auf Jeden Fall die Lei- stung eines Lichtenberg, Jean Paul, F. Schlegel, L. Tieck u. a. Indessen ist zuzugeben, dass Liscow als Ironiker und als Parodist in der deutschen Literatur kaum seinesgleichen hat."h One sees then that an investigation of Liscow's irony could be instructive. It could provide insights into early eighteenth century thinking, into Liscow himself and any changes he might have helped bring about, and into our con- ception of the nature of irony today. The present-day reading public has come to expect irony whether it issues from poets, prosists, or dramatists. D. C. Muecke observes that "irony now pervades literature, obliterating very largely [the] distinction of ironical and non-ironical. Nowadays only popular literature is predominantly non-ironical."5 It is from a twentieth century standpoint that we wish to examine Liscow's writings, to determine what, if any, 3 ”modern“ elements of irony can be found and to ascertain the attitudes which accompany ironical expression in his time and ours, in order to more precisely account for the differences or similarities. However, mere mention of the term "irony" introduces doubt, if not confusion. HOW‘Shall this literary term be defined? (One may well consider the question ambiguous.) What is the sc0pe of irony? And, since Liscow was a satirist 'who employed irony, how does satire differ from or relate to irony? Answers to these questions are not easily discovered. To consult standard references is to court frustration; the articles on irony and satire contained in them offer a brief definition, with some attention to etymology, and then pro- ceed through an outline of the term's historical application, which is liberally interrupted along the way with notes to see entries on related literary terms. One can come full circle in following the direction, "siehe dort." In more specialized studies, as for example in Erich Heller's The Ironic German, one finds, rather typically (and two-thirds of the way into the book), the lament: "Deeply discouraged by even the best writers on the subject (with Hegel and Kierkegaard among them) as well as by Thomas Nann's extremely resourceful employment of the term, I have attempted neither a definition of [irony] nor a catalogue of its varieties (which are such that it is impossible to grasp hold of the thing they vary).” He concludes, ”Every attempt l, to define irony unambiguously is in itself ironical.” 6 Reinhart Baumgart remarks in a footnote to Das Ironische twentybfour different interpretations of irony during his studies.7 ‘While interest in irony, and, to a lesser extent, satire, presently runs high, no thorough-going history of either has yet been written. In the case of satire, Lazarowicz remarks with disappointment that unlike the histories of the genres -novel, novella, drama, Lyrik, there is no sufficient and up-to-date history of German satire, and that those extant, 8 Con- by Flagel and Ebeling, are "veraltet und unbrauchbar.” cerning irony, the situation is about the same, according to Muecke, who has done the latest and most exhaustive study of irony from the standpoint of ”ironology," which term he uses to distinguish his investigations from those of the literary critic. He writes: ”There is no history of irony in EurOpean literature, or even the outline of a history. So far as I know, there is no complete history of irony in any of the principal European literatures."9 Many investigators have come to this impasse, with some concluding that it is best not to try to construct any formal all-encompassing definition qf irony, others hazarding to try, still others attempting to define what the term does not mean, and, perhaps most, giving evidence of irony by illustration from the works of selected authors. Problems of a similar nature arise, of course, when one 5 tries to define satire or to distinguish between satire and irony. Helmut Arntzen says: "Je mehr wir uns namlich von der Satire als mehr oder minder eindeutig bestimmter Gattung ent- fernen, um so verwirrender wird die Ffllle von Begriffen, die dem des Satirischen angenahert warden: Komik, Humor, Witz usw., vor allem aber Ironie."lo The foregoing is included in order to convince, or per- haps only to remind the reader that as commonplace as these two literary terms have been, yet there is no firm identifi- cation of their meanings and no conclusive separation of their modes. Nonetheless, the present study necessarily depends especially upon the current compass of irony to achieve its purposes. The task will therefore be to construct its scope from various authorities and from sources which are most con- vincing, general, and capacious. We will also define satire and attempt to distinguish it from irony since both are aper- ative in Liscow's writings. Indeed he has been called both an ironist and a satirist. And, because it is a rather prom- inent device in his works, we will explain the function of parody, though in this case too, there is little to draw upon in the way of adequate definition or historical review. Chapter one then will deal principally with the scope of irony, because it is as ironist that we believe to discern a peculiarly modern dimension in Liscow. In order to describe the compass of modern applications cf irony, we will briefly characterize the theory and practice of the irony of Thomas Mann and Robert Musil who, we believe, are most exemplary of 6 modern ironists. Concerning the two other literary terms, satire and parody, we wish to limit our discussion to working definitions. No attempt will be made to describe the scope of modern satire and parody. The reasons for these limita- tions are, that a broader endeavor would be unmanageable in a dissertation, and that our major concern is not so much with satire and parody as it is With irony. For similar reasons we will not offer a comparison of Liscow with any modern satirist, as say, Karl Kraus. However, there are additional considerations for this which will be contained in our conclusions, to be taken up in chapter four. We wish to emphasize also that no comparison is intended between Liscow and the two modern authors we have chosen to illustrate contemporary irony. They are introducedonly to present the dominant nature of irony today. ‘With little exception discussion will be limited throughout to German prose*writings. Because Liscow is not well known to the modern reader ‘we will present a brief sketch of his life within chapter two. Revealing certain biOgraphical aspects will contribute to a fuller development of our thesis, but unfortunately many details of Liscow's life remain obscure. The bulk of the chapter, however, will deal with establishing Liscow as an eighteenth century man who is considerably out of step with his time. To identify him as a satirist already suggests to the reader a person who does not quite fit the mold. ‘We will explore the implications of that, in part, by presenting a 7 brief comparison of Liscow and his contemporary G. W. Rabener. Rabener, also a satirical writer of the Early Enlightenment, was very pepular in his day and, we believe, epitomizes his times. Liscow's manner and character contrast very sharply with Rabener's, so by looking at them together we can highlight the ways in which Liscow was divorced from the mainstream. In chapter three we will review most of Liscow's writings to discover the facets of his satire, parody, and as we said, especially of his irony. We want to determine to what extent Liscow uses the ”direct irony" (or "blame-by- praise” irony as it is also called) which Hettner considered burdensome and to find out to what degree, if any, more "modern" irony occurs. As much as possible we want to avoid the many adjectives used to describe irony except in chapter three where we will be concerned to indicate the scope and variety of Liscow's irony. It should be remembered that irony has become a very encompassing term and that when we use the term “modern" it is not really very accurate as a designator for the present, because one can find at least some aspects of ”modern" irony in the writings of the ancients. Interest- ingly enough Aristotle spoke of ”eironeia" not in 23 poetica but rather in Ethica Nicomachea where it signified an attitude or behavior. Nonetheless, it will be useful from time to time to speak of "modern” irony, as we seek parallels between Liscow's era and our own. We will make final assessments and present concluding opinions in chapter four. CHANGING MODES or SATIRE AND IRONY Scholars have long been fascinated by Socrates' irony. J. A. K. Thomson may be right when he asserts that although irony did not begin with Socrates, ”irony in the modern sense dates mainly from him."11 G. G. Sedgewick, writing in the. early 1900's, is confident that "Socratic irony contains the germs of all the newer ironies which have so afflicted the literature of the last century.” (Italics mine)12 The utter- ances of Socrates are indeed convenient as a starting point for analysis of irony, because scholars believe to have dis- cerned several forms of irony in the aggregate expression of this one person: his repeated use of blame-by-praise and praise-by-blame, which was the nucleus of his later dia- lectical method; his life style and attitude, manifested by self-depreciation and feigned sympathy toward his contempora- ries and his times; and there was what Sedgewick calls his irony of detachment, his ability to meld disparate elements into harmonious idea.13 Beda Allemann regards irony as, at first a "Redeweise," out of which a dynamic range of expression becomes possible. He defines irony succinctly as "transparenter Gegensatz zwi~ schen wbrtlich und eigentlich Gesagtem.”lh Irony, in his Opinion, emerges largely from the dialectic and reflection inherent in the perceived Opposition between the literal and 8 9 the actual. He chooses the well-known example of Shakes speare's Antony who says in the third act of Julius Caesar, "And Brutus is an honorable man." This would be the simplest application of irony, he notes, because the recurrence of the remark (i.e., as leitmotive) in an otherwise non-ironic context soon makes it clear that Antony is not really saying what he means. It is signalled irony. On the other hand, the most highly ironic text, he believes, is almost devoid of signals and merely proceeds from the context. Literary irony, according to Allemann, finds itself between two poles, that is, it is neither literal nor satirical. Antony's utter- ance taken seriously, or literally, could not be ironical, and if he had simply said something in mockery of Brutus as a means of exposing him, that would not be ironical either. Thus the skillful ironist must maintain his balance between seriousness toward and mockery of his subject matter.15 Allemann considers that irony is only effective when it is sublimated by means of pretense and when so-called ”direkte Ironic," i.e., merely saying the opposite of what one means, is avoided.16 This is an interesting and welcome attempt to discover a basic definition of irony. It perhaps obviates the further qualification of the term into formulations such as: tragic irony, cosmic irony, irony of manner, irony of situation, philos0phical irony, practical irony, dramatic irony, verbal irony, ingenu irony, double irony, rhetorical irony, self-irony, Socratic irony, romantic irony, senti- mental irony, irony of fate, irony of chance, irony of 10 character, irony of things, etc. This is but a selection of the terms that have been used to designate the varieties of ironic application. These terms represent the ”signals” that Allemann mentions, which are intended to more precisely characterize the irony. In the early eighteenth century there were four formp ulations extant on the meaning of irony. Mbst popular was the definition that irony is "saying the contrary of what one means.” Less popular was the notion of irony as ”saying something other than one means." The third and fourth form- ulations found in dictionaries were: ”to censure with counter- feited praise and praise under a pretense of blame; and any kind of "mocking or scoffing," regardless of the rhetorical structure.17 The fourth formulation was an English defi- nition which clearly indicates confusion or irony with satire. The others describe a broader range and all contain the principle of opposition which is basic to all irony. Especially the idea of saying something other than (as opposed to merely opposite of) what one means, is suggestive of the dialectic and reflective aspects of more complex irony. The irony found in the satires of the eighteenth century is largely "Redefigur' based on the opposition of appearance and reality, i.e., saying the Opposite of what one means. Gottsched spoke of ”Irenie oder Verspottung" as a figure of speech in which one says "gerade das Gegenteil dessen, was man denket, doch so, dass der Leser aus dem Zusammenhange 11 18 One sees leicht begreift, was dis wahre Meinung ist.” from this that even the literary lawgiver of the first decades of the century considered irony and satire to be practically synonymous. And as simple as the irony would seem to us now, still the literary public often took it seriously. Liscow among others remarked about this, as did Rabener in his essay Von dem Missbrauch der Satire, "dass viele um deswillen Feinde der Satire sind, weil sie nicht wissen, was die Ironie sei und worin deren Starke und Schanheit bestehe."19 MMecke discerns a major dividing line in the overall development of irony, which derives from the observation that from roughly the sixteenth century to about the middle of the eighteenth century, society was dominated by a more or less "closed ideology,” that is to say, by a Christian conception of the world, temporally and specially limited, hierarchically and statically governed to a large degree. In such a tightly structured society, peOple were not so aware of change, deveIOpment, and progress, but were very sensitive to any aberration and departure from the norm. One looked forward in anticipation of heaven, and backward for cultural orien- tation. Irony manifested from out of the ”closed ideology" is therefore corrective or normative irony, according to Muecke, often a device of the satirist or polemicist. . . . a foolish opinion, a narrow doctrine, a rigid institution, an ignoramus, a hypocrite, a fOp, a pharisee, a politician, a blind, presumptuous gen- eration, or simply a thoughtless, unlucky fellow is made or becomes a spectacle to be looked down upon from the unassailable battlements of universal reason, honesty, prudence, common sense, good fortune, 12 unassumingness, or insignificance. When the victim is dealt with the incident is closed, the irony is over. What Muecke describes here comes close to defining satire. What he terms corrective or normative irony is the measuring of a victim against a moral yardstick, posing the wrong one against the right many-a traditional mode of satire. Final- ity too is more characteristic of satire, so that one might say that a ”satire is over;” irony on the other hand often proceeds without resolve. But it is muecke's idea of the origins of changes in irony that is of most immediate interest to us here. The irony of the "closed ideology" contrasts with that of the concurrently developing and gradually dominant "Open ideol- ogy” in the eighteenth century. Irony of the "Open ideology" demonstrated a more broadly conceived opposition than "saying the Opposite of what is meant." People became more strongly aware of the puzzling contradictions in life, the Opposition between subjectivity and objectivity, the humane and the scientific, the emotional and the rational. This slowly emerging "open ideology," engendered at first only by the most exceptional minds, brought the here- tofore transcendentally conceived cosmos, the eternal and the infinite, into immanence. Life was now viewed as dynamic, and there was increasing rejection of hindrances to free thought and expression. Longstanding laws, customs and institutions were reinspected, foundations of civilization, phiIOSOphy and art were reexamined. Nuecke explains that 13 since dynamism deplores anything that stabilizes life, rules, and in particular rules of art, will not only be seen as an imposition on the natural expression of the artist, but art itself, if it is to represent life, becomes suspect, since art is necessarily static and limited, while nature, on the con- 21 Such trary, is at once vast, unbounded and inexhaustible. attitude, deriving from the "open ideology," fostered an enlarging Of the conception of irony to "any general aspect of life seen as fundamentally and inescapably an ironic state of affairs."'22 All irony plays on two (or more) levels as a virtual contrast between a reality and an appearance. There is always an opposition between these two levels, perhaps as contra- diction, incongruity or incompatibility. There is in irony an element of "innocence," that is, the innocence of a victim confidently unaware of the possibility of another level or point of view countering his own, or perhaps the ironist him- self simply feigns unawareness of another level. Muecke tells us that the victim or object of irony "may be a person (including the ironist himself), an attitude, a belief, a social custom or institution, a phiIOSOphical system, a religion, even a whole civilization, even life itself.23 ‘Whereas comedy relies on the unexpected and suddenness for its effect, irony, while often humorous, is much more subtle, agile, and requires a larger sc0pe on which to play itself out. The longer prose forms have therefore been the most frequent vehicles for modern irony.2h The highest 1h ironic style relies on subtle reference to something in a richly detailed background which remains unspecified, but which the reader nonetheless perceives and understands. This affords the ironic style "das Spielerische, Schwebende, Schillernde.'25 However, ironic writing is too subtle if the author's real intention does not come through to the reader. There must be a fine balance between the author's real meaning and the pretended meaning, which therefore calls for great precision by the ironist. The distancing of the author from his subject, so often felt in ironic writings, was, in earlier, simpler irony, often an attitude of superiority, a kind of cat and mouse relationship. Modern ironic distance, however, finds the artist also strongly amidst the world, which he regards as pervasively ironic, and thus he himself is Often the object or the victim of irony. Mhecke makes an interesting point on this matter of ironic detachment. He distinguishes the writer who only employs irony from time to time as it suits his purposes from the one whose irony is a part of his char- acter. The former pretends detachment as a part of his ironic strategy, the latter really is detached, he says. ”The former, if he is a satirist, may be motivated by indig- nation, disgust, or contempt; but as an ironist he will con- ceal his real feelings under a show of dispassionate logic, gravity, or urbanity, or even go beyond neutrality to express the Opposite of what he really feels by pretending sympathy, earnestness, or enthusiasm." The latter, being really 15 detached, sees the world always ironically-~he need not pretend.26 From the common rudiments given above a more elaborate gauge of the modern ironic impulse can be constructed by briefly examining the attitudes of two authors whose works, it is generally agreed, most exemplify the scOpe of modern irony, Thomas Mann and Robert Nusil. It is mostly a matter of an ironic way of thinking that characterizes their writing, an attitude toward life and art that emerged largely from early German Romanticism and its primary theorist, Friedrich Schlegel. Schlegel, influenced by Fichte's subjective idealism and by Socratic Irony, had been preoccupied with the apparent antithesis between the classical and the romantic, between the finite and the infinite, between Objectivity and subjectiv- ity, between the rational and the irrational, between the ”Naiven" and the "Sentimentalischen,” between the absolute and the relative. He determined that one must seek to bring harmony to these Opposite perceptions, since it would be unthinkable to discard the values inherent in any of them. Irony became for him in effect a metaphysical principle, "das Geffihl von dem unauflaslichen Widerstreit des Unbedingten und des Bedingten, der Unmvglichkeit und Nothwendigkeit einer vollstlndigen Mittheilung."27 And the mood of irony is that "welche alles fibersieht, und sich uber alles Bedingte unend- lich erhebt, auch fiber eigne Kunst, Tugend oder Genialitatt."28 René Wellek says that for Schlegel, irony was "recognition of 16 the fact that the world in its essence is paradoxical and that an ambivalent attitude alone can grasp its contradictory totality.”29 Schlegel himself said paradox is the "conditio sine qua non" of irony.30 Romantic irony became variously manifested in the writings of many Romanticists, notably in those of Tieck, Hoffmann, Jean Paul, Novalis, Brentano, Grabbe, Chamisso, von Arnim, and La-Motte-Fouqué. But Schlegel himself con- sidered only one piece of contemporary literature to embody the essence of literary irony as he conceived of it, Goethe's Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre. His essay ”Uber Goethes Neister" reviews the spirit of irony he found there, a spirit which he later defined as "klares Bewusstsein der ewigen Agilitat des unendlich vollen Chaos."31 His review of Goethe's irony in "Lehrjahre" describes Thomas Mann's attitudes toward his Zauberberg remarkably well. Schlegel says: man lasse sich also dadurch, dass der Dichter die Personen und die Begebenheiten so leicht und launig zu nehmen, den Helden fast nie ohne Ironie zu erwahnen, und auf sein Meisterwerk selbst von der Hahe seines Geistes herabzulacheln scheint, nicht tauschen, als sei es ihm nicht der heiligste Ernst.32 One can agree with Hermann J. Weigand that ”the way Schlegel's review anticipates the temper of the Zauberberg is nothing short of amazing."33 ‘Muecke regards Thomas Mann's novels as ”almost programmatic examples" of Romantic Irony. He adds: "Their appearance, a hundred and more years after the theory, turns our embarrassment at the paucity of earlier examples into a recognition of Schlegel's astonishing ability to see in Romanticism the seeds of modernism.”3h l7 ‘ The source of irony, as expressed by Thomas Mann in Betrachtungen gigg§_Unpolitischen, consists in its middle and mediating position between mind and life.35 He viewed reality as dualistic and antithetic and, like Hegel, he saw Opposite forces at play in everything, so that disease, for example, could be, on the one hand, degrading and a spur to decadence, as with the musically gifted Hanno Buddenbrook, but in another light, the influence of disease could cause a person to become more sensitive and questive and thus pro- mote the ennobling of an otherwise very physically oriented person, as in the case of Hans Castorp, who ultimately achieves a kind of "Steigerung" amidst the competing sources of the sick and the sound. Mann believed that the challenges to Hans Castorp par- allel every man's struggle to assimilate the spheres of nature and spirit and to put them in prOper balance with each other. The ideal would be to blend these two forces into a perfect harmony. That he sought harmony rather than decision36 indicates how strongly he, as Schlegel, was aware of the sheer paradox of life, and that to achieve this harmony a person must know both sides of his being. Of Castrop he said: Was er begreifen lernt, ist, dass alle hOhere Gesundheit durch die tiefen Erfahrungen von Krankheit und Tod hin- durchgegangen sein muss; so wie die Kenntnis der sands eine Vorbedingung dEFrErlOsung ist. ”Zum Leben;'sagt einmal Hans Castorp zu Madame Chauchat, "zum Leben gibt es zwei Wege: der eine ist der gewahnliche, direkte und brave. Der andere ist schlimm er fflhrt abe§7den Tod, und das ist der geniale Weg.” Italics mine) Thomas Mann's stories usually focus on heroes who are not in 18 balance, who have so exaggerated one side Of their being, or certain elements of one side of their being, that, at some point in life, they experience the revenge taken finally by the other side: Gustav Aschenbach's denial of nature culmi- nates in a perverse outpouring of emotion; Adrian Leverkahn's agreement to deny himself normal human relationships brings him loneliness and tragedy in his later years. ‘With Hans Castorp it is a bit different, because the instinctual, somatic, and, in the beginning, latent intellectual tend- encies of the simple young man are receptive to the jostling around within the pedagogic atmosphere of the magic mountain. He leaves Davos carrying, at least for a time as far as we know, a synthesis of harmony. An important facet of Mann's irony, beginning with 225 Zauberberg, is his close attention to detail and exploration of content for ironical possibilities. Minute description of milieu and objects (which almost have life themselves), is enlarged to include scientific analysis of the illnesses prevalent in Haus Berghof, of Behrens' physical view of disease as organic, of Krokowski's view of disease as psy- chic; and toward his characters, penetration of their phys- ical and mental makedup. One feels throughout this long novel that Thomas Mann is enjoying his creation immensely, that he has a warm feeling toward all the many characters that inhabit Davos, in spite of their weaknesses, idiosyn- crasies, absurdities, and that he wishes to present every- thing within his purview, Object, milieu, character and idea, 19 in manifold light. The ironic temper of Thomas Mann, as Weigand so well puts it, is "self-conscious playing with its own content, reflecting it in a series of mirrors that make it sparkle on a succession of planes simultaneously."38 Thomas Mann's irony reflects Schlegel's theory of irony, in that it is the basis for an art which is progressive rather than resolute, that it forms the investigative atti- tude which explores both the subjective and objective sides of life, with recognition that man finds himself in a dynamic, paradoxical world where his own limitations force him to treat life and art and himself both seriously and unseriously. Similar statements would generally characterize the irony of Robert Musil, but we hasten to add, that Musil's irony is a good deal more complex than that of Thomas Mann. Each of these authors sought in his way to reconcile the paradox of life toward some principle which would be a more dependable guide to a significant existence. For Thomas Mann this was to follow ”den genialen'Weg” seeking not decision, but her- mony of fundamental polarities. For Musil it was to be ever-conscious of myriad possibilities, to see things as they are and, at the same time, to see them as they could just as well be but are not. Thus Ulrich in 933; Many; 2hr}; Eigen— schaften cannot commit himself to any one idea, ideal, or profession, because commitment would mean limitation to an unwarranted dependency on absolute, eternal verities. But what are these immutable truths? Diotima makes some dis- coveries: 20 Es zeigte sich, dass sie in einer grossen Zeit lebte, denn die Zeit war voll von grossen Ideen; aber man sollte nicht glauben, wie schwierig es ist, das GrOsste und Wichtigste davon zu verwirklichen, sobald alle Be- dingungen dafur gegeben sind, bis auf die eine, was man dafflr halten $011!, Jedesmal, wenn Diotima sich bei- nahe schon fur eine solche Idee entschieden hatte, musste sie bemerken, dass es auch etwas Grosses ware, das Gegenteil davon zu verwirklichen. So ist es nun einmal, und sie konnte nichts dafur. Ideale haben merkwurdige Eigenschaften und darunter auch die, dass sis in ihren Widersinn umschlagen, wenn man sie genau befolgen will. Diotima hatte sich ein Leben ohne ewige wahrheiten niemals vorzustellen vermocht, aber nun bemerkte sie zu ihrer Verwunderung, dass es jede ewige Wahrheit doppelt und mehrfach gibt. Darum hat der vernunfige Mensch, und das war in diesem Fall Sektionschef Tuzzi, der dadurch sogar eine gewisse Ehrenrettung erfuhr, ein tief eingewurzeltes Misstrauen gegen ewige Wahr- heiten; er wird zwar niemals bestreiten, dass sie un- entbehrlich seien, aber er ist fiberzeugt, dass Menschen, die sie wOrtlich hehmen, verruckt sind. Nach seiner Einsicht-—die er seiner Gattin hilfreich darbot-, enthalten die menschlichen Ideale ein Unmass der For- derung, das ins Verderben fflhren muss, wenn man as nicht schon von vornherein nicht ganz ernst nimmt.39 Diotima cannot imagine life without firmly established truths, yet she is awakened to a realization that truth can erode into doubt when counter-possibilities are introduced. A more reasonable attitude is to accept an idea or ideal on a tentative basis, receptive to the chance that it might not stand up under the challenge of closer inspection. One feels the hovering ironist here gently chiding Diotima for her naivete and hears his omniscient interpretation of her innocence: ”So ist es nun einmal, und sie konnte nichts dafur.” Tuzzi, "der vernunftige Mensch," who finds ideals too demanding does not fare any more favorably before Musil's irony. 