Modernism, Medievalism and Humanism, A Research Bibliography on Ernst Robert Curtius

EARL JEFFREY RICHARDS

Modernism, Medievalism and Humanism:

A Research Bibliography on the Reception of the Works of

Ernst Robert Curtius

MAX NIEMEYER VERLAG TUBING EN 1983

Gedruckt mit Unterstiitzung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft

Meinem Schwiegervater

,. .. _.,.

.J

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek

Richards, EarlJelfrey: Modernism, medievalism and humanism : a research bibliogr. on the reception of the works of Ernst Robert Curtius I Earl Jeffrey Richards. -Tiibingen : Niemeyer, 1983.

(Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie ; Bd. 196) NE: Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie I Beihefte; HST

ISBN 3-484-52196-1 ISSN 0084-5396

© Max Niemeyer Verlag Tiibingen 1983 Alie Rechte vorbehalten. Ohne Genehmigung des Verlages ist es nicht gestattet, dieses Buch oder Teile daraus auf photomechanischem Wege zu vervielf<lltigen. Printed in Germany. Satz: Computersatz Staiger, Tiibingen. Druck: Becht-Druck, Pfiiffingen. Einband: Heinrich Koch, Tiibingen.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Annotated Bibliography of Reviews of Curtius' Writings, (1912-1983)

Supplement ..

Bibliography of Curtius' Publications

Index of Proper Names

VII

1

20

164

170

189

Acknowledgements

In the course of compiling this research bibliography, I benefited from conver­sations with Professors Y akov Malkiel (Berkeley), Heinrich Lausberg (Pader­born), Giinther Weydt (Miinster), Wolfgang Babilas (Miinster), Wolf-Dieter Stempel (Hamburg), Karl August Ott (Kiel), Wolf-Dieter Lange (Bonn), and Peter Dembowski (Chicago), whom I wish to recognize and thank here. In particular I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Robert Hollander (Princeton) for his encouragement during the more difficult periods of my re­search. I am grateful to the Interlibrary Loan staff of the Universitiitsbibliothek Miinster, to the Readers' Service division of the Bayrische Staatsbibliothek, Miinchen, to Dr. Hans-Joachim Hermes (Miinster) and to Dr. Renate Blumen­feld-Kosinski (New York) for their competent assistance. Frau Ilse Curtius deserves special thanks for her help in clarifying many biographical details of her husband's life. I would also like to recognize Professor Kurt Baldinger, editor of the Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie, for all his aid and counsel.

My wife Ingrid provided me with invaluable help in understanding the rich and complex intellectual tradition of her homeland.

Francke Verlag (Bern/Miinchen) kindly granted permission for me to utilize parts of the bibliography of Curtius' writings which first appeared in the Freundesgabe (1956). Finally I would like to express my warmest thanks to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for its generous support in subsidizing the publication costs of this bibliography as well as to its referees for their valuable suggestions.•

E. J. Richards

Miinster i. W., July 1982

• A considerably shorter version of the annotated bibliographic section of this work has been published in Italian by II Mulino, Bologna.

VII

A11cie111 ll'it'10111 Modem is a st11111bli11g­

hlock. Modem ll'it'10111 A11cie111 is foolish­

' IC'.\'.\" Ill I er ((II d i /"/"('II IC' di a hf l'.

Sa in tsln 11-r

Curtius at the Goethe-Bicentenial, (Aspen, Colorado), in 1949 (Photo, courtesy Frau Ilse Curtius)

Ancie/l/ 11·i1/101// Modem is a s111111bli11i;­

h/ock, Modem 11•i1holll Ancielll is fiwlish­

ncss 1111er and irre111cdiahle.

Sai111s/m1-r

Curtius at the Goethe-Bicentenial, (Aspen, Colorado), in 1949 (Photo, courtesy Frau Ilse Curtius)

Introduction

Hugo Schuchardt once called for the creation of a new academic discipline which he called «researching the researcher» (die Erforschung des Forschers). Schuchardt maintained that an acquaintance with the personal, subjective context from which a scholar's work springs facilitates understanding the objective contribution of scholarship in general'. The 'dovetailing' of subjec­tivity and objectivity to which Schuchardt referred has increasingly attracted scholarly attention in recent years. Given the unavoidable fact that all schol­arship is time-bound, recent writers investigating the history of scholarship (Wissenschaftsgeschichte) have found that reconstructing the «epistemological interests» (Erkenntnisinteressen) of older scholars can afford a means of ascer­taining the on-going value of their earlier research. The history of scholarship faces complicated tasks for it constantly runs the risk of degenerating into ad hominem argumentation or into the disordered accumulation of personal anecdotes. The contemporary researcher, moreover, can himself fail to re­cognize to what extent his own current «epistemological interests» may influ­ence and cloud his judgment. Present needs impinging on research possess an incontestible legitimacy, indeed priority; they cannot, however, necessarily claim a greater or higher validity than the requirements which influenced the research of earlier scholars. Both viewpoints are inevitably relative. Thus the history of scholarship is challenged to provide a chance for present research to interrogate past research in the explicit hope and epistemological interest that future research will benefit from this imperfect dialogue of the present with the past. Examining the reception of the writings of Ernst Robert Curtius over the period of the last seventy years can both reveal the changing demands made on literary scholarship during that time and afford new purchase on the problems which confronted Curtius and which continue to confront succeed­ing generations of scholars.

1 «kh empfinde es immer wohltiitig, wenn unter dem kiihlen Panzer der Objektivitiit hervor mich ein warmer Hauch von Subjektivitiit anweht, die ja doch nie fehlt. Der Mitforscher tritt mir dann n:lher, wird mir verst3.ndlicher», Hugo-Schuchardt-Brevier, ed. Leo Spitzer, (Halle, 21928), 421.

1

One can usefully begin with a short biographical excursus2• Curtius was

born on April 14, 1886, in the Alsatian town of Thann, the son of Friedrich Curtius (1851-1933) and his wife Louise, nee Countess of Erlach-Hindelbank (1857-1919). Friedrich Curtius was a transplanted civil servant who, in addi­tion to his other duties, served as president of the small Protestant Augsburg Confessional Church in Roman Catholic Alsace-Lorraine3 . At one time Al­bert Schweitzer was a boarder at the Curtius' home; he has left a description of the cultivated atmosphere of their family life (entry no.121). Curtius saw in his father, as he wrote Charles Du Bos in 1933 (entry no.407), a representa­tive of the «old, idealistic Germany». Despite recurrent rumors that he had converted to Roman Catholicism (see his 1921 letter to Carl Schmitt, entry no.413, and his 1927 letter to Gide, entry no. 407), and despite Stefan George's frequently cited reference to Curtius' «aufgewarmter catholicism» [sic], Curtius remained a Protestant all his life, assuming what he himself called an «Anglican» position toward Roman Catholicism. Curtius received his Abitur in 1903 from the Protestant Gymnasium in Strasbourg, and studied from October, 1903 to July, 1910 at the Universities of Strasbourg, Berlin and Heidelberg. While he was a student in Berlin (during the winter semester of 1906/07), he was able to profit from the social ties of his late grandfather, Ernst Curtius (influential Hellenist, archaeologist and excavator of Olympia), and received invitations to the home of the impressionist painter Reinhold Lepsius (brother-in-law of Friedrich Curtius' half-sister). Here Curtius met Friedrich Gundolf, Stefan George and Charles Du Bos. On February 28, 1910, Curtius defended his doctoral dissertation in Strasbourg, later published under the title Einleitung zu einer neuen Ausgabe der «Quatre Livre des Reis». Curtius' dissertation adviser, Gustav Grober, exerted a powerful influence on Curtius throughout his entire career, evidenced in the dedication of Europiii­sche Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter to Grober some forty years later. In 1913 the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Bonn accepted Curtius' Habilitationsschrift on Ferdinand Brunetiere, a topic suggested in fact by Gro­ber before his death on November 6, 1911.

Curtius began his career as a Privatdozent in Bonn. During the summer se-

' This short excursus on Curtius' life is based on the articles by Evans (entry no. 379) and Lausberg (entry no. 380).

' All throughout his life Curtius identified strongly with Alsace. It might be useful to compare Curtius' career with that of his contemporary Ernest Hoeppfner (1879-1956): both were Alsatians, attended the same Gymnasium, studied in Strasbourg under Gro­ber. In 1918 Hoeppfner returned to Strasbourg from Jena. Curtius did not return. Hoeppfner remained exclusively a medievalist during his long and fruitful career. See Paul Imbs, Ernest Hoeppfner (1879-1956), Bulletin de la Faculte des lettres, Stras­bourg 35 (1956157), 147-150; Charles-Edmon! Perrin, Discours a I' occasion de la mart de M. Ernest Hoeppfner, Comptes rendus de l' Academie des inscriptions et belles­lettres (1956), 396-401; and Gustave Cohen, Un grand romaniste alsacien, Ernest Hoeppfner, Les Lettres frarn;aises, Paris, (25 October 1956), 2.

