Pre-Romantic Elements in the Aesthetic and Moral Theories of François Hemsterhuis (1721-1790)

Pre-RomanticElementsinthe AestheticandMoralTheoriesof FrançoisHemsterhuis(1721-1790) A.P.DIERICK TheDutchphilosopherFrançois(Frans)Hemsterhuisisgenerallynot wellknowninNorthAmerica,althoughhewasfamousinhisowntime. ScholarshaverepeatedlyinsistedonhisinfluenceontheGermanpre- RomanticmovementofSturmundDrang,andonJohannGottfriedHerder andJohannWolfgangvonGoethe,andhispersonalUnkswithmanyofthe well-knownpersonaUtiesofhisdayareweUdocumented.WhileHemsterhuis didnothaveanoticeableinfluenceonDutchphilosophy—afactwhichthe mostprominentDutchbiographerofHemsterhuis,L.Brummel,explainsby thebackwardnessofcontemporaryDutchculturalUfe—hislinkswithFrench philosophyaresomewhatstronger;ontheonehandbecauseofhisobvious borrowingsfromsensualistslikeBonnotdeCondillac,ontheotherbecause ofDenisDiderot'sextensivecommentariesononeofHemsterhuis'spubli- cations,theLettresurl'hommeetsesrapports.Instrumentalinthespread- ingofHemsterhuis'sfameinGermanywasaboveallthePrincessGallitzin, wifeofPrinceDimitriGallitzin,theRussianambassadortotheNetherlands attheHague.GallitzinhimselfwasafriendofVoltaire[FrançoisMarie Arouet],DiderotandJeanleRondd'Alembert,anddieprotectorofClaude AdrienHelvetius.Hemsterhuisovermanyyearsmaintainedacloserelation- shipwiththePrincessGallitzin,whonotonlyinspiredthreeofhisphilo- sophicaldialogues,theSophylus(1778),Aristée(1779),andSimon(1780), 247 248/DIERICK butwhowasclearlyaworthypartnerinthediscussionsofwhichthesedia- logues are the end result. ApartfromthiscrucialrelationshipwiththePrincessGallitzin,platonic yetpassionate,Hemsterhuis'sownlifewasratheruneventful.Hewasbom onDecember27,1721inthesmallFrisiantownofFraneker,whichatthe timeboastedauniversity.Educatedatfirstbyhisfather,thephilologist TiberiusHemsterhuis,whoinspiredFrançois'Ufelongadmirationandfasci- nationwithGreekcivihzation,andespeciallyGreekart,Hemsterhuisma- triculatedfromtheUniversityofLeidenin1747.Hebecameaclerkinthe StateCounciloftheNetherlandsatdieHaguein1755,andin1769was promotedtoFirstSecretary.HemetthePrincessGalUtzinforthefirsttime in1773,andin1779traveledtwicewithhertoMunster,wheresheulti- matelystayedtolive.DuringafurthersojourninGermanyhemetFriedrich HeinrichJacobi,whoseenthusiasticreceptionledtothetranslationofsev- eralofHemsterhuis'sworksinthefollowingyear.FurthertoursthroughGer- manyin1785includedmeetingswithGoethe,Herder,andChristophMartin WielandinWeimar.HemsterhuisvisitedthePrincessforthelasttimein 1788;ayearlateraGermantranslationofhisLettredeDiodesÃDiotime surVathéismeappearedinGermantranslationinJacobi'ssecondeditionof hisÃœberdieLehredesSpinoza.HemsterhuisdiedonJuly7,1790indie Hague. Hemsterhuiswasathinkerwhotouchedonmanytopics.HisearUestwork wasonaesthetics,theLettresurunepierreantiquewrittenforThéodorede Smeth,whohadthestoneinhiscollection,in1762,butonlypublishedafter hisdeath.1ThisshortworkwasfollowedbythefarmoreimportantLettresur lasculpture,publishedin1769,butwrittenin1765.Itcontainsthefamous definitionofthebeautiful,soadmiredbyHerder,Goethe,andotherGerman pre-Romantics.Itisalsoofconsiderableinterestwhencomparedwiththe betterknownworkofJohannJoachimWinckelmann,publishedoneyear earlier,hisGeschichtederKunstdesAltertums.Hemsterhuis'snextwork, theLettresurlesdésirs,whichcouldbecategorizedasamixtureofaesthetic andmoralconsiderations,grewoutofapointraisedintheLettresurla sculpture.ThephilosophyofmoralswasmoreclearlythesubjectofhisLettre surl'hommeetsesrapports,aswellasthedialogueSimon,oulesfacultés del'âme.InAristée,ouladivinité,anattemptismadetoprovideatheodicy, whileinAlexisoudel'âged'or,finally,themythoftheGoldenAgeis