21 The rival principles Objectivity and subjectivity both make claim to ultimate reality. Science attempts to drive out subjective factors by relying on facts, figures, and laws; the humanities, on the other hand, posit human characteristics, values, and purposes in seeking after truth. Neither polar principle offers assurance, but particularly does Musil ironize science, which modern men have held in such esteem: Man kann gleich mit der eigenartigen Vorliebe be- ginnen, die das wissenschaftliche Denken far mechan- ische, statistische, materialle Erklarungen hat, denen gleichsam das Herz ausgestochen ist. Die Gate nur fur eine besondere Form des Egoismus anzusehen; Gemfltsbewegungen in Zusammenhang mit inneren Aus- scheidungen zu bringen; festzustellen, dass der Mensch zu acht oder neun Zehnteln aus Wasser be- steht; die berflhmte sittliche Freiheit des Charakters als ein automatisch entstandenes Gedankenanhangsel des Freihandels zu erklaren; Schanheit auf gute Ver- dauung und ordentliche Fettgewebe zuruckzufuhren; Zeugung und Selbstmord auf Jahreskurven zu bringen, die das, was freieste Entscheidung zu sein scheint, als zwangsmassig zeigen; Rausch und Geisteskrankheit als verwandt zu empfinden; After und Mund als das rektale und orale Ende derselben Sache einander gleichzustellen -: derartige Vorstellungen, die im Zauberkunststflck der menschlichen Illusionen gewisser- massen den Trick blosslegen, finden immer eine Art gflnstiger Vormeinung, um far besonders wissenschaftlich zu gelten. Es ist allerdings die Wahrheit, was man da liebt; aber rings um diese blanke Liebe liegt eine Vorliebe far Desillusion, Zwang, Unerbittlichkeit, kalte Abschreckung und trockene Zurechtweisung, eine hamische Vorliebe Oder wenigstens eine unfreiwillige Gefuhlsausstrahlung von solcher Art. Mit einem anderen Wort, die Stimme der Wahrheit hat ein verdachtiges Nebengerausch, aber die am nAchsten Beteiligten wollen nichts davon haren.h0 Emphasizing the delusion of most peOple that their world is more or less stable and endurable, is the very setting and time of Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften which provides the dra- matic irony of the Austrian Empire on the verge Of war and 22 catastrOphe. The reader's knowledge of this impending turn ironizes the many characters' actions and statements. And in a less conventional manner Musil chides his characters by juxtaposition, by spotlighting incongruities: . . . stelle einen Windhund neben einen MOps, eine Weide neben eine Pappel, ein Weinglas auf einen Sturz- acker oder ein Portrat statt in eine Kunstausstellung in sin Segelboot, kurz, brings zwei hochgezflchtete und ausgepragte Formen des Lebens nebeneinander, so ent- steht zwischen ihnen beiden eine Leere, eine Athebung, eine ganz basartige Lacherlichkeit ohne Boden. The incongruity of General Stumm in a library, the contrast between Arnheim and his Moorish servant Soliman, MOosbrugger's perception of the world and the other characters' attitudes toward him are examples.“2 Or Musil may present Opposing points of view: SO war as einmal bei einer Ausfahrt fiber Land vorge- kommen, dass der Wagen an entzflckenden Talern vorbei- rollte, zwischen denen von dunklen Fichtenwaldern bedeckte Berghange nahe an die Strasse herantraten, und Diotima mit den Versen "Wer hat dich, du schvner Wald, aufgebaut so hoch da droben . . . ?" darauf hin- deutete; sie zitierte diese Verse selbstverstandlich als Gedicht, ohne den dazugehdrigen Gesang auch nur anzudeuten, dann das ware ihr verbraucht und nichts- sagend erschienen. Aber Ulrich erwiderte: "Die Nieder— 68terreichische Bodenbank. Das wissen Sie nicht, Ku- sine, dass alle walder hier der Bodenbank geharen? Und der Meister, den Sie loben wollen, ist ein bei ihr angestellter Forstmeister. Die Natur hier ist ein planmassiges Produkt der Forstindustrie; sin reihen— ‘weise gesetzter Speicher der Zellulosefabrikation, was man ihr auch ohne weiteres ansehen kann.” Von dieser Art waren sehr oft seine Antworten. wenn sie von Schanheit sprach, sprach er von einem Fettgewebe, das die Haut stutzt. ‘Wenn sie von Liebe sprach, sprach er von der Jahreskurve, die das automatische Steigen und Sinken der Geburtenziffer anzeigt. Wenn sie von den grossen Gestalten der Kunst sprach, fing er mit der Kette der Entlehnungen an, die diese Gestalten unter- einander verbindet. Es kam eigentlich immer so, dass Diotima zu sprechen begann, als Ob Gott den Menschen am siebenten Tage als Perle in die Weltmuschel hinein- gesetzt hatte, worauf er daran erinnerte, dass der 23 Mensch ein Hauflein von Pfinktchen auf der aussersten Rinde eines Zwergglobus sei. Es war nicht ganz ein— fach zu durchschauen, was Ulrich damit wollte; Offenbar galt es jener Sphare des Grossen, der sie sich verbunden fflhlte, und Diotima empfand es vor allem als krankende Besserwisserei.A This passage well-illuminates Musil's intention in.2§§ Mann 2hng_Eigenschaften (at least in parts one and two). It is to break down the usual relationships which bind peOple together as well as to their world. Ulrich gggg know better than Diotima, because for every idea he is aware of a counter~ idea, and for every subjective notion there is an objective notion. Ulrich is the man without qualities or characteristics because he is a possibilitarian who recognizes no absolutes. Among the constellation of figures that Musil places around him, Ulrich draws closer to a sort of void where the sub- jective and the objective cancel each other out. He cannot bring antitheses or divergencies into accord; all he can do is recognize them, and, by treating them ironically, rise above them, though not entirely.’ Parts One and Two of 293 Mann 933113 Eigenschaften iron- ize the ideas and ideals of peOple who take the appearance of their world as reality, whenever this ”reality” is too heavily based on either an objective or a subjective stand- point. In Part Three, however, Musil seeks to move on from the irreal attitudes of Diotima, Arnheim, the ”Parallel- aktion,” and the rest, in quest of a mythical utopia based on possibility. Pronounced detachment enables the ironist to see the world rather apart from himself (although never 2h entirely; he continues to ironize himself in another character or characters), and he begins to weigh the possibilities of a simplified conception of the world, stripped of present historical associations and bearing resemblance to present time only in the portrayal of perpetual human traits. But in so doing, he diagrams, as it were, what could be, instead Of what is, i.e., what is possible to be, not what should be. It is a search for the prototype or prototypical life. In Thomas Nann's Joseph-Series the myth plays in the remote past, but tacitly reflects historical repetition of the hu- man condition right into the present. "Das Wesen des mythus ist Wiederkehr, Zeitlosigkeit, Immer-Gegenwart."hh Rather than prying into the past, Musil looks to future horizons, to "den anderen Zustand,“ by modernizing the quest of Isis and Osiris to find complementary unity. The myth enacted by Ulrich and Agathe takes on the universal drive for fulfill— ment and harmony between man and family, man and society, man and self."5 The attitude which guides his thought throughout 225 Magn‘ghng_Eigenschaften is irony. 'Ironie ist,“ as he him- self defines it, ”einen Klerikalen so darstellen, dass neben ihm auch ein Bolschewik getroffen ist. Einen Trottel so dar- stellen, dass der Autor platzlich fuhlt: das bin ich ja zum Teil selbst."46 This definition embodies his principle of possibilitarianism as illuminated by incongruity. As in the case of Thomas Mann, the more profound irony emerges from the depth and breadth of the narrative. Musil termed it 25 "konstruktive Ironie." "Es ist der Zusammenhang der Dinge, aus dem sie nackt hervorgeht."h7 His point of view is like that of the experimental scientist or mathematician, whose approach to a problem is an inductive method which very often leads only to partial solution.h8 His manner of expression is less elegant than Thomas Hahn's; there is in fact, a con— scious stiffness of style, which does not depend for its effect on our usual conceptions of refined prose. It is rather, in Musil's words, "Mit keinem Wort, und mit jedem Satz etwas gesagt haben."49 Irony has broad application and manifestation, but its most elemental feature is Opposition. It proceeds from that, and therefore we believe Allemann's definition holds, except that we would prefer a slight modification to indicate the scOpe of irony more emphatically, thus: Irony is transparent Opposition between what is said and what is meant. SO con- ceived, irony can be a rhetorical device or it can be a complex literary point of view. It is clear that the modern ironist, exemplified most fully by Thomas Mann and Robert Musil, proceeds from a partic- ular, and perhaps peculiar, "Weltanschauung." There is a strain of negativism in his stance, in that he rejects a com- forting dogma, suspends judgement, and attempts to detach himself from the dynamism of a world which he so often finds illusory, contradictory or absurd. On the other hand, there is something positive in the ironist's capacity to accept this state of affairs and to laugh at, or at least smile 26 down upon, the human condition. For the ironist himself this attitude affords a measure of freedom, a means of rising above incongruity. For the reader, it may be as Kenneth Burke suggests: "Irony, novelty, experimentalism, vacillation, the cult of conflict-are not these men (he is speaking here of Mann and Gide, but we could also add Musil) trying to make us at home in indecision, are they not trying to humanize the state of doubt?"50 Thomas Mann acknowledges only two alternatives for the intelligent per- son: he may either elect to regard the world ironically or 51 If the latter choice is made, that is to say, radically. if he orients his life with imbalance to either nature or spirit, he will find himself innocently unaware, the victim of paradox and on the point of the ironist's pen. As in the case of irony, there are differences of Opinion today on what constitutes satire, amply illustrated in the strong Opposition of Helmut Arntzen, author of Satirischer 'gtil; ‘gug Satire Robert Musils $2.Méflfl.2§22 Eigenschaften, toward conclusions drawn by Beda Allemann in his Ironie Eng Dichtggg. Allemann regards satire in the more traditional sense, that is as representing a basically militant atti- tude toward an Opponent or Opponents with the purpose of exposing errors and folly.52 The Early Enlightenment was rich in satire as is well known. One can say the same of the preceding two centuries too, however. We think for example of the "Narrenliteratur," Epistolae Obscurorum virorum, Dedekind's Grobianus, and 27 Fischart's epic satirical poetry and prose in the sixteenth century and of Grimmelshausen, Gryphius' "Lustspiele," the satirical epigrams of Logau, Moscherosch's Philander von Sittewald in the Baroque age. What distinguishes ”Aufkla- rungssatire" from that of the earlier periods, especially the baroque, is an impetus arising from a new feeling that sees the world as less oppressive or at least becoming so. Enlightenment meant elimination Of Old prejudices and the breakdup of old bonds between faith and knowledge, religion and phiIOSOphy. The term suggests positiveness, love of freedom and human dignity. "Aufklfirung' provided the sat- irist with a tangible ideal by which to compare and contrast his fellows. Emil Ermatinger expressed the difference be- tween satire of the Baroque age and that of the Enlighten- ment this way: "Die Scharfung des Verstandes durch Kritik und Logik, wie sie das neue Bildungsideal der Aufklarung mit sich brachte, erleichterte, ja bedingte die Entstehung satirischer Dichtung."53 But it is also accompanied by a different tone: "Die Satire wird nun gegenuber der eines Lauremberg und Rachel freier, beweglicher, aberlegener und umfassender. Sie wachst aus einer ganz anderen Lebens- stimmung hervor. . . . Diese neue Stimmung ist die der Ironie als des Bewusstseins der Autonomic."5h There are of course similarities between satire and irony; indeed the terms have been used interchangeably. Both often signify less a form than a "Denkweise." They are both vehicles of ridicule and exposure of absurdity. Both 28 are frequently humorous (in the broadest possible sense, ranging from perhaps a smirk to a smile to a laugh). In this regard we would mention the term "Witz," which had a peculiar eighteenth century significance that it no longer bears. The earlier meaning is associated with the growing departure from the "Schwulst" of the previous period toward a mode Of rhetoric more closely aligned with Enlightenment ideals of clarity and simplicity. However, there was still concern for elegance in language too, and one was therefore ”witzig"when one rejected pathos and grand gestures and instead used language which was level in tone yet jocular. The playfulness of "Wits” led to that certain superiority and the "Pointierung" noticed in the poetry of the anacre- ontic rococo poets. It is easy to see that this ”Pointier- ung” eventually gave way to what we recognize today as a joke with its "punch line.” But what we observe here now is the delight of the eighteenth century man who preferred the immediacy of wittiness to more plodding diplomacy. Christian'Wernicke, the epigrammist, said: ”Der'Witz be- steht in einer gewissen Hitze und Lebhaftigkeit des Gehirns, welche der Klugheit zuwider ist, indem dieselbe langsam und bedachtsam zu Werk gehet. Ein witziger Mann, sagt man, ver- liert lieber zehn Freunde als einen guten Einfall, da her- gegen ein kluger Mann lieber zehn ganze Gedichte verbrennen, als einen guten Freund verlieren wollte."55 'With the unex~ pected culmination in a "Points," "Witz" has the capacity to be "scherzhaft" but also to be 'spbttisch,” and critical. 29 An author's involvement or lack of it in this critical aspect is for André Jolles decisive. He writes: "Je nachdem die Entfernung zwischen dem Tadelnswerten, durch das Spott gelast 'wird, und dem SpOtter, der es last, grasser oder geringer ist, unterscheiden wir wieder zwei Formen, die wir Satire und 56 Ironie nennen.” The point is well taken, because the stance of the ironist and the satirist are similar; they differ, however, in that the ironist is Often likely to be a victim of his own mockery whereas the satirist is simply superior. One speaks of self-irony but not often of self-satire. Parody too is a frequent device of both satirist and ironist. A general definition of parody is that it is exag- gerated imitation of a style with the purpose of satirizing or ridiculing either manners, ways of thought or both. The aspect of parody which is ironical is the indirection of it. The reader supposes what the author's true opinions would be if he were not reading a parody. The satirical side is seen in the criticisms inherent in the caricaturing of the style. The parodist Often picks for his subject something trivial or obviously inapprOpriate to underscore the ridicule. As in the case of irony and satire there is no history of parody in German letters. The very long article which appears in the newer Reallexikon‘dgg deutschen Literatur- geschichte helps to fill the gap, however. Liscow's parody is designated there as "critical" parody, about which it is said there are historically recurring goals: "parodiert ‘werden eine noch herrschende, aber absterbende, zu 3O fiberwindende literarische Strbmung, dann der persOnliche Gegner im Kampf zwischen den Generationen oder zwischen Ver- tretern derselben Richtung, und schliesslich wird die errun- gene literarische Macht gegen Trivialisierungen und gegen neue literarische StrOmungen verteidigt."57 We will show later where Liscow fits into this description of the paro- dist's intentions. We have pointed out some similarities between irony and satire, but they are not essentially the same. In the period under study, the Early Enlightenment, satire was defined by Gottsched as "ein moralisches Strafgedichte aber einreis- sende Laster, darinn entweder das Lacherliche derselben entdecket, oder das abscheuliche Wesen der Bosheit mit leb- haften Farben abgeschildert wird."58 More encompassing and aISO more accurate, we believe, is the following definition by Eschenburg (in 1783): "Die Satire, als poetische Gattung betrachtet, ist eine durch die Reds bewirkte, sinnlich voll- kommene Darstellung menschlicher Laster und Torheiten von ihrer nachteiligen und lacherlichen Seite, um jene zu be- strafen und verhasst zu machen, diese zu verspotten und zu belachen, und beides, den Lasterhaften und Toren zu be- schAmen und zu bessern.”9 Gunter'Wellmanns summarizes his findings toward a definition by saying "soviel ist klar: man kAmpft in der Satire der Aufklarung gegen Torheit und Laster; man tut dies, um die Menschen zu bessern bzw. vor diesen Mangeln zu warnen."60 And insofar as the satirist laughs and mocks his victim, Wellmanns shows it is the 31 aspect of ”Besserung" which demonstrates, "dass der Satiri- ker der Aufklarung mehr Moralist als komischer Dichter zu sein hatte, Obgleich er beides sozusagen in einer Person verei- nigte."61 Satire has historically comprised a criticism of human characteristics, conventions, and institutions, with its temper of expression running from gaiety to tragic pathos. The attack by the satirist on the negative qualities of the object assumes a tacit but accepted norm. The need for such standards may explain why there was such a flowering of sat- ire in the eighteenth century. Satiric attack may at times border on the sadistic; coarse, vehement language is not uncommon. Its traditional Objects have been especially, politicos, pedants, virtuosi, bigots, and parvenus. Allemann admits to elements of satire in Musil's novel, above all in connection with the "Parallelaktion," but dismisses it as the overall impetus of the work: ”denn das Stilprinzip disses Romans ist eben doch keineswegs die reins Satire, sondern vielmehr ihre Milderung und Uberfuhrung in die verhaltenere Form der Ironie."62 Arntzen, however, considers Allemann's conception of satire too narrow. Satire, he says, can no longer be today, "Verurteilung nach dem Massstab gesicherter sittlicher Normsn."63 Accepting Schiller's well-known definition of satire as his basis (”In der Satire wird die Wirklichkeit als Mangel, dem Ideal als der hachsten Realitat gegenuber- gestellt")6h Arntzen's view is that Musil did not allude to 32 any standard credo of human behavior in Der Mann ohne 65 Eigenschaften, but went beyond this to envision a utOpia. UtOpia and morality, Arntzen believes, are more the concern of the satirist than the ironist, even though both proceed to examine the ambivalence of human existence. The differ- ence is stated this way: "Der Satiriker wird 'Ironiker' und erkennt-indem er 'sich dumm stellt,' dass 'in allem etwas Richtiges stecke' und damit in allem auch etwas Falsches.66 "Aber diese Ambivalenz, in allem," Arntzen continues, ”ist es gerade, ”fiber die er sich nicht darstellend beruhigt, son— dern die er als tief Beunruhigsndes immer wieder aufruft, um zu beschwaren, was sein kannte (denn er ist UtOpist) und was sein sollte (denn er ist Moralist)."67 The ironist, on the other hand, does not, in his Opinion, share this fundamental concern with the satirist, that is, he does not portray the contrast between "Wirklichkeit als Mangel, dem Ideal als der hachsten Realitat,' but rather assumes an attitude of detach- 68 Arntzen asserts that ment from reality, "sin Schweben." irony does not present the firm critical purpose that satire does; satire is directed toward mockery of the disorder in the world measured against a utOpian notion of what the world could and should be.69 He seconds Kierkegaard in this differ- entiation of purpose. Kierkegaard wrote, ”Irony . . . has no purpose, its purpose is immanent in itself, a metaphysical purpose. The purpose is none other than irony itself."7O Further, he says that irony and satire have an affinity for each other in that they both perceive the vanities in life, 33 but they differ markedly in the setting forth of this obser- vation. ”[Irony] does not destroy vanity, it is not what punitive justice is in relation to vice, nor does it have the power of reconciliation within itself as does the comic. On the contrary, it reinforces vanity in its vanity and renders madness more mad. This is what might be called irony's attempt to mediate the discrete moments, not in a higher unity but in a higher madness."71 The consequential terms in Arntzen's case for consider- ing Musil's novel as essentially satirical rather than iron- ical, are "criticism” and ”utOpia." He regards their appli- cation to 1333 Mann ghgg Eigenschaften to be implicit in Musil's definition of his own writing style. Arntzen writes, "Konstruktive Ironie-eine besondere Art alsO-, das ist nichts anderes als das Ergebnis satirischen Stils, es ist ironische Satire, die, indem sis erkennt, dass in allem etwas Falsches und etwas Richtiges ist, zeigt, dass alles falsch ist, damit im Gedachtnis bleibe, dass alles auf dem Wege sein soll, richtig zuwerden."72 Aside from the fact that a new blurring of the terms is introduced here (“ironische Satire"), it is difficult to see where there is any important de facto departure from the ironic manner of thinking established earlier. ‘We could point to the discussions held on the magic mountain between Naphta and Settembrini who encircle Castorp with currents and counter—currents of thought, then see him later neces— sarily re-orient himself to the cross-currents interposed 34 by Peeperkorn. The confused, but eventually enlightened, Hans Castorp finds ”in allem etwas Falsches und etwas Rich- tiges” too, but in spite of life's paradox, he means to march onward. Of course Castorp goes off to war, and we do not hear from.him again, whereas Ulrich and Agathe aban- don the ”real" world in search of utopia. It is on this conception of the utOpian that the fine point of difference hangs in judging whether Musil's novel is in its essence satire or irony. If there is any distinction between satire and irony at all, then it must be that satire is more aggressive and definitive than irony. 'Within the tra- ditions of satire, utopia would suggest not only an ideal existence, a perfect (albeit imaginary) state, but it would also connote an end-point, a definite and decisive condition, an absolute. Utopia, in a satirical context, would not in- volve so much the process as the goal. But in Musil's novel the emphasis is on the process of attempting to reach the outer limits of possibility. MOreover, the attempt fails; Agathe disappears and Ulrich returns to Vienna. At this point the novel breaks Off and it remained unfinished, so further interpretation of the author's intention would be rather speculative. But judging from what precedes, we note once again that Musil seems to treat the whole of it as a great inductive experiment with no final conclusions in sight. This attitude marks the ironist more than the satirist. Kierkegaard's charges that irony is self-serving and has no ethical purport, that the ironist, as an observer from on 35 high, shmply affirms the madness of the world while the satirist seeks to destroy it, have been answered by Beda. Allemann, Ingrid Strohschneider—Kohrs, and D. C..Muecke. They have shown that the ironist is immanent in his work as well as transcendent, and that Kierkegaard misrepresented Romantic Irony.73 A point made by Muecke relates especially to our present concern. "The real basis of [Kierkegaard's] objections to irony is his commitment as a Christian to a closeddworld ideology."7h Commitment to dogma or to an unwavering moral standard of any kind is the one factor which most separates the satirist from the ironist. They are both critics of human ethics, but the satirist is more decisive and militant toward his victim or victims, deriving confidence of the rightness of his attack from adherence to a preconceived notion of what is right and what is wrong. Such certainty the ironist, at least the modern ironist, does not have. He is a questioner, a prober, he is suspi- cious of authority. He is more gentle toward his victims (of which he himself is Often one), his criticism is more submerged and subtle than that of the satirist, and he is most acutely aware of instability and contradictory pressures in life. The attitudes of Robert Musil, as discussed earlier, are more nearly that of the ironist than the satirist. Whether musil considered himself a satirist or an ironist will concern investigators for some time to come. Psrusal of his many, and often aphoristic, reflections on both irony and satire Offer the student of Musil as much 36 recondite, yet fascinating material as do Friedrich Schle- gel's thoughts on irony. That Musil was much aware of satire of course warrants its serious attention in interpreting Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften. The most satisfying explanation is to see irony and satire in a relationship such as'Wolf- dietrich Rasch does: Musil gibt ein umfassendes, alle Schichten und Lebens— bereiche umgreifendes Bild dieser Welt, wie es dem echten Roman zukommt. Disses Bild ist ironisch gesehen, und zwar trifft die Ironie alle Erscheinungen der Zeit, die reaktionaren wie die fortschrittlichen Gesinnungen, die Bewahrer und die Reformer, dis Opportunisten und die Sucher. Es ist eine grosse Satire auf das sterbende Osterreich, aber sie ist nicht lieblos. Musil entfaltet in seiner Darstellung einen satirischen Humor, der in die Grfinde des Verfalls hinableuchtet und die innere Aushahlung aufdeckt, aber nicht vergisst, dass sich hier ein tragisches geschichtliches Schicksal voll- zieht, auch wenn es komisch aussieht . . . ' 5 Rasch then describes the epitome of Musil's manner of satire: "[Sie] vermeidet die grellen Farben und lauten Effekte, sie ist immer leise, gedampft, subtil, arbeitet mit versteckten Pointen und ironischen Anspielungen."76 Excepting that there is no mention of the author's intention in this summary of Musil's satire, it comes very close to defining irony. But beyond that, the total impression is that a satirical element is used in service to irony. 