2

mester, 1914, Curtius offered three courses: a two-hour seminar on Chretien de Troyes' Yvain; a two-hour seminar on Proven~al; and a one-hour lecture course, open to students from all faculties, on the intellectual currents of contemporary French literature. The lectures (repeated in 1917 and 1919) formed the basis of Curtius' Wegbereiter. Curtius fought in France and Poland during the First World War, and was shot through the neck in 1915. This wound was so severe - in later years it often led to swelling which prevented Curtius from speaking - that he was released from the army. From 1916 to 1920 he taught in Bonn, offering a variety of courses (besides his Wegbereiter lectures) on both medieval and modern topics, including a lecture course on Balzac (which was preparatory to his 1923 study). In 1916 Curtius sent the manuscript of his Wegbereiter to Stefan George who disliked the book and refused to recommend it to his publisher Georg Bondi (see entry no. 345). Yet, while he never succeeded in being accepted into the George-Kreis, Cur­tius' Romanist colleagues never tired of reproaching him for his association with George and Gundolf (see entries nos.15, 45, 72, and 90). In 1920 Curtius was named professor in Marburg where he remained until 1924. Although he felt exiled in Marburg (see his letters to Carl Schmitt from 1921-22, entry no.413), his activity there proved extremely productive, for it was during this time that he published his books on Maurice Barres (1921) and Balzac (1923). In 1921 he went to Colpach for the first time (see entry no. 20); in 1922 he par­ticipated in the «Entretiens de Pontigny». At the same time his journalistic ac­tivities - which earned him the disdain of many older Romanists - increased enormously during this period. In 1925, thanks to Gundolf's intervention and despite strong opposition from the older Romanists in Heidelberg, Curtius was named professor there. During this part of his career, he wrote a great many articles for Die Neue Rundschau, Die Literarische Welt, Neue Schweizer Rundschau, and Deutsch-franz6sische Rundschau, and published his short monograph on James Joyce und sein Ulysses (1929). While in Heidelberg Cur­tius made the acquaintance of Arnold Bergstrasser who later collaborated with Curtius on their joint study Frankreich (1930). It was also during this time that Curtius met his future wife, Ilse Gsottschneider, a student in Heidel­berg, whom he married on February 15, 1930.

In 1929 Curtius was appointed as the successor of Wilhelm Meyer-Lubke in Bonn. His nomination was extraordinarily controversial, not specifically because Curtius had devoted himself to modernist studies in the previous de­cade (though this undoubtedly played a role), but because, although he had consistently taught Old French and lectured on Dante during the 1920's (see his letters to Gide and to Mme. Mayrisch from 1922, entry no. 407), he had neglected historical linguistics, a field of specialization traditionally associated with this chair in Bonn. Lansberg cites excerpts from the protocol of the nom­inating committee which might usefully be repeated here:

Von dem Gedanken ausgehend, eine europ3.ische bekannte Gelehrtenpers6nlichkeit zu berufen, wi.irde die Fakultat vor allem an Ernst Robert Curtius denken, wenn des-

3

sen Einseitigkeit <lurch eine vollwertige Ergftnzung aufgewogen wiirde. Curtius re­prasentiert mit der Weite seiner Interessen und Bildung, mit seinem asthetischen In­stinkt, mit seiner Fahigkeit, auf groBere Kreise schriftstellerisch zu wirken, mit der Verbindung von strenger Wissenschaftlichkeit und einer iiber die Wissenschaft hin­ausragenden Vermittlertatigkeit einen Gelehrtentypus, wie er bei uns in Deutschland ganz selten ist und wie er sich haufiger nur in romanischen Landero findet. Als Leh­rer iibt er allerdings mehr auf eine Schiilerelite eine tiefe Wirkung aus. Als Schrift­steller widmet er der franziisischen Literaturgeschichte der Neuzeit seine Hauptkraft. Dami! aber bebaut er zweifellos, auch unter dem Gesichtspunkt der akademischen Lehrtatigkeit, eines der wichtigsten Felder. Er liest regelmaBig auch iiber Dante, Einfiihrung ins Altfranziisische, Erkliirung altfranziisischer Texte. Immerhin ver­nachlassigt Curtius die Sprachgeschichte mit bewuBter und zugestandener Einseitig­keit. Die Fakultat, die auf eine so bedeutende Persiinlichkeit wie Curtius Anspruch erheben zu diirfen glaubt, isl nun aber einmal durch die besondere Bonner Oberlie­ferung von Diez bis Meyer-Liibke, sodann auch durch das Bediirfnis unserer Studie­renden daran gebunden, auf die Sprachgeschichte weiter das griiBte Gewicht zu le­gen. ( ... ) Wenn es das Ministerium ermiiglichen kann, den Romanistischen Lehrstuhl Curtius zu iibertragen, daneben aber die Sprachgeschichte durch Herrn v. Wartburg vertreten zu !assen,( ... ) so wiirde die Fakultat die Berufung von Curtius unter fach­lichen wie allgemein universitats-politischen Gesichtspunkten begriissen. [entry no. 350, 22&- 227]

As Lausberg notes, Meyer-Liibke himself opposed Curtius' succeeding him. The decisive factor was the intervention of Carl Becker, Prussian minister of culture and former professor of oriental languages in Bonn until 1916 (see Becker's review of Curtius' Brunetiere, entry no. 6). Curtius remained at the University of Bonn until his retirement (Emeritierung) shortly after his sixty­fifth birthday, on April 30, 1951. Lausberg supplies a list of Curtius' seminars in Bonn, whose topics range from French modernist, Spanish siglo de oro, me­dieval Latin, to Old French subjects, including a «Philosophisch-soziologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft» sponsored jointly by Curtius, Joseph Schumpeter, Fritz Kern and Erich Rothacker during the 1930 summer semester and the 1930/31 winter semester (see also entry no.348). During the last twenty years of his teaching, modernist topics took an increasingly secondary role, assuming roughly the same proportion occupied by medieval subjects during the earlier part of his career. Medieval and modernist topics are consistently represent­ed, albeit in different ratios to each other, throughout Curtius' entire teaching career. Curtius' position during the Nazi period was precarious. Because this subject has subsequently attracted a great deal of controversy, and because Curtius' vulnerability during this time resulted in large part from the publica­tion of Deutscher Geist in Gefahr, it is better to discuss this problem below in connection with the reception of Deutscher Geist in Gefahr itself. The amount of published documentary material available from this era is comparatively small, in part because Curtius' correspondence during this time was censured. One catches glimpses, nevertheless, of the difficulties and perils to which Cur­tius was exposed in Curtius' recently published letters to Gide (entry no. 407) and to Gertrud Bing (entry no. 408). Curtius spent the last months of the war in hiding (see entry no. 383).

4

Shortly after the war the English poet Stephen Spender paid Curtius a visit. His observations (entry no.187) portray a bitter and resigned Curtius, and seem to have sparked the controversy concerning Curtius' political stance during the Nazi period. Thomas Mann (entry no. 346) spoke of an «intellectu­al shrinkage» on Curtius' part after reading Curtius' 1947 essay on Hesse. (Curtius was no less kind in his remarks on Mann, see entry no.407.) Spen­der's and Mann's remarks reflect their own concerns: Spender, disillusioned with the leftist politics of his youth, may have projected some of his disap­pointments on Curtius, who represented for Spender prior to the war a men­tor figure (see entry no.182). Following the war Thomas Mann, for his part, was concerned with justifying his refusal to return to Germany; a certain haughtiness may have colored his remarks. Regardless of the validity or accuracy of Spender's and Mann's observations on Curtius' state of mind immediately after the war, Curtius, apparently undeterred by his alleged bout of intellectual shrinkage or defeatism, or perhaps suddenly cured, collected the articles which he had written during the Nazi period and published them together in 1948 as Europiiische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter. Curtius' choice of a Swiss, rather than a German publisher was dictated in all likeli­hood by the practical difficulties of publishing in Germany immediately following the war and should not be interpreted as a turning away from Ger­many. In the course of the next several years Curtius collected his scattered articles in Kritische Essays zur europiiischen Literatur (1950), reissued his Bal­zac in 1951, and combined his Wegbereiter and Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa under the title Franzosischer Geist im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert (1952). He also devoted himself to a number of translations: Andre Gide's Thesee (1949), William Goyen's House of Bread (1952), and Jorge Guillen's Ctlntico (1952). Curtius also wrote a number of articles for the Zurich journal Die Tat (not to be confused with the right-wing journal from the late 'twenties and early 'thirties which Curtius himself attacked). These essays, treating a wide spectrum of literary critical subjects, were collected after his death and published by Max Rychner under the title Biichertagebuch (see entry no. 333). In June, 1951, Curtius received an honorary doctorate of laws from the Uni­versity of Glasgow. A year later he was decorated with the Orden Pour le Merite, following in the tradition of his predecessor in Bonn, Friedrich Diez, who was so honored in 1866. In November, 1954, Curtius was awarded an honorary doctorate of humanities from the Sorbonne, the first German bestowed this honor since the end of the Second World War (see entry no. 270). Similar honors from German universities are, unfortunately, conspicuously absent. In late 1952 Curtius was taken seriously ill with a liver ailment which severely curtailed his further scholarly and literary activities. He and his wife traveled to Switzerland and Italy, spending considerable time in Rome where Curtius died from this same liver ailment on April 19, 1956, five days after his seventieth birthday. He was buried in the crypt of his mother's family in Freiburg im Breisgau.

