Ludwig Tieck’s Kaiser Octavianus as the Capstone of Early Romanticism

Abstract

ABSTRACTWhen Ludwig Tieck started to publish his Schriften in 1828, he opened the edition with Kaiser Octavianus (1804), thereby setting the drama as the capstone to Early Romanticism. In this essay, I intend to explore what might have motivated Tieck’s decision and to what extent it can be justified. Firstly, I will argue that Kaiser Octavianus fulfils a requirement for good poetry formulated in the early essay ‘Über Shakspeare’s Behandlung des Wunderbaren’ (1793) that the poet should take subjects from folklore and sublimate them, thus creating a combination of simplicity and artificiality. Secondly, the drama can also be considered a contribution to the creation of a new mythology as proposed by Tieck’s associate Friedrich Schlegel. Thirdly, Kaiser Octavianus constitutes an example of Schlegel’s ‘Universalpoesie’, mixing genres and styles in a drama of epic proportions.KEYWORDS: TieckKaiser OctavianusRomanticismnew mythologychapbook adaptationuniversal poetry Notes2 Ludwig Tieck’s Schriften, 28 vols (Berlin: Reimer, 1828–54). References to the first volume of this edition are given as Schriften I in the main text, followed by page numbers.3 All quotations are taken from the first edition: Kaiser Octavianus: Ein Lustspiel in zwei Teilen von Ludwig Tieck (Jena: Frommann, 1804). References are given as simple page numbers in the text.4 Ludwig Tieck, ‘Über Shakspeare’s Behandlung des Wunderbaren’, in Schriften, ed. by Hans Peter Balmes and others, 12 vols (Frankfurt/Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1985–95), i: Schriften 1789–1794, ed. by Achim Hölter (1991), pp. 685–722 (pp. 686–87).5 This question is also discussed in the frame narrative of Phantasus, where a nuanced answer is given: in prose fiction, the poet should invent the plot himself, whereas the dramatic poet does not have to (Tieck, Schriften, ed. by Balmes and others, vi: Phantasus, ed. by Manfred Frank (1985), p. 147).6 Cf. Stefan Scherer, Witzige Spielgemälde: Tieck und das Drama der Romantik (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003), p. 365.7 Ludwig Tieck, Peter Lebrecht: Eine Geschichte ohne Abentheuerlichkeiten, in Ludwig Tieck’s Sämmtliche Werke, 8 vols (Berlin: Nicolai, 1799), iv/2, 31–32.8 Ludwig Tieck, ‘Die Geschichte von den Heymons Kindern, in zwanzig altfränkischen Bildern’, in Ludwig Tieck’s Sämmtliche Werke, VI, 243–366 (p. 246).9 Cf. Ernst Lüdtke, ‘Ludwig Tiecks Kaiser Octavianus: Ein Beitrag zur romantischen Geistesgeschichte’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Greifswald, 1925), p. 14. In this essay, the edition Florent et Lyon = Kaiser Octavianus, trans. by Wilhelm Salzmann, ed. by Xenja von Ertzdorff and Ulrich Seelbach (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1993) is used.10 Cf. Lüdtke, p. 123.11 Cf. Ernst Halter, Kaiser Octavianus: Eine Studie über Tiecks Subjektivität (Zürich: Juris, 1967), pp. 55–159.12 Friedrich von Schlegel, Gespräch über die Poesie, in Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe, ed. by Ernst Behler and others (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1958–), ii: Charakteristiken und Kritiken I, 1796–1801, ed. by Hans Eichner (1967), pp. 284–351 (p. 312).13 Cf. Lüdtke, p. 106.14 Gerhard Storz, Klassik und Romantik: Eine stilgeschichtliche Darstellung (Zürich: Bibliogr. Inst., 1972), p. 224.15 Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, Historisch-kritische Ausgabe, ed. by Thomas Buchheim and others, 35 vols (Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 1976–2023), ii, 6/1: Philosophie der Kunst und weitere Schriften (1796–1805): Philosophie der Kunst, ed. by Christoph Binkelmann and Daniel Unger (2018).16 Cf. Flavio Auer, ‘Schelling über Dantes Commedia und Goethes Faust als Neue Mythologien’, Scientia Poetica, 24 (2020), 115–32.17 To the best of my knowledge, there is no research on the possible influence of Tieck on Schelling. Though they met in Jena in 1799, the contact never seems to have been very intensive.18 Schelling provides a compelling philosophical argument for this hierarchy (provided one accepts the premises of his philosophy, of course): philosophy and art are complementary methods of perception of the absolute. Philosophy is concerned with the idealistic side of the absolute, art is concerned with the realistic aspects. Whereas classical mythology is realistic and therefore the perfect subject matter for art, modern mythology is idealistic and therefore modern art intrudes into the realm of philosophy (cf. Auer, p. 123).19 This is stated most emphatically in the essay ‘Einige Worte über Allgemeinheit, Toleranz und Menschenliebe’ in the Herzensergiessungen eines kunstliebenden Klosterbruders (1798). Although this book was written together with his friend Wackenroder, there is no reason to believe that this all-encompassing tolerance did not represent Tieck’s own view. His life-long engagement with neglected parts of literary history, e.g. the Middle Ages or the English Renaissance aside from Shakespeare, is proof of this position.20 ‘Romanze ist — alles Differenzieren hat hier wenig Sinn — die romantische Dichtkunst’ (Halter, p. 39). We agree, but a little differentiation is advisable nevertheless: since a Romantic poet also appears in the prologue, Romance should be viewed as the spirit of Romantic poetry in contrast to Romantic literature in its material form.21 For Hölderlin’s inclusion in Romantic philosophy see Manfred Frank, Einführung in die frühromantische Ästhetik, 6th edn (Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 2015), p. 222.22 Cf. Halter, p. 24.23 In the wake of Tieck’s slightly earlier plays such as Zerbino and Genoveva, there are also dramas by other Romantics aiming in a similar direction, e.g. Zacharias Werner’s Die Söhne des Tals (1802). Cf. Claudia Stockinger, Das dramatische Werk Friedrich de la Motte Fouqués: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des romantischen Dramas (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2000), p. 59.24 Indeed, the play also ends with a ‘Musikalischer Tanz’. Although it was never intended to serve as a libretto (unlike Das Ungeheuer und der verzauberte Wald), a slight resemblance to Richard Wagner’s Gesamtkunstwerk cannot be denied.25 Cf. Roger Paulin, Ludwig Tieck: A Literary Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 144.26 For a more comprehensive comparison, cf. Lüdtke, pp. 17–47.27 Cf. Anneliese Bodensohn, Ludwig Tiecks ‘Kaiser Octavianus’ als romantische Dichtung (Frankfurt/Main: Diesterweg, 1937), p. 21.28 Cf. Bodensohn, p. 61.Additional informationNotes on contributorsFlavio AuerFlavio Auer is a PhD student at LMU Munich. He studied physics, German literature, and philosophy at LMU Munich, the University of Oxford, and Stanford University. His publications include ‘Hölderlins Elegie Brod und Wein und die Neue Mythologie’ (Athenäum, 30 (2020), 117–40) and ‘Schillers Geisterseher zwischen Spätaufklärung und Romantik’ (GRM-Beiheft, 108: Venedig in der deutschen Literatur, ed. by Erik Schilling and Oliver Bach (2022), 89–102).