'While strong attention is given by Musil to ridiculing a dying Austria, the larger concern is devoted to an open-ended quest for a more dependable univer- sal behavior. Dealing with the broader aspects of irony and satire, Morton Gurewitch tells us in European Romantic Irony: Perhaps the fundamental distinction between irony and satire, in the largest sense of each, is simply that irony deals with the absurd, whereas satire treats the 37 ridiculous. The absurd may be taken to symbolize the incurable and chimerical hoax of things, while the ridiculous may be accepted as standing for life's corrigible deformities. This means that while the manners of men are the domain of the satirist, the morals of the universe are the preserve of the ironist. Irony, unlike satire, does not work in the interests Of stability. Irony entails hypersensitivity to a universe permanently out of joint and unfailingly grotesque. The ironist does not pretend to cure such a universe or to solve its mysteries. It is satire that solves. The images of vanity, for example, that litter the world's satire are always satisfactorily deflated in the end; but the vanity of vanities shat informs the world's irony is beyond liquidation. ‘While admitting that both irony and satire may inform the work of a modern author, irony, that is, irony within the modern compass, must be regarded as the guiding spirit if the two are elemental in an author or his works. An ironic work may be ”satirical," just as it may be a melange of things, but the modern ironist proceeds with a mind open to every contradiction, closed to every rigid moral, polit- ical or intellectual canon. LISCOW IN CONFLICT WITH HIS AGE NO complete biography Of Liscow exists. The monographs by K. c. Helbig,78 G. c. F. L1sch,79 and J. Classeneo which appeared in the middle of the nineteenth century still left a great deal of his life unaccounted for, especially con- cerning the important formative years, and the last ten years are practically blank. Berthold Litzmann's Christian Ludwig Liscow 13 seiner litterarischen Laufbahn, published in 1883,81 was the last attempt at enlarging biographical data.82 Litz- mann had access to some correspondence between Liscow and the brothers Hagedorn, which had not been available to Helbig and Lisch. Nonetheless the major gaps remain. Litzmann's pur— pose however had been more to offer a balanced appraisal of Liscow and his works than it had been to reconstruct his life. His book was something of a culmination to some vigorous nineteenth century discussion of Liscow's literary "feud" with Johann Ernst Philippi which focused on the admissability and justification of personal satire. This of course helped to preserve interest in Liscow's writings into the nineteenth century. SO did the reissuance of his writings in 1806 by Carl Muchler, who counted Liscow among the "genievollsten Schriftstellern seines Zeitalters."83 It was MHchler's Opinion that Liscow ”verdient mit Recht unter allen deutschen 38 39 Satyrikern einen vorzflglichen Rang und in der Ironie hat ihn vielleicht keiner fibertroffen. Er ist der Swift der Deut- schen."81+ If Liscow was not appreciated by his contempora- ries, Mflchler wrote, it was simply because he was, like all eminent spirits, too far ahead of his time.85 But interest in Liscow faded for a variety of reasons. The revolt from the rationalism of the early ”Aufklarung" toward sentimentality and "Sturm und Drang” continued into the nineteenth century with the Romantic movement. As inquisitive as one was in the early nineteenth century there was little concern for the Early Enlightenment. Herbert Roch, looking back as he prefaced a 1939 reprinting of one of Liscow's satires, wrote that the Muchler edition came out at a bad time. ”Es waren die Jahre der romantischen Schwarm- erei und der verfeinerten romantischen Ironie, die sich fiber Lessings derbe Art unendlich erhoben dunkte und somit in wohl noch grUsserem Masse fiber Liscows."86 Some believe decisive Goethe's abrupt dismissal of Liscow as ”sin unruhiger, unregelmassiger JUngling" who did no more than find foolish people foolish.87 Jflrgen Manthey considers that Goethe's Liscow~Vignette is ”sine wenig zu18ngliche Charakerisierung;88 Lazarowicz calls it "indis- kutabel."89 Goethe was not entirely conversant with the circumstances. He apparently thought that Liscow had died after nothing more was heard of him after 1735, and his re- marks indicate he was as much concerned to chastize his countrymen for attributing to "Fruhabgeschiedene” talents to and noble character as he was in considering Liscow's satires.90 German satire was never more significant nor more pro- fuse than in the eighteenth century. The eighteenth century satirist's purposes, in contrast to those of his medieval counterpart, generally reflect an Optimism and hOpe for happiness in thig world. And while the common impetus was to enlighten and to foster improvements in his fellow hu- ‘ mans, the mere mention of these motives says little about the range or limitation of the satirist's efforts. Most satirists were not very sure of themselves, and proceeding from a strong moral awareness, they were bothered about the question of whether it should even be allowed to mock and dispraise one's fellows. Many also felt compelled to write a defense of their satire. ‘ It will be significant for us to establish the satirist Liscow in his time in part by contrasting him with the satirist-contemporary with whom he is frequently paired in literary histories, Gottlieb Wilhelm Rabener. Rabener, who lived from 171A to 1771, thus thirteen years younger than Liscow, was the most successful writer of satire in the Early Enlightenment,91 and into the 1770's his writings enjoyed "erstaunliche Wertschatzung und POpularitat."92 They were frequently translated into other EurOpean lan- guages aswell.93 Rabener's satires were published at first in Johann Joachim Schwabe's Belustigungen des Verstandes und Witzes, Al the monthly magazine which carried Gottsched's authority and approval, but later, when he, like many others, grew dissatisfied with Gottsched's stringency, he went over to the Bremer Beltrage. One of the founders of that journal, Gartner, was a friend of Rabener, as was Gellert. J. A. Schlegel, Hagedorn, Gleim, Uz, and Gessner were all within his circle of associates. Thus Rabener was comfortably ‘within the mainstream Of early eighteenth century life and letters and enjoyed the days of his life according to the personally set limits which he felt were dictated by common sense and virtue. He was by most accounts a gentle and good man, one to whom Early Enlightenment moralists could proudly point as perhaps the epitome of those sought and taught virtues which would bring the reward of happiness. Christian Felix Weisse attests that Rabener did not have an enemy in the world, and that even if others, being struck by the oft-times ridiculousness and unseemly behav- ior of people, became eventually cynical toward the human race, this kind of attitude could never have taken hold in the gentle nature of Rabener.9l+ Rabener did not make a profession of writing, but only spent his leisure at it. He was very happy with his reg- ular work, for which he showed, from early on, a propensity and inclination. Even as a fellow pupil of Gellert and Gartner at the Farstenschule in Meissen, he was most inter- ested and occupied with tax.matters, and he became, pro- gressively, revenue inspector in Leipzig, then later, #2 "Obersteuersekretar" and "Steuerrat" in Dresden. But even though he was not heavily engaged in his writing, he had a great deal to say about the conduct and . attitude of the satirist and about what satire should and should not be. In fact, the five essays he wrote on satire constitute nearly a quarter of his entire output.95 As a highly regarded man and the most pOpular satirist of his day, these writings must have exerted quite an important influence on his contemporaries. His two main concerns were that satire did not become mere pasquil ("Schmah- schrift"), and that satire always remain general and never personal. Thus the targets of his own prose satires, like the "Verlachkomddie" which Gottsched endorsed, are not named or suggested personages, but rather they are "Laster- typen" who display the foolishness, the vices, and the errors of the time-—misers, "Betschwestern," loafers, ignorant physicians, greedy jurists, pedants, corrupt clerics, and others. Rabener always aimed at the middle class, intent on improving the morality of his fellow countrymen, but he emphatically rejected attacks on the church and the author- ities of the state. In the following passage, taken from his essay, "Vom Missbrauche der Satyre," Rabener speaks of the "rechtschaffenen" satirist: "Das Ehrwurdige der Reli- gion muss seine ganze Seele erfullen. Nach der Religion muss ihm der Thron der Fursten and das Ansehen der Obern das Heiligste seyn. Die Religion und den Farsten zu be- leidigen, ist ihm der schrecklichste Gedanke."96 and 3?? she not mei dez sej LB Elsewhere Rabener rebuked as audacious any satirist who would present his superiors in an odious or ridiculing light; writers who did that kind of thing, he maintained, had not yet learned to be ”gute Unerthanen," so how could they teach us the "Pflichten eines vernflnftigen Bfirgers."97 Even schoolmasters and clerics should be spared satirical attack, according to Rabener, else the authority over pupils 98 (There is occasional vio- and congregation could suffer. lation of his own theories in the case of clerics.) It appears that Rabener's highest desire was that his satires should not be offensive to anyone. And apparently they were not. In a letter to Gellert, he expressed the wish, "dass meine Satiren das Siegel der Orthodoxie erhalten machten; und es ist mir immer erfreulich, wenn meine Schriften auch denen gefallen, die den Beruf eben nicht haben, witzig zu seyn."99 Rabener carried his sense Of what was permissible and responsible in satire to the point where he would rather be still about the truth than risk overstepping the bounds of candor which he thought might, in some way, serve to injure other peOple: So verhasst mir die Luge ist, so unbesonnen scheint es zu seyn, wenn ich allemal die Wahrheit reden wollte. Kann ich durch ein vernunftiges Stillschweigen so wohl meinen Pflichten, als der geselligen Klugheit, Genuge tun, so tue ich am besten, wenn ich schweige . . . der Schade, welchen wir durch eine unuberlegte Freymutig- keit uns selbst augenscheinlich zuziehen, ist wich- tiger, als der ungewisse Nutzen, den wir durch eine unbedachtsame Satyre zu schaffen suchen.1OO Lazarowicz devotes a chapter to Rabener's writing which Ah he entitles, "Die gefallende Satire," and says finally that Rabener's writings are not satire at all: Sie [Rabener's satire] ist das Produkt der Devotion, des Phlegmas, und der Eitelheit; sie nivelliert die Unterschiede zwischen der Torheit und der Bosheit; sie schsrzt wo sis eigentlich zflrnen, schelten und strafen musste; und das Unglflck liefert sis mitleid— los dem Spott und der Schadenfreude aus. Rabener, so kannen wir jetzt sagen, betreibt nicht das Geschaft eines Satisikers, sondern das eines wendigen Jour- nalisten. By "Journalist" Lazarowicz means particularly those writers in the mid-eighteenth century who often read, and frequently contributed to, the Early Enlightenment's favor- ite pedagogical vehicle, the moral weekly. As such, Lazar- owicz and others102 see many such writers as successors to the preacher, or as H. Scthfler puts it, "Moralische Wochenschriftsn schreiben heisst (im 18. Jahrhundert) Pre- diger sein, ohne auf der Kanzel stehen zu wollen."103 Rabener's work as a tax Official placed him in the daily operations of the absolutistic state, and his private life was directed by an adherence to prescribed enlightened principles. His satires reflect a moral norm, a tacit stand- ard of conduct, by which he measures his ”Lastertypen." Fear of the censor or of reprisal dissuaded Rabener from engaging in political satire, a rather traditional field of satire which is left blank by all the eighteenth century German satirists, including Liscow, and also by Lessing. Eduard Engel observed: 80 unaussprechlich elend waren die Offentlichen Zu- stAnde nahszu in ganz Deutschland, dass-sie nicht einmal zur Satire reizten! ‘Weder bei Rabener noch Rab fre wel Fre ein eir mus the 3‘0: bl< th. in; in ic ce be H it a; A5 bei Lessing, den unerbittlichen Zflchtiger aller andern geistigen Gebrechen seines Volkes findet sich eine Spur ifiifiifii’éiieiafifiiafi$23.32;:Zfir’iif‘éifi‘fifiam“ “m“ Rabener mentioned his awareness of this by citing the lack of free speech in Germany: "Deutschland ist nicht das Land, in ‘welchem sine bessernde Satire es wagen durfte, das Haupt mit Freiheit emporzuheben; in Deutschland mag ich es nicht wagen, einem Dorfschullehrer diejenige Wahrheit sagen, die in London ein Erzbischof anharen muss."105 Particularly as writers of satire, Rabener and Liscow must have been envious of the greater freedoms, especially the rather extensive guarantee of freedom of the press, en- joyed by the English. In 1688 England had experienced the bloodless revolution which shifted power from the Crown to the Parliament, and by the early eighteenth century the influence of the "rising middle class" was pervasive. Also in France the middle class was becoming more and more polit- ically aware, anticipating the upheavals to come later in the century. Compared to England and France, Germany was decades behind in advancement toward civil liberties. It is interesting to take note Of the role played by the moral weeklies in Germany when considering the climate in which the German satirists wrote. "Der Vernflnfftler" appeared in Hamburg in 1713, as the first of hundreds of moral weeklies to follow. By the end of the century there had been 511 of them in Germany (as opposed to 200 in Eng- land and 28 in France).106 They were largely concerned with the moral refinement of their readers, and also, GE ti (n In #6 especially in Germany, with raising the literary and ass- thetic level of their readership. Here again, the German moral weeklies contrast with the English, which also pre- sented political discussion. Prevailing Opinion about the moral weeklies has been that they provided secular reading matter for the non-spe- cialist reading public. Hettner, fOr instance, saw them as mental food for the "bildungs-bedurftigs und doch bildungs- verlassene Masse."107 Richard Newald says the articles in them were directed toward "den gebildenten Mittelstand," but then quickly adds that they are the "Lese- und Bild- ungsstoff des Durchschnittbflrgers,” and thus represent- ative of the thoughts and feelings of the German peOple 108 Pamela Currie suggests that in the eighteenth century. the Opinion of Hettner and the literary historians that follow him needs modification. The reading public, she says, is not constituted as they thought: "The writers of the best known early weeklies addressed themselves to the higher groups of urban society: the aristocracy, magistrates, university-trained professional men, wealthy merchants, and masters in the more prestigious crafts."109 Currie's re- search indicates the moral weeklies did not reach a broad cross-section of the population, because they were too expen- sive for all but the wealthy, and they also had a very lim- ited circulation. But their subject matter too would not have concerned a broader readership. Even though homely matters such as dress, good manners, and child care are dis and the how rm hon inf the J 02 ar] tin tht Fr: wo: it it st an 47 discussed, they are presented against a background of wealth and leisure.110 All the best known writers Of the time contributed to these weeklies, including Rabener. Currie says of them, however, ”the weeklies of the period 1711-50 did not bring new sOcial and cultural ideas into the generality of German homes," and "a large number probably exercised virtually no influence.”111 Unlike Rabener, Liscow's associations were chiefly with the bidweekly city newspaper. Liscow's younger brother Joachim Friedrich was for a true editor of literary-schol- arly affairs for the Hamburgischen Correspondenten, at the time, the most influencial newspaper in Hamburg and one of 112 the most prestigious on the continent. He, Liscow and Friedrich Hagedorn all contributed retiews to it. Note- 'worthy is the paper's general policy statement and the role it wanted to play as an organ of criticism: Die Wahrheit ist . . . unsere einzige Regel, nach 'welcher wir alle unsere Beurtheilungen abfassen. Sie leidet keinen Achseltrager und man muss sis ent- 'weder ganz bekennen oder ganz verlaugnen. Die Critick ist nicht nur bey der Gelehrsamkeit erlaubt, sondern unumganglich nothwendig. Sis war es, welche den Engellandern und den Franzosen die Bahn gebrochen, die Barbarey zu verbannen und die Pedantric von ihrem Trohne zu reissen.113 ' ' ‘ ' But as resolute and laudable as this sounds there was hes- itation about taking a stand on literary questions. It stemmed from an unwillingness to challenge the literary authorities, especially Gottsched.1lh So the period in which Rabener and Liscow wrote was a #8 highly restrictive one for satirists and polemicists. Jargon Jacobs summarizes the situation this way: "Sis [Satire] beschrankte sich aufs Private und die Sphare burgerlicher Moralitat,'weil man zu angstlich war, es fur moralisch nicht statthaft ansah Oder nicht das Bedurfnis fuhlte, Themen von allgemeiner sozialer oder politischer Relevanz aufzugreifen.”115 Perhaps all three of Jacobs' reasons might be applicable in the case of Rabener, but only the first could conceivably apply to his contemporary, Christian Ludwig Liscow, a very different kind of man than Rabener. It will not take many words to first sketch the outline of Liscow's life before returning to elaborate on those aspects which seem to us most significant in establishing his manner and character. He was born on 29 April 1701 in Wittenburg (Mecklenburg). .It is assumed he attended a "Gymnasium" in Lubsck, then studied in Rostock (from 1718) and in Jena (from 1721) and still later in Halls. ‘Who his professors 'wers is not known. It is probable that he heard Thomasius in Halls, but it is not certain. He began by studying the- ology, but eventually broke with the family tradition-his father, his grandfather, and his great-grandfather had all been Protestant ministers-and switched to studies of law. It is thought that he may have accompanied a nobleman on travels and that a long stay in France might explain his thorough acquaintance with French language and literature. He was in Lflbeck again from 1729 to l73h.whers he apparently worked as a tutorh-for a time in the home of the L9 ”Domdechanten." Lisch tells that one day the "Domdechant" had his two step-sons tested by one "Cantor Sivers." The boys did poorly on the test and Liscow was fired. The ”Can- tor" was the father of Heinrich Jacob Sivers who was later to be the target of Liscow's first published satire.116 Liscow left Lflbeck in 173A and until 1739 held positions as private secretary to the privy counselor of Schleswig- Holstein, Mattias von Clausenheim, then with Duke Karl Leo— pold von Schwerin, and finally with privy counselor von Blome. During these years he spent a good deal Of his time in Hamburg in the company of the poet Friedrich Hagedorn and his younger brother Joachim Friedrich Liscow. Liscow did not seem settled into a career until 1741 when he joined the staff of Count Heinrich von Brahl in Dresden, at first as Brahl's private secretary. The years he spent in Dresden turned out to be the most unsettling of Liscow's life, and ended with his forced retirement in 1750. He spent the remaining ten years of his life in apparent seclusion. ‘We will tell more about this toward the end of the chapter. An anecdote from his student days in Rostock, though apocryphal, seems nonetheless a worthwhile inclusion here to begin characterizing Liscow. According to the story (which was recorded by Liscow's sister), Liscow was to take part in the university's ceremonies commemorating the Reformation- ceremonies which would feature a "Streitgesprach” between Luther and Tetzel, the 'Ablassverkaufer.” Liscow was 50 assigned to play the role of Tetzel, but had really not pre- pared his part very well, and besides, at a Luthern univer- sity the debate could have only one outcome, namely Luther's victory over Tetzel and the doctrine of indulgences. The pre- sentation ran at first as prescribed, with Liscow playing his part according to the way it had been outlined for him, even if he did have to ad lib a good deal.’ But as they proceeded Liscow began to warm to his part and started to speak the arguments of Tetzel so effectively that the student playing Luther was not able to counter them. At this point the direc- tor of the university stepped in to aid "Luther," but by that time, it was impossible to alter the result of the debate; in fact, Liscow determined to go ahead and finish off his Oppo- nent, at which time the director called a halt to everything, and, with great embarassment before the assembled university community plus honored guests, he expelled Liscow.117 The story illustrates some things that we can generalize about Liscow. It presents the kind of situation that he 'would find ludicrous and therefore one that would call forth his satirical sense. Unlike the gentler Rabener, Liscow was less able to resist the urge to attack, even before a sit- uation as precarious fOr him as the one described above. A contemporary observer called Liscow's satirical itch ”das Zeichen der seltenen Klasse von.Menschen, die bei einem reiz— baren Gefflhl far das LAOherliche einen witzigen Einfall so ‘ wenig zuruckhalten kannen als das Niesen."118 While Liscow certainly would not defend the sale of indulgences, neither 51 could he submit to the speciousnsss and smugness of the Lutheran orthodoxy of his time. He countered sOphistry and narrow dogma with sharp theological dialectic, and did not hesitate to rebuke churchmen for hypocrisy. The position he took was similar to that of the pietists, although he cannot properly be called a pietist himself-he was too militant to find company with those quiet-spoken souls. Liscow was well-read in classic Roman literature, much less so in Greek, and only slightly in Italian and English, to judge by the quotations one finds in his writings. German authors were quoted less than French. He seems to have been drawn to French authors such as LaFontaine, Montaigne, Bayle, and others, including Boileau whOse thoughts on satire had considerable influence upon Liscow, which conflicts somewhat with the notion of Liscow's being the "German Swift."119 Liscow mentioned Swift only once, Boileau many times, in his writings.120 A Quite apart from possible authorial influences upon Lis- cow's writings is Manthey's surmise that Liscow's conscious- ness of being an "Einzelganger" so far removed him.from.other "bargerlichen" authors of his time that he was ever more strongly impelled to develOp his own writing style.121 This is quite plausible. Liscow has with little exception been singled out for the clarity and precision of his style and for his avoidance of ballast. His prose stands out in sharp contrast with that of his contemporaries, and his writing has been favorably compared with Lessing's in this regard.122 52 Further evidence of Liscow's isolation is his rejection of all invitations to join literary societies, such as the "Teutsche Gesellschaft" in Jena as well as invitations from prominent people, including Gottsched, who apparently sought Liscow as a collaborator for a "deutschen Spectator."123 This is a purposeful, selfhimposed isolation, of course, and reinforces the impression that Liscow'was not simply locked out of the mainstream, but rather that he did not want to associate with it. One recalls that that mainstream was in part typified by Rabener's innocuous satires, which 'were pOpular because they chided the failings of certain general, almost classic, "Lastertypen," and did not other- wise disturb the sense that the world.was properly and pro- gressively improving itself. It seems not to have been a time that was prepared to laugh at itself as a whole or to accept challenges to the authority of any of its institutions. It was an age which did not readily accept Liscow, and one has to wonder whether even Lessing could have been effective in the first third of the eighteenth century. Manthey re- calls the tendsncy towardsobriety reflected in Gottsched's banning the "Hanswurst" from the stage, as well as drama- tizations using masks, "Verstellung" and dialectic, scep- ticism and intellectualism, all of which are the raw mate- rials of Liscow's satire.124 The positive aspects of Gott- sched's reform measures, are, of course, well understood, but they were perhaps carried too far in the general con- sciousness of the changing society which, though Optimistic, 53 took itself pretty seriously. One becomes impressed that Liscow wanted to set a new tone and foster a truly discerning reading public by sati- rizing the pedantry, censoriousness, intolerance and dog- matism which was prevalent then. The Swiss Johann Jakob Bodmer, in fact, thought he saw in Liscow an initiator of modern German literary criticism.125 But Liscow would have had to challenge Gottsched repeatedly and probably come out from behind his anonymity (he was quite well known any- ‘way), as well as broaden the base of his own production in order to sound a new note effectively. He did not have that kind Of ambition-or so it appears, even though in l7h2 he ‘wrote a foreword to Heineken's translation of "Longin" (a piece made famous by Boileau), in which he struck out sharply at Gottsched and allied himself with Bodmer. For a while it was thought that Liscow might lead the campaign against Gottsched which.was then issuing more and more strongly from Dresden. But while further attacks appeared anonymously in the Dresdnischen Nachrichtsn, it has not been proven that Liscow took any further part.126 It is signif- icant, in any case, to recall that a self-conscious, devel- oping German middle class was not yet receptive toward either literary criticism or to polemic and personal satire. Bartsch says of the early eighteenth century: "Das lesende Publikum wollte sich nicht das Wohlgefallen an Werken, fur die as einmal Neigung gefasst hatte, durch ungnnstige.Ur- theile verkummern lassen; die Schriftsteller selbst 5h verlangten nur gelobt zu warden.”127 Aversion toward the very word "Kritisch" led Gottsched to justify its use in the preface to his Critische Dichtkunst.128 It was mentioned above that only the first of the reasons that Jargon Jacobs offers for the absence of polit- ical and social satire in the Early Enlightenment, that is, fear of recriminations, could possibly apply to Liscow, whose outspokenness brought him serious trouble toward the end of his life. On hearing that Liscow would be coming to take a position at the court in Dresden, the brother of Friedrich Hagedorn wrote that he feared for the satirist, and.warned: "Wofern er [Liscow] aber seine Freydenkerei in Dresden nicht sinstellet, und aus der Kirchenhistoris Weisheit zu pflegen meint, so wird er, wenn man dahinterkommt, sich Arger schaden, als er wohl glaubt."129 Hagedorn's remarks turned out to be prOphetic. Liscow spent the years from l7hl through 1750 in service to Graf Heinrich von Brahl, who from.l7h6 on was prime minister of Saxony. Liscow began as his private secre- tary and eventually became minister of war. Under Bruhl the stats finances had been so mismanaged that bankrupcy threat- ened. Bruhl pursued financial manipulations which made things ‘worse and brought on a wave of reproaches by his political Opponents. In order to extricate himself from a situation that he could no longer control, Bruhl charged that a con- spiracy was afoot against his government and had his two finance officers arrested. Then more charges were brought against several so-called accomplices, of which Liscow was 55 named as one. Investigations into the activities of the two finance officers continued, but charges against the accom- plices, who were threatened with sixemonths jail terms, were suddenly and surprisingly dropped-except in the case of Lis- cow, who by reason of statements made by one of the chief conspirators, was taken into custody. He was held for two ‘wseks under house arrest until he was finally taken to jail. A hearing took place at which Liscow was charged with having ‘written to King Friedrich II demanding that Brflhl be dis- missed from Office. Liscow denied the charges and was returned to jail. Some time later he wrote a letter to Brflhl in which he hOped to convince Bruhl of his honesty and innocence. He admitted that he had made remarks about the Prime Minister which were ”ungebuhrlich," but he denied having had any part in a plot against him. This candor only prompted Brflhl to order Liscow to reveal when, where, and to whom he had made the derogatory remarks. Liscow wrote two more letters to Bruhl in which he simply pleaded with Brahl to release him from prison: "Erbarmen Sie Sich aber*mich und meine Frau und Kinder, und schencken mir meine Freyheit wie- der."130 Up to this point no final sentencing had taken place. In the final disposal of the case on 18 April 1750, the two finance officers were sentenced to eight years im- prisonment and to life imprisonment, respectively (the latter ran only six years, however), and Liscow, who had spent several months behind bars, was released from prison on the condition that he never reveal anything about his 56 case whatsoever, and that he take up new residence away from Dresden within four weeks. He was admonished to be careful of his conduct on penalty of even more severe punishment than he had already suffered. In addition, all pay was denied him, and all his papers and manuscripts were confiscated.131 Liscow retired immediately to his wife's prOperty in Eilburg, where he spent the last ten years of his life. He received further warning from Dresden in January 1751 ”nicht ohne besondere Permission nach Sachsen zurflckzukehren."132 1Whether Liscow's fingers were sufficiently burned to prevent him.from taking up his satirical pen again is not known for certain. Friedrich Griess tells of a man named Gubitz, pub- lisher of the Gesellschafter, who in the year 1872 maintained that Liscow's widow had given her husband's manuscripts to a country person, who was in turn, entrusted to find a pub- lisher for them. But the person, after having read a few pages of the "Nachlass," burned them.133 A similar reference to lost Liscow writings was mentioned some thirty years earlier in the autobiography of Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubert. There Schubert tells of one ”Herrn von Pankuch" who had tried to collect Liscow's unpublished writings. The man related to Schubert: "Liscows arme'Witwe brachte dem Geistlichen sin Manuscript voll der allermarkigstsn Zeich— nungsn von der Hand disses unsern Swifts and bat ihn, es an einen Verlsger zu verhandsln. Der Geistliche hatts kaum ein paar Seitsn gslesen, als ihn sine markigs Pfaffenzeichnung auffisl und-des manuscript lag im.Feuer.”13h These accounts 57 must be considered apocryphal, of course, because they ‘were never further supported. Litzmann mentioned two unpub- lished writings that were taken from Liscow during the Bruhl investigations, which were only incompletely returned to him later. They were entitled 'Schrift wider des seeligen Herrn Dr. Lascher reflexions fiber die penssss libres" and 'Gedan- ken fiber die Historie von Jacob und Esau."135 But there is no further word on these. ‘We wish to complete this sketch of Liscow as ”Aussen- seiter" by reviewing his intentions as a satirist as we did earlier with Rabener. 