5

This short biographical survey may cast some light on the reception of Cur­tius' writings themselves, particularly because Curtius was so fond of calling attention to the relationship of a scholar's life to his own scholarship, and cited Schuchardt's call for the founding of the discipline of «researching the researcher» in his essay on Gustav Grober. Yet before examining the reception of Curtius' individual works in detail, it is important to appraise the epistemological value of the reviews themselves. They combine 'objective' (or 'positivistically verifiable') judgments with personal evaluations, and their documentary value perhaps stems more from the latter than from the former component, precisely because the personal remarks culled from the different reviews permit us in retrospect to reconstruct the assumptions which originally motivated Curtius as well as his public. At the same time, isolating the presuppositions behind Curtius' writings should not deteriorate into an un­critical or indiscriminate appreciation of Curtius' work. Such an attitude can only do Curtius' writings a disservice. The reviewers which are examined here represent a nearly exhaustive collection of published discussions. Doubtless they reflect only a part of a much larger oral tradition. With this limitation in mind, however, one can proceed to evaluate the reviews themselves. Curtius' dissertation and Habilitationsschrift attracted relatively little attention. In the case of the latter work it is likely that the First World War precluded its receiv­ing much notice - and in 1935 Robert Pitrou was prompted to make good belatedly for this neglect (see entry no.178). Curtius' interest in Brunetiere (spawned by a suggestion from Grober) did not represent an abandonment of the Middle Ages: it was, and often still is customary for German Romanists to write their dissertation on one period and their Habilitationsschrift on an­other. In other words, the early stages of Curtius' career followed an orthodox, indeed a classic pattern for German Romance scholars. The only hint of future professional disapprobation to come from the ranks of Curtius' colleagues was sounded by Eugen Lerch (entry no.8), who objected to an ex­cessively aesthetic (i.e., non-historical) orientation in Curtius' book. Lerch would later become vitriolic in his criticisms of Wegbereiter.

Curtius owed his initial fame - or notoriety - to the tremendous publishing success of his Wegbereiter. Despite his original difficulties in finding a pub­lisher, Curtius found an eager audience for his exposition of contemporary French authors among a postwar German public anxious to understand the sources of their former enemy's strength, either as a first step toward recon­ciliation or as a means of understanding the debacle of Germany's unexpected defeat at the hands of the 'decadent' French (see entries nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27). Curtius' Romanist colleagues were overwhelmingly negative in their remarks. In one review (see entry no.15) Klemperer judged Wegbereiter naive and pretentious; in another he reproached Curtius for taking the statements of his literary precursors too seriously (entry no.24). Oskar Schultz-Gora (entry no. 40) berated Curtius for his «scholarly aber­ration» ( wissenschaftliche Verirrung) since the authors he treated represented a

6

«national deviation» (volkische Entgleisung). The sharpest attacks came from Eugen Lerch: in one review (no. 25) he attacked Curtius for having his work printed by a literary (as opposed to a scholarly) publisher with «salon­communist» (edelbolshewistisch) leanings. In another review (no.35), he accused Curtius of «hobnobbing with the nigger nation» (Anbiederung mit der Negernation, i.e., France; «nigger nation» probably refers to the French deployment of contingents of Senegalese soldiers among their troops occupy­ing the Rhineland). The Alsatian writer Otto Flake sharply rebuked Lerch for this slander (entry no. 42). Curtius wrote Carl Schmitt that Lerch probably did himself more damage than he had done to Curtius (entry no.407). In his Riickblick 1952 Curtius depicted this incident as typical of his relations with the esprit de corps of German Romance scholars. Describing his encounter with this Zunftgeist ("guild-spirit", a pun on Zeitgeist), Curtius noted:

Die Wegbereiter batten in den ersten Nachkriegsjahren einen publizistischen Erfolg, der mich iiberraschte. Das Buch wurde begriiBt von Hermann Bahr (Neues Wiener Journal, 27.Juli 1919 [entry no. 9]), Hermann Hesse (Vivos voco, Oktober 1919 [entry no.13]), Fritz Schotthofer (Frankfurter Zeitung, 12. Oktober 1919 [entry no.17]). Aus der Schweiz stimmten Adolf Keller zu (Wissen und Leben, 15. Novem­ber 1919 [entry no.14]); aus Frankreich Paul Souday (Neue Zurcher Zeitung, 23.Au­gust 1920 [entry no. 29]) und 'Alain Desportes' (Nouvelle Revue Franraise, Oktober 1920 [entry no. 20]), aus Italien Mario Praz (Rivista di Cultura, 15. Oktober 1920 [entry no. 27, see also no. 37]). Aber meinen deutschen Fachgenossen hatte ich es nicht recht gemacht. Einer von ihnen zieh mich der «Anbiederung mit der Negerna­tion» [entry no. 35], wofiir ihn der Deutschelsasser Otto Flake zur Ordnung rief (Neue Rundschau, Februar 1922 [entry no. 42]). Ein anderer Kollege [i.e., Wilhelm Friedmann, no. 34] schrieb 1921 vermittelnd: «Das Buch von C. hat ein eigenartiges Schicksal erlebt. Nach einer allerdings reichlich ungeschickten Verlagsreklame fand es ein begeistertes Echo in der Tagespresse - ich erfuhr von seinem Erscheinen erst­malig <lurch einen enthusiastischen Artikel Hermann Bahrs im Neuen Wiener Journal - um dann in den wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften eine ziemlich 'mauvaise presse' zu finden. Namentlich die Miinchner Richtung-von einer Schule zu sprechen geht nicht an, ohne den kraftigen Personlichkeiten von X. [Lerch] und Y. [Klemperer] Unrecht zu tun - hat das Buch mit einer ungewohnlichen Scharte abgelehnt. Y. [Klemperer] stellt in einem scharfsinnigen Aufsatz im Archiv /Ur das Studium der neueren Spra­chen [no. 24] das <Sehr wenig ernste> Buch von Curtius der <Sehr ernsten> Preisschrift von X. [Lerch] gegeniiber. Dieser schroffen Ablehnung des Buches miissen schwer­wiegende Griinde das Wort gesproche11 haben - und wir werden uns fragen miissen, welche die Fehler der Arbeit sind, und ob diesen Fehlern nicht denn doch auch Qua­litaten gegeniiberstehen». Das war ziinftig geredet, und ich sollte diesem Zunftgeist in den seither verflossenen dreiBig Jahren noch oft begegnen. Fiir seine Analyse ist die von einem witzigen Kollegen geforderte Bonzol-Chemie zustandig. 4 Nur zwei al­tere Kollegen haben die Wegbereiter mit Sympathie gewiirdigt: Eduard WechBler [entry no. 30] in Berlin und Hanns Heiss [entry no. 23] in Freiburg [523-524].

4 'Bonzol-Chemie' is a pun on Renzo/ ("benzene") and Bonze ("big shot, bigwig"). The pun might also include a play on the hexagonal form of the benzene ring and the col­loquial German expression im Sechseck springen (roughly, "to fly off the handle").

7

The reception of Wegbereiter outside of Germany was as favorable as the Ger­man Romanist reception was negative. The review written by Mme. Emile Mayrisch under the pseudonym «Alain Desportes» (entry no.20) led to Cur­tius' association with La Nouvelle Revue Fran9aise, an acquaintance which was instrumental to his continued commitment to Franco-German reconcili­ation. Thanks to Mme. Mayrisch, Curtius was invited to Colpach and Pontigny5• One might also mention in passing the favorable reviews offered by Maurice Muret (no.16) and Fernand Baldensperger (no.19) which Curtius neglected to include in his list of recensions.

The patterns evident in the reception of Wegbereiter anticipate the re­sponse which Curtius' later works frequently encountered: popular acclaim, professional reserve. While it would be an exaggeration to say that Curtius was viewed as a renegade by his colleagues (one might recall the weighed tone of the protocol on Curtius' appointment as Meyer-Liibke's successor cited above), Curtius doubtless remained the object of bitter professional jealousy. The publishing success of Wegbereiter (which went through three printings from 1919 to 1923) permitted Curtius to attain a prominent and enviable pub­lic position unusual for a German Romance scholar. Curtius was well aware of the strains in his professional ties, of the difficulties involved in 'Bonzo/­Chemie', and wrote to Carl Schmitt in 1921 that the varying degrees of hostil­ity shown by Lerch and VoBler contributed a number of valuable examples of the psychology of academic decision-making (Beitriige zu einer Psychologie des Urteils - von Akademikern)! However one must also realize that the bit­terness of the professional response to Curtius' Wegbereiter was not untypical of German Romanist exchanges at that time. Lerch's Preisschrift, to which Curtius alludes, Die Verwendung des romanischen Futurums als Ausdruck ei­nes sittlichen So/lens, (Leipzig, 1919), also met with sharp criticism. As Iordan-Orr explain, «This kind of animosity is doubtless to be attributed to the bitterness aroused by the war, which unfortunately spread to the world of scholarship» [130n.]. The criticisms levelled at Wegbereiter constitute perhaps the most severe form taken by this postwar bitterness among professional Romance scholars. Perhaps in response to this negative reaction from his col­leagues, Curtius deliberately sought another public for his writings, cultivating friendships among writers, journalists and poets. Curtius' isolation from the Romanist «guild» tended therefore to be self-perpetuating, though the pro­fessional response he received gradually turned somewhat more positive.

