<ul><li><p>The rise of aesthetics: Baumgarten's radical innovation and Kant's response </p><p>HANS REISS </p><p>Two hundred and sixty years ago this year the most radical demand in the more than two-thousand-year-old history of aesthetics was made.' For on 9 August I 7 3 5 a young Halle student of twenty-two, Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, proclaimed his demand to the world at large that a science of aesthetics be established. On that day he handed in his Master's dissertation Meditationes philosophicae de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus to the Dean of the Faculty of Arts of his universityZ in which these very words E~CIGZT-~TJ C L I G ~ T ~ K ~ or Aestheticaj appear for the first time in history. To call for a new 'Wissenschaft' is indeed a bold venture. But at first it looked, despite an early review in a learned journal4 and a favourable notice in the standard work on Wolffian philosophy soon afterwards.5 as if his experience would not be very different from that of his Scottish contemporary, David Hume, whose Treatise on human nature 'fell dead- born from the press'.6 Nor did his magnum opus, the Aesthetica, create the stir which it deserved; it was not properly appreciated by the academic world till the middle of our century.' </p><p>I . For detailed bibliographical reference see my articles 'Die Einburgerung der Asthetik in der deutschen Sprache des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts oder Baumgarten und seine Wirkung'. Jahrbuclr drr Drutschen Scl~i l lrrg~sel lsc~a~f 3 7 (199 3 ) . p.10~)- 38, and 'The naturalisation of the term 'Aesthetics' in eighteenth-century German or Alexander Gottlieb Raumgarten and his Impact'. Modern lnriguage rrvicw 89 (T994). p.645-58. as well as my account. 'The rise of aesthetics from Baumgarten to Humboldt'. Cambridge historg of literarg criticism. vol. 4. ed. H. B. Nisbet and Claude Rawson (Cambridge 1997). p.658-80. </p><p>2 . I owe this piece of information to Dipl. jur. Frank Coiffier, Director of the University Archive, Martin Luther-[Jniversity of Halle for whose helphlness I am indebted. Information relating to A. G. Baumgarten is recorded under (UHA) Rep. 2 I HI. No. 61. </p><p>3. Halle. September I 7 3 5 , 9 I 16. p. 39: repr. in Reflections on poetry. A. G. Baurngarten's rnrditatiories philosophim de nonnullis ad yoern pertirirri[ihus. trans., with the original text, an introduction. notes by Karl Aschenbrenner and W. B. Holther (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1954). p.39: further repr. in Philosopliischc Brtrcichtungm iiber ririiga Bedirigungm des Grdichtm. trans. and ed. Heinx Paetzold. Philosophische Bibliothek. 3 5 2 (Hamburg 198 3 ) . p.86. The exact phrase is: ' a t d q s a . EmcrTqpqs a d l q r i r q s siue Aestethicae' (the 'things pcrccived [by what Baumgarten calls the lower faculty of sensitive perception in contrast to the higher faculty of logical thought ('voqTa')) are the objects of the science of aesthetics or aesthetics'). </p><p>4. Hamburgcr Brrichte von Gelehrtrri S ~ I P I I . 8 November I 7 3. j . 5. See Carl Gunther Ludovici. Ausfiilirlichu Eritwurf' eirier vollstiindigen Historic der Wol/fisclieri </p><p>Pliilosopliie (Leipzig I 7 37): repr. in Christian Woll'f. Slirritlicke Werke. 111 (Materalien und Dokumente). I . 2 . ed. Jean Ecole (Hildesheim and New York 1977) . 9509, p.469. </p><p>6 . David Hume. 'My own Life', in E. C. Mossner. Tlu, L f e ofDrrvid Hurtle (Edinburgh 19 54). p.612. 