'What Liscow had to say on the subject was much less voluminous than his counterpart, but much more striking, because it so emphatically departs from the more- or-less universally accepted credo of the true (practically unchanged between Opitz and Gottsched) that the satirist's role is to ridicule the shortcomings of his fellows in an effort to affect their moral improvement. And, as mentioned above, Rabener insisted that satire should not become more pasquil, that it always remain general, without naming the victim or victims, and that two subject areas, religion and the authority of the state, be considered taboo. Except for political satire, Liscow was charged with violating all these tenets plus a few more, by both his contemporary detractors as well as his later critics (including Hettner).136 Indeed, Jargon Jacobs seconds several of the reproaches raised against Liscow and indicates, therefore, which ones survive to the present day, namely, that Liscow was ruthless in his 58 personal attacks; that his claim that he sought the better- msnt of his Opponents by using satire as an ”Arzeney" was questionable; that his inclination toward sharp polemic makes him dubious as a satirist; and finally, that his Opponents'were "durchweg uninteressante und zweilichtigs Gestalten."132 The victims of Liscow's satires, "die elenden Scri- benten," as he referred to them, were, as Jacobs and others have said, unimportant persons-at least from an historical standpoint. And as manthey reminds us, Liscow violated Lessing's dictum for critics: "Einen elenden Dichter tadelt man gar nicht; mit einem mittelmlssigen verfAhrt man gslinde; 138 gegen einem grossen ist man unerbittlich." But Lessing might have been less magnanimous if he had been living and writing in the 1720's and 1730's. There were few great names then in German letters. Liscow challenged the profusion of silly articles, tracts, and essays flowing from.such undistinguished persons as Heinrich Jacob Sivers (or HMr. Hakewind" as Liscow refers to him in 1222.92. 3.13.223 ).]'39 Sivers was a university teacher in Rostock and a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences and later, a protestant minister. Johann Ernst Philippi was another Liscow target, who, thanks to his father's influence, received the professorship of Rhetoric in Halls. It is said, in fact, that he was chosen for the post over Gottsched. Philippi was a member of two scientific soci- lhO eties. SO although these two major Opponents of his 59 satires are indeed lesser lights, for Liscow they repre- sented an affront to the ”Gelehrtenrepublik" (or ”gesunden Vernunft") and to his sense Of good taste. He lamented the ludicrous pride and the audacity with which so much "Ge- schmier" was being laid before the public. He considered that the reading public was suffering much too much poor 'writing and wished for a more critical readership with the sensitivity and universality that seemed only to be felt in the general revulsion and rejection of fleas, mosquitoes, and flies. "Warum wollte man sich denn ein Gewissen machen, das gelehrte Ungeziefer auszurotten,” he asked rhetorically in the Vorrede to SammlungSatyrischer 2nd.Ernsthafter lhl and continued, "Es were wahrhaftig zu wflnschsn: Schriften, dass man noch empfindlicher ware und sich mehr Mthe gebe, die Welt von diesem Ungeziefer zu befreien. Es nimmt von Jahr zu Jahr zu, und ich weiss nicht, wo es damit endlich hinaus will?"lh2 Liscow's interest in both the cultivation of a more refined readership and his desire to take a part in hindering poor writing, largely describes the role of the literary critic. He always insisted upon the reader's right to judge something written and placed before the public. "Ein jeder, der schreibt, unterwirft sich durch dis Herausgsbung seiner Schrift dem Eigensinn seiner Leser."143 "Wann ich ein Buch kaufe, so erkaufe ich zugleich das Recht, davon zu sagen, was ich'will."lhh ‘Whether the book is good or bad cannot, of course, be determined by appeal to the "Obrigkeit"; 60 rather evaluation of a piece of writing is most prOperly the concern Of the "Gelehrtenrepublik," which recognizes reason as its supreme standard.“5 Should "sin baser Scribent” insult "die MajestAt der gesunden Vernunft,” then he makes himself vulnerable to rebuke.1A6 We have been quoting from Liscow's Unpertheyischs U233;- suchun , in which Liscow made his broadest-if somewhat broken and enigmatic--stetements about his concept of satire. The work is itself satirical and ironical and it purports to be a defense of the (unidentified) author against charges Of religious mockery. Early in this rather long piece we read that ”sine Satire greift allemal sine gewisse Art dsr Tor— heit an, und macht diejenigen lecherlich, welche damit behaftet sind" (II, 90). That definition is common enough. The target of the literary satirist, it is explained further, is not simply the foolishness or the mistakes which we all make. The attack is made upon him who is seen to be incor- rigibly and mistakenly enamored of his own powers as a great speaker and poet. Such arrogance is prOperly met with sharp satire in order to drive the Offender out of the "Gelehrten- republik" and to avenge the insult to reason (II, 175-79). "Denn an einem solchen Menschen ist alle Hoffnung verlohren. Er bessert sich nicht, wenn man ihm gleich seine Fehler noch so deutlich und glimpflich vorstellsn wollte; weil er ein- gebildet, er sey vollkommen" (II, 179). Thus improvement or correction is not the expected result of the satirical attack upon an arrogant transgressor. Satire is seen as an 61 effective instrument in the disputation of errors and fool- ishness and equal to serious criticism. One has, in fact, the choice of making a serious or a satirical response in a dispute. If he chooses the latter, writes Liscow, then he can present himself as approving the doctrine that he would criticize and draw conclusions that are so ridiculous that even the one attacked should be able to recognize the ab- surdity. ”Eine Satyre ist eigentlich nichts anders, als sine deductio 3Q absurdum" (II, 186). Astonishing departures from common sense cannot be answered seriously, according to Liscow; A serious response would not be worthy of the fool- ishness committed, and the clearest argumentation of a serious nature would be lost on the Opponent anyway (II, 187-88). Therefore Liscow, who assumes the mask of an impartial scholar in Unpartheyische Untersuchung, proposes that it is most satisfactory to regard satire as "Arzeney." "Eins Satyre ist eine Arzeney, weil sis die Besserung der Thoren zum Endzweck hat; und sie hart es nicht auf zu seyn, wenn sie gleich, als ein Gift, den Thoren tOdtlich ist” (II, 19h). Thus satire is a medicine from which the patients are ex- pected to die, but death brings new life, "dennin dem Tode, welchen sis [die Satire] verursacht, besteht eben die Besserung. Dieser Tod gereicht ihnen zum Leben. Sie sollen der Thorheit absterben und klug werden" (II, 194). Just about the time the reader is thinking how biblical this pass- age sounds, Liscow refers him to the source of his 62 paraphrase-the Confessions of St. Augustine (222$.Xifiél‘ 3225, Book VIII, chapter 8). It is clear that Liscow is playing with the reader here in a manner that we would describe as ironical. Moreover, it is difficult to gauge to what degree he means what he says about satire. At this point we can say that Liscow's intentions with his satirical writings do not correspond to the pervasive early eighteenth century Optimism and the reliance on gentle remonstrance for moral improvement. But we think a more revealing and accurate measure of his intentions will emerge by examining the writings themselves. LISCOW'S SATIRES: TRANSCENDING THE STEREOTYPE In this chapter we wish to examine Liscow's writings in order to determine the range of his use of irony. We will start by looking at Liscow's series of three satires against Heinrich Jacob Sivers.lh7 In 1732 Sivers, a young and especially prolific Lflbeck theologian, professor, and lately, member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Ber- lin, published a book entitled, Geschichte figs Leidens Egg Sterbens,wdgr Aufferstehung‘gng Himmelfahrt gggg Christi, aus‘gen_!ig£ Evangelisten mit kurtzen exegetischen 52mg;- knngemll+8 writings for some time and thought them a mishmash of ordi- Although Liscow had been aware of Sivers' nary, immature, and largely stolen ideas, in addition to his Opinion that they were exceedingly poorlywrittsn,149 he did not at first have in mind to make any response to them. But it happened that shortly after this book by Sivers appeared, it was satirized in an unsigned review which appeared in the Hamburgischen Correspondenten.150 Sivers was outraged. The review had included page refer- ence to such pseudo-scholarly commentary as this: Where the biblical text relates that the disciples brought the burro to Jesus, laid covers over it and then sat Jesus upon it, Sivers provides a footnote to explain that the disciples 63 6L did this so that Jesus could ride more comfortably.151 Elsewhere Sivers' linguistic interest leads him to explain in a note that the word "daheime," according to Bugenhagen's first edition of the Dutch rendition of the history of the passion, means "im Huse" in Low German.152 Sivers was sure Liscow was the unnamed reviewer and wrote a counter-piece denouncing him, which was printed in the thirty-third number of the same publication. Liscow denied authorship of the book review and attempted to convince Sivers of his inno- cence by urging acquaintances of the Herrn magistsr to inter- vene on his behalf. To no avail. Liscow relates in the Vorrede (I, 303) that Sivers persisted in berating him, but that he still had no thoughts of revenge. Meanwhile, Sivers' book was a general tOpic of conversation in Lubeck. During such a discussion with a friend Liscow boasted that if he wrote like Magister Sivers he could easily turn out a book every twenty-four hours. The friend encouraged him to do just that, so Liscow decided to annotate the ”Historia von der ZerstOhrung der Stadt Jerusalem,” which Sivers had , appended to his latest book. The result is an elaborate and close parody of Siver's work, consisting, like the original, of a preface, the text (of Sivers' "Historia") replete with notes, followed by three indexes, and finally a few pages listing the author's previously published writings. He called it KlAglichs Geschichte 322,233,jflmmerlichen‘ggg- stOhrung _c_l__e_r_ Stadt Jerusalem; mi; kurzenI §_b_e_r_ galley £1323- lichen und erbaulichen, Anmerkungen, nach dem Geschmacke 65 993 (S. T.) H3333 M; Heinrich £33313 Sievers, srléutertJ . . . 153 (One notes here already the parodying of long Baroque titles.) If the piece is simply considered a satire or parody directed against Sivers alone, then it is a trifle. Rather it is illustrative of Liscow's manner Of taking aim at a named offender while intending to hit anyone else standing nearby. In the preface to this satire Liscow assumes his favorite mode of irony-praising in order to blame, and immediately announces his intent is parody: ”Ich habe mir disses vortrefflichen Mannss Schriften zu einem Muster vor- gestellt" (I, 108). Liscow withholds his name in this satire as in all the others, identifying himself here only as "X. Y. Z. Rev..Minist. Cand.” He pretends to be a young man who admires Sivers and combines irony, wit, and feigned adulation: ”Ich hAtte hier die schanste Gelegenheit dem Herrn Magister Sievers ein Lobrede zu halten: allein ich thus es nicht, denn ich kenne seine Bescheidsnheit und weiss, wie wenig ihm mein Lob nutzen kann” (I, 109). The last two phrases of the sentence are of course purposely ambiguous»- another source of irony. Pretending defense of and ident— ification with his victim, Liscow scorns the zoilusss and momusss of this world who have of late sought to discourage so many writers like Sivers and himself from writing. As pretended ally of Sivers he expresses the scope of the expected critical reaction to his annotations, while at the same time exposing his true feelings. 'Da wird der sine 66 [Rezenssnt] sprechsn: Meine Anmerkungen waren lappisch; ich zeigte darinn weder Verstend noch Gelehrsamkeit. . . . " He imagines that a second critic will say he is young and there- fore not so much can be expected of him, that if scholars do not make use of his annotations then perhaps non-scholars can. He anticipates that a third critic will simply dismiss his book summarily saying, "Ich less dergleichen Geschmisr nicht" (I, llB-lh). He guesses that several more critics would say he never should have written his little book in the first place (ibid.). The ironic defense is sustained throughout the preface, and the review of Sivers' book which appeared in the H32: buggischsn Correspondenten is referred to as ”SchmAhschrift." In this guise Liscow also takes a satirical-ironical swipe at the Prussian Academy of Sciences for admitting Sivers into their society, "einen Mann, desssn Schriftsn so vor- trefflich sind, dass sine der beruhmtesten gelehrten Gesell- schaften in der Welt dadurch bewogen worden, ihn . . . zu ihrem Mitgliede zu erwahlen” (I, 115). And throughout, Lis- cow encouragss Sivers to go on writing and to pay no mind to his detractors. A biblical ironical parody ethrts Sivers 'Sey fruchtbar, und mehre die Anzahl deiner Schriften tAg- lich" (I, 121). The bulk of this satire parodies Sivers' pseudo-scholarly annotations of Christ's passion. Much of it is pretty silly, but than much of the original is too. Several pages contain six lines or less of text and the rest is footnotes to that 67 text. The first of the three registers which follow the annotations lists the biblical authors quoted; the second register inventories alphabetically the classical authors referred to-nothing else, just the names; the third regis- ter lists practically everything. Under the entry "Sievers (M. Heinr. Jac.)," one finds twenty-seven references, among them: sin vortrefflicher Mann 112 sin wackerer Mann 112 ist ein Liebling und Schosskind des Apollo 119 bringt seiner Vaterstadt viel Ehrs 121 macht ihr manche Lust 121 Finally, Liscow attaches a few pages announcing the titles of twelve books he intends to publish shortly. With one exception, Zitgga‘fgggtg, they are entirely fictitious and are meant as a parody of the appendage to Sivers' book in which Sivers had listed all his previous publications and advised his readers that if they purchase numbers 19 and 20 on the list, it will not be necessary for them to buy num- bers 5 through 17, etc. (I, 315). Liscow's. next satire, Ma £52232! may also be con- sidered a parody, and it continues the ridicule of Sivers' pseudo-scholarship, but this time the connection is not only theological but also scientific. According to LiscOw, Sivers aspired to renown not only as a theologian but also as a natural science historian. Liscow wonders in the Vorrsds whether Sivers' acceptance for membership by the "kanigliche 68 preussische Societit dsr‘Wisssnschaften" was the thing that later prompted him to explore the shores of the Baltic Sea searching for colored stones (I, 305). Sivers published a "Descriptio lapidis musicalis,” and shortly after received the ”Diplom" from the Prussian Academy Of Sciences. Thus encouraged, he published three additional papers in quick succession. Sivers did in fact claim the "scientific" dis- covery that on one of the stones he found, there were mysterious musical symbols, which he subsequently had etched in copper. This etching, together with an explanatory letter in Latin,151+ he sent out to various famous men throughout Germany for their comment and reaction (I, 305).155 Liscow's satire is once again directed at Sivers per- sonally, but has for its primary concern a much larger tar- get, namely, all Of academe. To Liscow it was incredible to think that a respected scholarly society like the Prussian Academy should have honored one like Sivers with membership, and the ridiculing of the learned societies and the univsrb sitiss is his chief interest in.!itgggwfgggt§. In fact, Sivers is not mentioned by name, even though it is clear that "Mr. Makewind' refers to him. The title Of the piece is Vitrea 32.922 293; deg Ritters W Clifton Schrsiben _a_n 2393a gelehrten Samojedsn, betreffend gig seltsamen g_n_d_ nachdenklichsn Figuren, 333993 derselbe ggg Q; m _s_t_._ 3_._ 9.12; 32; gigs; gsfrornen Fensterscheibe wahrgenommen. Aus dem Englischen ins Deutsche abersetzt (I, 173). The ‘words "Vitrea fracta,” which Liscow translated in the 69 Vorrede with "nichtswurdig, lappisch Zeug" (I, 305), is taken from Petronius.156 He probably placed the addresses of the letter in an exotic setting, that is, Samoyed in northern Siberia, in order to emphasize his contempt for what he deemed the fatuity of much of the academic world. Samoyed was, at that time at least, considered a barren wasteland and certainly not renowned as a center Of learning. The reason for placing the writer of the letter, Robert Clifton, in London and giving all the other characters English names is not so clear. Litz- mann is not sure but suggests that perhaps out Of admiration for Swift Liscow created the fiction of the letter having been translated from English to German.157 Swift's 2312 of g 4139 had appeared in translation in 1729, and England was widely held as the model of prose satire. It is probably just as reasonable to believe that Liscow chose this not uncommon device of ironists simply to remove himself further as author at the same time he provided the German reader with a little different perspective. And perhaps he thought that the victim of the satire would otherwise be too easily ident- ifisd. Vitrea fracta parodies Sivers' paper "Curiosa Niender— piensia" in which Sivers had described finding the mysterious musical notations on a stone. The situation is very rich in comic possibilities, and Liscow exploits them fully. It is his most readable and enjoyable satire today, because the fictive element is stronger than in most of Liscow‘s writings. 70 Jflrgen Manthey omits it from his recent reprint of some of Liscow's writings, because he believes it cannot be fully appreciated today. He says, our complete understanding is dependent on acquaintance with the "abwegigsn" content of a previous publication by Sivers.158 (That Liscow's piece should be in any way dependent on one of his victims, who 'would otherwise be altogether forgotten, is a bit of irony itself.) FWs agree with Manthey, but because most of it is understandable, and moreover, because it is interesting, highly entertaining, and says important things, we feel it should even be the featured satire of Liscow, more so than the usually selected Vortrefflichkeit ugg_Nohtwendigkeit‘gg£ elenden Scribenten. One should of course expect some of any writer's allusions to be Obscure if one is reading them over 200 years after they were written. In so far as the frozen ‘window pane is concerned, although the symbols may have some real references beyond those Liscow himself makes in the satire, it is more likely that it is mostly a collection of doodlings designed to accompany Vitrea fgacta. Liscow sug- gests they are quite casual when he says in the Vorrede, ”Es gelung mir einmal des MOrgens beym Thee, sin BlAttchsn Papier mit so viel wunderlichen Figuren zu bsmahlen, als ich zu meinem Zweck thtig zu haben vermeynte" (I, 306). This draws ing was included with the satire. (See Figure 1, page 71.) Liscow begins Vitrsa fracta by chiding the dogmatic attitudes of contemporary theologians. He has Ritter Clifton say in anticipation that some will scoff at his discovery of 71 h' IIII WWII \xéa “ I ”I II III II II II IIIII ‘II‘II‘ - "I‘ I :II‘IIHIII IIIIII IIIIIIII III! 'IIII III- FigIIre 1 72 the figures on the window pane, "Mich deucht, sins solche Fenstsrscheibe ist wehrt, dass wer dadurch nicht gerflhret wird, sin vollstflndiger Atheists sey" (I, 189). And later when Clifton brings an august group of wisemen and scholars together to attempt an interpretation of his findings, one Dr. Bromley offers that the images on the window are pro- phetic and full of mysteries; he is certain that although the church does not hold with new revelations, this is surely a message from God. These are but two examples of many we could offer that illustrate one aspect of rigid thinking or what D. C. Muecke refers to as the "closed ideology,” as” 'we mentioned in chapter one above. Liscow, who is trained and knowledgeable in theology, recognizes the absurdity of interpreting everything in terms of dogma. In the first quotation above it is implicit that if one does not defer to the pronouncements of the spokesman for the church, one is an "atheist”-—perhaps the nest horrendous name one could be called at that time. With the second quotation Liscow reveals how unbending he believes dogma remains-evsn to the point of disallowing any new miracles. But Bromley only indicates the nature of the symbols; the other scholars render Opinions too. One scholar sees in the frozen pane of glass the passage of Don Carlos to Italy, another, the unrest in Corsica; a third, the fate of the Pretender (I, 196). These are all references to his- torical-political circumstances of the time, and we could only guess at any satirical point Liscow intended to make 73 with them, if any.159 The events themselves do not appear to have been of the greatest moment, but the image of schol- ars who advance such absurdities further illustrates Liscow's lack of confidence in much of the learned world. He rounds out his indictment by ridiculing the mathematician, whom he causes to say that if only the numerical symbols on the win- dow were juxtaposed arithmetically, they would surely yield the guadra 353g circuli, and the metaphysician Opines that "wer die Zahlen 123A567890 auf alle magliche Artsn vsrsetzts, und die Summe, so alle diese Versetzungen, zusammen genommen, ausmachten, mit 666 vermehrte, und darauf mit 96 theilts, der wards seine Zeit nicht ubel anwenden" (I, 196). Finally, even linguistic arts are represented by the notion of the sixth scholar who believes the cebala is the key to under- standing the whole thing, hinted at by the Hebrew letters he sees on the window (I, 196-97). It is noteworthy that Liscow polemisizes the entire university community in Vitrea fracta and not simply one Of its members nor even one fac- ulty. He is saying to them that as scholars and scientists they are irrational and unscientific, closed-minded and pedantic. Liscow brings into their midst one Ritter Cock- burn who has not yet been heard from. When Clifton finally asks him whom he thinks has put forward the correct inter- pretation of the significance of the frozen window pane, Cockburn answers that it does not mean anything at all, because the figures were formed entirely by chance; however, he adds, ”hat . . . die Natur sine Absicht gehabt: so ist es 74 keins andere, als den verworrenen Zustand des Gehirnes vieler Gelehrten abzubilden. . . . " (I, 197). ‘With that unexpected interjection of good sense, the meeting breaks up, and Clifton is left alone to muse upon the origin of the figures-their significance having been effectively dispatched by Ritter Cockburn. In the passage that follows this, one sees how broadly based is Liscow's sense of the ridiculous and in how wide an area it is played out, because ‘where he had just portrayed such egregious irrationality among characters whom he satirizes as representative of the wisemen and scholars of his day, so does he then indicate that rationality is not necessarily more dependable than irrationality as a guide to straight thinking. He demon- strates by having Ritter Clifton reason his way to an an- swer to the question of the symbols on the windowpene. The 'window frosts, he writes, because a warm room has more evaporation than a room that is unheated. The sxhalations of bodies provides the moisture which always seeks release to the outdoors, but it is prevented from escaping, because when it strikes a cold window pane in winter, it remains there frozen, etc. etc. (I, 200). All this is, of course, entirely acceptable. But then, remembering that the figures on the window were noticed after holding a large party for scholarly people the day before, at which many and various subjects had been discussed, Clifton concludes