Curtius' Maurice Barres encountered slightly more favorable reviews than Wegbereiter. Eugen Lerch arrogantly noted (entry no. 47) that Curtius had managed to achieve with Barres what he had failed to accomplish with Weg­bereiter, namely to write an «educational manual for the younger generation»

s See Emile Mayrisch, Precurseur de la construction de/' Europe, (Lausanne, 1967); and Anne Heurgon-Desjardins, Paul Desjardins et /es Decades de Pontigny, Etudes, temoignages et documents, (Paris, 1964).

8

(ein Erziehungsbuch fur unsere Jugend). Klemperer took the occasion (entry no. 45) to remark that Curtius was propagating «the old, wonderful and noble, only unfortunately misleading optimism» regarding the political future of Europe. Barres received largely favorable reviews in the popular press (see entries nos. 38, 39, 41, 44, 48). Curtius' Balzac generally elicited an even more positive response than his previous writings, though Karl VoBler (entry no. 62) admitted that he failed to be convinced by Curtius' approach. Leo Spitzer's comments on Balzac (entry no. 68) are of special interest. Though not in the strict sense a pupil of VoBler, Spitzer was heavily influenced by his approach (see lordan-Orr, pp.135-142). It is thus significant that Spitzer sought to point out the stylistic elements in Curtius' analysis which presented affinities with the methods favored by VoBler and Lerch and which they had overlooked in their reviews of Balzac. The French response to Curtius' study was particularly positive (see, e.g., entry no. 69) and led to a French transla­tion done in 1933 by Henri Jourdan (see entries nos.175 and 176). Curtius' Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925) received comparatively less at­tention than Curtius' other writings from this era. Klemperer (entry no. 75) however noted that while Curtius' politics previously had often managed to spoil his literary criticism, in the case of this latest work, Curtius had succeed­ed in striking a felicitious balance between these two components of his per­sonality:

Der Ethiker Curtius, der Mann des Friedens und der Verstiindigung, hat dem Lite­rarhistoriker Curtius manch einmal das Konzept verdorben. Diesmal wird fast durch­weg getrennte Rechnung gefiihrt, und da er nun den Historiker in seinen Festlegun­gen nicht mehr beirrt, so kann man auch an dem Friedensfreund seine reine Freude haben.

The response outside Romanist circles was enthusiastic: the recurrent ad­jective used to qualify this work of Curtius was «European» (see entries nos. 76, 77, 78, 84). The begrudging acceptance which Curtius had wrung from his colleagues by this time is more and more apparent in the various dis­cussions of Curtius' work from this period and sets the stage for the reception of his 1930 study, Die franzosische Kultur.

Curtius was requested by the Deutsche Verlagsanstalt to write a short introduction to French civilization in cooperation with Arnold Bergstrasser. Curtius was a natural candidate in view of his earlier sympathetic studies of contemporary French literature, a number of which he incorporated into his monograph. The study of French civilization (Kulturkunde or Frankreichkun­de) was highly controversial in Romanist circles; hitherto relatively few expo­sitions of French culture had been undertaken by German Romance scholars, and then only as an outgrowth of semantic studies, such as Eduard WechBler's notorious and jingoistic Esprit und Geist (1927), or in non-professional circles as a compilation of journalistic articles, such as Friedrich Sieburg's widely read and translated Gott in Frankreich?, Ein Versuch (1929). The only other

9

German study of French civilization then available was Hartig and Schellberg (eds.), Handbuch der Frankreichkunde (1928), which was criticized for its lack of organization. This entire field of inquiry had yet to win acceptance among older Romance scholars. Curtius undertook the task fully aware of the methodological pitfalls. His book attracted widespread attention throughout Europe. The reaction in German Romance circles was mixed: Walther Kiich­ler (entry no. 113) presented a lengthy refutation of Curtius' «subjective» approach; Eugen Lerch (entry no.114) sniffed that the book was a highly cultivated essay but not scholarship; Helmut Hatzfeld (entry no.111) thought that it overcame the weaknesses of earlier studies; Fritz Schalk (entry no. 155) exhaustively contrasted the assumptions of WechBler with those of Curtius; Victor Klemperer (entry no. 339) noted:

Ein besonderer Vorzug dieses Bandes, der fraglos ( ... ) das reichste deutsche Frank-reichbild enthiilt, das bisher geschaffen wurde, ( ... ) liegt darin, daB Curtius dem Riesenthema gegeniiber nirgends in fachliche Enge und nirgends in Dilettantismus verfiillt. [90)

Klemperer also noted that Curtius' views on France were «authoritative» (mafJgebend) for the intellectual left just as WechB!er's opinions set the tone for the intellectual right. Stefan Gross (entry no. 409) has provided a very competent analysis of the German Romanist writings on France from the 1920's. It is important to bear Klemperer's characterization in mind when one considers the controversy which erupted over Curtius' political motives when Christian Senechal, echoing a recurrent criticism of German studies of French civilization (see entries nos. 102, 128, 135), accused Curtius of advocating «the belief in irreducible differences among nations», a belief which constituted for Senechal «a new and insidious form of nationalism» (entries nos. 119 and 120). Curtius did not hesitate to rebuke Senechal in the strongest possible terms: he noted sarcastically that his crypto-nationalism had succeeded in fooling most French and German critics, not only of Die franzosische Kultur but also of his earlier works as well (see entry no. 120 for a more detailed ac­count of this quarrel). Curtius' book in fact impressed most French reviewers (see entries nos. 94, 98, 109, 116, 117, 134, 137, 144, 151, 159, 163, 167), and enjoyed considerable success in French, English and Swedish translations.

The recurrent political concerns which animated Curtius' writings from 1919 to 1930 - the striving for reconciliation with France, the promotion of a 'European' mentality, the balancing of classical, medieval and modern liter­ature - found their most explicit expression in a number of essays which orig­inally appeared from 1929 to 1932 in Die Neue Rundschau and Neue Schweizer Rundschau and which Curtius collected and published in his Deutscher Geist in Gefahr. Regardless whether one chooses to view Curtius' humanistic pro­gram as «completely Utopian» (Rene Wellek, entry no. 403), the point here is to ascertain the contemporary reception of this work. Curtius had many tar-

10

gets: the Nazis, the Tat-Kreis6, the sociologist Karl Mannheim. The popular

reception of this work mirrors the German political spectrum of 1932-33. While many German reviewers welcomed Curtius' marriage of humanism and nationalism as a remedy to that form of nationalism propagated by the Nazis (see entries nos. 149, 153), a number of contemporary reviewers criticized Curtius for being out of touch with contemporary reality (see entries nos. 164, 166, 173). Indeed, after Curtius had Deutscher Geist in Gefahr reprinted after Hitler's takeover, he attracted the censure of the official Nazi Party news­paper V6lkischer Beobachter. Hermann Sauter, in his article there (entry no. 174), accused Curtius of being mistaken about the state of the German nation as a result of his «association with Jews and confused Jewish-minded souls» ( Umgang mit Juden und Judischgesinnten verirrten, Herzen) and warned that the «New Germany» probably did not have a place for Curtius as a teacher. This single review, which effectively declared Curtius a persona non grata in his homeland, was probably responsible for the abrupt decline in dis­cussions by Germans of Curtius' writings from 1933 to 1945. The only German Romance scholar who positively discussed Curtius' work during this entire period was the Austrian-born Fritz Schalk (entry no.186). Curtius continued to teach and publish of course, but his former non-professional public was now cut off from him. Curtius however was not arrested and not imprisoned in a concentration camp, though there were persistent rumors outside Ger­many to this effect (see T. S. Eliot's contribution in the Freundesgabe). Cur­tius did not emigrate, and, as Stephen Spender (entry no. 187) explained (long before it became fashionable to single out 'good Germans'):

I think really the reason was a passion for continuity, a rootedness in his environment which made him almost immovable. He had modelled his life on the idea of Goethe who boasted that during the Napoleonic struggle he had been like a mighty cliff tow­ering above and indifferent to the waters raging hundreds of feet beneath him. If he always detested the Nazis, he also had little sympathy for the Left, and the movement