reworked.2Hemsterhuisalsowroteextensivelyonopticsandgeometry. InthispaperIwouldliketoconcentrateonHemsterhuis'saestheticand moralwritingsandontheconnectionswhichexistbetweenthetwo.Ipro- posetohighlightonlythosenotionswhichhavemadehistory,andwhich havebeenproposedtosuggestlinksbetweenthe"DutchSocrates,"ashehas AestnetkandMoralTheoriesofFrançoisHemsterhuis/249 beencalled,andtheGermanpre-Romantics.Inchoosingtextsprimarilyofhisearlierphase,before1775,1amguidedbythefactthatitisthesetexts thatfiguremostprominentlyinthereceptionhistoryofHemsterhuisinGer- many.Atthesametime,thesearethetextsmostfrequentlyquotedasproof ofan"electiveaffinity"betweenHemsterhuisandtheprecursorsofGerman Romanticism.Ifsuchclaimsaretohavesomevalidity,however,andifthe aptnessoftheterm"pre-Romantic"isnotmerelytobeassumedmechani- cally,itisclearthatanexaminationofHemsterhuis'sphilosophicalquestioningofnecessityalsoraisesissuesofdefinition ,classification,and periodizationinculturalhistoryingeneral.Thisfundamentalissueishidden inthetitleofthispaperitself,foritseemstoassumethata)thereissucha thingasapre-Romanticmovement,andb)thatHemsterhuis'sworkcontains "pre-Romantic"elements. Asfarasthefirstassumptionisconcerned,itmaybeusefultoremind oneselfthatasfarbackas1963RenéWellekwroteinhisConceptsofCriti- cismthattheterms"Romanticism"and"Romantic"hadalreadybeenunder attackforalongtime;3heforonefelt,however,thatsomebroaddefinitionof bothtermswasusefulandcouldbedefended.Thedebate,ofcourse,has continued,notonlyastowhetheritisaEuropeanmovementoraseriesof movements,butespeciallywhat"catalogue"ofelementswouldhavetobe establishedtodescribeadequatelysuchamovementormovements.Thesame mayofcoursebesaidfortheevenmorecontestedterm"pre-Romantic," quiteapartfromthesubtlequestionastotheexactrelationshipbetween SturmundDrangandRomanticism—aquestionwithwhichmanycritics havestruggledandcontinuetostruggle. Onesourceofconfusionaboutso-calledpre-Romanticsshouldinany casebelaidtorestimmediately."Nobody,"Wellekwrites,"haseversug- gestedthattheprecursorsofRomanticismwereconsciousofbeingprecur- sors."But,hecontinues,"theiranticipationsofRomanticviewsanddevices areimportant."ArguingfororagainstRomanticandpre-Romanticmove- mentsintheeighteenthcenturyis,Wellekpointsout,oftentiedtoproblems ofmethodology."TheargumentagainsttheveryexistenceofRomanticism intheeighteenthcenturyisbasedontheprejudicethatonlythetotalityofa writer'sworkisthecriterionofjudgment";yetontheotherhandhemust admitthat"thehuntfor'Romantic'elementsintheeighteenthcenturyhas becomearathertiresomegame,"4whilethe"atomistic"approachwhichsets outtoprovideinstancesofindividualRomanticideasandmotifsdatingfrom theseventeenthcenturyorbeyondignoresthequestionofemphasis,placein asystem,andfrequencyofoccurrence.Despitesuchhesitations,however, Wellekmakesanobservation,inthiscasespecificallyonEnglishliterature, whichItaketogivesomevaUditytomytitle:"Iftherewerenopreparations, 250/DIERICK anticipations,andundercurrentsintheeighteenthcenturywhichcouldbe describedaspre-Romantic,wewouldhavetomaketheassumptionthat WordsworthandColeridgefellfromheaven...."5 Indeed,indicatorsofageneralshiftinparadigmstowardsanewGeßhls- kultur,anewsensibility,areevidentfromasearlyasthe1730son.Inhis letterswrittenfromTurin(1739),ThomasGraymarvelsatthewildbeauty oftheAlps,thusechoingthefamouspoembyAlbrechtvonHaller,"Die Alpen"(1729),withitspaeantotheFurkaandtheSt.Gothard.Halleralso celebratesthesimple,uncorruptedlifeofthemontagnards,asdidSalomon Gessner,whosenaturedescriptions,intheirnewsensibility,anticipatethose ofJeanJacquesRousseau.Averypersonal,lyrical,funerealandmetaphysi- calsensibilityisexpressedintheworksofsuchpoetsasJamesThomson;his poemsonthefourseasons(publishedfrom1726to1730)alreadycontain