that these icy images were formed from the thoughts of his guests by their frozen breath. Astounding as it may seem, Clifton 75 writes to the Samoyed, there can be no doubt of this. We believe it is Liscow's intention here to indicate that nei- ther irrationality nor rationality is a reliable guide to straight thinking, and that, indeed, reason untempered by common sense can lead to the greatest absurdities. Not only that, he indicates that a certain fatuity Obtains when he has his characters speak with such assurance and confidence. This utter certainty in the attitude of his opponents is seen in other of his writings often enough to show he con- siders it a part of the Zeitgeist. Finally, the evaluation that Ritter Clifton places on his findings presents another interesting aspect of Liscow's perception of society. Clifton writes that if the spoken thoughts of peOple are "recorded" on windows in winter, then it would be possible for the government to read the windows of all suspicious peOple every morning to find out who is disloyal, who is a troublemaker, or where trouble might be brewing. ”In dem mitternAchtlichen Theile von Grossbrit- tanien ware sine solche Besichtigung am nahtigsten," he con- tinuss, "weil daselbst die Zehl der.Missvergnagten so gross ist, als die KAlte” (I, 209). This is probably a reference to the spread of deism in eighteenth century England, which might partly explain Liscow's purpose of placing the letter ‘writer in England. Liscow was himself disparaged as a "free- thinker," and at that time deism was considered to be some- thing of a euphemism for atheism. The scope of Liscow's reference can, of course, easily apply to the lack of 76 personal freedoms in his own absolutistic homeland-psrhaps another reason for placing his central character in London. The last several pages of Vitrea fracta deal with the plight of one "Mr. Makewind” who seeks in vain to be accepted into literary-scholarly societies at home. Make- ‘wind is clearly Sivers who is soundly satirized, but the real thrust of the piece is a polemic against the societies themselves. Liscow suggests that these societies are taking people like Sivers into their midst simply to muzzle them, that is, they accept them with the understanding that they 'will cease writing-or at least publishing. Alas, that does not work. MOreover, such procedure appears to the public as an endorsement of the "elenden Scribenten,” all of which tends to support Ritter Clifton's contention to the Samoyed post at the close of the letter: ”der Microcosmos eines Dichtsrs hat sin so starkes Centralfsuer, dass er eben der Sonne nicht bedarf” (I, 23h). Liscow's irony in this piece has a good deal of scOpe; he aims not only at a single person, but at prevalent con- temporary attitudes and scientific and theological insti- tutions. By removing himself effectively, that is, by assuming the character of Ritter Clifton in London and by creating imaginative circumstances, Liscow has made his irony less direct than in most of his satires. There are two major types of irony at work here. One is verbal irony, i.e., our consciousness that Liscow is being ironical by employing a literary technique; the other is situational 77 irony, i.e., irony which is simply evoked by the circumstances. In the first instancs-through the Englishman, Robert Clif- ton-he presents the views of an earnest fellow who says in innocence what the reader knows is absurd. Clifton is Lis- cow's ingenu who believes to see plainly the sorry state that his own countrymen find themselves in by not properly hon- oring him and his colleague Mr. Makewind. The other aspect is the ingénu's self-exposure of ignorance and error, there- fore a kind of ironic self-betrayal akin to that seen in the Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum, the series of letters written by the pretended anti-humanist enemies of John Reuchlin. Not only is there irony in what the writer is saying, but the 'writer reveals himself merely by his part in a situation. Sivers, of course, recognized himself in Vitrea fgggtg, and he, along with those sympathetic to him, continued to denounce Liscow's writings as pasquil. They also charged Liscow with a punishable misuse of biblical language in his first satire, Klggliche Geschichte. The response to all this is the third and last satire directed at Sivers, called.Qg£ 160 Liscow’main- gighflgglbgt entdeckends X. Y. 2.. . . . tainsd anonymity here also, but in response to Sivers' frus- trated demand that he identify himself, Liscow gave his name as L-c-s H-rm-nn B-ckm-st-r, the thinly disguised name of an actual candidate of theology in Lubeck. Liscow's defense of this in the Vorrede is week; he said that no one did believe or could possibly believe that Backmeister was the real author of the satire, because Backmeister was the mildest 78 mannered of men and the whole episode, in his Opinion, did Backmeister no harm. However, he did publicly ask Back- meister's forgiveness in the Vorrede (I, 310). As with the previous satire, Liscow claims this one was printed at the prompting of friends (unnamed) who were enthusiastic about it (I, 311). Of interest for our purposes is what "Backmeister" says about satire as it augments statements on that sub- ject made in the 1739 Vorrede. In this piece he ident- ifies with his Opponent and says that, on the contrary, far from mocking Mr. Sivers, his intention in his Klggliche Geschichte was to demonstrate the highest regard for Sivers; and besides to be a satirist is to be critical; he is, he claims, very satisfied with the world and more likely to praise than to criticize (I, 25h). .Moreover, he maintains, it is dangerous to write satire. 0n the other hand, he expresses admiration for Magister Sivers as a satirist of the first rank and knows it would be folly to tangle with him. It is his purpose rather to imitate the Herrn Magister, he says. There is, of course, a contradiction involved here; it involves what Muecke cells "internal contradiction" and is a device used in order to tip off the reader to an incon- gruity and therefore to the recognition of irony. It soon becomes obvious that Liscow's pose in this ‘work is to praise in order to blame. In fact, he spells out this ironic device by anticipating that some will reject his defense Of Mr. Sivers as ”sin vsrstelltes Lob" and that his 79 real intention is to make Sivers appear ridiculous. Having said that, he denies it is true (I, 266-67). The ironical defense is continued when he again asserts his innocence saying that the only reason to suspect him of being ironical about his praise of Sivers is if Sivers does not possess the laudable qualities that he is ascribing to him (I, 268-69). Liscow concludes his account of the Sivers satires in the VOrrede by reaffirming his Opinion that Sivers himself had acted arrogantly and that his writings were unbearable, yet he was also prompted to record: "Er [Sivers] hatte viel Gutes an sich, und ich habe ihn immer far den besten und ver- nunftigstsn von allen meinen Gegnern gehalten" (I, 312). He refers to these satires of Sivers as "sehr heilsam," (I, 312) which is reminiscent of his contention that satire is good medicine. It was really on account of the satires of Sivers that Liscow become involved with his next victim, Johann Ernst Philippi (1701-1750), a recently appointed professor of Rhetoric in Halls. A friend of Liscow's had brought his Klagliche Geschichte to Saxony where it was not only well received but also gave rise to the request from people there for similar satirizing of Herrn Professor Philippi. Philippi had published numerous papers from the time he assumed his post in 1731. Liscow calls them "in hOchsten Grads elend" (Vorrsde, II, L50) andreports that various scholars in Saxony shared his Opinion, but no one wanted to attack Philippi out of fear of Philippi's father, then "Hofprediger" 80 in Merssburg, who had many friends in the "Obsrconsistorio" in Dresden. Even before coming to Halls, Philippi had a reputation which might be called adventurous. In 1726 he published a paper critical of the then extensive lottery in Saxony and was for a short time imprisoned. Had it not been for that he probably would have received a professorship in Dresden which his father sought to arrange for him. After his release from jail he went to Msrseburg to pursue a post as advocate. He was, however, an irritant to the court soci- ety there with his tactless occasional poems, and.when he also came into conflict with the duelling laws, it became necessary that he flee Merseburg. He proceeded to Halls where in 1731 it was his good fortune (at first) to receive the newly established professorship of German Rhetoric. His "Antrittsrede" had for its theme the rights of academic free- dom. It is significant to note here that among those from whom Philippi received congratulatory notes on the appointment was none other than Gottsched who had very much aspired to the position himself. It must have been a bitter blow to his ego that one such as Philippi was chosen over him to be ”der erste Uffentliche Lshrer der deutschen Sprache in ganz 161 Nonetheless Gottsched closed his letter of Deutschland.” best wishes to Philippi by writing, "Unsersr Gssellschaft gereicht es zu besonderer Ehrs, dass eben sin.MHtglied der- selben dazu tachtig srfunden und berufsnworden."162 The reference Gottsched makes is to the "Deutsche Gesellschaft" to which Philippi belonged since 1726. He was also a 81 member of the ”Vertraute Rednergessllschaft."163 At this time therefore, that is, in 1731 and before Liscow began his satirical salvoes, Philippi's academic reputation was rather sound. He even felt confident enough to write to Gottsched some time later to suggest that the two enter into a mutual exchange of their professorships. It did not take place, of course. It is, by the way, a nice example of situational irony. 164 When Liscow was sent the Sschs deutsche Reden the Heldengedicht auf den Kanig von Polenlés published by plus Philippi in 1732, he was astonished to discover an even worse violator of reason and good taste than Sivers had been (II, 451-52). Liscow did not know Philippi at the time, but the interested parties in Halls sent him infor- mation about Philippi and his circumstances. Liscow wrote an ironical eulogy to Philippi which appeared in 1732 under 66 the title Briontes‘dgg Jaggere.l "Briontes” alludes to a name Philippi called himself in a memorial speech before the so-called "Patriotischs Assembles" of Merseburg. This society was apparently patterned after a more prestigious one in Hamburg, whose members went to some lengths to con- ceal their identity.167 In the guise of an admirer of Philippi, Liscow begins Briontes with a Vorbericht in which the very first sentences were ones that later caused some stir among his critics and brought charges of religious mockery. ”Die Gesellschaft der kleinen Geister” (before 'which the eulogy to Philippi would be delivered), he wrote, 82 "hat einige Ashnlichkeit mit dsr unsichtbaren Kirche. Sis ist in der ganzen Welt ausgebreitet, und doch kann niemand sagen: Siehe, his oder da ist sis" (II, 5). Not only is the simils apt and witty, but it also alludes to the silly society mentioned above, the "Patriotischs Assembles," whose secretivsness led to concealed meeting places and the use of coded names-psrhaps a throwback to the practices of some of the "Sprechgsssllschaften" of Opitz' day. Liscow, in his, persona as "dsr kleine Geist" whose honor it is to eulogize Professor Philippi, carries this a bit further by advising that the outsider will not discover;ghggg the meetings take place any more than he will find out who ”der alters Herr Briontes" is (II, 6), but we are assured that the "Gesell- schaft der kleinen Geister” does in fact exist. If one believes there is an invisible church, a patriotic assembly, and a society of the dead in Friedensburg, one should have no trouble believing there is a "Gesellschaft der kleinen 168 Gsistsr." Of course, the mockery of secrecy also pro- vides Liscow or ”der kleine Geist' a natural and easy means of declaring his intention to remain anonymous once more before the public. ‘With the Vorbsricht Liscow sets the circumstances which then allow the full exploitation of his irony in the text itself. In this as in all his writings we do not have Liscow himself in mind-dwe only hear the voice of his per- sona or mask. In Briontes it is the voice of an admirer of Philippi speaking to the ”kleinen Geistsrn.” The eulogy 83 begins with a parody of Philippi's speech "Von den Rschten der Akademischsn Freiheit" in which Philippi had begun by exclaiming, ”Es lebe die unschfitzbars Frsiheit!" In Lis- cow's version the speaksr exclaims, ”Es lebe der Herr Pro- fessor Philippi! Hoch!” (II. 9). This outcry occurs several times throughout the eulogy, which is carried out in Philippi's own bombastic style. The piece is profusely provided with footnote references to Philippi's Sechs deutsche Reden, making it appear to be carefully constructed and scholarly. Liscow's own language Often closely parallels the phraseology of the original. For example, Philippi had said in the "GedAchtnisrede" before the ”Patriotische Assembles”: Es breche also nunmshro ohngehindert die verborgene Wehmut meines Hertzens aus der Quslls der Ehrerbietig- keit hervor, und ohnerachtst solche dero allerseits hellsn Gemnths-Augsn bereits unverborgsn ist; so verb mange sich doch mein Trauer-Ton mit den Klag-Liedern des gantzen Landes und erffllls die Luft mit lautsr gebrochenen Seufzsrn, mét einem bangen Ach! mit einem wehmfltigstsn Gsschrey!l 9 Liscow's parody of the passage runs: Es breche also nunmehr ungehindert dis verborgene Frauds meines Herzens aus der Quells der Ehrerbietig- keit hervor; und ohnerachtst solche Dero allerseits hellsn Gemuthsaugen bereits unverborgsn ist: so vsr- menge sich doch msin Freudenton mit dem "In dulci Jubilo" aller, so dis Verdienste des Herrn Professor Philippi kennen, und erfalls die Luft mit einem hellsn und deutlichen Vivat! mit einem frsudi en Hoch! und mit einem frohlockenden Jubslgeschrey II, 17-18). Even had he been able to sustain such close parody throughout, Liscow no doubt saw that the piece would be more effective, less monotonous, if he used a means that allowed 8h him greater freedom than parody, which of course depends largely on a model. So he combines with the parody blame-by- praise irony. Departure from the actual speeches of Philippi make it possible for Liscow to indulge his fondness for jokes based on ambiguity, as when he speaks in ironic praise of the-may we say here-"artlsssnsss" of Philippi's writings: ”[Professor Philippi's] Schriften sind nach dem Urthsils der Kennsr, mit solcher Kunst verfertigt, dass man Muhs hat, die Kunst darinn zu finden. . . . Er hat mit solcher Sorgfalt seine Geschicklichkeit verborgen, dass zu deren Entdsckung dis Einsicht eines grossen Staatsmannss erfordert wird, und die Weishsit dsr Schulgelehrten dazu nicht hinlfinglich ist. Diese Nachteulen blendet sin so grosses Licht" (II, 19-20). The close parody occurs only when Liscow wishes to highlight some of the more ridiculous notions Philippi had expressed in Sgghs deutsche 52923. A good example which runs several pages in Briontes is the discussion of Philippi's speech of lament on the passing of the queen of Poland. At some point during the speech Professor Philippi was apparently so over- come by his own rhetoric that he fainted dead away on the podium. ‘With some assistance, hOwever, he was quickly and completely revived and was even able to continue his speech. In commenting upon that incident in the six collected speeches, Philippi suggests that it would have a good rhetorical effect if one could, during a 'Trauerrede," manage to faint or per- form some other heart rending act (11, 5h). Liscow parodies this made-to-order material. "Der kleine Geist” extols his 85 master before the assembled "kleinen Geistern": "[Der Himmel] schickt dir [grossem Philippi] sine Ohnmacht zu, damit du Gelegenheit haben magsst, aller Welt zu zeigen, dass du wenn du halb tot bist, sine besssre Reds halten kannst, als alle andere Redner" (II, 5L) and defends Professor Philippi's new directions in rhetoric before the pronouncements of the an- cients, such as Cicero, who maintained that theatrics are only suitable on stage and not during a speech (II, 55). Liscow quotes Philippi frequently as he reviews his rules of good speaking and writing. Most Of Philippi's rules reveal the tenacity with which he adhered to the bom- bast and pomposity still thriving during this period on the edge of change; indeed, Philippi would seem to represent something of a revival of that kind of language. Liscow ridicules not only his prose but also his poetry. The ironic eulogy lauds the professor for his "heroische Bered— samkeit' and his refusal to be fettered by the artistic ' rules which are being promulgated lately. 'Abschnitt, Sylbenmaass und Fusse sind bsy ihm gar vsrlchtliche Sachen, und seine einzige Serge gshet auf das einige Nohtwendige in der Poesie, ich meyne den Rein. Disses muss ihm nohtwendig die Hochachtung aller Kenner erwerbsn, und, nach Art der Ochssnklufer, aus dem Hintertheile eines Verses von desssn Guts zu urtheilen wissen" (II, 75-76). . Briontes ends with an apostrophe to Philippi bidding him to complete the great work that he has started and to destroy the realm of false rhetoric. There is reference to 86 his position at the University of Halls and to his respon- sibilities there when it is said: "Lass die Spotter schwatzen. Man habe dich zu einem ausssrordentlichsn Bekenner der deutschen Beredsamkeit srkoren, um durch dein lshrreiches Beyspiel die Jugend auf eben die Art beredt zu machen, als die alten LacsdAmonier ihre Kinder durch das Exempel trun- kensr Knechte zur Massigkeit anfahrten” (II, 81-82). Here again Liscow has employed a developed verbal irony. It is overt irony, meaning that it is immediately perceived by the victim and the careful reader, because contradictions or incongruities are recognized quickly. A new element in Briontes is the creation of the "Gesellschaft der kleinen Geister," which, once set, becomes a situation that Liscow can keep going in successive satires, (though he later uses the phrase ”elende Scribenten" to designate targets of his satire). Klaus Lazarowicz sees this "Gesellschaft” as ”einen ironischen Spielraum, in dem sich sine totals Ver- kehrung vollzieht," and which, he believes, obviates Liscow's having to rs-establish for successive satires the framework on which his persiflags plays.17o Therefore, once understood by the reader, the irony emerges from the circumstances, so that the utterances of the ingenu admirer as "kleinsr Gsist' are understood to be incongruous and ironic. A further dis- tancing which Lazarowicz points out is effected by having "dsr kleine Gsist" function as publisher and commentator of his eulogy. In the Vorbericht he describes the ”Gesell- schaft" and the speech itself as an attempt to imitate his 87 master Philippi. ‘We may note here in passing that Liscow is by this time increasing his use of quotation from various literaturss- Latin, Greek, French, German, and others. His fondness for quotation does bear on his irony somewhat; we will return to this later.171 Briontes is a particularly sharp satire-"beissende 172 and is more directly personal Ironie" Litzmann calls it, than the previous satires. It even resulted in Philippi's students quoting it to him. Philippi's father tried to intervene on his son's behalf by appealing to two of his friends who were members of the Upper Consistory in Dresden to suppress further sales of Briontes. It was, they charged, a ”Rsligionsspatterey” (Vorreds, II, #53). Their suit found its way to the ”Bachsrcommission” in Leipzig which was or- dered to investigate, but that is where it remained-nothing more was done (ibid.). Meanwhile, Philippi could not discover who the author of Briontes was, and he compounded his plight by making the ‘wild and improbable guess that it must be Professor Gottsched. Gottsched replied and politely denied Philippi's charge, and it was later rumored that Gottsched named Liscow as the author of Briontes and also branded it an ”infames Pasquil," but Liscow writes in the Vorrsds that he did not believe this of Gottsched. In Briontes Liscow had compared "die Gesellschaft dsr Gsister” with the invisible church and had mentioned the 88 Bible in two other passages which were perhaps somewhat less than reverent, according to existing community stand- ards, so the satire was branded by some a mockery of religion. In this case Philippi's appeal to the police failed, but it is important to note that even Liscow's friends warned him to be careful. Friedrich Hagedorn-dwhom Litzmann believes 'wrote the review of Briontes appearing in the Niedsrsachs- ischsn Nachrichten of 27 October 1732173-cautions Liscow: "Nur machte sich das beredte Mitglisd der kleinen Geister, von welchem die philippischs Lobrede hsrkammt, disses lessen ins 0hr gesagt seyn, dass es sich der Redensarten, die eine schlschts Ehrerbietung fur die Schrift und Theo- logie an Tag legen, enthielte . . . wbhl hAtten wegblsiben magsn” (II, #83). Meanwhile Philippi, apparently undaunted by Liscow's Briontes, wrote (still in 1732) Sigbggflgggg Versuchs lg g2; deutschen Beredsamkeit, in which one of the essays bore the title, "Reds von dem Character der kleinen Red- ner; als sins vorlAufigs Abfsrtigung dsr Satyre Briontes,” and another separate essay was entitled for short, "Glsichs Brader, gleichs Kappen.'l7h Both of these were supposed to be defenses of his Sgghg deutsche Rgggg as well as a con- demnation of Liscow as a "Pasquillant" and a mocksr Of religion. But Philippi was not able to find a publisher for his manuscripts, at least not in Leipzig or Hamburg. However, two friends of Liscow's sent him excerpts of the manuscripts, and that was all he needed to pick up his pen 89 again to respond to his critics generally and to Professor Philippi particularly. ”Es verdross mich, dass man, ob- gleich msine Schriftsn von keinen Religionsmaterisn handel- ten, dennoch so drsiste und verwsgen von meinem Gleuben und Unglaubsn urtheilste, als wenn ich einen Catschismum gs- schrieben hatte” (II, #58). In order to answer Philippi adequately, he decided to publish the excerpts mentioned above himself-not because he considered such ”elendes Zeug" worthy of an answer, but more that he wanted to state his views on satire (Vorrsde, II, #59). The resulting work he called, Unpartheyischs Qgtggr 81101111—1’15 5133 £235.91 92 gig bekannte Satyre, Briontes der Jungsrs . . . git entsetzlichen Religionsspattereyen‘ggggr fallet, Eng 3193 strafbare Schrift s31 . . . be; welcher Gelegenheit gezsigt m .8239. H5; Professor Philippi 9.1-2 Schrift: ”Gleichs Bradsr, gleichs Kappgp;g§£::,uanglich gsmacht hgbgg‘kgggg.l75 Liscow attempted a great deal with this writing because instead of straightforward discourse or polemic, it is itself ironical and satirical. This time the mask he done is that of a disinterested third party-a scholar who has come forward to defend satire and the right to criticize. He can be impartial in this, says the scholar, because, ”Ich kenne diesen ungenannten Scribenten (i.e., Liscow as author of Briontes) so wenig, als den Herrn Pro- fsssor Philippi” (II, 101). Of chief importance in this long work is Liscow's dis- cussion of satire as ”Arzsney,” which we already outlined 90 in chapter two, and his clear defense Of literary crit- icism, whose main tenets are that whoever publishes must expect and accept public judgement of his writings and that the sharpest criticism must be permitted as long as the critic limits himself to comment upon an author's writings and not upon the author personally. The last part of this statement indicates the boundaries Liscow set between satire and pasquil. Liscow's demand for unhampered literary criticism caught the attention of Bodmer and Breitingsr. In fact, Bodmer wrote in the Vorrede to Breitinger's Critischer Dichtkunst: Der Geschmack an critischen Schriften ist bei der deutschen Nation noch nicht so wohl befestigt, dass man nicht nathig hatte, sis mit Vorsrinnerungen fiber gewisse Puncten einzufuhrsn, wiewohl man mit der grfissten Begrfindnis hoffsn ken, dass er in kurtzer Zeit insgemeins durchbrschsn werde, nachdem dsr unerschrockene Hr. von Liscov in dem philosOphischsn Werekgen: Unpartheyischs Untersuchung etc. das allgemeine Recht der Menschen zu critisiersn so vollkommen bewiessn hat, dass die Deutschen ohne Zweifel zu disfgg Geschmacke nunmshr genugsam vor— bsrsitet sind. But Bodmsr's Optimism here was a bit premature, especially concerning satire, since the public was still prone to sympathize with the victim. "Man denkt: heute mir, morgen dir, und lissst also sine Satyrsmit Furcht und Zittern” (II, 91). And apparently mockery of religion was always a safe reproach to make against a satirist if there was no other way of striking back. "Ist es dem D. Swift wohl besser gegengen?" asks the scholar in Unpartheyischs Unter— suchung. Liscow refers here to Johathan Swift's Tale 22 91 ‘3‘222. (It is noteworthy that this is the only mention of Swift in all of Liscow's writings.)177 The "defense" Liscow provides against the rebuke of "Religionsspfittsrey" is a curious one. The scholar says that some peOple have simply not understood the irony. "Der Briontes," he says, "ist eine Satyre, in welcher von Anfang bis zu Ende sine immerwfihrende Ironis herrschst. . . . ‘Wer nun entweder so blades Verstandes ist, dass er den verbor- gsnen Sinn einer Ironis nicht zu erreichen vermag, oder such so schwermfihtig, dass er allen Scherz ffir sfindlich halt, und in den unschuldigstsn Schriften, wenn sis nicht nach der Salbung schmecksn, nichts als Grsuel entdecket, dsr wisss, dass ich ffir ihn nicht schreibs" (II, 10h). Later, after having examined the allegedly offensive por- tions more closely, the scholar concludes that no one who knows what irony is would be offended (II, 132). A detailed analysis Of the pertinent passages of Briontes is not impor- tant here. ‘What is significant is that the response Liscow made is surprisingly unconvincing, and one hardly knows whether to take it seriously. Mere important is the imé plicit lament that many of his readers do not recognize ‘whsn irony is being used and that they do not have much of a sense of humor. As we noted elsewhere, Liscow's thinking was influenced considerably by the English. However, the position he des- cribes in Unpartheyischs Untersuchung is very like that of Boileau. Litzmann compares the two and says that Liscow's 92 satire, like Boileau's, lacks any rancor, "er ist scharf, witzig, stellenweise in seiner Ironis anscheinend grausam, 178 Much of aber er wird nie eigentlich bitter, gshassig.” ‘what Liscow writes on the subject of satire is, in Litz- mann's Opinion, a virtual paraphrasing of Boileau. Tet from his own day onward Liscow has been more frequently compared with Jonathan Swift.179 We would like to return to this question again later. Liscow turns his attention to Philippi again in the second part of Unpartheyischs Untersuchung. He remains masked, of course, as the unbiased scholar who refutes the piece "Glsiche Brfider, gleichs Kappen," and a refined irony proceeds from the notion that ”Kappen” is so foolish, so wretchsdly written that Philippi could not possibly have authored it. In point by point refutation the scholar dis- paragss both content and language of ”Kappen' repeating again and again that it was written by an enemy of Philippi in order to make him look bed before the public. He is sure it is a plot, he says, because the attitudes of Professor Philippi occilate so much in the "Kappen." At first he 'tanzt [ssinen Widersachern] auf den Kapfen, und aus allem, was er sagt, leuchtet nichts, als Hochmut, Trotz, Zorn, Rach- gierde, Grobhsit und sine grosse Verachtung seiner Feinde hervor" (II, 2A1). But toward the end, he says, the pro- fessor lays himself at the feet of his enemies. "Er lusset nichts als Demuht, Kleinmfihtigksit, Geduld und Friedfer— tigkeit von sich blicken"-proof positive, he believes, 93 that it must have been written by more than one person (II, 2A1). With this, Liscow indicates not only his dis- regard for Philippi as a professor of Rhetoric, but also doubts his sincerity as a person. Personal remarks of this kind approach the limits that Liscow himself set for satire. By pursuing the ironic ruse that Philippi cannot be the author, Liscow in effect pits Philippi against himself, and the scholar ends his remarks by admonishing Professor Philippi to seek out and defeat the author of "Kappen" rather than worry about any harm that could be done him by the unnamed author of Briontes. He advises that in so doing, Professor Philippi can save his honor and disarm his mockers (II, 256-57). ”Hat er diesen Feind besieget, und unter seine Ffisse gebracht: so kann er versichsrt seyn, dass er, durch dessen Nisdsrlage, die Quslls seines Jam- msrs verstOpfet" (II, 256-57). But far from taking Liscow's advice, Professor Phil- ippi insisted he did write "Gleichs Brfider, gleichs Kappen” and even had it included as a supplement in the printing of a new book entitled Cicero, gig_grosssr‘Windbeutsl, . . . 