• See Kurt Sontheimer, Der «T1t»-Kreis, Vierteljahrshefte fur Zeitgeschichte 7 (1959), 229-260. The editors of the journal Die Tat, Hans Zehrer, Ferdinand Friedrich Zim­mermann, Giselher Wirsing and Ernst Wilhelm Eschmann (see entry no.106), were highly influential, in spite of their youth, in making their 'middle way' between social­ism and capitalism, i.e., the marriage of nationalism and socialism in a kind of 'con­servative' revolution acceptable among educated Germans. As Sontheimer notes, «Die Tat hat( ... ) zu einem nicht geringen Tei! daran mitgewirkt, den Nationalsozia­lismus unter deutschen Gebildeten salonfahig zu machen» [254-255). See also Klaus Fritzsche, Politische Romantik und Gegenrevolution, Fluchtwege in der Krise der biir­gerlichen Gesellschaft, Das Beispiel des «Tat»-Kreises, (Frankfurt, 1976). Fritzsche's book, though tendentious, refers to Curtius in the following terms: «Der Romanist Ernst Robert Curtius riihmte in seinem 1932 erschienenen Essay Deutscher Geist in Gefahr - <lessen eigene politische Romantik sozusagen romanisch-abendliindisch gefil­tert und daher gegeniiber den deutschen Dingen eher distanziert war - an der Tat im­merhin eine <blendende Mischung von Gescheitheit und Sachkenntnis> [Curtius, 36)» [57)

11

to leave Germany was for the most part a Leftwards one. Above all, he may have felt that it was his duty as an non-political figure, to stay in Germany, in order to be an example before the young people of the continuity of a wiser and greater German tradition.

Because of currency and visa restrictions, Curtius was unable to travel exten­sively outside of Germany for very long during this time. Because of censor­ship, Curtius could write freely only during short stays abroad (from Luxem­bourg and Italy). Excerpts from some of the letters he wrote to Gertrud Bing in London during these briefs trips outside of Germany were recently pub­lished by Peter Dronke (entry no. 408) and they afford a partial picture. Cur­tius did not join a resistance group (because, according to Lansberg [entry no. 380, p. 230], «da er als Gegner des Nazismus bekannt war, hiitte er durch eine Mitarbeit die Wlderstandsgruppen unnotig gefiihrdet»). The charge that Curtius was anti-Semitic (see Nerlich, entry no. 389) is patently false: as early as 1932 the Jewish German reviewer Walther Strauss (entry no. 162) explicitly referred to Deutscher Geist in Gefahr as a sharp rebuttal of «de[ r] zur Zeit herrschende Antisemitismus der rechtsradikalen Kreise». Moreover, Curtius and his Germanist colleague in Bonn, Hans Naumann, (who did not hesitate to disagree with Curtius in print, see entries nos.148 and 207), successfully managed to hide Berta Schwartz, a Jewish secretary from the university, dur­ing the Nazi period7

• Lansberg cites the opinion of a Dozentenfiihrer in Ver­tretung (roughly, a Nazi-appointee with the rank of a 'visiting' associate pro­fessor, perhaps Gerhard Moldenhauer, see Werner Ross, entry no. 296) who wrote the following evaluation of Curtius on August 25, 1944, in answer to an inquiry whether Curtius should be allowed to travel briefly to Portugal:

Curtius genieBt in fachlichen Kreisen <lurch seine friiheren Leistungen groBes Anse­hen. Er ist als Mensch schwierig und sehr zuruckhaltend, von seinen Kollegen mehr als wissenschaftliche Kraft anerkannt als menschlich geschatzt. Politisch steht er dem Nationalsozialismus mit groBen Vorbehalten gegenuber, Vorbehalte, die vor der Machtubernahme auch in seinem literarischen Schaffen sehr deutlich zum Ausdruck gekommen sind. Curtius gilt als Liberalist durch und durch. Er laBt daher selbstver­standlich auch jeden Einsatz im Interesse volkspolitischer Dinge vermissen, obwohl gerade dieser Einsatz hier an der Westgrenze <loch sehr nahe Iage. Nach unserer Kenntnis ist jedenfalls nicht zu erwarten, daB Curtius auf Auslandsreisen, und das gerade im gegenwartigen Kriege, die deutsche Sache so vertreten wiirde, wie das not­wendig ware.

1 My source for this information is Prof. Dr. Gunther Weydt, Munster, who, as Privat­dozent and later as professor in Bonn from 1935 to 1960, knew Curtius. Frau Ilse Cur­tius confirmed the story for this writer. One cannot underestimate the danger involved in this activity. Curtius' nemesis from the 1920's, Eugen Lerch (whose strong national­ist and Social Democratic sentiments were well known), was stripped of his chair in Miinster in 1935 when it was revealed, as the protocol now in the university archives in Miinster states, that «er lebt hier getrennt von seiner jetzigen Frau in engerem freundschaftlichen Verkehr mit einer jiidischen Sekretarin» [Universitatsarchiv, Miin­ster, Neue Universitat, Pers. 126, Bl. 11].

12

According to Olivier Perrin (entry no. 383), Curtius was forced to hide during the last months of the war out of fear that he would be inducted into the Volkssturm in retaliation for having refused to assume the presidency of a Franco-German cultural association under Nazi aegis. While Perrin's report may not be completely accurate, it suffices to round out the picture of Curtius during the war years. Except for Stephen Spender's undocumented specula­tion («I suppose that later on he must have compromised to some extent, or he would have been imprisoned», entry no.187), there is absolutely no evi­dence that Curtius collaborated in even the slightest way. This fact must be re­membered in reviewing Nerlich's (entry no. 389) and Jehn's (entries nos. 388 and 398) undocumented charges that Curtius was a Nazi and a collaborator. Their determination to explode the so-called 'Curtius legend', motivated in part, as Stefan Gross perceptively noted (entry no. 409), by an attempt to create a 'Klemperer legend' in its place, drastically misrepresents the facts.

Curtius endeavored to demonstrate cultural continuity in his writings. He tried to enhance European awareness of cultural rootedness. When Rene Wellek somewhat uncharitably dismisses Curtius' «criterion which looks for allegiance to some kind of optimistic pantheism» (entry no. 403), he overlooks the cultural context in which Curtius, «the great affirmer», took his stand, namely in a situation permeated, to cite Fritz Stern's apt phrase, by the «pol­itics of cultural despair»8

. While this form of cultural commitment on Curtius' part may strike us as superannuated, it nevertheless stems from a stubbornly, indeed idiosyncratically consistent position. Curtius' dogged consistency, which, despite his shifting interests, is implicitly underscored in his repeated practice of collecting previously published articles together in book form, does not vindicate his position, yet it does explain the context in which his writings emerged. Curtius was proud of his consistency, and, for example, pointed rather gleefully to the hypocrisy shown by Eugen Lerch who first accused him of «hobnobbing with the nigger nation», and then, some nine years later, con­curred with Christian Senechal's opinion that Curtius' studies of France re­presented a hidden form oi nationalism. Curtius remarked:

Professor Lerch soil am besten wissen, daB ich gegen diesen Vorwurf geschutzt bin; hat doch er selb&t mich nach dem Erscheinen cier LiterariJ1chen Wegbereiter des neuen Frankreich beschuldigt, ich hiitte mich «mit der Negernation angebiedert» [entry no. 35]. Mein Standpunkt hat sich seit damals nicht geandert. [entry no.120]

Curtius' dispute with Karl Jaspers in 1949 over the value of Goethe for the present is an additional example of his consistency (see entries nos. 199, 205,

' Stern persuasively showed in The Politics of Cultural Despair, A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology, (Berkeley, 1961), how the hatred of modernity and the aver­sion to the West, i.e., France, led to the rise of a compensatory Germanic ideology with a strong nihilistic vein - precisely what Curtius tried to combat through his me­diation of modern French literature and his advocacy of the 'European' context of German culture.

13

212, 385, 399) and perhaps also of his love of a good fight. This controversy takes its place among Curtius' other quarrels with Eugen Lerch, Christian Senechal, Emil Winkler, H. H. Glunz, Gustav Ehrismann and Erich Auer­bach.

The publication of Europiiische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter in 1948 received almost immediately an overwhelmingly positive response. Re­viewers were sensitive to the 'plea for Europe' which stood behind the work and which critics viewed as the major 'political' statement of the book (see Pisani, entry no. 225, and Konrad, entry no. 269, as well as Chatillon, entry no. 252). No contemporary reviewer specifically refers to Curtius as an «in­tellectual resistance fighter». That Curtius' writings stemmed from his staunch opposition to Nazism was, however, clear to all reviewers. Lansberg perhaps unwittingly contributed to propagating the so-called legend of Curtius as an intellectual resistance fighter; his 1970 biography of Curtius seems to be the first published reference to such a legend but reflects an older oral tradition among German Romance scholars. Lansberg wrote:

Curtius hat wiihrend dieser Zeit dem Nazismus Trotz geboten und Widerstand gelei­stet. Dieser Widerstand lag einmal in der ziihen Arbeit an der Erfilllung des Pro­gramms eines Mittelalter-Humanismus <lurch die sein Meisterwerk von 1948 (Euro­piiische Literatur) vorbereitenden zahlreichen und gewichtigen Aufsiitze der Jahre 1936 bis 1944, die der Ideologie des Nazismus diametral entgegenstanden. ( ... )Um dieser Mission treu zu bleiben, konnte Curtius sich organisatorisch keiner politischen Widerstandsgruppe anschlieBen: da er als Gegner des Nazismus bekannt war, hiitte er <lurch eine Mitarbeit die Widerstandsgruppen unnotig gefiihrdet. [230]

(As for Curtius' own depiction of his political motives, one might refer to the discussion of Stephen Spender's remarks, entry no. 187.) Michael Nerlich (entry no. 389) attempts to explode this legend, but his arguments, besides suffering from documentary problems, correspond in large measure to the rhetorical tactic known as 'setting up a straw man', a rebuttal of a deliberately misconstrued opponent.