manyofthepre-Romanticelementswhichculminateinthetender,sadand melancholyscenesinGoethe'sWerther,andFrançoisRenédeChateau- briand'sAtalaetRené,whileThomasGray's"ElegyWritteninaCountry Churchyard"(1750)broughtthepoetinstantandEuropean-widefame. CharlesDédéyanwritesofGray'sverses:"C'estunchefd'oeuvredansla mesureoùilsorchestrentlessentimentsd'uneEuropedéjÃpréromantique: malgréleurrhétoriqueetleslieuxcommuns,leurincantationsimpleetmono- tonesuggèrelapaixpastorale,l'innocenceédéniqueÃlaquelleaspirentles coeurslas,danslasérénitéd'unpaysagetranquille."6JamesHervey,inhis "MeditationsamongtheTombs"(1745-47)carriedthistypeofpre-Romanticsensibilitytoitsapogee ,whereasthecrucialmotifofthenightiscastin itsdefinitiveforminEdwardYoung's"TheComplaint,orNightThoughts onLife,DeathandImmortality"(1742^4-5),whosetitleprogrammatically announcesthosepoeticpreoccupationswhichwillleadwitiioutinterruption intopre-Romanticism,andtoRousseauasitsmostfamousproponent. Suchindicatorsofanewsensibilityarenottobeseenasrestrictedtothe poetsthemselves,moreover.Thereis,especiallyafterthemiddleofthecen- tury,aparadigmaticshiftinthewritingsonaestheticswhichreflectsthecult ofsensibilityintroducedinpoetry,andwhichworksinparallelwithpoetic productionitself,creatingnewdefinitionsofthebeautiful,stressingsenti- mentandgenius.Inparticular,anewattitudetowardswild,untamednature isintroducedintobothpoeticproductionandaestheticreflections.Natureisnolongerasourceofmoralprecepts,butratherasourceofdisturbingandat thesametimefascinatingsentiments:wildnatureinspiresfearandasenseof thesublime.CarstenZelle,inhisdiscussionoftheimportanceof"delightful horror"and"terreuragréable"inEnglandandFrance,notonlyunearths substantialevidenceforthecentralityofuntamedratherthancultivatedna- tureinEuropeanpoetry;healsodrawsfromthematerialtheconclusionthat AestheticandMoralTheoriesofFrançoisHemsterhuis/251 "dieEntstehungderpositivenNeubewertungderungestalteten,jabedroh- lichenNaturerscheinungen"arerelatedtotherhetoricalconceptofthesub- lime.7"DerBetrachterdergewaltigenNaturerscheinungenwird'inein angenehmesErstaunen'—'pleasingastonishment'—undin'einergötz-endesSchreckenundEntsetzen'—'deUghtfulStillnessandAmazement'gestürzt."8 CrucialinZelle'sdiscussionishisinsistenceonthefactthatnaturethus depictedinarthasanemotionalratherthananintellectualormoralimpact onthereader,justasnatureitselfhassuchanimpactontheobserver.This shiftfromthethingdepictedto,first,thedepictionitself,butbeyondthis,to theeffectontheobserverorreader,inotherwords,ashiftfromwork(Werk) toeffect(Wirkung)isthemostimportantaestheticdevelopmentintheeigh- teenthcentury.EvidenceofthisshiftcanbeobservedinthewritingsofAn- thonyAshleyCooper,thirdearlofShaftesbury,FrancisHutcheson,Joseph Addison,DavidHume,Diderot,Jean-JacquesRousseau,andespecially JohannJakobBodmerandJohannJakobBreitinger—allheraldsofpre- Romanticism.InlookingattheaestheticandmoralwritingsofHemsterhuis, therefore,itwillbeofcrucialimportancetonotetowhatextentthesewritingsprovideevidenceparticularlyofthecultofsensibilityasoutlinedabove , andofanorientationtowardsWirkungsaesthetik—bothessentialingredi- entsofpre-Romanticism. FormostscholarswritingonHemsterhuistheviewthatthereareprecur- sorsofRomanticismintheeighteenthcentury—bothcreativewritersand writersonaesthetics—isatacitaswellasastatedassumption.Hemsterhuis isseenbythesecriticspreciselyasafiguremediatingbetweenEnlighten- mentandRomanticism.Indeed,inthisviewHemsterhuisisnotsomuchof intrinsicinterestthanasafigurerepresentativeofaparticularmomentinculturalhistory.L.Brummel,forexample,explainsthat"inthetreatmentof Hemsterhuis'sideaswehavetakenasourstartingpointthefactthattheir valueisprimarilydeterminedbythetimeinwhichtheywereannounced."9 