180 Another appendage to the book is called "Von acht Vsrthei- digungs-Schrifften gegen eben so viel Chartsquen," of which one was directed against Liscow's Unpartheyischs £3235: suchgng. So this literary feud continued. 181 involves a Liscow's third satire against Philippi further exploitation of the "Gesellschaft der kleinen Gsister" and is therefore a sequel to Briontes. It is 9L entitled, Stand- oder Antrittsrede182 and consists of two parts. The first part is an actual speech by Philippi, called Reds vom Charakter der kleinen Geister, which had been one of a collection, entitled Sisben 2223 Versuche in $3: deutschen Beredsamkeit (referred to above). In this speech Philippi had tried to match Liscow by pretending to address the "Gesellschaft der kleinen Geister" in order to berets one of their members, "Bockshorn," as he refers to Liscow, and in order to distance himself from their society. Philippi attempted irony as the device with which to carry off this fiction, but it is embarassingly clumsy. Liscow uses the speech just as it is but provides it with a new title, Stand- Oder Antrittsrede des (S. T.) Herrn Professor Philippi, gehalten $3 der Gesellschaft der kleinen Geister, which satirizes the custom of the learned societies of the time to have each new member give an inaugural address, to which one of the distinguished older members would immedi- ately reply. This is the purport of the second part of the satire, called Hafliche Antwort Egg Aeltesten g3; kleinen Geister, guf‘ggs (S. T.) 533:3 Professor Philippi Antritts- 3333. It is one of Liscow's cleversst inventions and over- all an effective satire, even if in so saying, one has to overlook his unauthorized publishing of one of Philippi's speeches for his own purposes. Concerning this "Manu- skript-Disbstahl,” Litzmann does not condone it but does point out that such things were looked upon differently in Liscow's time. "Wis im wirklichen Kriege galt auch in der 95 litterarischen Fshds jedes Mittel, dem Gegner zu schaden, ffir erlaubt.'l83 As further example he relates the in- stance of a Count Manteuffel, who for some reason wanted a certain manuscript of J. J. Lange's which had already been delivered to the printer in Leipzig. He prevailed upon Gottsched to acquire it for him. Gottsched did not take offense at the request and, as attested by letters, did in fact fulfill the Count's wish.18h Where Philippi had begun his ironic speech to the "kleinen Geistern" by apologizing for appearing before them unannounced, Liscow begins Hafliche Antwort by having the eldest among them greet Professor Philippi with jubilation and pleasure. The brothers are exhorted to lift their voices in loud "Freudengeschrey," and a footnote added later re- lates that everyone cried out, "Es lebe der Herr Professor Philippi, hoch!" with such enthusiasm that the elder had to wave at the members three times and stamp his feet four times in order to regain their attention. "Der Leser be- liebs die philippische Natfirlichkeit dieser Stells meiner Reds zu merken” (II, 290). This last is an allusion to Philippi's having said in Sgghg deutsche Ragga that some theatrics can have a good effect in giving a speech. Of course in his speech Philippi had protested any connection with the "Gesellschaft der kleinen Geister.” Liscow seeks to reverse this protest by having the elder express doubts that the professor's attacks on their soci- ety are really serious. He believes, he says, Professor 96 Philippi is simply playing with them, ”weil du nur blind schiessest und mit einem stumpfen Speer auf uns losrennest" (II, 293). This is of course meant to belittle Philippi's attempt to satirize Liscow. The elder, speaking for the society, implores Philippi to join them, because even though he mocks them, yet is he one of them. "Du bezeigest dich in deinem Spotten, in deinem Zorn, mit einem Worte, in deiner ganzen Anrede, als ein Ausbund und Muster eines kleinen Geistes . . . ” (II, 291). "Komm demnach, o unendlich kleiner Geist," he beseeches, "und nimm den Platz ein, der als unserm Haupte, gebuhret. . . . Sei unser Kanig, und errette uns von Feinden” (II, 363). With that the elder approaches Philippi to tender him "den Kuss des Friedens,” but Philippi, it is related in a footnote, pushed him away and stuck his tongue out at him (II, 36h). "Du sollst unser Kanig seyn: Du musst unser Kanig seyn, du magst wollen, oder nicht. . . . Du magst noch so hart darauf bestehen, dass du kein kleiner Geist seyst, wir wissen doch wohl, was wir glauben sollen. Deine Schriften bezeugen das Gegentheil, und eben dieser merkliche Mangel der Selbsterkenntnis macht dich in unsern Augen gross und ehrwflrdig" (II, 36h). Finally, Professor Philippi is further distinguished among the three types of ”kleiner Geister." "Einige Glieder unserer Gesellschaft geben sich far kleine Geister aus, und sind es nicht.” They cause the society "eitel Verdruss und Herzeleid" and are false brothers and secret 97 enemies. "Einige geben sich dafur aus, und sind es auch." These are "gute ehrliche Leute,” who simply lack stability. "Einige hergegen sind es, und wissen es nicht” (II, 365). Professor Philippi is, of course, placed in the last category as "den Besten unter den Besten,” (II, 368) and this third class makes up the ”Kern unserer Gesellschaft. . . . Selbst unsere Verfdlger bekennen, dass derjenige der grasseste kleine Geist ist, der es nicht wissen will" (II, 366). Liscow calls this satire "unstreitig die giftigste Schrift" that he wrote against Philippi, but at the same time considers that Philippi got what he deserved (II, L61- 62). Lazarowicz, commenting on Hbfliche Antwort, writes, "Die grimmigsten Zynismen warden hier im Gewand einer hyper— bBlischen Devotion vorgetragen. Dergleichen findet sich in der deutschen Literatur des 18. Jahrhunderts sonst hachstens bei Lichtenberg.” Further, he believes in this phase of the feud with Liscow, that Philippi is now more a victim than an Opponent.185 Nanthey agrees.186 So does Litzmann, who does, however, add that Philippi largely deserved to be ridiculed; at the same time he indicates that such a ”Verscharfung der Ironie" by Liscow must degenerate into personal animosity and points to evidence that Philippi is now being looked upon with sympathy by some.187 Liscow himself asks rhetor- ically, "Warum'wagte er sich in die Ironie, eine Figur, die ihm zu hoch war?” (Vorrede, II, #62). 'We think Liscow's words here are of some significance for our concern with irony, namely that he separates ”Spotten," closely 98 associated with satire and even sometimes used to define satire, and irony, which he indicates is a rhetorical fig- ure demanding considerably more finesse than his Opponent Philippi can manage. Liscow did not have really defini- tive things to say about irony as he did with satire-dis— cussion of irony and the naming of various types of irony was not vigorous until about the middle of the eighteenth century, and, of course, in the nineteenth century. But perhaps that does not matter so much-it is more reliable to examine what Liscow makes of it in his writings than what he actually had to say about it. That he refers to it as "Figur" in the statement above, however, suggests that he identifies it as a literary device as Opposed to an artistic attitude. The irony in HUfliche Antwort is manifold. There is the innocence of "der Aelteste” who believes Philippi's speech must be beyond him-—referring to Philippi's venture with irony. He tried to make literal sense of the words, says the elder, but believes there must be a 'geheimen Sinn," to them (II, 310-11). The effusive politeness to and praise of Professor Philippi is exaggerated to absurd- ity. There is ironic defense of "Boxhorn," the author of Briontes, whose ironic ”Lobrede" of Philippi is taken ser- iously by the elder and played against Philippi's protest that he is not a "kleiner Geist." A considerable part of this satire is also taken up with analysis of two other works of Philippi's, Mathematischer Versuch von der 99 Unmaglichkeit sing; ewigen flglt.and Thuringische Historie which Liscow uses to convince Philippi that he is indeed and undeniably ”ein kleiner Geist.” Liscow quotes from them fre- quently as he refutes their content. In so far as Liscow imitates the custom of the ”Antrittsrede” and its rejoinder, this satire is also partly parody. Of course the Antrittsrede itself is no parody--it is the original. Liscow expected Stand— Egg; Antrittsrede to be the last thing he would write against Philippi, and nearly a year passed before a new incident brought renewal of the lop-sided contest between them. Philippi had never been brought to silence by Liscow's satires, and when Philippi issued a new book in the spring of l73h, called Maximen g2; Maguise 32g Sable. 133 266 moralischen Bildnissen erlautert :_:_:_gu§_ggm_Franzasischen abersetzt, it was reviewed in the Hamburgischen Correspondenten by Liscow's younger brother Joachim Friedrich Liscow, who had become editor a short time before. His review was entirely sarcastic; he wrote for example, that Philippi was "eines zum Bathos gebohrnen, und durch Uebung darinn vollkommen gewordenen Redners" (II, 526). This was more than Philippi would tolerate. He complained to the "Beast" in Hamburg about the ”Studenten Liscow, der nichts als ein Zeitungsschreiber ist," and demanded that steps be taken to ensure there would be no further attacks of this kind. Apparently Joachim was admonished by the 188 authorities and was more restrained thereafter. Liscow 100 remarks in the Vorrede only that Philippi's petition or letter, which Philippi later had printed as a part of a larger work, was ”auf gewisse Maasse nicht ohne Wirkung” (II, A68). Perhaps part of the effect of it was to put him in a mood to avenge himself and his brother Joachim, or was it? He writes in the Vorrede, "die Wahrheit zu sagen, es verdross mich, dass der Herr Professor Philippi, nach aller meiner Mnhe, die ich mir gegeben hatte, ihn zu demuhtigen, sich doch noch so trotzig gebehrdete, und unverschamt genug war, mit Ungestflm zu verlangen, dass die Leute anders, als mit Verachtung und Abscheu, von seinen Schriften reden soll- ten." This Vorrede that we have so often referred to is deceptive. The quoted passage is an example of Liscow's way of seeming to speak forthrightly about matters in this after-the-fact review of his own writings and their circum- stances, yet he also seems to be playing with the reader. If one says, "Frankly, it made me angry that after all the trouble I went to to humiliate him, he still acts so arro- gantly and even has the gall to violently demand that people take his writings with other than contempt and aversion," we would not take that kind of language entirely seriously. We might, for lack of a more appropriate terminology say such a statement is uttered 'tongue-in-cheek,” but more accurately, we would say it is ironical, in fact, it is a good example of self-irony. The statement above from the Vorrede, however, is followed in the next paragraph by one that has often been quoted by those who have dealt with 101 Liscow's satires. He wrote, 'Ich wollte ihm [Philippi] demnach den Rest geben," meaning, presumably, that he wanted to put an end to Philippi's suffering by delivering one last satirical blow; As it happened, real life circumstances provided Liscow plenty of material to write Eines beruhmten (S.T.) £2352 Professor Philippi‘ggg 203ten gggi‘_l12&_§gggr troffen.189 It was reported that on or about that date Philippi had been beaten up by two officers in a Wirtshaus in Belle, and badly enough so that he had to be carried home. Liscow creates an attending physician who discloses that on account of a blow on the head, Philippi's ”Gehirn ganz umge— kehret, und just in die Ordnung gesetzet worden, in welcher es sich bey Leuten von gesunden Verstande befindet" (II, #15). This rearrangement of his brain causes him to realize how awful his writings are and, in last conversation with the doctor, he denounces them one by one. ”Ach meine verfluchten Schriften!” he cries (II, #08). A brief preface by the ”pub- lisher" accompanies the doctor's report in which the author rejoices at the unexpected repentance of a sinner and announces that ”Er starb, wie der Medicus vermutet, den leten Junius, Abends um 6 Uhr 53 Minuten. Eine halbe Stunde vorher wieder- holte er nochmal das gethane Bekenntnis von der Scheusslich— keit seiner Schriften” (II, #03). And Liscow ironizes him- self when he declares that "Ein stumpfer Prflgel muss das- jenige moglich machen, woran bishero so viele spitzige Fe- dern umsonst gearbeitet haben” (II, #01). A single blow on 102 the head could awaken a consciousness in Philippi that the sharpest satire could not (ibid.). Shortly after Glaubwurdiger Bericht appeared, Philippi received further blows "von haherer Hand," as Liscow reports it (II, #70). Philippi's star was fast fading. He was forced to leave Halle and his professorship not only because of the brawling incident; he stood in general disfavor with the university. He tried to procure a new position in Gatt- ingen, but his Halle reputation preceded him, and the pro- fessors he prevailed upon there turned him down, although he stayed in Gattingen long enough to edit for a short time a "Wochenschrift' called 22; Freydenker. He also issued a "Verteidigungsschrift,! in which it was his intention to set forth evidence that he was not dead, and he directed the most violent slander against two former colleagues whom he thought were the authors of Glaubwflrdiger Bericht.190 Now Liscow wrote his last piece against Philippi, entitled Bescheidene Beantwortung g££,Einwurfe,'we1che einige Freunde ge_s_ 3.9.23.1. D_. Johann @3323 Philippi . . . wider die N_§___ch- 191 In it the publisher £1222. :29. 22:33.29. 222.2 a__emacht 22.9.11- of Glaubwurdiger Bericht denies the account of some unknown person in the Hamburgischen Berichte that Herr Professor Philippi was still living and protests the "Verteidigungs— schrift" and its enclosures, apparently issued by the so- called ”geheime patriotische Assemblee,” which charges the doctor's report was purely a fabrication (II, 419-20). The editor is distressed that the unnamed person called him a 103 "namlosen Pasquillanten” in a public paper and the society branded his Bericht ”eine infame Chartesque” and him per- sonally an "infamen Scribenten" (II, #22). If he had falsely reported that Philippi had murdered his father and raped his mother he would perhaps understand such unre- strained invective, but all he did was to report the pass- ing of Philippi (II, #22); can that damage Philippi's honor, he asks? (II, #2#). Everything his Opponents charge him with consists of contradiction and sOphistry, he says (II, #26). At this point Liscow proceeds in word and tone as if his arguments against Philippi and the society are serious. If his report were false, he contends, Philippi would doubtless have issued a denial immediately. "Wer den sel. Mann gekannt hat, der weiss, dass er sehr empfind- lich und hitzig war. . . . Er schenkte seinen Feinden nichts, und so bald kam nicht eine Schrift gegen ihn her- aus, so war er mit der Antwort fertig" (II, #38). But, he continues, there has been no response from the professor, even though all Halle and half of Germany have heard of his demise; and the letter purportedly written by Philippi and being shown around by friends of Philippi's, is simply further proof that a fraud is afoot, because the letter does not contain the slightest trace of "Schwulst”-an ever- present mark in Philippi's writings (II, ##0). Finally the editor contends that the devil must be playing some role in all this, and whoever is not an latheist or Thomasian will agree with him. Pious Christians 10# know from the history of D. Faust what happened to Wagner at the marketplace in Wittenberg. ”Der Philippi, der jetzo zu Gattingen zu sehen seyn soll, [ist] nicht der rechte Philippi, sondern sein Gespenst, und also weit geschickter ist meine Nachrichten . . . zu bestarken, als verdachtig zu machen" (II, ###). Philippi did not fare well from this point on-Gatt- ingen, Halberstadt, Helmstedt, again Halle, Jena, Erfurt- in all these places he tried to establish himself again 'without success. He turned up in Leipzig "mit einer grbssen Last von Schmieralien, die er alle drucken lassen will," as Frau Gottsched reported it to Manteuffel.192 A letter to Friedrich Hagedorn from his brother written in l7#2 has it that Philippi, then seen in Dresden 'in Gestalt eines halben Battlers," had expressed the insight that he had written "bisher nicht viel gutes," but that, according to Hagedorn, he was not yet cured of his passion to pub- lish.193 'From his last writings arises the suspicion that he must have become deranged.191+ How ironical then that in one of his last writings he speaks of Liscow with such praise and understanding. . . . so halts ihn in allen Ehren, denn er straft etwas scharf, aber er meynts doch gut... . . Eben der den du etwa vor deinen Feind haltst, ist zur gleich ein Liebhaber eines gesunden Witzes; ein Liebhaber der Wahrheit und guten Geschmacke, ein Liebhaber der Richtigkeit, dass ein Schfiler seinen Lehqueister nicht fiber die Gebahr erhebe und gar zu einem Abgott mache, ein Liebhaber endlich der Freyheit, damit keine ggnarchia litteraria univer- salis aufkomme . . . 1 105 Liscow sympathized with Philippi when he learned of his distress, and it is reported that he even provided Philippi with financial support during these years,196 which would seem to indicate the extent to which he felt responsible for Philippi's plight, but at the same time it shows there was no rancor involved in his attacks. The work of Liscow's which has been considered his best appeared toward the end of 173# and before Bescheidene Beantwortung. It is the satire Egg‘ggg Vortrefflichkeit Egg Nothwendigkeit g2; elenden Scribenten grflndlich erwiesen 122‘:_:_: . The greater acceptance of this work than of all the others-i ‘was reprinted in 1736 and, of course, reissued with the collection in l739-can perhaps be explained by noting that it is no longer personal satire. The reading public, as we established above in chapter two, was much more atuned to Rabener's conception of satire and found Elende Scribenten, as we will refer to this satire, less threatening than most of Liscow's other writings. Although Sivers and Philippi are namedin it several times, they are perceived more as identifiable types than as actual persons. The emphasis of the satire lies more generally. It is the author's purpose in this work to say some- thing new, as he explains in the Vorbericht. His intention is to save the honor of the so-called "elenden Scribenten," and to defend him against his slanderers, to prove beyond doubt that his kind of writer is both outstanding and indis— pensable; he knows he is setting himself a difficult task, 106 he says (II, 5). In the first few paragraphs we recognize that Liscow is setting things up, so to speak. He is the anonymous admirer or sympathizer who has come forward to plead a case before his readers on behalf of a person or group that apparently does not effectively defend itself. He identifies with that group, which he calls here "die elenden Scribenten," where elsewhere they were ”die Gesell- schaft der kleinen Geister.” The ironic circumstances he creates are applied and sus- tained throughout. The reversal, or better, dissimulation is complete and uninterrupted. As Hettner observed, the type of irony which is most obviously at work in Elende Scribenten is blame-by-praise irony. But it is more complex a matter than that, as we shall demonstrate. Continuing the Vorbericht, the sympathetic (yet anony- mous) author notes that in order to unify against their detractors "die elenden Scribenten" must be able to recog- nize each other. A piece of ironic reasoning follows which also involves an exemplary use of quotation. The author calls upon Cicero who said that no one but a wise man can recognize another as wise: ”Statuere quis sit sapiens vel maxime vide- tur esse sapientis” (Cicero Acad. Quaest. Lib. IV). The in~ sertion of the quotation, given first directly then indirectly, adds nothing whatsoever in making the point, indicates no (zontext from the original, and is really quite useless, exp (zept that a readily identifiable name is injected as author- :Ltative. Liscow does this quite often and his purpose is 107 probably partly to ridicule the strong sense one had of authority at the time and also to indicate that one can prove practically anything by quoting, especially quoting out of context or without understanding. This is, of course, also an instance of irony, because he purposely distorts the conditions of the quotation, and offers it as proof of his own argument. Liscow's frequent use of quotation in this way serves more to remind us of his broadly based reading, than to delight us, because the effect, at least upon the modern reader, is minimal. Perhaps at that time they reinforced the ironical overstatement, that is, bringing a scholarliness to bear which is out of all proportion to the importance of the subject. This might have appealed strongly to an early eighteenth century reader who would have recog- nized the tacit image of true erudition contrasted with that of mere pedantry. Liscow's quotations are taken from Latin, French, German, Greek, Italian and English literatures—-in that order of their frequency.197 Following the quotation from Cicero the author of the Vorbericht says, ”so folget unwidertreiblich, dass ein slender Scribent ganz unfahig sey, seine Brflder zu kennen' (III, 12). It appears, it is further related, that nature has made as much difference between the good writers and the wretched writers as she has between human beings and unreasoning animals. A good ‘writer, it is explained, always casts his eyes above to the peak of Parnassus, which he tries to climb. The wretched ‘writer, being of nature heavy-headed, does not look up to 108 the heights but down into the abyss and sumps that surround Parnassus, and because he sees there below creatures who are even lower than he, he rejoices in the sight and believes he has already climbed Parnassus. "Der Parnass ist just so beschaffen, als die Leibnitzische Pyramids der maglichen Welten. Oberwerts hat er ein Ende, unterwerts nicht.” It follows then that even the "elendste Scribent” is superior to someone (III, 13-15). The Vorbericht closes with an appeal to all wretched writers to come forth and identify themselves. "Es ist ein- mal Zeit, dass wir die Larve abziehen, und uns in unserm natarlichen‘Wesen zeigen' (III, 17). They should have nothing to fear because they outnumber their enemies, we are told. The author says he has estimated their number at three-quarters of the scholarly world and considers that to be a conservative estimate (III, 18-19). He does not hesi- tate in the least to publicly declare war on "den guten Scribenten," and calling on the Parnassus metaphor again, asserts that it is silly to climb a rough mountain peak in order to find pleasure that is readily available without all that work in the valleys and quiet depths where they reside (III, 19-20). The satire proper which follows is based on a sustained ironic reasoning as Liscow's persona contrasts good writers and bad. The eighteenth century model is defined: "Wer unter die guten Scribenten gerechnet seyn will, der muss vernflnftig, ordentlich, und zierlich schreiben: In dessen 109 Schriften also weder Yernunft, noch Ordnung, noch Zierlich- keit anzutreffen ist, der ist ein slender Scribent" (III, 23). The reader may wonder at this admission, he says, but he will prove that the very lack of these qualities is the strength of the ”elenden Scribenten"; and the mockers will be silenCed. He freely admits the ”elenden Scribenten" do not employ reason, but asks, do we not have this in common with the good writers, indeed with all mankind? Historians, poets, wisemen lament the lack of reason constantly, and whoever would want to act 'recht vernunftig" should do the opposite of the majority. "Da man nun ohne Vernunft ganze valker regieren, Lander erobern, Schlachten gewinnen, Seelen bekehren, Rechtshandel entscheiden, Pillen drechseln, Recepte verschreiben, und ein Weltweiser seyn kann: so machte ich wohl wissen, warum es dann nicht erlaubt seyn sollte, ohne Vernunft ein Buch zu schreiben?" (III, 29). Reason only causes unhappiness, the argument continues, by depriving a person of his prejudices and making him critical to the - point where he would say, better not to have been born (III, 32-33). Liscow carries this denunciation of "Vernunft' about as far as it will go by develOping the line that employing reason causes a person to limit his desires, and by limiting his desires he becomes somnolent. Further, he says, the goal of all human activity is honor, advantage, and satisfaction of desire; if people were deprived of these, if reason prevailed over passion (die Affecten), then no virtuous deeds could take place and no one would want to 110 serve either church or state. And as one acts with reason, so he obeys the law, does what he should. Thus many human institutions would no longer be needed-—the armies, the courts, as well as the operations of commerce and trade ‘would become idle. The whole social structure would fall apart. This is, of course, a "deductio ad absurdum.” Lis- cow had used this phrase himself to define satire in.