Marfa Rosa Lida de Malkiel prepared the most extensive review of ELLMA (entry no. 244). She noted, as did a number of other reviewers, that Curtius had sacrificed specialist concerns in treating medieval Latin literature for the sake of presenting a synthesis to a wider public. Her review is matter-of-fact, and she seeks to complement and enrich Curtius' notion of continuity. Cur­tius' particular emphasis on continuity attracted considerable criticism from other reviewers (see Friedrich, entry no. 198; Auerbach, entries nos. 215 and 216; and Politzer, entry no. 263). Germanist reviewers were especially irritat­ed by two points: first, Curtius' neglect of the influence exerted by (rather than upon) medieval German literature on other literatures; and second, Cur­tius' refutation of Gustav Ehrismann's system of chivalric values (see entries nos.192, 195,204,207,214,223,224,245,247,250,256,306,336,355,356, 378). Medieval Latinists were extremely reserved toward Curtius' book (see Rostagni, entry no. 209) and immediately warned that less qualified re-

14

searchers would pervert Curtius' synthesis into a mechanical collection of random topoi (see Bezzola, entry no. 218; and Fara!, entry no. 241). This criticism, voiced immediately after the appearance of Curtius' book, has perhaps itself become a recurrent 'topos' itself in subsequent commentaries on Curtius' concept of topology.

The ensuing discussion of Curtius' application of the term topos has over­shadowed the reception of all other elements in Curtius' writings. Curtius, as Veit noted (entries nos. 350 and 358) was one of three advocates of topology: the two other co-founders of this method were Ramon Menendez Pidal and Maria Rosa Lida de Malkiel. Their writings on this subject have been largely neglected by participants in the argument over topology. Their remarks on Cur­tius' application of topology possess therefore a special importance (see entries nos. 181, 244 and 271). In 1956 Edgar Mertner first pointed out Cur­tius' unconventional - indeed, historically false - application of the term topos (entry no. 291). Mertner's criticism has been treated by Poggeler (entries nos. 331 and 381), Veit (entries nos. 350 and 358), Emrich (entry no. 363), Obermayer (entry no. 374), Fischer (entry no. 386), Jehn (entry no. 388), Baeumer (entry no. 390), Katsura (entry no. 391), Uhlig (entry no. 393), Gumbrecht (entry no. 397) and Weinrich (entry no. 402). Curtius justified his notion of the topos by citing Quintilian (V.10. 20), «locos appello ( ... ) sedes argumentorum, in quibus latent, ex quibus sunt petenda». Curtius translated sedes argumentorum with the phrase «Fundgruben fiir den Gedankengang» (English, «Storehouses of trains of thought»), a defensible if somewhat loose rendering, though taken out of context since Quintilian was specifically refer­ring to legal pleading and use of evidence. (It should be added, however, that the literary application of rhetorical prescriptions originally intended for the law courts was normal in medieval rhetoric). Veit and others have argued, in Curtius' defense, that he sought to create a normative rather than an historical topology. Whether this defense is accepted by Curtius' critics in another mat­ter, but, as Veit noted, it is impossible now to undo or to reverse the influence of Curtius' notion of the topos. Rather than assuming the role of simply and passively transmitting the rhetorical tradition in the same form in which he had received i~, Curtius actively and radically reshaped that tradition. His syn­thesis in effect broke out of the custodial role of scholarship. Rather than a «retreat into the catacombs of the past» (JauB), this act constitutes a radical revitalization of tradition, what Curtius himself called «Initiative». Hans-Ul­rich Gumbrecht, noting the lack of purchase of topological studies (entry no. 397), saw a chance for a methodological breakthrough by complementing topology with the rigorous investigation of the soda! historical relationships between Latin and vernacular cultures (which perhaps should recall the sociological interests of the young Curtius). On a similar point, Joachim Heinzle (entry no. 405) found that the current emphasis on the 'otherness' or 'alterity' of medieval literature - stemming from Hans-Robert JauB' valoriza­tion of literary discontinuity in answer to Curtius' accentuation of literary con-

15

tinuity - runs the same danger as Curtius' method of misperceiving the historical nature of literary tradition. One is inevitably reminded of Paul Leh­mann's suggestion in 1952 (entry no. 254) that Curtius' book requires a second volume on literary discontinuities. Moreover, one should not forget that Cur­tius himself viewed the synthesis proposed in ELLMA as provisional at best, an aspect noted by Bezzola (entry no. 218, see also Friedrich, entry no. 198), just as he also viewed his study of French civilization as provisional9

• Thus a major problem in the reception of ELLMA lies in the mistake of succeeding genera­tions of students in having turned a provisional synthesis into a fixed system or «research paradigm». One hastens to add that Curtius himself had little to do with this feature of the reception of his book during the 1950's and the 1960's: he became emeritus only three years after its publication and one year later was afflicted with a liver ailment which severely curtailed his activities. Curtius, moreover, devoted the time after ELLMA appeared to a number of other projects.

Leo Spitzer's review of ELLMA (entry no. 213) has been particularly influ­ential in the discussion of Curtius' relationship to modernity. Spitzer claimed that ELLMA represented Curtius' «abandonment of all aesthetic, philosophic and modernistic tendencies». One should recall that many of Curtius' essays on modern subjects were written during the 1920's for a non-professional liter­ate public which read Die Neue Rundschau, Neue Schweizer Rundschau or La Nouvelle Revue Fram;aise. Although Curtius already seemed to Spitzer in 1932 (entry no.160) to be turning from France toward Rome, even if Curtius had wanted to write on modern subjects after 1933, he was cut off from his earlier public. Though Curtius' interest shifted, it is an exaggeration to speak of an «abandonment». Perhaps in order to answer Spitzer's criticism, Curtius collected and published his various articles on European literature in his Kri­tische Essays zur europiiischen Literatur (1951), and reissued his Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa with additional material (including his Ruckblick 1952) under the title Franzosischer Geist im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert. Curtius ex­plained in the Foreword to his Kritische Essays:

Dieses Buch [ELLMA] ist nicht, wie einige Kritiker meinten, eine Absage an meine «modemistische Phase» oder meine Frankreichliebe. Immer ging es mir um dasselbe: EuropabewuBtsein und abendliindische Tradition. Aber mit steigenden Jahren muB­te ich tiefer graben, weiter ausgreifen im Raum und Zeit. Kontinuitiit wurde mir wichtiger als Aktualitiit: Virgil und Dante bedeutsamer als die Neueren seit Goethes Tode. [7-8]

' Though Curtius disliked Erich Auerbach's Mimesis, Auerbach's epilogue on Mimesis (entry no. 258) might also be applied to ELLMA: «Mimesis ist ganz bestimmt ein Buch, das ein bestimmter Mensch, in einer bestimmten Lage, zu Anfang der 1940er Jahre ge­schrieben hat». The two scholars apparently met only once face to face, in Princeton during the fall of 1949, when Auerbach gave the first Gauss Seminar in Criticism there. This encounter, reports Professor Edward Sullivan of Princeton, was extremely formal and cool.

16

The consistency of Curtius' attitude even struck contemporary reviewers of Kritische Essays (see Beau, entry no. 236; and Pabst, entry no. 248). One should not forget that all of Curtius' monographs are composed of previously published material. This 'accumulative' practice attests to the consistency of Curtius' scholarly attitudes.