7. See Philosophische Betrcichtungen. trans. and ed. Paetzold, p.LVI-LX. for a bibliography citing the </p><p>reception of Baumgarten's work and writings. In addition to Paetzold's introduction. I found Hans Rudolf Schweizer. Asthetik cils Philusophie dpr siiiri/ic,lirvi Erkmntnis. Eine Iriterpretrrtion drr 'Astlietica '. A. G. Bnun~gnrtrris tnit trilwriscr Wirdergdw rtrs I~iteitiiscIier~ Textes und drutsclier Ubersetiuiig (Basel </p></li><li><p>54 HANS REISS </p><p>And yet aesthetics took off even before the publication of the Aesthetica in I 750. This speedy rise of this new discipline is surprising, for M.A. dissertations are hardly the stuff of which best-sellers are made. Of course, aesthetics did not take root because the then King of Prussia, Frederick William I, a very stern ruler rightly called the soldier-king. had commanded Baumgarten to hurry and complete his thesisS8 which Baumgarten duly did. There were several reasons for the success of aesthetics: by all accounts Baumgarten was an outstanding teacher, first in Halle and later from I 740 onwards in Frankfurt-an-der-Oder where, for instance, Friedrich Nicolai, the well-known writer and publisher, was so enthralled by his lecturing style that, barred from the lecture-room as a non- student, he crept into the corridor outside the lecture-room to listen through the cracks in the door.9 </p><p>Baumgarten was a successful lecturer because he possessed the two qualities necessary for good lecturing: he had something to say and he knew how to say it. In Halle, the leading German university of the day, he taught metaphysics. His textbook on that subject in Latin, the Metaphysica. first published in 1737, republished six times by I 779 and twice in German translation, established him as the leading exponent of Wolffian philosophy, then dominant in Germany. This book was widely used as a textbook in German universities, even by Kant himself, who praised its 'wealth of thought'I' and 'clarity of presentation'.' </p><p>In the Metaphysics Baumgarten refers to aesthetics, and in his lectures he talked about that new science. In his few years as a lecturer in Halle he appears to have inspired some very gifted students who became the rising poets of the day: Gleim, Uz, Rudnick, Pyra and Lange.'l Literary historians call most of them Anacreontic or Rococo poets because they bravely celebrated the joys of the senses, of drinking and love, of wine and women. These poets felt that Baumgart- en's aesthetics philosophically legitimised their work. It provided an antidote to the prevailing literary doctrine, that of Johann Christoph Gottsched, professor of poetry in Leipzig. at that time the virtual dictator of German literary taste. Gottsched is not without merit: he stabilised the German literary language and </p><p>and Stuttgart I 9 7 3 ). and Ursula Franke. Kurist r i k Erkrrintnis. Die Kolle dar Sinnlichkrit in der Asthetik Alexander Gottlirb Baurngnrtens. Studia Leibniziana Supplementa. 9 (Wiesbaden I 972) particularly helpful. Armand Nivelle. Lrs Thcbrics rsthit iques eri A ~ ~ r r t l a g l i e de Hnumgartm d Karit. Bibliotheque de la Faculte de Philosophie et Lettres de I'lJniversitc de Liege, I 34 (Paris 1955). and Lewis White Beck, Earl!/ G e r m m philosophy (Cambridge. Mass. I 969). also provide most useful surveys of Bauingarten's aesthetics. </p><p>8. See letter to the IJniversity of Halle. 2 2 March I 714. in which the King uses the very word 'command' ('befehlen'). </p><p>9. See Friedrich Nicolai. U r b r r inr i i ie gr l r l i r te Bildurig (Berlin and Stettin I 799). p.26. 10. Nnchriclit w ~ r i dcr Einricliturig seirier Vorlesurigen irri W i r i t ~ ~ r l ~ ~ ~ / l ~ j ~ i l r r I 765-66. in Gesarnr7ielti~ </p><p>Srhrifter~ (Account of tl7r strirc'ture of his lectures iri the winter t u r n I 765-66) (Akademieausgabe) (Berlin ILeipzigl. 19oof.: 29 vols to date, hereafter cited as AA). ii. 308. </p><p>11. Ibid.: AA. ii. 308. Kant also calls it 'the inost useful of all handbooks [on metaphysics]', N e w Aiirnc.rkiirigi~ri i u r Er l i i i te ru i ig rier Throrie dr r Wiride (h'ew rortinients on t lrr explarintion of the theorg of winds). AA, i .503 . </p><p>12. See Theodor Verweyeni Gunther Witting. 