Here,however,onehastosoundawarningabouttheUnkingofHemsterhuis withpre-Romanticism,namelythatsuchlinkagesmightsimplybyinspired byexternalevidence,notablythelistofillustriouspersonagesgenerallyas- sociatedwithSturmundDrang,pre-Romanticism,andRomanticismwho enthusiasticallyendorsedHemsterhuis'swork.Amoreconvincingmethod ofestablishingarelationshipbetweenHemsterhuisandpre-Romanticism wouldofcoursebetoprovideevidenceoftrueanticipationsandprepara- tions,andthisisindeedsuggestedbyanumberofGermancriticsbeginning towritearound1900.Incontrasttoearlierscholarship,intheir"teleologi- cal"approachHemsterhuisisseeninlightofthingstocome,asshowingimpulseswhichsoonafterwardsaremorefullydeveloped.Brummel,forex-ample,instatingthatHemsterhuis'sphilosophy"distinguishesitselfnotso 252/DIERICK muchbyitsbeingsodeeplythought,but,rather,subtlyfelt"10—advancesa criterionwhichheunderstandsaspointingtoRomanticism.Notsurprisingly, however,readingHemsterhuis"Ideologically"inthiswayhasalsocome underattack,mostrecentlybyPaulPelckmans,whowamsusthatsuchread- ingstendtodistortbyquotingoutofcontextandbymisreadingthethrustof thetotalityofHemsterhuis'sphilosophy."Weeasilyrecognizeelementsof thedebatetowhichWellekreferredalreadyin1963.Giventheproblems raisedhere,itisinanycaseclearthatinlookingatHemsterhuis'sworkwe willdowelltotrytokeepthedistinctionbetweenechoesandcorrespon- dences,endorsementsandinterpretationsinmind. ItisnotsurprisingthatHemsterhuiswouldwriteonthetopicofaesthet- ics;manyeighteenth-centuryphilosophersdid.Especiallytowardsthemiddle ofdiecenturyaesthetics,firstandforemostinEngland,becameoneofthecentralareasofphilosophy.RolfGrimmingerhasarguedthattiiiswasthedirectresultofafeelingthatman's"natural,"irrationalandsubjectivewishes anddesireshadbeenleftoutoftherationalsystemofEnlightenmentphilosophy :"Subjektivität,diesichdenRegelnderVernunftnichtrestlosbeugt, weilsieaufdenirregulärenMöglichkeiteneinesvonAffektengeleitetenDaseinsbeharrt,wirdzueinemfundamentalenProblemimSystemder aufgeklärtenPflichten,dessenLösungnahezuausschließUchderKunst,dem Geschmack,derästhetischverfeinertenSinnlichkeitübertragenwird."12Itis thequestionofthelegitimacyofpleasurewhichtriggers,asasubdivision, themanyinquiriesintotheplaceofbeauty.Alongingforasynthesisof pleasureandreasoncan,accordingtoGrimminger,beseeninsuchoverarching ideasasunityinmultiplicity,reasonandnature,artandnature,etc.13More-over,asBrummelhasargued,becauseofaperceivedconflictbetweenobjectivereasonandsubjectivepleasure ,aestheticsisalsothedomaininwhich oneisapttofinddiemostlikelyevidenceofatendencytowardsformsof irrationalismwhichmayheraldatranscendenceofEnlightenmentpositions. Thisideaseemstobeborneoutbythespeculationsonaestheticsfirstin England(EdwardYoung,Shaftesbury,Hutcheson,EdmundBurke)andthen inGermany(Jacobi,Herder,JohannGeorgHamann,laterFriedrichSchlegel, Novahs[FriedrichvonHardenberg]).TheveryfactthatHemsterhuiswrote treatisesonaestheticswouldthereforesuggestacertainirrationaltradition, and,perhaps,apre-Romanticanticipation. Hemsterhuis'sfirsteffortinthisvein,however,theLettresurunepierre antique(1762),isstillcompletelyinthetraditionofEnlightenment.The essayconsistsofamixtureofpraiseforthebeautyoftheobjectandadoseof erudition,learning,and"science"inspiredbythepremisethatonlythecon- noisseurisabletoappreciate"labellepièce."Thoughitanticipates AestheticandMoralTheoriesofFrançoisHemsterhuisI253 Winckelmann'seffortstolinkGreeksculpturewithGreekhistoryandcul-ture,theessaycarriesnothingoftheillustriouscontemporary'sweight,nor ofHemsterhuis'sownsecondtextonaesthetics,thefarmoresubstantial Lettresurlasculpture(1769).ThissecondLettreisatwo-partessay,consistingofaconcisehistoryof sculptureprefacedwithaseriesofgeneralremarksconcerningart.Theshort...