Curtius did not receive a Festschrift from his colleagues on the occasion of his retirement. Heinrich Lausberg informed this writer that Curtius did not want a Festschrift from his fellow Romance scholars, an observation which begs the question whether these same professional colleagues were willing to offer him one in the first place. From 1948 to 1959 some ten Festschriften ap­peared for German Romance scholars (Gamillscheg, 1952 and 1957; Havers, 1949; van Jan, 1955/56; Klemperer, 1958; Lehmann, 1959; Lerch, 1955; Neu­bert, 1948 and 1952; Petriconi, 1955). Lerch's Festschrift appeared three years after his death. One supposes that had there been sufficient interest in Romanist circles, Curtius' colleagues would have organized a posthumous Festschrift in his memory. None was forthcoming. The Freundesgabe for Cur­tius' seventieth birthday is a pointed example of Curtius' professional isola­tion. Reviewer of the Freundesgabe did not miss the significance of the con­spicuous absence of contributions from Romance scholars (see Schalk, entry no. 316). Perhaps the lack of a German Festschrift may have prompted the editors of Allemagne d' aujourd' hui to devote twenty pages of their Septem­ber/October 1956 issue to Hommage a Ernst Robert Curtius (entry no. 278). While one may choose to discuss the various elements of an alleged 'Curtius legend', Curtius' treatment of his fellow scholars is in fact legendary - though this is a matter of oral tradition. (Albert Beguin in fact remarked, on the other hand, «II fallait voir, vers 1930, de quelle haine Curtius etait I' obj et de la part de ses collegues des universites d'Allemagne» (entry no. 278, v], which recalls the bitter response to Curtius' writings on contemporary French authors.) Curtius' failure to identify himself with the German Professorenschaft is mirrored in (or better, anticipated by) Proust's inquiry to Gide concerning Curtius' address, «Faut-il HERR, taut-ii PROFESSOR?». The published anecdotal material on Curtius' relationships to his students and colleagues is relatively small and scattered (see entries nos. 290, 296, 330, 348, 383) so that it is extremely difficult to document with much precision how Curtius' colleagues felt about him personally.

Perhaps the greatest irony in the reception of Curtius' writings is that following his death Curtius came to represent for many younger Romance scholars- br,th in Germany and elsewhere - the 'compleat philologist'. Natur­ally the idealization of Curtius is connected to the far more complicated at­tempt on the part of both Germans and non-Germans to retrieve those parts of Germany's past untainted by Nazism. One finds this tendency particularly among American students who have been strongly influenced by emigre Ger­man scholars whose love for German culture remained undiminished in spite of their other disappointments, a phenomenon which, in this writer's ex-

17

perience, is not widely appreciated in Europe. This understandable identifica­tion10 however hinders a more considered and less anachronistic evaluation of Curtius who wrote the individual articles later gathered together in his mag­num opus in relative obscurity without knowing that they would one day re­ceive the reception which they did. Curtius in fact wrote Max Rychner on Au­gust 9, 1948 (entry no. 373), »Mein Buch wird die Fachleute iirgern, weil es ein halbes Dutzend Fiicher iibergreift. Man wird tun, als sei es nicht da». The idealization of Curtius has in turn meant that certain elements of ELLMA have been overlooked, particularly Curtius' plea for the reform of humanistic education:

Die akademische Organisation der philologischen und literarischen Studien ent­spricht dem geisteswissenschaftlichen Aspekt von 1850. Dieser Aspekt ist von 1950 aus gesehen ebenso veraltet wie das Eisenbahnsystem von 1850. Die Eisenbahnen haben wir modernisiert, das System der Traditionsiibermittlung nicht. [25]

Except for the reviewer of the Times Literary Supplement (entry no. 194) who saw behind ELLMA «an angry recognition of the inadequacy of our present de­partmentalized courses of 'modern language' studies in the universities», and the blunt rejection of Curtius' plea for less specialization delivered by Aurelio Roncaglia (entry no. 295), the educational ramifications of ELLMA went large­ly unnoticed. First Curtius was posthumously transformed into the personifi­cation of the very 'institutional' philology which he sought to reform and out­side which he spent the greater part of his career, and then, as this same 'in­stitutional' philology came under attack from leftist critics, Curtius was in turn demonized, a telling example of academic shadow boxing. By studying the re­ception of Curtius' writings as an historical phenomenon, one can recapture their original context which has been obscured by Curtius' posthumous rise and fall in respectability and popularity.

In his Wegbereiter Curtius explained the fusion of a literary scholar's var-ious capacities in a new critical stance which he called Lebenskritik:

Die Literaturbetrachtung wird Lebenskritik in dem Moment, wo sie den Standpunkt des geniellenden oder tadelnden Lesers vertauscht mil dem umfassenderen des le­benden, wollenden, handelnden Menschen, der sich als eine einheitliche Gesamtheit verschiedenster Krafte weiB, um sich mit ihr, bestimmend und bestimmt, in die schopferische Bewegtheit des Lebens einzufiigen. [28]

In view of Hugo Schuchardt's call for «researching the researcher» one can ap­preciate Curtius' combination of his various experiences in his own form of Lebenskritik: his Alsatian youth, his philological training under Grober, his friendships with Gundolf, George, Du Bos, Gide and Warburg (among others), his love of Vergil, Dante and Goethe. Perhaps Curtius' success at forging his own Lebenskritik constitutes his most enduring contribution for succeeding generations of students.

10 Perhaps it is simply 'human nature' to seek heroes; Stefan Gross wisely warns against the attempt to replace a 'Curtius legend' with a 'Klemperer legend' (entry no. 409).

18

The mechanical task of assembling the various recensions of Curtius' writings began with consulting the bibliographical supplement to the Zeitschrift fiir ro­manische Philologie for the years from 1924 to 1960 (supp. vol. 44-76), the Bi­bliographie der franzosischen Literaturwissenschaft for the years from 1956 to 1979 (vol. 1-17), Germanistik for the years from 1960 to 1979 (vol.1-20), the Bibliographie der deutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft for the years from 1961 to 1979 (vol.1-19) and the Bibliographie der Rezensionen, (Leip­zig, 1919-1943), vol.31-77. Other reviews turned up through the laborious searching of various journals. Except for a very small number of reviews which appeared in newspapers of exclusively regional importance and which are now barely accessible, it is hoped that this research bibliography presents as nearly as possible an exhaustive documentation.

19

Annotated Bibliography of Reviews of Curtius' Writings (1912-1983)

19U

1. Bonnard, J., Review of Curtius, Li Quatre Livre des Reis (1912), Kriti­scher Jahresbericht iiber die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie 13 (1911112), II, 68--70.

Bonnard reproduces Curtius' stemma for Li Quatre Liv re des Reis and agrees with Curtius that the translator must have used a text of the Vulgate with interpolations from the versio italica, with the result that the translation was not slavish. Curtius found further corro­boration for the translator's creativity in the occurrence of rhymed passages in the prose text.

2. Stimming, Albert, Review of Curtius, Li Quatre Livre des Reis (1912), Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie 36 (1912), 743-748.

Stimming's close critique of Curtius' edition divides its attention be­tween the question of manuscript variants and corrections of the edi­tion itself. One wishes to note that it is significant that Curtius con­sidered manuscript variants the result of the non-uniform transmis­sion of the Vulgate itself rather than the result of the influence of an­other translation of the Bible. The non-uniform tradition of Latinity in the Middle Ages played an important role in Curtius' later research on the continuity of literary culture during the Middle Ages.

3. Vising, J., Review of Curtius, Li Quatre Liv re des Reis (1912), Kritischer Jahresbericht iiber die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie 13 (1911/ 12), I, 224; II. 87-88.

Vising notes that Curtius' conception of the text's original linguistic form is correct, though Curtius might have retained more Anglo-Nor­man forms from the oldest preserved manuscript. Using additional linguistic evidence, Vising concurs with Curtius' conclusion that the text must be of Anglo-Norman origin.

1914

4. Wyzewa, Theodore de, Un livre allemand sur Ferdinand Brunetii!re, Revue des Deux Mondes, periode 8, tome 22 (1914), 457-468.

20

Writing in the same journal which Brunetiere had edited, de Wyzewa criticizes Curtius' non-biographical approach to Brunetiere's critical thought, contests Curtius' claim that Brunetiere's writing lack an historical perspective, and contends that Curtius misconstrues Brune­tiere's theoretical pronouncements.

1915

5. Anonymus, Review of Curtius, Brunetiere (1914), Archiv fiir das Stu­dium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 133 (1915), 256.

Short but extremely positive notice is taken of Curtius' Habilitations­schrift on Brunetiere.

6. Becker, Carl, Review of Curtius, Brunetii!re (1914), Zeitschrift fiir fran-zosische Sprache und Literatur 43 (1915), 178--184.

Becker considers Curtius' monograph the most extensive, albeit far from exhaustive study of Brunetiere hitherto published, yet notes that Curtius' generally negative estimation of Brunetiere's works is necessarily unfair since any balance struck in 1914 regarding Brune­tiere's influence on the succeeding generation of critics is premature. In a postscript Becker defends Curtius against Theodore de Wyze­wa's criticism (no. 4).

1916

7. Gallas, K.R., Review of Curtius, Brunetiere (1914), Neophilologus 1 (1916), 314-317.

Gallas criticizes the lack of biographical emphasis and the superficial treatment of Catholicism in Curtius' monograph.

8. Lerch, Eugen, Review of Curtius, Brunetii!re (1914), Literaturblatt fiir gerrnanische und romanische Philologie 37 (1916), 367-373.

This predominantly descriptive review examines Curtius' exposition of Brunetiere's critical thought. In light of Curtius' subsequent devel­opment, it is interesting to record Lerch's comment that «Curtius scheint (er sagt es nicht ausdriicklich) auf dem Standpunkt des l' art pour !'art, der Autonomie der Kunst, zu stehen» [372].

1919

9. Bahr, Hermann, Tagebuch [Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919)], Neues Wiener Journal no. 9242 (27 July 1919), 6-7.

