Forms of Knowledge/Knowledge of Forms: The Epistemology of Goethe’s West-östlicher Divan and Cavellian Skepticism

Unbegrenzt

Daß du nicht enden kannst, das macht dich groß, Und daß du nie beginnst, das ist dein Loos. Dein Lied ist drehend wie das Sterngewölbe, Anfang und Ende immer fort dasselbe, Und was die Mitte bringt ist offenbar Das, was zu Ende bleibt und anfangs war.

Du bist der Freuden ächte Dichterquelle, Und ungezählt entfließt dir Well’ auf Welle. Zum Küssen stets bereiter Mund, Ein Brustgesang der lieblich fließet, Zum Trinken stets gereizter Schlund, Ein gutes Herz das sich ergießet.

Und mag die ganze Welt versinken, Hafis, mit dir, mit dir allein Will ich wetteifern! Lust und Pein Sey uns den Zwillingen gemein! Wie du zu lieben und zu trinken Das soll mein Stolz, mein Leben seyn.

Nun töne Lied mit eignem Feuer! Denn du bist älter, du bist neuer.¹

The poem “Unbegrenzt” in the “Buch Hafis” of Goethe’s West-östlicher Divan offers several problems for interpretation. Perhaps most obviously it is marked by the presence of, if not direct contradiction, then at least strong paradox. The poem’s opening two lines address an unclear “Du” and attribute to that addressee the polar problems of being unable to come to an end (“Daß Du nicht enden kannst”) and never beginning (“daß Du nie beginnst”). And its final lines state in playful contradiction: “Nun töne Lied mit eignem Feuer! / Denn du bist älter, du bist neuer.” Second, as indicated by its situation in the “Buch Hafis” and its explicit naming of the earlier poet, “Unbegrenzt” calls into question both Goethe’s and the poetic speaker’s relations to their poetic predecessor(s). And finally, the ambiguity of the address in the first lines raises questions about self-address, self-reflection, and self-thematization: there are moments when the poem’s address is unambiguous (most obviously in the last two lines), but it is not always clear when “Du” refers to Hafis, the poetic voice, or the poem. Moreover, the poem’s self-reference asks for an inquiry into the relation between the title and the poem (what exactly is, or is described as, “unbegrenzt”?) and between the different parts of the poem—that is to say, it asks for an inquiry into the poem’s form.

In this paper, I will give a reading of “Unbegrenzt” that focuses on each of these three questions: Why is the poem so paradoxical? What is the relation to the poetic predecessor? And who is (are) the addressee(s)? I will begin by demonstrating how these topics appear and unfold throughout the poem. I will then investigate the interrelation of the three topics both as overarching themes in Goethe’s poetic oeuvre and as central components of his scientific and literary epistemology. In order to support the connection between the Divan project and Goethe’s investigations of the potential of human (including scientific and poetic) knowledge, I will draw on both his morphological writings and the discussions of the formation of knowledge in the Farbenlehre. It is something of a commonplace to cast Goethe as offering an alternative to the Cartesian method of gaining and validating knowledge; in the final section of this paper, I will elucidate the breadth and depth of this alternative and its implications for modern conceptions of human subjectivity by appealing to the anthropological conception of skepticism worked out by the American philosopher Stanley Cavell. Cavell offers an account of the struggles for knowledge and world orientation faced by human subjects that shows why and how poetry has a particular role to play in those struggles by virtue of its deployment of deliberately fluid form that registers conflicting tendencies both of poetic production and human subjects. I will use Cavell to address this role with reference to the questions of predecessor relationships and originality, paradox, and self-reference that I will identify in Goethe.

1. Reading: Limited and Limitless

Goethe manages to enclose a remarkable number of oppositions in twenty lines; these oppositions, which would normally preclude one another, instead emerge as simultaneous characteristics of both...