'Zur Rezeplion Baumgartens bei Uz. Gleim und Rudnick'. Zeitsclirift f i i r Deutsclie I'hilologie I I 3 (19941. p.49(>-5 14, for an account of Baumgarten's impact on some of these poets. </p></li><li><p>The rise of rresthetics -j 5 </p><p>tidied up the German theatre, but his view of literature was a narrow rationalist and moral one which denied the imagination the scope it needs. Thus. he had no use for the work of the Rococo poets, and they, in turn. abominated his views. Of course. dictatorships never last. Young people then and now want to rebel against them because they want to speak with their own voice. So did these Rococo poets. For them Baumgarten's aesthetics was a gift from the gods. Here was a bright Wolffian philosopher who could be cited against Gottsched, whose Erste Criindr der gesamrnten Weltweisheit (Leipzig, I 73 3-34) had been hailed as the popular account of the Wolffian system and was widely read. even by the Prussian monarch. And Wolff mattered. His prestige was immense, as was demonstrated by his being the only German philosopher ever to have been raised to the rank of Imperial Baron. But Baumgarten's Metaphysicn, being in Latin, was academically more respectable than Gottsched's treatise. That by itself would not have been enough. Fortunately the thrust of Baumgarten's conception of aesthetics was conveyed in the vernacular as well, in I 742, by a review article of the Meditationes in a literary journal, the Greifswalder Critische Versuche.' 3 Its anonymous author singled out the terms 'aesthetic' and 'aesthet- ics', first introduced in 1741 by Baumgarten into the German language in a short-lived Moral weekly, the Philosophischr Briefe by Aletheophilus (Frankfurt- an-der-Oder, 1741; Halle. 17411, of which he was the sole writer and editor. The Greifswald review attracted the attention of Gottsched's fiercest opponents, the Zurich critics Johann Jakob Rodmer and Johann Jaltob Breitinger, who immediately realised that Baumgarten's ideas constituted an arsenal which could be pillaged so as to make their fight against Gottsched acadeniically reputable. And they persuaded Georg Friedrich Meier, Baumgarten's star pupil and his successor in Halle, to wage war against Gottsched.'4 Meier had by then already started to spread the gospel of aesthetics. He did not have a truly original mind, but was a prolific writer by any standard'5 - he wrote sixty-five books and. with his poet-friend Pastor Samuel Gotthold Lange. forty-two volumes of 'Moral Weeklies' over a period of twenty-one years. </p><p>Meier, who had first paid homage to Gottsched, pulled no punches. His polemics aroused the inevitable reaction. Gottsched and his disciples replied: Gottsched himself, oddly enough, far less vigorously than his disciples. Since Meier was the main propagator of aesthetics, that new science too was dragged </p><p>I 3 . Critische Versurkr ausgr/rrtigt dtrrcli Eirtiyc Mitgl iutkr der Dcwtsclterl Grstdfschafr iu Gre$sivald 6 ( I 742). i99f. </p><p>14. Johann Jakob Bodmer to Samuel (;otthoid Lange (written probably between September I 745 and March I 746 1, Samuel Cotthold Lange. S ' m r ~ r r i l i r r i g gelehrter c r r d frrundssc.linfrlichPr Brit$' (Halle I 769). i.129. Meier had asked Bodrncr for advice on wrhether he should attack Gottsched (see letter by Meier to Bodmer. 27 June I 746. in Ernst Bergmann. Dip Begriindurrg drr drutschm Astlwtik durch A h . Gottlieb Rairtngarteri und G(wg Friedrich M P ~ P ~ . Mit einrni Atiliarig: G. F . MrJic,rs u r i g e d r u c h Hrre[e (Leipzig 191 I 1, p.249). </p><p>I 5. See my article 'Georg Friedrich Meier und die Verbreitung der Asthetik'. in Cc,scliic~lrtlic.likrit und Cugenwart. Festschrift f i ir Hans Dietridt Irnisclirr. ed. Hans Esselborn and Werner Keller (Cologne and Weimar 1994). p.I3-.34. for an account o f Meier's impact on eighteenth-century literary life and for further bibliographical information. </p></li><li><p>56 HANS REISS </p><p>into the battle. At issue was the question of whether there was a case for aesthetics as a theory and as a term. </p><p>The Gottschedians never attempted a genuine refutation ofBaumgartens ideas, but denied aesthetics the right to exist and denounced the word. Meier waged an all-out campaign. He did not merely seek to propagate Baumgartens ideas, but believed that he had improved on them, that he had enriched and enlarged the work of his teacher of whom he always spoke with respect and warmth.I His writings on aesthetics certainly take up far more space than Baumgartens who, unlike Meier, was laconic. Meier diluted Baumgartens wine with water. 