§gpgrr theyische Untersuchung. It is an effective means of ex- posing folly, he said there (II, 186). The SOphistry against reason continues. Witness all the trouble caused the church and the state by the practice of reason-it breeds rebellion and heresy, he declares. He appeals to the read- er's reason to disparage reason. "0b der mangel der Ver- nunft, den sie [their enemies] in unsern Schriften wahr- nehmen, ein solcher Hauptmangel sey, dass wir desfalls ver- dienten ausgezischet zu werden?" (III, #3). However absurd the reasoning has been up to this point, it becomes much less so when Liscow protests in the name of the ”elenden Scribenten," that in limiting their reason they are simply following the advice of some of the better writers. One of the best, he says, is Montaigne, who asserts that reason itself places narrow boundaries on human understanding which should be well understood within the scientific world as well as the literary world; he admits that reason is a dangerous tool in the hands of one who would use it im— moderately. Montaigne, it will be recalled, was the six- teenth century sceptic who incessantly asked the question lll "Que sais-je?" and fought against what he considered the false confidence in human ability to reason. He believed more virtue derived out of learning from nature. Liscow had read Montaigne's Essays and quotes him several times in Elende Scribenten. Liscow poses the question which occupied the eight- eenth century until it was effectively answered by Kant, that is, how reason should be limited, but he does not pursue the question himself to any depth, which is disap- pointing. Perhaps he felt it could not be dealt with in a satire. F. J. Schneider remarks, however, that he carries the irony so far that he becomes unawares the prOphet of the disadvantages of "einer einseitigen Verstandeskultur,” and if one were not conversant with his basic attitudes, one might think he were a champion of irrationality.198 The ironic defense of the ”elenden Scribenten” continues. Their despisal of reason allows them to produce truly won- drous books. Even their enemies are astonished: "Ist es maglich, schreyen sie gemeiniglich, dass ein vernunftiger Mensch dergleichen Zeug schreiben kanne?" (III, 60). Here is another example of Liscow's partiality for wit based on ambiguity. Interspersed in the ongoing mock polemic supporting "elende Scribenten" are Liscow's several criticisms-en— meshed, of course, in the ironic presentation-—of the low level of taste of the reading public, the unhappy fate of truly good writers, the narrow, usually dogmatic basis for 112 judging everything, the good fortune of wretched writers and the bliss that is theirs in ignorance. Publishers are scorned for growing rich by printing rubbish-"Ich machte . . . gerne wissen, was die armen Buchfuhrer und Buchdrucker wohl anfangen wollten, wenn keine elenden Scri- benten in der Welt waren?" (III, 12#-25). The other marks of good writers, ”Ordnung" and "Zier- lichkeit” are not neglected but are not so thoroughly treated as 'Vernunft.” ”Was die 0rdnung der warter unter sich anlanget: so bilde ich mir ein, wir thun genug, wenn 'wir sie so setzen, dass die meiste Zeit, ein Verstand her- auskammt" (III, 111). One can peruse the book of an ”elen- den Scribenten," he says, and he will always find order to it. In fact, he goes on, even our enemies, the good.writers, say one can read them from back to front as well as from front to back without any risk of confusion (III, 11#). And on their lack of elegance comes the polemic: Ich sage nur, dass ich und meines gleichen elende Scribenten besser thun, wenn wir uns der gekunstelten und zierlichen Schreibart, in welcher unsere Feinde ihr Vergnfigen suchen, ganzlich enthalten. Denn gewiss die gar zu angstliche Sorgfalt, mit welcher die guten Scribenten ihre Worte aussuchen, und ihre Schriften schmucken, stehet einem weisen Mann, der sich mit Kleinigkeiten nicht aufhalt, ganz und gar nicht an. . . . (III, 122) JLiscow no doubt had himself strongly in mind when he wrote that passage. His great care with the language has been <=onsidered outstanding by all who have written about him. The piece culminates in an ironic appeal to public 113 leaders and to the clergy to continue their protection of the ”elenden Scribenten" and particularly to defend them against satirists. These two groups are recurrent targets in Liscow‘s mockery, except that he is less direct and cir- cumspect with them than with his personal opponents. There is not really much new in this work, if one knows all the other satires that have gone before, but it is very skillfully executed. It suffers from being repetitive and it is too long, but Liscow is by now well-practiced and comp fortable as an ironist, and it is one Of his best works. The irony that Liscow uses here as in other satires is mostly verbal. Ironic opposition is effected when he praises in order to blame (”die elenden Scribenten") and when he blames in order to praise ("die guten Scribenten”). The ironic defense Of his victims entails pretended agreement with them, sympathy with them and advice to them. He attacks the victim's critics by SOphistic reasoning reduced to ab- surdity. He feigns adulation and semetimes parodies his victim's manner Of speaking and writing. Ambiguity is pro- fuse and usually forms the basis for his wit. Opposition is common to all irony, but it does not necessarily imply that we should assume that exactly the Opposite of what the ironist says is what is meant. His real meaning may contain more than he says or something other than he says. In Elende Scribenten, for example, Liscow indicates there are many facets to the human capac- ity to reason. 0n the basis of ironic Opposition we cannot ll# be sure of his own standpoint, since on the one hand he employs an ironic reasoning, drawing it to absurd lengths, then on the other hand he injects a pertinent reminder from Montaigne on the limitations of reason. ‘What his own true Opinions are must sometimes be surmised, which is an aspect that Liscow shares with modern ironists. His irony is so pervasive that one is not always sure how to interpret what he says. Furthermore, there is no finality about his sat- ire, that is, it does not solve, it is not conclusive, nothing is changed at the end. And the moral tendenz which characterizes most Of the satire, if not literature gener— ally, in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century is missing. ‘We would second Klaus Lazarowicz when he writes: [Liscow's] Satiren haben keine moralischen Rezepte, weder Belehrendes noch Erbauliches anzubieten: wo das gelegentlich geschieht (wie etwa in der Unparthey— ischen Untersuchung), wird der Ernst einer bestimmten fiberieugung Oder Meinung durch die Selbst-Ironie wieder annihiliert.l99 Lazarowicz believes that Liscow had no interest in asserting a moral superiority in contest with Opponents who were not his intellectual equal; if that had been his pur- pose, no such refined satire would have been necessary. At base, he contends, most of Liscow's works are the monologs Of a satirical intellect, whose "Opponents" are really only Objects in a "Selbst-inszenierung” designed to provide "geistliche Kfltzelung"-a phrase Liscow used. Further, he sees the satires as allowing no reply by an Opponent. "Als Partner erkennt Liscow nur den Leser an, der . . . seine ironische Zweideutigkeit zu entschlflsseln weiss."200 115 We agree, but Lazarowicz' reference to Liscow's satire as ”zwecklose Satire," strikes us as a contradiction of terms. He sees Liscow's "verkehrte Welt" ("die Gesellschaft der kleinen Geister,” "die Gemeinschaft der elenden Scriben- ten") as an "erdichtete" literary autonomy which affords Liscow the intellectual and aesthetic pleasure of sovereign play. Although he admits there could be no satire if there ‘were not at least the appearance Of a bond to religious, moral, political or ideological norms, ideas and interests, he writes Of Liscow: "Zwar gefallt er sich bis zuletzt im Habitus eines Rachers der beleidigten Vernunft. Allein diese Haltung ist nur noch Kostam."201 This would be a curious pose for a satirist to take. In fact, we question whether one remains a genuine satirist if the moralistic tendenz or the role of avenger of a violated norm is as casual as Lazarowicz suggests. It is more satisfactory to think that Liscow‘s basic personal motivations derive as much from his instincts as an ironist as from those of a satirist, or at least as a combination Of these. The Oppo- sition inherent in irony elicits a manifold view of things which is not bounded by a limiting moral measuring stick. Moreover the ironic impulse is habitual, and as many iron- ists have been aware, it seems by its nature to have a power to corrupt the ironist, to bring him tO nihilistic tendencies, or perhaps short of that, to produce in him a mental shrug Of the shoulders. In the case of Liscow we have foremost a satirist who uses irony. There is nothing 116 uncommon about that, but Liscow's irony is so pervasive that it melds with the satire. It is no longer merely a device used to enhance the satire but rather becomes an integral force which makes its author both satirist and ironist as Opposed to the satirist who simply employs irony. sporadically. This combination serves to attenuate the satirical bent enough to account for the apparent purpose- lessness that Liscow displays as a satirist when he departs from the usual eighteenth century motive of moral improve- ment or correction as well as his apparent lack of mission. As we pointed out earlier, Liscow Often wrote at the behest Of friends: he had no care for fame, no interest in seeing his name in print; he did not worry how his writings were received, but loved them as if they were his children. All these things are spoken of in the first few pages Of the Vorrede. Liscow called the collection Of writings he published in 1739 SammlungSatyrischerpggd_Ernsthafter Schriften, of which the only "serious" piece, placed last, was entitled neuen Rechts der Natur.202 It was written in response to a tract issued by one Ernst Johann Manzel, professor of theology and law in Rostock in 1726. Manzel had intended to prove by reasoning that natural law has a theological basis and drew his "proofs” from the Scriptures. Liscow effectively dispatches that argument and shows that reli— gion and ”Vernunft” do not mix. But that will not be our 117 point of interest here. What is intriguing to note is the role played by the date of origin of the publication and by the nature of its execution. Whether it was written between 1726 and 1729 or whether it was considerably re— vised and then published in 1735 has been disputed. Lis- cow wrote in the Eggs Vorrede ggg Verfassers, ”Die Schrift, von welcher ich in dieser Vorrede handeln werde, ist zwar nicht satyrisch, als die vorigen. Ich glaube aber nicht, dass sie darum diese Sammlung verunzieren wird.” (III, l#l). The work itself, in the form of a long letter, is essen- tially a seriously conceived polemic against Manzel's theory --at first. But gradually and especially toward the end, as if he can no longer resist, Liscow reveals his penchant for wit and irony. The question is, did Liscow bggin his writing career in this manner, i.e., without the intense satirical thrust of the other works, or should it be con- sidered as actually the latest piece in the collection and a reflection of a changed or modified style? Was he mov- ing away from satire toward irony? Litzmann favors the position that the Anmerkungen are an "Erstlingswerk."203 But on the basis of the progressive increase of Liscow‘s quotations from French authors between the years in ques- tion, Seuffert and Schirokauer believe they can prove Liscow wrote a revision Of the work in 1735.207 The ments on both sides are convincing but not sufficiently conclusive. However, it is not implausible that the ironic attitude was becoming stronger in Liscow just as 118 it was to increase generally later on in German literature. Liscow regarded the world as a bit out of joint and not proceeding as Enlightenment thinkers had theorized. Cer- tainly his own life circumstances could have induced him to effect a mood of superiority toward the Often Oppressive pettiness of reality-there were his difficulties in se- curing an adequate professional position, his exposure to the intrigues Of court life, the frustrations Of censorship, and, of course, the culminating disaster for him as min- ister to Count Bruhl. This superiority manifests itself in ironic detachment and the creation of an autonomous world of petty intellects and scribblers. He dons a mask of some kind and betrays no personal, authorial feeling, sentimen- tality or naivete. His ironic cover is always complete, and to the extent that he creates and controls the condi- tions Of his satires, he can be said to hover above his own invention in intellectual play. Liscow is primarily a satirist. 'We would characterize him as essentially a Swiftian satirist, as he was called from very early on. However, Liscow cannot be counted simply an imitator of Swift. Thomas P. Saine Observes, for example, that "the particular technique, ironic sOph- istry to prove, and at the same time expose, the absurd, could hardly have been taken over from Swift, since Liscow uses it with such virtuosity.”205 Interesting also is Saine's comparison of Swift's character Bickerstaff (in Vindication of Isaac Bickerstaff, Esq.) and Liscow's 119 editor (in Bescheidene Beantwortung). "Whereas Bickerstaff goes to the heart of the problem [of proving that Partridge is no longer alive], Liscow's writer [who asserts that Phil- ippi must be dead] seems to suggest every possible hypoth- esis, only to reject it. The circular SOphistical arguments demonstrate his own keen sense Of enjoyment in exercising 206 his ironic talent." This kind of playful meandering that Liscow engages in becomes a trait that is more richly developed by later ironists. As ironist Liscow bears some affinity with the atti- tudes of our age. His most "modern" tendencies are mani- fested in his artistic detachment, in his scepticism Of authority and dogma, in the ambiguity of his personal posi- tion, and in his permeating sustained irony. Of course we do not find the strong sense of distress, paradox and enigma of our modern society in Liscow. His was a simpler time. Even so, his world often looked pretty absurd to him. "Ich sehe alles, was in der'Welt vorgehet, mit Gelassenheit, und grasstentheils von der lacherlichen Seite an: und ich be— finde mich wohl dabey." (I, xxxii). CONCLUSION We have pointed to some correlations between the irony in Liscow's writings and the scOpe Of the sO-called ”modern" irony. But there are important elements of twentieth century irony which are not found in Liscow's writings. There is, for instance, a lack of cosmic breadth, because his focus of interest is, with some exception, quite narrow. The sense of paradox that one feels in modern irony appears as a simpler Opposition and dialectic in Liscow. The brocaded jprose out of which modern situational and dramatic irony jproceeds we would not even expect to find in Liscow, who was reacting in part to the excesses Of the previous literary ‘period. "Das Schweben" of the modern irOnist who seeks to reveal incongruity and paradox contrasts with Liscow's toying vwith the figures Of a "verkehrten'Welt," and the gentle smile of the modern ironist whose empathy includes a strong self-ironizing, is rather more a laugh with some edge to it .in,Liscow's writings. Liscow, after all, lived in an age wwhen life was considered to be a harmonious whole. But of course Liscow was a satirist-an early eighteenth (:entury satirist, who used irony effectively to ridicule and <=riticize some of the most important failings of his time. I"‘Iis satire goes beyond the mocking Of personal conduct to 120 121 defend reason-or perhaps better, "gesunden Menschenver— stand," before the arrogant and fatuous violations of ‘wretched writers, clerics, pedants, and sOphists. He does not share the degree of Optimism or didactic drive of most of his contemporaries, but he is nonetheless an enlightened man who displays some of the most enduring qualities of genuine enlightenment: he questions authority, traditional doctrines and values, and he tends toward individualism. As satirist-ironist Liscow represents in other terms an idealist-realist. This is to say he has a vision of "Besserung" before him which is perhaps realizable, but it is countered by a lack of confidence in any substantial or immediate change in society. He views the times he lives in critically and realistically, and this results in a considerable dulling of his authorial fervor, even though his satire remains pungent. Thus his satire is 'Arzeney" which does not cure-it kills. But in weighing the two tempers we put "idealist” before ”realist," because this relationship is what marks Liscow's life and works. Ideal- ism is strongly in the forefront of his mind, but it is moderated by a cognition of the practical which engenders in him an Objectivity and detachment. The spirit of the Enlightenment survived well into the nineteenth century, and today'we"continue to use the term, defining it in vaguely the same way as it was originally. Concerning Liscow, one can recognize a spiritual-intellec- tual kinship between him.and other important figures who 122 came after him, whose irony was also marked by the product of a peculiar amalgam of idealism and realism. Even his friendship with Friedrich Hagedorn tells us something. Hagedorn's tales and fables, for example, re- flect the spirit of the 'Aufkllrung' in the avoidance of dialect, foreign models, and the manner of expression associated with the Baroque period. He rejects ballast and over-ornamentation and intends language to serve rea- son, clarity, and nature. Beyond these demands he makes upon language, his tone-full Of‘Wit and ireny-demenstrates a distancing which allows satirical exposure of the preju- dices and feelishness of the citizens of Hamburg. Hage- dorn is careful to provide his figures with proper'moti- vation and credibility: he strives for a greater realism which contrasts with, say, Gellert's 32.9.1.2 11.151 Erzlhl en, in which remonstrance is more gentle perhaps, but the whole of it is also more moralizing, more thoroughly idealistic. In this Gellert is akin to Rabener. But Hagedorn's tone is more objective, more like that of the ironist, and he is less inclined toward portrayal of "Lastertypen.' Adherence to the ideals of Enlightenment as'well as an emergent realism is discernible also in Georg ChristOph Lichtenberg, WhO‘WlB directly influenced by Liscow.207 This is especially evident in his early satire, Timorus (1770),208 where his irony is produced by using a persona ‘who steps forward to defend two proselytisers. It is rafter Liscow‘s modelan ironic encomium. There are"also 123 some parallels in the personal circumstances Of Liscow and Lichtenberg which reveal some things about their atti- tudes; for example, both were sens of Protestant ministers who rejected their theological roots; both considered them- selves outsiders; both were influenced by Swift's satires. Like Liscow, Lichtenberg also attacked what he believed were Offenses against enlightened principles; in Lichten- berg's case these are Lavater's physiognomy, "Empfindsam— keit," "Sturm und Drang," mysticism, superstition and reli- gious intolerance. He ironizes these things in a witty, realistic manner, in which the moralizing tendenz is muted, and like Liscow, he came to feel that there was really no purpose to satire, as sharp as it was, that no real changes or improvements could be expected as a result of his mock- ery. Lichtenberg is even more sceptical than Liscow: the idealism of "Aufklarung" is diminished to a further degree in him. His satire sometimes assumes gloomy, pessimistic tones, and even indicates a psychological interest well in advance of the coming Romantic period. Although the life and works of Christoph Martin Wieland are immeasurably broader and more imposing than Liscow's, the two men share an intellectual orientation which des- cribes a lineage in the develOpment of an irony which con— tinued to meld the fundamental impetus Of Enlightenment ideals with an increasing realism. In this Wieland seems epitomical. His early "Schwarmerei” probably makes the realism Of his mature years even more pronounced. Wieland's 12# satirical novel in the style of Don Quixote, Der Sieg der Natur fiber die Schwarmerei Oder die Abenteuer des Don Sylvio Egg Rosalva (l76#), further defines and refines the relationship Of satire and irony as an idealistic-realistic reSponse during this period of moving away from the Enlight- enment. Here his detachment is both a superiority and a self-ironizing as he describes the victory of reality over emotionalism. He was also working on Agathon at this time, and between these two works Wieland establishes a new ironic tone which is present in his writings from then on. It is a satiric, elegantly witty, relaxed, sometimes even kindly and gracious irony (as in Musarion), which appar- ently reflects the influence upon Wieland Of Socratic irony.209 It is still the idealist-realist intellectual irony of the "Aufklarung," however and does not share with the later Romantics the ironical viewpoint that ema- nates from inner conflict. It continues to be a socially oriented, satirical irony which functions to expose hypoc- risy, SOphistry, and "Schwalrmerei."210 Beyond the impli- cations Of what has just been mentioned, one can note that Wieland admired Liscow even before his Zurich period, and a proximity Of their styles can be seen in Wieland's Schreiben sings Junkers 3933 M.211 It has been our intention so far to indicate that Lis- cow's manner Of irony-departing as it does from a purer, more Optimistic idealism-—reflects an admixture Of two competing, and basically inharmonious, intellectual 125 dispositions: idealism and realism. The idealistic urge is Often exhibited in the satirist's desire to expose, ridicule, and correct human failings which violate, usually, a moral norm. In the Early Enlightenment that norm was imprecisely conceived because of fundamental errors in its premises which were not clearly delineated until Kant wrote his essays on reason toward the end Of the century. Liscow and others perceived the fallacies and delusions of their time and mocked them. On the other hand they also cherished and preserved what they deemed real and true. They reacted to the facade of enlighten; ment by assuming a greater distance and Objectivity, and this is an evident force in their use Of irony. Wieland is, we believe, the last representative of this idealistic-realistic irony which Often serves satire. It is a type of irony that is eventually overcome by Romantic irony, but the two modes are concurrent for some time in the nineteenth century. Franz Grillparzer, for example, entered in his diary in 1817: "Die wirksamste Gattung der Ironis ist wohl die, wenn der Satiriker das Absurdum, das aus seinen sateen fliesst, nicht selbst ausspricht, sondern nur durch eine Reihe von Folgerungen dahin leitet, es selbst auszusprechen aber dem Leser aberlasst. Liskov war hierin der grasste M'eister."212 Aside from the favorable opinion of Liscow, the remark Of Grillparzer reveals that in the first decades Of the nineteenth century irony and satire were still regarded as complementary; but it also 126 shows that a certain refinement of irony is expected when- ever it is used, most especially that it be objective ex- pression. It is probable that in the complexity of Jean Paul's humor the transition from an Older to a newer modern irony is harbored. Early in his writing career Jean Paul exp pressed his approval of Liscow's irony when he wrote: ”Liskov ist ein herlicher Satiriker, er abertrift Rabnern und erreicht Swiften; von ihm hab' ich eine bessere Ironis gelernt, die ich meinen gedrukten und meinen schon abge- schriebnen Sachen geben zu kannen gewunscht hatte."213 Thus there was some intellectual affinity between Liscow and Jean Paul, but in Jean Paul aspects Of wit and irony become increasingly stronger, while his satire is seen to lose its sting. In him the didactic, moralizing tendency recedes and runs out. His attention becomes directed to- ward a deeper penetration Of the duality of idealism and 21“which makes him the pivotal figure between an realism, Older and a newer ”Denkweise.” Of course the satiric impulse continued, but satire itself is dependent upon adherence to commonly felt norms which in the nineteenth century are no longer so clear nor generally extant. Where the ”Aufklarung" provided a tan- gible ideal of the "Weltbflrger," of ”Tugend,” ”Vernunft,” and "Verstand," the dynamism Of these lofty ideals was gradually lost as the realities of life intruded. One thinks of the eventual assimilation Of Kant's momentous 127 essays, Of the succession Of wars during the reign of Friedrich II, of the French Revolution, and of the Napo- leonic Wars which culminated in the egregiously disappoint- ing edicts of the Congress of Vienna. Instead Of a lit- erature whose impetus in the eighteenth century was either idealistic or idealistic-realistic, in the period of Early Romanticism it seems that a reversed juxtaposi- tioning of these forces takes place. Instead of the ideal seeking the real, the real seeks, or yearns for, the ideal. In the terminology we have been using here it would be accurate to apply the designation ”realist-idealist" to characterize the modified ”Denkweise” of the ”Fruh- Romantik.” This would also describe the impulse for what ‘we established in chapter one as ”modern" irony. We indicated there as well that the ironic attitudes theo- rized by Friedrich Schlegel are substantially those that obtain in the works Of Thomas Mann and to a lesser degree also in the writings of Robert Musil. The nineteenth century came to be dominated by a diffusive realism, at first as realism seeking the ideal, later as "poetic" realism, finally as stark realism or "naturalism." During this time the important differences between satire and ”modern" irony become set. The Roman- tics had little interest in Enlightenment satire and its corrective irony, and even disparaged Swift. Needless to say Liscow's irony made little appeal either. Irony be- came philosOphical and an all-encompassing "Weltanschauung." 128 The middle of the nineteenth century marks a signifi- cant turning point in German satire. After l8#8 all revo- lutionary pressures were effectively put down. Instead Of individualism the image of the state and nationhood became prevalent. The idealism of "Aufklarung" was sufficiently extinguished so that satire did not seem an apprOpriate response to the spirit of the times, and there was prac- tically no satire written in the last half Of the nine- teenth century-it no longer had a raison d'etre. There was something of a revival of satire at the turn Of the century with Heinrich Mann, Karl Kraus, Carl Stern- heim, and Franz Blei, and a satirical style has been evi- dent in magazines and newspapers, and in "Kabarett" per- formances. And since l9#5 satirical elements are apparent in the writings of, for example, Heinrich B611, Reinhard Lettau, and Gunter Grass. But one is prone to talk about satirical elements or a satirical style today, because there does not seem to be evidence Of satire within the historical traditions. Satire seems disoriented. This is probably so, because there is no certainty about enlightenment and norms. Therefore some observers question that traditional satire is even possible. An interesting side to all this is the notion advanced by Marxist literary critics that a "new" satire has been developing in communist countries. Pre- sumably the communist ideology provides the new norm, and satire would serve the state as a kind of "socialist idealism." 129 The quintessence of satire lies in three factors: (1) it is aggressive in its ridicule (2) it is tendentious, having for its purpose to correct or improve as measured against some kind Of norm (3) it possesses aesthetic qual- ity. As such, irony may or may not be used in satire, just as parody, grotesquery, and Obscenity may or may not be a part of the satire. If irony is used in satire, however, then it is an irony which is subservient to satire and is related to eighteenth century irony. But we believe that "modern" irony and traditional satire are mutually exclusive. "Modern" irony could not simply be a device in satire, because the two are no longer compatible literary modes. The modern ironist is often gentle in his ridicule and Often chides himself; he acknowledges no norms or absolutes, but rather sees two or more sides to everything. Although satire may appear as an element in the works of the ironist, the fundamental spirit of the modern ironist is alienated from that of the satirist. Christian Ludwig Liscow was both a satirist and an iron- ist, because he stood on the edge Of changes which saw a gradual drawing apart of two different perceptions Of truth and life. He is one Of a progression Of figures whose writings reflect the diminishing idealism of satire and the enhanced realism of irony. Thus Liscow bears an important place in this significant segment of German literary history. FOOTNOTES FOOTNOTES 1Geschichte der deutschen Literatur‘ig,18. Jahrhundert, 2 vols. (I929: rpt. Berlin: quBEE=VSFIEg, 1951), II, 293—9#. Z'Der gresste ironische Schriftsteller Deutschlands," Hamburger literarische und kritische Blatter, 9 (Jan. 18#5). 