Dilettantismus um 1800 (review)

This compilation of essays is part of the significant and collectively very interesting work on cultural life around 1800 sponsored by theSonderforschungsbereich “Ereignis Weimar-Jena. Kultur um 1800.” The symposia and the published work of this particular research center range from studies on individual authors and their role in cultural phenomena (e.g. Schiller im Gespräch der Wissenschaften, ed. Klaus Manger und Gottfried Willems, 2005), to those on particularly influential publications of the time (e.g. Das Journal des Luxus und der Moden: Kultur um 1800, ed. Angela Borchert and Ralf Dressel, 2004), to studies of central themes or topics of the period (e.g. Bürgerliche Werte um 1800, ed. Hans-Werner Hahn and Dieter Hein, 2005 or Rituale der Freundschaft, ed. Klaus Manger and Ulrike Pott, 2007).

Dilettantismus um 1800 belongs to the latter category. This extensive study on dilettantism is very timely and highly desirable because the phenomenon delineates an important nexus in the differentiation of the cultural realm around 1800. Dilettantism illuminates the anxiety surrounding the professionalization and differentiation of the various facets of culture—art, literature, the sciences—on the one hand and the ever-broadening interest of increasing numbers of participants in cultural activities (“Verbürgerlichungsphänomen”). The discussion on dilettantism gives voice to culture around 1800 as contested and is evidence of a complex (re)negotiation of cultural values. Who is considered an artist? What is the proper form of audience participation and preparation? Why is this important for an understanding of the cultural and societal differentiations and expansions taking place in this particular spatial and temporal configuration?

The volume does a good job in delineating the concept of dilettantism, its history, and its usage (in particular in the introductory sketch by the editors Stefan Blechschmidt and Andrea Heinz), but also implicitly in many of the individual contributions, as in the important essays by Jochen Golz, “‘Dilettantismus’ bei Goethe. Anmerkungen zur Geschichte des Begriffs,” and Jürgen Stenzel, “Ästhetischer Dilettantismus in der Literatur.” The volume excels in describing the phenomenon in its breadth across the various cultural fields (literature, music, art, philosophy, science); it is less strong in teasing out its larger cultural and societal significance. Thus one of the weaknesses of this collection is the missed opportunity to situate the phenomenon of dilettantism in this larger cultural framework that would have illuminated its immense importance for the shifting cultural landscape around 1800.

This lack of orientation within the big picture is in a sense related to another weakness, the lack of interest in situating dilettantism in the broader methodological and theoretical framework of cultural studies. The essay by York-Gothart Mix and Nina Birkner on the fashionable almanac opens such possibilities with its focus on a “kultursoziologisch definierbaren Veränderungsprozeß im Selbstverständnis des Autors, Lesers und Kritikers sowie dem damit verknüpften Wandel des Werkbegriffes und der Rolle des Dilettanten” (112). Given the opportunity that this topic provides and the maturity of this research center that can look back on several years of symposia and (published) works, this is surprising.

The value and strength of this volume rests clearly in its breadth that not only illuminates the various facets of the dilettantism phenomenon as it was discussed in the central texts of the period such as Goethe and Schiller’s “Dilettantismus-Schema von 1799” (Jochen Golz), but also sheds light on various aspects associated with the phenomenon such as psychological aspects of a “disposition de l’esprit” (Uwe Wirth), imitation (Nikolas Immer), its particular ramifications for the realities of the theater (Heinrich Bosse), and its manifestation as tension in the Journal von Tiefurt (Peter-Henning Haischer), in the works of Christian August Vulpius (Inka Daum), in the role of the translator (Daniel Ulbrich), and in the fashionable Orientalist literature, where there seems to be either a lack of artistic ability on the part of the scholars or a lack of deep cultural understanding on the part of the authors who publish in this genre (Andrea Polaschegg).

Other contributions offer insights into aspects...