7 He did not grasp Baumgartens contention that beauty resides in the act of cognition, nor did he stick to Baumgartens strict separation of aesthetics from ethics. But his publicity for the term aesthetics carried the day. His fight against Gottsched was successful, primarily because Gottscheds star was waning. The rising generation of poets and writers and most of the younger scholars thought Gottsched out of date. Thus, Gottscheds opposition to aesthetics was counter-productive. The more Gottsched and his ilk protested, the more aesthetics caught on. For Meier did not fight alone: he had pupils who began to teach the new science in quite a few reputable universities. In due course, chairs of aesthetics were established. I * Kant himself lectured in the I 760s on aesthetics or the science of taste.Iq Meier had read the mood of the age correctly, and the word and the concept of aesthetics were established, though understood more or less on Meiers terms. </p><p>A brief look at Baumgartens theory must suffice.zo Following the scheme of thought put forward by Leibniz and Wolff, he argues that aesthetics belongs to our lower faculty that deals with sensuous knowledge as distinct from logic, which belongs to our higher faculty that deals with mental cognition. To use the term the lower faculty does not imply inferiority. For Baumgarten aesthetics is entirely non-utilitarian and separate from ethics and theology. Beauty does not reside in the object contemplated but in the act of cognition, though if we discover beauty by way of cognition, we must, as a consequence, substantiate our claim by singling out the specific features in the object. In other words, we shall have to provide examples. They should reveal plenitude, magnitude, truth, clarity, certainty. and a movement of living power. These qualities will bring forth the pleasure of nobility and of light. But this pleasure cannot be achieved unless the work of art possesses an individuality of its own, which, in turn, entails order, concentration and selection. If we can demonstrate the prevalence of these features we have a right to call a work of art beautiful, that is, we have </p><p>16. See, for instance, Samuel Gotthold Lange. Leben Ceorg Friedrich Meiers (Halle I 778) , p.35. 17. These are the words used by the well-known classical scholar Johann Matthias Gesner in </p><p>18. See Klaus Weimar, Geschichte d w deutsrhen ~i t e ra turwi s sens~hu~ f bis zum Ende des I 9. Jahrhund- </p><p>19. See Nachricht von der Eiririchtung seiner Vorlesungen irn Winterhalbjahr I 765-1 766: AA, ii.312. 20. See note 7. </p><p>Primae Lineae ad lsagoges (Praelectiones). 2nd edn (Leipzig I 774). I . 219. </p><p>rrts (Munich 1989). p.78-101. </p></li><li><p>shown that the work exhibits poi-fer t in2 so that it can. if it is a poem - and Baumgarten. a lover of Latin poetry, used poetry to exemplify his theory - be deemed to be an oratio sensitivtr porfwfn..</p></li></ul>
Hegel Introductory Lectures On Aesthetics Pdf
Download as PDF, TXT or read online. Toward the beginning of his major work on aesthetics Baumgarten wrote. Documents Similar To Baumgarten.aesthetics. View Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten Research Papers on. History of Aesthetics, Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten. E la sua genesi nella filosofia wolffiana.pdf. Aesthetica scripsit Alexand.Gottlieb Bavmgarten. Item Preview. Download 1 file. ABBYY GZ download. Download 1 file. PDF download. Download 1 file. SINGLE PAGE PROCESSED TIFF ZIP download. Download 1 file. TORRENT download. Download 12 Files download 5 Original. IN COLLECTIONS. Aesthetica scripsit Alexand.Gottlieb Bavmgarten. By Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten. Publication date 1750. Publisher impens. Download 1 file. ABBYY GZ download. PDF download. Download 1 file. SINGLE PAGE PROCESSED TIFF ZIP download. Download 1 file. TORRENT download. The Invention of Modern Aesthetics: From Leibniz to Kant. On in the third section to Baumgarten’s foundation of aesthetics. Leibniz’s analysis of obscure.