3Johann'Wolfgang von Goethe, Goethes Works, 1# vols., Dicht und‘Wahrheit, vol. 7 (HamEErg: Christian‘Wegner er ’ IW)’ PO EEIO hVerkehrte‘Welt: Vorstudien zu einer Geschichte der deutschen SatIre'Tleingen: HE; Niemeyer VerIag, I953), p. 70. 51132 Compass 2}; Iron: (London: Methuen, 1969), p. 10. 6(London: Butler & Tanner, 1958), p. 235. 7(Munich: Carl Hanser, 196o), p. 200. 8Lazarowicz, p. ix. 9Muecke, p. 7. loSatirischer Stil. Zur Satire Robert Musils im Mann ohne Eigenschaften In Abl'i'a—n'dI en zur Kunst- Esfi- und Literaturwissenschaft (Bonn: fi. BouvIer, I950), 11, 3. 11Iron : Ag'Historical Introduction (London: G. Allen & Unwin, I929), p. . 12 ‘9; Iron Es eciall i2,Drama, 2nd. ed. (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto ress, I953), p. 13. 13Norman Knox, The Word Iron: and its Context: 1 00-1 (Durham, H.C.: Duke Univ. Press, 1931), p. 21. 1l"'Ironie als literarisches Prinsip' in Ironis und Dich- ‘3255, ed. Albert Schaefer (Munich: C. H. Beck, I970), p. IE. lsIbide' Ppe 18-21}. 161bid., p. 29. 17m°x , pp 0 9-10 0 130 O 3. O I n . '. - .. U . “ I 9 U . e e e O . . c ‘ C 131 18Johann ChristOph Gottsched, Ausgewahlte Werke, eds. Joachim Birke and Brigitte Birke, vO . , part I (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973), p. 3#0. l9Cottlieb Wilhelm Rabeneré 88mmtliche'Werke, ed. E. l Ortlepp (Stuttgart, 1839), p. , cited By Gunter T. Well- manns, Studien zur deutschen Satire im Zeitalter der Auf— kl: eorie —smm3tilmonn 1 mfiii merit ons ru'éF'S'ch'U'fi .1369). p. 127. 2OMuecke, p. 119. 211hid., p. 127. 221bid., p. 120. 23Ibid., p. 3#. 2‘3 ads Allemann Ironie und Dicht 2nd. ed. (Stuttgart: Verlag Gunther Neske,_I959),— p. 15. ' 251bid., pp. 12-13. 26Muecke, p. 9#. 27 Lyceums Fr ment 108 cited by Allemann Ironis und Dichtung, pp. 70§7I. —’ ’ 28Lyceum ms Fragment'zg, ibid., p. 58. 29A Histo of Modern Criticism 1 m1 0, The Romantic A e, vol. 2 (NewT aven: fiaIe Univ. firess, :rpt. Lon on, I951), p. 1#. 30Hans Eichner , ed. Litera Notebooks 122¥-1801 (London, 1957g, p. 1068 ’ cIte d E; IIIemann, Iron em Dicht , p. 0. 31August'Wi1helm Schlegel and Friedrich Schlegel, eds., Athenaeum 1798-1800, 3 vols. (1800; rpt. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta'scfie'BfiEfiHEfidlung, 1960), III, 32Ibid., I, 334. 33Thomas Mann's Novel Der Zauberberg: AS Stud 1 (New'York: Appleton, I933), p. BhMuecke, pp. 185-86. 35Gesammelte'Werke, 12 vols. (Oldenburg: S. Fischer Verlag, 1960), III, 57I.“ 132 36Ibid., Ix, 17o~71. 371bid., II, 613. 38Weigand, p. 86. 39Ed., Adolf Frisé (Hamburg: Rowehlt, 1952), p. 236. “01bid., pp. 311-12. “11bid., p. 201. thor further discussion of this see Burton Pike's Robert 53%;: _Ag ntroduction to His H.923. (Ithaca, N.I.: Corns Univ. Presmfmf-TEZ. . ”Musil, 933 _Ma_ng 93323 El enschaften, pp. 287-88. M*Mauan, 1x, 229. “spike, p. 151. héflusil, T ebucher A horismen Essa s and Reden, ed. Adolf Frisé (WSW, p. 1.37- ""'""" ‘7Ibid. #8383 further discussion of this in Allemann, Ironis und Dicht , p. 183. “925591032229 W _LEssa 8 11.14 _Reden. p. 1.16. 50'Counter Statement, 2nd. ed. (Los Altos, Calif.: Hermes, 1953 ) . pp._IOh‘5‘—- . Slmann, III, 568. 52Allemann, Ironic Egg'Dicht , pp. 186-87. 53Deutsche Dichter 1700-1900, part 1 (Bonn: Universitats- Ver1ag, I953), p. 125. A 5‘Ibid. 553 i ramme, ed. Rudolf Pechel, vol. 71 (Berlin, 1909), cited Pau ackmann Fo eschichte der deutschen Dicht 3rd. ed. (Hamburg: Hofémann amps, 957), pp. 593-95. ’ 5631nfache Formen (Tubingen: flax.Niemeyer, 1968), p. 255. 57Founders, Paul Mbrker and‘Wolfgang Stammler, 2nd. ed. (Berlin:‘walter de Gruyter, 1966), III, 12. 133 58Gottsched, VI, part 2, 170. 59Johann Joachim.Eschenburg, Entwurf einer Theorie und Literatur der schOnenflWissenschafEen (BerIIn: 1785), p._8I, EEIEEFTE’WEIImanns, p. . 6oWellmanns, p. 53. 611bid., p. 5b. 62Allemann, Ironis und Dicht , p. 186. 63Amtzen, p. 370 61+Friedrich Schiller, "Uber naive und sentimentalische Dichtung," in‘Werke vol. 20 ed. Benno von‘Wiese (Weimar: Hermann Bahlaus, I962), p. 2. 65Amtzan, p. 370 66The quotes'within the quote are from nusil's ngebacher, AphorismenI Essazs und Reden, p. 260. 67Arntzen, p. 37. 68Ibid., p. 3. 69Ibid. 7OSdren Kierkegaard, The Conce t‘gg Iron : with Constant Reference gg'Socrates (London: UoIIIns, ,-p. 273. 7lIbid., pp. 273-7h. 72Arntzen, p. 38. 73Muecke, p. 2th. 7"1mm, p. 2A6. 75Wolfdietrich Rasch, 'Erninnerung an Robert Musil,” Merkur, 9 (1955), p. 1&7. ‘ 76Ibid e ’ pp 0 “7.48 0 77(Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1957). PP- 11-13- 78 Christian Ludwi Liscow Ein Beitr zur Literatur— und KuItu escEicEEe fies acfitzefifite3_355%fiunderts nacE [Escows apleren n ursacHsIscEen Hauptstaatsarcfiive und eng, e anderen e men (Broaden and 131 79 - Christian Ludwi Liscows Leben nach den Acten des ross- ..1;__J5 EET"' herzo IicH-meElen ur lscEen Geheimen und Hau t Ircfiivs andern Uri inal ueIIen. Kus Hen JaErEHEhern Hes Vereins Tar meEIenbur iscfie Geschichte unE—Ilierffiumsfififide Besonders a5 edrucfié. (E {cfiwerin: In Commission der StiIler'scHen Hof- Bucfifiandiung, 18h5). 8oUeber Christian Ludwi Liscows Leben und Schriften: Eine GeIegenHeiEsscErffF'Trfibec , #6). 81(Hamburg and Leipzig: Verlag von Leopold Voss, 1883). 82A minor addition was Karl Schrader's correction of Lis- cow's birthdate and his immatriculation date in Rostock each of which had been in error by a few days. See his article, "Zu Christian Ludwig Lisccws Jugend," in Euphorion vol. 13 (1906). PP- 556-57. 83Carl nachler, ed., Christian Ludwig Liscov: Schriften, 3 vols. (1806; rpt. Frankiart: Itfienaum, 1972), I, ii . Citations from Liscow's writings will refer exclusively to the MHchler edition, since this edition is now so much more acces- sible than the original collection of 1739. References to the Michler edition in the remainder of our text will appear in parentheses with volume and page number. When the source is the Vorrede to the original edition that will be so noted. 8“raid. 85Ibid., p. A. 86Herbert Roch, ed., pig Vortrefflichkeit und Nothwendi - keit der elenden Scribenten, By Christian End g iscow (Berlin: Hans Botf, I959), p. 6. 87Goethe, VII, 260. 88 7 Vortrefflichkeit und Nohtwendi keit der elenden Scriben- ten un an are c dK_—by Christian Eu g Iiscow (FranE- TErt: Samqung InseI, I968), p. 8. 89Lazarowicz, p. 42. 9°Goeche, VII, 260. 91See Heinrich Vormweg, ed., Hieb und Stich: Deutsche Satire in 200 Jahren (Cologne: VerIag KiEpenEeuer I WiEsch, 9P0 0 92Jurgen Jacobs, "Zur Satire der frahen Aufklarung: Rabener und Liscow,” in Germanisch-Romantische Monatschrift, Neue False, 18, No. 1 (l , p. 135 93Ibid., p. 12. 9I‘Cited by Emil Ermatinger Deutsche Dichter 1700-1900 (Bonn: Universitats Verlag, 1968 , , 9. 95Lazarowicz, p. 2. 9600ttlieb‘Wilhelm Rabener, Slmmtliche Schriften, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1777). I, 93, cited by [Enerafiics. 97Ibid., 1, 99. 981b1de ' I , 102-5 0 990. F.‘Weisse, ed., Q;.!;.Rabeners Briefs (Leipzig, 1772), p. 257, cited by Lazarowicz. 10ORabener, Slmmtliche Schriften, II, 31. 101 102 Lazarowicz, p. 11h. Ibid., pp. Ila-15. 103Ibid., footnote no. #5, p. 11h. 10I'Geschichte der deutschen Literatur von den Anf en bis §g,die Cegenwa??,‘5€h ed., 2 voIs. (Vienna andifeipzig, I993), 9 2660 V losFrom the Vorrede to Gottleib‘wilhelm Rabener's Satirische Schriften, IV, I755, cited by Manthey, p. 13. ' 106Gero von‘Wilpert, Sachworterbuch der Literatur, hth ed. (Stuttgart: Alfred Kraner VerIag, I953), p. . 107Hettner, I, 265. d 108Helmut de Boer anddRichzgd Newaid, Geschichte der 5 eutschen Literatur yon en 2 en is zur EggenwaFE vol. c : C. H. BecE, I963)"; p. 555. _ ' 1ogmoral‘Weeklies and the Reading Public in Germany, 1711-1750,” in Oxford German Studies, ed. P. F. Gan: (Oxford: Clarendon Press, I953), p. 59. 11°Ibid., p. 70. 111Ibid., p. 86. 112Litzmann, pp. 108-9. llBCited by Litzmann, pp. 109-10. 136 11"Ibid., p. 110. ll5Jacobs, p. 13. 116Lisch, p. 27. 117Friedrich Griess, "Der mecklenburgische Satiriker Christian Ludwig Liscow, 1701-1760," in 235,0arolinum, 27, No. 3h, part IV (1961), p. 68. . _. 118Ibid. See also Manthey, p. 10. 119Litzmann, pp. 73-76. 12°Ibid. 121Manthey, p. 11. 122Engel I, 266. 123See the letter from Liscow to Gottsched dated 28 January 1735 in Theodor“Wilhe1n.Danse1, Gottsched und seine Zeit (18h8: rpt. Hildesheim & New‘Iork: Georg UIfis'VErIEET' I976), p0 2350 12"'M‘enthey, p. 38. 125J. J. Bodmer, Preface to Breitinger's “Critische Dichtkunst," (Zurich, 1760), cited by Hanthey, pJ'202. 126Litzmann, p. 38. See also Manthey, p.39. 127Karl Bartsch, reviser,,Aggug§ Koberstein'g Grundriss der Geschichte der deutschen Nationalliteratur 5 e ., WoWi'g-TW We». 111,279. 128Ibid. 129Cited by Litzmann, p. 161. 1”Cited by Helbig, pp. 72-73. 131Helbig, p. 73. 13znelbig, p. 7b. 133Griese, p. 71 13"Gesa‘mmelte Schriften und Schicksale, vol. 1 (Stuttgart, 1839),—p. 127- “563 57 ““5“" 135Litzmann, p. 36. 137 136Lazarowicz, p. 3#. 137Jacobs, p. 8. 138Gotthold Lessing, Gesammelte Werke, P 5359 Cited by Manthey, p. 7 139Full title: Vitrea Fracta oder des Ritters Robert Clifton Schreiben an einen eIehrEen EfifiojeHen, befreffend HIe seItsamen unH nacEHenEchEen F1 uren welche derselbe H35 13. Januar St. n. 1732 au T einer geTrornen Fenster- scheiBe wafir enommen. Ins Hem En IIshen ins Deutsche HEersetzet (éranETurt an nH Le Iszg, 1732) In: MHcEIer I, l[‘OManthey, p. 30. lthnchler, I, xxiii. lthbid. 1‘3Ib1d, II, 160. lhhlbid. lhslbid., pp. 161-63. lhélbid., p. 16h. ll‘7Liscow consistently misspells Sivers' name with is (i. e. Sievers) M8Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1739. l1‘9Mttchler, Vorrede, I, 301. l5QMflchler, Anmerkungen, I, 316. 151 152 Ibid. Ibid. l5311111 title: Klagliche Geschichte von der jammerlichen Zerstahrung der Stadt Jerusalem, mit kurzen “aber dabe deut- lichen underSauIicHenJ lnmerkun en nacE Hem Cesc ac e Hes . Herrn M. Heinricfi'Jacob vers er Ia autert, unda e ne .u aBe zd‘Hessen Anmer ngen ie Passion an sLicfit gesteIIet von —X. Y. 2. Rev. Minist. Ca rnH. 15[”1111gemeine Deutsche Biographie (Leipzig, 1875-1912)! XXXIV, L3H. 138 1551ccounts of the disposition of Sivers' treatise differ. Tronskaya says Sivers sent the engraving and letter to theh Academy of Sciences in Berlin. Maria Tronskaya, _;g d Prosasatiret der Aufkl! (Berlin: Batten & Loening, p. Wsays e etter was dedicated ("gewidmet") to the Academy, p. 20. Liscow does not name the "anter- schiedene berahmte Mlnner“ he referred to. 156Lessing used this phrase in his 'Ehenalige Fenster- gemllde in Kloster Hirschau' which begins with those words. See Litzmann, p. #6. 157Litzmann, p. L6. 158Manthey, p. 29. lsgIn 1731 Don Carlos inherited Parma and Piacenza upon the death of the last Farnese his uncle. This played a role in the Treaty of Vienna (1738). In 1730 there was a revolt in Corsica against Genoeee rule. The ensuing struggle was not resolved until 1768. The reference to the Pretender may be to James III in connection with ”The Fifteen" in Scotland in 1716 or it may be an entirely fictitious ref- erence. 160Full title: Der sich selbst entdeckende X. Y. Z., odere L—c-s H-rm—n B-ckm-st-rs Rev. MInIsE. Cm HIda au ricW hnzeIe Ker UrsacHen dIe Ififi_b_ 0 en HIe GescHIc Hts von Ler Herstahrun der fitadt UEFu_—Iem gig Efirzen en‘ zu hrIHutern ufid'dEese Anmer en unter eInem a rsc en amen hns EIcHt zu steir szur eru m3 “Tree? Hes . T. Ififinn M5;i§ter .zever re c an zur—Hett—T er TUEEc u ne 3; en wider a1 e c e r 1e un ssi__z Deutungen_ zum Drucke be or art Leipzig, 733 . 161Gottsched to Philippi, 9 October 1731, in a letter appended to Philippi's Cicero ein rosser Wind-Beutel Rabuliet und Charleten,-THEII:, 13?), cIted 5y EItzmann, p. 51. 162 Ibid. 163Ibid. 16hFull title: Sechs deutsche Reden fiber allerhand auserlesene Falle nac Tden e e e nor? na urIIcHen. eHEEEEW IIcHen, and EeroIscEm175' pz g, 1“Full title: Der erafneteT el der Ehren und Vorsch and die in Pallaste er c see eI tS-Whnscfie vor 3'— WE c men—anr IE‘E Hes emfiofi'en §E§en_fir___ gEuF-TEF en- res are n 0 en and—CHEF3FIrs . )zu S'-Es35"§?Ie r c s AEEEEEI‘LEE GFEEEEE'THEIle, I I ‘r I.’ - .r g . I ~ I I (- < p4 v r: I '- I . ... I. I , , .. . - .,. , s . ., ~ L ' o A . . L _ . -.... -:--. . . \ ~ 1 ; fl . .A . u C . Q . , ... . . o . . o o - - I ‘ I I I ‘ I C l. l l [-4 I I - - \ I l r . . ' ,. -L . II A ,.. . y -. - . _ . -.- ' ' q I -- . _ I .B . s. ~'I4|l \ ‘ . ._ II .‘ . .. .V. . I ~\ .'I. 'r'r’1. ;-r "".".’"." . 9J.l‘.'fl"2 i :'-".'v ~- . - I. _-;-.,:- g ' . if, f"; L f' " '_-:.:,‘ .|'-‘:-.'J “'13." ' . . , t I -- '- 'I . I ‘ '0 .. '3 ' ’ . In. W ' ' .-‘ Z. I" 'I’JI'T.‘J . fl: 1' - ' . . .:'\ .f. '1." I' . " .—_. \I I n‘ ‘ .1 '33:: - In n" C I ' II I ._ ' h ‘ _ .- _ I a ‘ . :3 ."I-t. 1.1. -"'1 ' ‘n --‘.J 1:. . I , . I. - ‘ r .' . ' '1» I .s r."r-- .- H .J '5 1:3 " - ‘l I .~ 1: __+‘ In W _. \. 1. .' . "Intv .n nun; s. 1 :- '- 4' 1: _ r- .P. 7 l\1 I'Jr‘ $‘|‘ n~ nj_~r' N“ “a", 0 . l .. “" I ' ' I ’J.J s ':}‘ I J .- .31‘Jl"VJC-"T I: . 3 no I .' l ‘ t A C v r 'n.‘ v - ' r -.r v. f 'l. ’ - . ' u a . ‘ ) LL .1 . ' 'fi 1‘ _ . I - r- . ,‘v - -‘ “ . 1 .' a I I - ‘. " d "o ‘J .J :' f.. .130? .971": _rcho ..' .Y .X abnsfioahnne Jadioz {aka woe :9I3k3 Uu“""L 9 rfioi'fius—B “BabIbm-z‘ .32 J.- ‘7. .vrm‘ LET—Jr; :w-r. n-m-H a-a-J 195 um: 93391239995 _LeE no vsd mag rfF isrTosa'xU 155—9 m as ”as universal!“ net-111‘ u:-' §:"u~ mo- 137.2119; 377?: 195 .5171 :19 news“ 110308185 mania E33? .1 sagxni'nnnz Ir'JIb‘" our: I‘m-193:!!!“ (6.1: “ 895 3301'? mm 5m; mm mm: 31:: £97,753; 11.; 33:11 can U 3571? 195 Marja” r1930 0:9: ... 215314;: 1951’ m ”'7 ' an mowfw .gtsqied, Labels?! ox'__o__m(1 mu___§_ lasagna . - ' ' '0 I . J I I'- ' ' l I 4 - -' I . I s . r- r . u ' .I :7: ' s I ”r ‘K \n. I ' _. . {-1 (I..4"l.s~ '.- _. ~ _, . .. . .. . . .. . . . ' I .‘ '- of I I. ‘ r1 4- ‘ 0 ' J r I , . ‘ ....... I - ‘I- I'. ~ . - .fl-I I..- Q -" Q o ' l r . - 1 -~ ~* - - o g.“ .l A ugl ‘ I - U ~ '(' .. . — , ' h N v v - -_-. . ..-—..— «a.-. ...--—..—- .‘ . _ . - a- ' l l ' ' .L'n \ , . , 1,, .. . .— . ,-. -A m . ¢ r.,r. r 2? 2.1 'I..".. :‘. I + [.11. . .- o .n .o ”1.... _-- _p-... —. _.. _ ‘ - .r ~ 04 n7 1' _- '1'! I..- . .- 1,... -,.- .--. -.... - ... .......,- g..- :---.-.--,-._. 2. .4... .. ‘ . t J ...I I. ' O, -. a, I ‘ " I A . .. I .~ '-A --... -...-. --.--..-..--- _...... .--_-.- , .. , ., ~ , ' , .' -e an“- ,.., ., . I If. . - . .. - I . . .- o, \ J. I -........... ..-.-.... -- _- ...—.. ..---.---- _ . _. .. _ .., ' ' . '. .. ft, ' .5 ' , o. _I I I - .- . .. ...:.'-.. ‘ - . -.....'....-...,.,.'.. .... ...,. . ....--, ..... ,.._ . - . . - . . . . I. J rl‘ . I - I ------.o--, - _o-.. r-- a... ”.-- “.~-. _- ..._'.....l n- ‘. .-. ..- av . a ' .-I ' I '~ 0' o- , .., . p.-.~--.—. . .......-........-- _. ...- ~_5- 7... .. ...... ' a ' I o ' ‘ ’ . - -. . .. .-...--...... ..L..._.... 139 166Full title: Briontes der J ere oder Lobrede auf den Hochede%g:bohrnenr und gocggm r en errn rn. U. 3 WEEK rns fr ent c en ro essor er 3e utscfien Here - samEeiW% ‘II ‘%E n vers WIIe Liefi auc Cfiu rEHcfis so an 'mmatr: on an Idvocaten e c. etc. nacEd a n He eIn eI haEErI:W er nnIIc Hen und dfieroiscfienr e Wig ner in Her UeseilscfiETEc Her EIEinen e s or 0In dfieutscfiian von Einen _unilraigen MItEIIeae dies ser zaEIrei-Een GeseIIscEfir 167Litznann, pp. 58-59. 168Ue leave this phrase untranslated because the German lakes verbal associations possible that English cannot. 169Litznann, p. 59. 170Lasarowicz, p. L7. 171See Albert Leitsuann, "Liscow: Zitate,' in Zeitschrift re: deugzche Philglogieétgggéthuggzggrigg and Frie r c l”Litzmann, p. 63. 173Ib1d., p. 75. 17“Karl Goedeke, Grundriss zur Geschichte der deutschen Dicht , vol. k (Dresden, 13915, 50 of V1, p. 25. 175Leipzig, 1733. 176Bodmer, cited by Manthey, p. 202. l77Leitzmann, p. 91. 1”Litzmann, p. 80. 179Ib1d., p. 73. 180Full title: Cicero Ein msser Wind-Beutel Rabulist figg Charletan: Zur ro e auE—Uessen ersetzter 30 fin z- e e e e_r_ Vor _aen guintIus gegen den fiervius flies 58szqu chatter: KIEr erfiiesen. am e nem o 'EIten IKE e _;__25 leIcHen Brader gIeIcher Ka en 2; Von acEt VertfieIdi s-Sc r ten gegen eben 52 VieI gfiarteguen lHaIIe, I735! 53% g. 18]'(’.'hronologi<:ally there is an intervening episode in- volving a love poem which Philippi, as a university student, wrote to one Frau von Ziegler. "Gewisse Leute' somehow get hold of it, sent it to Liscow who in turn provided it with a very brief Vorrede. Liscow returned it to his friends who had it printed. Philippi was understandably outraged over , O 140 this. We would note here that Liscow clearly violated his own dictum on the limits of satire by taking part in such an unethical act. 182Full title: Stand— oder Antrittsrede welche der ES. T.) Herr D. JoEEnn Erns PEIII I Uffen c er Professor er eutschen WoEIredenHeIt zu HaIIe den ZIsEen December 2 In Her GeseIIscfiaIE Ler e nen GB ISEOI‘ ehaIEen samt er -darauf Im “amen der uzen IBEIIcEen ese sc aft a—er Ian—rim... e s'E'é'r— von rem FWG Gm. . . . . a s IEItesEen Ler GeseIIW ewor one-'HUTlicEen Intwor- . er eseIIs c553? e e l” und osten der EIeInen GeIsEer zum Um cEe FEIbrderE. I73? 183Litzmann, p. 6b. lethid. l8Shazarowicm, p.'h9. 186Manthey, pp. 30-31. 187Litzmann, p. 68. 188Ibid., pp. 87-88. 189Merseburg, 173k. 190Litzmann, pp. 90-91. 191Full title: Bescheidene Beantwort der Einwurfe welche ein e FreunW e as or 5. Jo 553% Ems WPEIII I weIIand wofiIverHIenEen'P'oIessorso _der deutschen We EIreEen- su HaIIe wIHer die NaofirIcfit— von Uessen Tom e emac t on. Tasso. “1533». con WBEEE do Ld'era morto. _(fiaIIe, 192Litzmann, p. 93. 193Cited by Litzmann, p. 9b. 19‘Ib1d. l951bid., pp. 9h-95. 1961bid., p. 9h. l97Leitzmann, p. 91. 198Ferdinand Josef Schneider, Die deutsche Dicht der Aufkla szeit, 2nd. ed. (Stuttg_FE: U. B. HeEzIeri, p. 52. l99Lazarowicz, p. 71. .n. b - .‘,'_ - - . , ~ '.-| . ., -. ,.. . I - .. .- ....'—-.‘ n ‘ . h. . ' *_ ._ -.-.'-'--.. '- ~‘L..1:_ 0- 3.. ' ' ,- . r‘ . .. -7,s'1I:'.Ic. mono: u 49’ '23 - ..- ..q-.- .. ...._..- ~ -... r - _ . mi. -.,»-- web .1: 2‘ .. .....,'.,.._..'.....H.l. . --‘,_._.1.__.,.. fit)... H”. - . u. m. IJ ’Ib HUM. 19. . .....---...-.. -...4_,.—._. .... . . . . I ~ . ' matron danish! 13A. . ....-- .~~-o.-—- 0-... -'-.. r - W‘ " ,. '_..;.C.;:'L 190 119.29.. (I . . . ....,- --. . -...-- .. - . - ': *1: m :nu _i_,.s at. .-.-. .....-__--,-..-_...,...... ...; » Wm'zom LW'WF' “"11: '. .....I- o '\ O O- Q ... \- ..— I e ' . .1. .‘ . I .‘ ' .. . (”Ta-u. as - a _. ' n , - .. . . Q . c..- .—b-'- g I ... ' . -' _" r" ."' s . s Q. . . - n' _' 'I I O - Q ... I | r,\ V" ' ‘ O- .— O _ ' nil s- . ... J... . , ..‘ ' . ., [5'3 . ... - ..-, .,. -. --. -..... . . . .- . I‘ .. ._ \ v n. :1. ‘1". L -I I ‘ 5 x . . ... --..-_'.- ‘."‘ ..-.... -... . . ' r . . , A g g . .. .-..... . -..--.- .. .-. --.. ,... O‘\ n- “ l I . . .L'.‘ ‘ e‘ s " . “X; l . . ‘ . ;.-.'- ‘.':_ .-- s .:-E .1 .. ‘1'. 1-»-- . I .. e~ ' e .s‘. L f .. . '. . . O ' I '0‘ . - , -.~ "4' ' . . ' .u' y'- '.. t... 1:. ’_ ’, ' I : 1 ...... _ .--.-...-. . . __ _w.‘ e e v . , - / s' . e g lhl 2001bid., p. 68. Ibid., p. 59. 202Full title: Anmerkungen in Form eines Briefes uber den Abriss eines neuen Rechts der—fiatur, weIcHen or S. T.)_HErr Fro?essor MEnzeI gg_fiostocfifin einer EIeinen 335+; 1e Hen TIEEI_TEHret: Frimae Eineae Ufiris Naturae vere taIis 56655355 sanae rationis principia Huctae, ggr’WeIt mIEgétHEIIetEgE 201 203Litzmann, p. 1h. 20l‘See Leitzmann, p. 90 and Arnold Schirokauer, "Zur Datierung der Liscowschen Schrift 'Anmerkungen in Form eines Briefes,'” in Euphorion, 22 (1915), p. 667. 205"Christian Ludwi Liscow: The First German Swift," in Lessing Yearbook, IV Munich: Max Hueber, 1972), p. 1&2. 206Ibid., p. 116. 207J. P. Stern, LichtenberE: A Doctrine‘gg Scattered Occasion Reconstructe rom is AphroiSms and ReercEions (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, , p. lhO. And, Tronskaya, p. 26A. 208 See discussion in Lararowicz, pp. 191-96. 209Georg Kurt Weissenborn, Wielands Ironie, Diss. Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, I976 (on microfilm, National Library of Canada, No. 6958), p. 277. 21°1b1d., p. 275. 211Friedrich Sengle, Wieland (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1949). p. 63. 212 Franz Grillparzer, samtliche Werke Aus ewahlte Briefs Ges rache Berichte, eds. Peter FranE and Karl FirnEacHer (Municfi: tarl Hanser, 196a), p. 755. 213Cited by Engel, p. 25. 21l‘See discussion in Engel, pp. 25-30. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PRIMARY SOURCES Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Goethes Werke. lh vols. Dichtun und Wahrheit, vol. 7. HamBurg: Christian Wegner 6 eFIEg, I959. Gottsched, Johann Christoph. Ausgewahlte Werke. vol. 6, part 1. Eds. Joachim Birke and Brigette BIrke. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1973. Grillparzer Franz. SHmtliche Werke Ausgewahlte Briefe GesEracheE Berichte. 3 vols. 5. Peter FranE and ar urn acHer. Eunich: Carl Hanser, 196a. Liscow, Christian Ludwig. Christian Ludwig Liscov: Schriften. 3 vols. Ed. Carl Muchler. 1806; rp . FranEfurt: Athenaum, 1972. ‘ . Die Vortrefflichkeit und Nothwendigkeit der eIenden Scribenten. Ed. HerBert Roch. *Berlin: Hans Bott, I939. . Vortrefflichkeit und Nohtwendi keit der elenden Scribenten und andere Schriften. E3. Jargefi—Mantfiey. PranETurt: §amqung InseI, I953. Mann, Thomas. Gesammelte Werke. 12 vols. Oldenburg: S. Fischer Verlag, 1966. Musil, Robert. Der Menu ohne Eigenschaften in Gesammelte Werke. Ed- I331? Frisa. Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1952. . Ta ebucher A horismen Essazs und Reden in GesammeIte WerEe. E5. IdoIf Pr 3 . am urg: Rowohlt, I;550 Schiller, Friedrich. "Uber naive und sentimentalische Dichtung." Werke, vol. 20. Ed. Benno von Wiese. Weimar: Hermann Bbhlaus, 1962. Schlegel, August Wilhelm and Schlegel, Friedrich, eds. Athenaeum 1798-1800. 3 vols. 1800; rpt. Stuttgart: U. 9. Gotta, 1960. 1&2 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDARY SOURCES CITED Allemann, Beda. ”Ironis als literarisches Prinzip.” Ironic und Dichtugg. Ed. Albert Schaefer. .Munich: C. H. BecE, I970. . . Ironie und Dichtung. _2nd ed. Stuttgart: Gunther es e, I959. Allgemeine DeutSche Bio ra hie. Eds. R. van Liliencron and . vonfiwegele. EeIsz : Historical Commission of Bavarian Academy of Sciences, 1 75-1912. Arntzen, Helmut. Satirischer Stil. Zur Satire Robert.Musils im.Mann ohne EIgenscfiETEen, In ABEEnaIu en zur Runs?- ‘MEsik- und Literaturwissenschaff. Bonn: H. BouvIer, I960. Bartsch, Karl, reviser. A st Koberstein's Grundriss der Geschichte der deutscfien NationaIIIteratur, SEE ed., 5 voIs. LeIpzig: VerIEg von F. C. W. Vogel, 1873. Baumgart, Reinhart. Das Ironische und die Ironic in den Werken Thomas Manna-m Carl Hanser, I955. Backmann, Paul. Fogfigeschichte der deutschen Dichtggg. 3rd ed. Hamburg: Ho ampe, I957.4 Boor, Helmut de anddNewiig, Richgrd. Geschichte der deutschen Literatur von en gfiaen is zur*Gggenwa . voI. 5. no: .1553}, Burke, Kenneth. Counter Statement. 2nd ed. Los Altos, Calif.: Hermes PublicaEIons, . Currie, Pamela. FMOral'Weeklies and the Reading Pub1ic in Germany, 1711-1750.“ Oxford German Studies. Ed. P. F. Ganz. Oxford: Clarendon Press, I958. Dansel, Theodor“Wi1he1m. Gottsched und seine Zeit. 18L8: rpt. Hildesheim and lieu IorE: Georg ms VerIag, I970. Engel, Eduard. Geschichte der deutschen Literatur von den Anfagéen bis In 312 GegenwaFE. 25£h 33., 2 voIs. Leipzig: e r . 1913'.- 1&3 O lhh Ermatinger, Emil. De t ch Dichgfg 1700-1900. 2 vols. Bonn: Universitats- er ag, . Goedeke, Karl. Grundriss zur Geschichte der deutschen Dichtung. voI. I, 5065—5 Dresden, IB9I} Griese, Friedrich. "Der mecklenburgische Satiriker Christian Ludwig Liscow 1701-1760." Das Carolinum, 27, No. 3h, part Iv (1961), 68-71. _ . Gurewitch, Morton. Euro ean Romantic Iro 1. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Micro ms, 957. Helbig, Karl Gustav. Christian Ludwi Liscow. Ein Beit zur Literatur- und KuItu escHIcEEe Hes achtiifinfen UaErfiunderts, nacH Liscows PapIeren In KurglcEsIscHen HauptstaatsarcEIve und anderen EIlungen. Dresden an 9 p2 g, e Heller, Erich. The Ironic German: §_Studz‘g£.Thomas Mann. London: Butler & Tanner, I953. Hettner, Hermann. Geschichte der deutschen Literaturgig 18. Jahrhundert. 2 voIs. I929; rpE. BeFIIEI'IETbau- Verlag, I95I. - Jacobs, Jargon. ”Zur Satire der frahen Aufklarung. Rabener und Liscow.“ Germanisch-Romantische Mbnatsschrift, Neue F0150, 27, NO. 9 " O Jolles, André. Einfache Formen. hth unchanged ed. Tubingen: Max.NIemeyer VerIag, 1968. Kierkegaard Sfiren. The Concept of Ironz: With Constant Referenée to Socrates. ran T‘by ee M. CapeI. London: CoIIIns, 1956. Knox, Norman. The Word Iron and‘igg Context: 1500-1755. Durham, H. CT? UuEe UnIv. PF'e'ss, 1951:. Lazarowicz, Klaus. Verkehrte'Welt: Verstudien zu einer Geschichtebder deuEscEe SaEIre. THEIngen: E51 NIemeyer VerIag, I; 50 Leitsmann, Albert. 'Liscows Zitate." Zeitschrift far deutsche Philologie, 50 (1926), 79-92. Lisch, Georg Christian F. Christian Ludwi Liscows Leben nach den Acten des rossherzo IIc -me enBu IscHen Gefieimen und Rafi-E fircHIvs uné anderen UrIgInanueIlen. Ius den Jafirfiicfiern Hes VergIEs‘ggg’meklenbu ische §ru FE GescKIEhte und AltertfiumsEfinde besondere ab e c . SEhwerin: SEIIler'scEen HOIEEchhandIung, IEES. 1h5 Litzmann, Berthold. Christian Lum g Liscow‘ig seiner litterarischen Lau rg and Leipzig: Verlag von LeopoIE Voss, ‘ Muecke, D. C. The Compass_ of Ironz. London: Hethuen, 1969. Pike, Burton. Robert Husil: An Introduction to His'Work. Ithaca, N. 1.: CorneII vars. Press, I9EI.* Rasch,‘Wolfdietrich. 'Erinnerung an Robert Mhsil.“ IMerkur, 9 (1955). 1h7-h8. '—-——- Reallexikon der deutschen Literatu eschichte. 2nd ed. Founders PauI EerEer and WoIIgang SfiiiIer. Berlin: ‘Walter de Gruyter, 1966.! ' Seine, Thomas P. "Christian Ludwig Liscow: The First German Swift.” Lessing Yearbook, IV. Mhnich: flax Hueber, 1972. Schirokauer, Arnold. "Zur Datierung der Liscowschen Schrift 'Anmer en in Form eines Briefes." Eu horion, 22 (1915 ) 9 63.71 e Schneider, Ferdinand Josef. Die deutsche Dicht%g§‘ggg Anf- kllggggszeit. 2nd ed. SEuttgaFE: J. . e 5 er, 19:3. Schrader, Karl. "Zu Christian Ludwig Liscows Jugend.” Eu horion, 13 (1906), 556-57. Sedgewick, G. G. Of Iron Es ecia119in Drama. 2nd ed. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto ress, Senglengriedrich. ‘Wieland. Stuttgart: J. B. Metsler, l9 . Stern, J. P. Lichtenbe : A Doctrine of Scattered Occasion ReconstrucEeE Tm mfiIs ‘I'HroIsms afid'EeIIectIons. WIFE? mam ana n v. P'fi'ss, I959. Thomson, J. A. K. Iron : An Historical Introduction. London: G. Allen I SnmIfi, . Tronskaya, Maria. Die deutsche Prosasatire der Aufkllrung. Berlin: Rfltten neonIng, I9 Vormweg, Heinrich, ed. Hieb und Stich: Deutsche Satire in 200 Jahr_____e_n. Cologne: Ve rIa‘g' KIep enheuer I Wi’EscE, 1958. ‘Weigand, Hermann J. Thomas mann's Novel Der Zauberberg: A Studz. New'IorE:Ipp1eEon, 1953. 11.6 Weissenborn, Georg Kurt. ‘Wielands Ironis. Diss., Univ. of British Columbia, 197m a onmmry of Canada, microfilm No. 6958. Wellek, Read. A Histo of Modern Criticism 175 $1950. The Romantic Ego, vol. 2. New Haven, Conn.: a e Univ. Press, I955; rp . London, 1961. Wellmanns, Gunter T. Studien zur deutschen Satire im Zeit- alter der Aufklaru—T'Tfi’e'om-TF'rE—ufi 3m. UIss. BEEnII969"'HfinicE: Dissertations 9mck733h!n,1969. Wienbarg, L. ”Der gresste ironische Schriftsteller Deutsch- lands." JHambufier literarische und kritische Blltter, NO. 9", an. , 65-680 Wilpert, Gero von. Sachwarterbuch der Literatur. Stuttgart: Alfred Kroner, 1 . "'TiiifiifllfilflifllflixfifiiuflfifilfliflMflWfifi'“