Enlightenment, Revolution, and Romanticism: The Genesis of Modern German Political Thought, 1790-1800 (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 501 Frederick C. Beiser. Enlightenment, Revolution, and Romanticism: The Genesisof Modern German Political Thought, i79o-18oo. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 199~. Pp. xiii + 434- Cloth, $45.oo. This book, the sequel to Prof. Beiser's 1987 work, The FateofReason: GermanPhilosophy from Kant to Fichte,picks up the story where the earlier volume left it: with the dispute over the "authority of reason" given a new urgency by the appeal to this very authority by supporters of the French Revolution. In the period after 1789 , the debate was transformed from a largely theoretical to a predominately political one, concerning, first of all, the power of pure reason to produce or to discover practical principles of human conduct, and, secondly, the ability of such rational principles to serve as springs or motives for human action. The central thesis of this new book is that all German philosophy of the 179oswhether it concerns epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, or aesthetics--was "dominated and motivated by political ends," that "almost all" the philosophical writings of this era "were inspired, either directly or indirectly, by the Revolution." According to Beiser, there was no real distinction during this period between philosophy in general and political theory--since "an epistemological, ethical, or aesthetic theory became a weapon to justify or achieve political ends"--and therefore any study of the former inevitably becomes a study of the latter (viii, 1). The philosophical/political thought of the 179os was dominated by three traditions : liberalism, romanticism, and conservatism, and the goal of Beiser's study is to determine "the genesis and context" of each of these traditions. He attempts to accomplish this worthy goal by expounding and analyzing selected writings of the most representative exponents of each tradition, including some very famous as well as some very obscure authors. Indeed, one of the chief virtues of Beiser's work is that he so successfully rescues from oblivion so many neglected but historically important texts and figures. Since the dominant pattern of political theory in Germany during this period was liberalism, more than half of Beiser's book is devoted to individual liberals, who often disagree profoundly among themselves concerning such fundamental matters as the best form of government, the right of revolution, and questions of political economy. What these liberals have in common with the better-known liberals of the 184os is their devotion to political liberty and to those political ideals and rights designed to guarantee the same. (On the other hand, they generally advocated a cosmopolitanism that contrasts strikingly with the nationalism associated with later German liberalism.) They all agreed that it was the purpose of the state to provide its citizens not with the greatest possible happiness, but with the greatest possible freedom: to protect their rights rather than to insure their welfare. They were thus united in rejecting the paternalistic model of the state associated with enlightened despotism; indeed, this is what chiefly distinguishes them from those Enlightenment theorists with whom they otherwise have so much in common. While sharing "the belief that the purpose of social life isthe self-realization of the individual" (17), liberals disagreed among themselves over the precise role of pure 502 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 32:3 JULY I994 reason in this process of free self-realization. Whereas "rationalists," such as Kant and Fichte, believed that pure reason could justify moral and political principles and hence advocated an ethic of duty, "humanists," such as Schiller, Wilhelm yon Humboldt, Jacobi, and Georg Forster, believed that principles of conduct must be derived from experience and advocated an ethic of human perfection. These general theses concerning German liberalism of the 179os are established and fleshed out in separate chapters devoted to Kant, Fichte, Schiller, Humboldt, Jacohi, and Forster. Whereas the chapters on Kant, Jacobi, and Forster cover the entire range of works written by these authors, those on Fichte, Schiller, and Humboldt are more tightly focused upon individual texts. In the case of Fichte, for example, Beiser tries to demonstrate the political aim and (implicit) content of the Foundations of the Entire Wissenschaflslehre,whereas the discussion of Schiller is limited almost entirely to the Letters on the Aesthetic Education...