Bahr calls Curtius' work «an appeal to the German conscience», in that Curtius implicitly seeks an intellectual rebirth of German youth based on the French model. At the same time Bahr misses in Curtius'

21

work a treatment of the beginnings of this French intellectual re­surgence. The merit of Curtius' study for Bahr lies in its demonstra­tion, «almost on every page», of French superiority.

10. Friedrich, Paul, Das neue Frankreich [Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919)], Der Tag (20September 1919).

In light of the Germans' pre-war ignorance of France, Friedrich wel­comes Curtius' book as «an exquisite, in-depth appreciation which considers all the aspects of this many-sided issue» ( eine vortreffliche, eingehende und a/le Seiten des vielseitigen Themas berucksichtigende Wurdigung) and finds Curtius' approach «exemplary» for all future treatments of modern French literature.

11. Grautoff, Otto, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919), Die Literatur 21, no. 19 (!July 1919), 1161-1168.

This long positive review - with extensive excerpts - welcomes Cur­tius as «ein neuer Typus des deutschen Gelehrten», in that Curtius not only has presented systematically the pertinent information for the writers he treats but also has himself experienced their intellec­tual spell, («als geistige Potenz von ihm erlebt»).

12. Grautoff, Otto, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919), Zeitschrift fiir Biicherfreunde, Beiblatt N.F.11 (1919), 23~231.

Grautoff observes here that if Curtius' monograph had appeared be­fore the war, it might have helped instruct the Germans and have spared them the «most painful disappointments». Curtius' work can provide a «unique opportunity» for the Germans to understand the intellectual foundations of the victorious French.

13. Hesse, Hermann, Uber die neuere franzosische Literatur, Vivos voco 1 (October 1919), 76--77.

Hesse finds Curtius' Wegbereiter to be one of the few profound stud­ies of modern French literature. He welcomes Curtius' selection of contemporary French authors because their works either mark the re­turn to an earlier notion of Europe (Wege zum fruhen Europa-Geist) or provide a means of dissolving national barriers in preparation for a rebirth of Europe and thus a way to overcome the fatal nationalism of all sides in the First World War.

14. Keller, Adolf, Zur neueren franzosischen Geistesgeschichte [Review of Curtius', Wegbereiter (1919)], Wissen und Leben [later, Neue Schweizer Rundschau] 22 (15 November 1919), 108--114.

22

Keller is extravagant in his praise of Curtius: no Englishman or Frenchman has shown as much understanding for the former enemy as this German shows for France, having overcome so much «hate and slander» to reach «the innermost life» of the former foe: «Dies

Buch ist einer der ersten und besten Versuche zu einem neuen Ver­standnis, zu einer neuen geistigen Gemeinschaft und einer neuen fer­nen Liebe»: Keller agrees with Curtius' emphasis on the importance of Bergsoman philosophy for the current generation of French intel­lectuals, particularly in light of frequent German criticism discount­ing Bergson's influence. After briefly reviewing Curtius' 'literary pre­cursors', Keller concludes that Curtius' portrayal of France, like «a true revelation», is an antidote to the stereotyped image of France in Germany.

15. Klemperer, Victor, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919), Archiv fiir das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 139 (1919) 256--258. '

K.lemperer reproaches Curtius for his naive attitude toward the liter­a!J'. precursors whom he champions. These Wegbereiter represent, claims Klemperer, a continuation of the thousand-year-old French literary tradition and not a new development. K.lemperer strongly criticizes Curtius for posturing as a prophet to the German public and for using the «jargon of the most modern literary clique» (i.e., the George-Kreis, which Klemperer explicitly avoids mentioning: «Yiel­mehr befleiBigt sich Curtius [ ... ] der manierierten Ausdrucksweise eines modernsten literarischen Kliingels»). Despite Curtius' good in­tentions, Klemperer feels that Curtius' book is profoundly mislead­ing.

16. Muret, Maurice. La France litteraire et /es critiques allemands, Journal des Debats politiques et litteraires, Edition hebdomadaire (1919), 841-844.

Muret examines Karl Lamprecht's Krieg und Kultur, (Leipzig, 1914), Eduard WechBler's Die Franzosen und Wir, (Jena, 1916), Otto Grau­toff's articles on France, and Curtius' Wegbereiter. Curtius' study earns the highest praise:

II ya plus d'amour de la verite et plus de courage dans le livre, tout recemment paru, d'un intellectuel allemand sur l'intellectualite fran~aise. Ce livre ( ... )est plein d'intentions excellentes souvent realisees. [843]

Muret repeatedly emphasizes the truthfulness and sincerity of Cur­tius' «conscientious» study: «Ce livre empreint d'un amour sincere de la verite». One might compare this favorable review by Muret with Muret's highly critical review of Curtius' study of Maurice Barres (no. 36).

17 · Schotthofer, Fritz, Die Apostel des neuen Frankreichs, Frankfurter Zei­tung, 12 October 1919.

Schotthofer evaluates the 'literary precursors' singled out by Curtius in terms of the more general ramifications of French culture for Ger-

23

many in the wake of the First World War. Curtius, according to Schotthofer did not sufficiently emphasize political influences m French life ~ince 1870. Schotthiifer finds that the portrayal of Gide is the clearest one of Curtius' collection.

18. Wattendorff, Ludwig, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919), Literari­

scher Handweiser 55 (1919), 602. Wattendorff gives a short positive review, stressing the conciliatory

19.

20.

nature of the book.

1920 Baldensperger, Fernand, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919), Revue critique d'histoire et de litterature N.S.87 (1920), 1.0-12.' ,

Baldensperger compares Curtius' Wegbere1ter with his own L avant­guerre dans la /itterature fram;aise, 1900-1914, (Paris, 1919), and ~alls Curtius' method more «romantic» than his own «puisqu'elle s'en !tent a quelques noms isoles, sans s'inquieter si ces chefs de file etaient sui­vis sans verifier si ses voix trouvaient un ample echo». He adds:

' Et ii faut bien dire que ni Ia fa~on dont M. C[urtius] manie Jes idees generales, ni sa connaissance de dates de l'histoire litteraire du passe ne me semblent ir­

reprochables. [11]

Baldensperger concedes, however, that the essential feature of Cur­tius' study merits critical attention, and concludes:

II ya done Ia une tentative tout a fait interessante comme symptome, executee dans un esprit que Ia Francene peut qu'encourager- surtout dans Jes pays rhe­nans, _ mais depourvue de Ia tres large base qu'il importe de donner i'I toute etude qui entend passer du domaine de l'esthetique i'I celm de la soct0log1e. [12]

Desportes, Alain [pseudonym for Aline de Saint-Hubert, i.e., Mme. Emile Mayrisch], Lettres a/lemandes: Les pionniers /itteraires de la France nouvelle La Nouvelle Revue Fran~aise 15 (1920), 626-635.

The import~nce of this review lies in the connection it established between Curtius and La Nouvelle Revue Fran(aise. Writing in a spe­cial issue of La Nouvelle Revue Fran(aise Curtius remarked in No­

vember, 1951:

24

mon livre Die literarischen Wegbereiter des neuen Frankreich ( ... )fut presente aux Jecteurs de ]a NRF, en 1920, par Alain Desportes, pseudonyme de Mme. Emile Mayrisch. C'est dans sa belle propriete de Colpach, dans le Grand-D~­che de Luxembourg, que je rencontrai Gide en 1921. De ce ~eekend est ~ee une amitie de trente ans. Elle me conduisit i'I Pontigny, a Pans, i'I Cuvervdle, comme elle conduisit Gide i'I Heidelberg, ii Bade, i'I Bonn.

In her review Aline de Saint-Hubert examines Curtius' treatment of the various Wegbereiter. She is not wholely satisfied with Curtius' handling of Gide: «ii ne le decouvre qu'a moitie, et sa perspicacite ne

penetre pas la pudeur d'iime du plus discret des auteurs», and consid­ers Curtius' analysis of Romain Rolland vague and rather meaning­less: «c'est que sarls doute !'auteur y voit Rolland comme Rolland se voit lui-meme, et que son absence de critique adroit a quelque indul­gence de la part d'un Allemand qui manifestement aime Ia France et en depit de tout, ne parait pas avoir tout a fait abandonne l'es~oir d'un rapprochement». She has comparatively little to say regarding Curtius' presentation of Claude!, Suares or Peguy and concludes by citing the end of Wegbereiter, signaling «la bonne volonte et !'intelli­gence qui sont ici depensees».

21. Flake, Otto, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919), Neue Rundschau 31 (1920), 653--654.

Flake praises Wegbereiter as an unintentional (since pre-war) and therefore all the more compelling mirror in which Germans can per­ceive their lack of intellectual discipline which had caught them un­prepared to respond in an intellectually creative way to the crisis of revolution.

22. Heine, Anselma, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919), Deutsche Rundschau 182 (February, 1920), 311-313.

Heine praises the hopefulness and idealism of Curtius' book, particu­larly its calm appeal for understanding. She notes the different tone which Curtius assumes in treating the «passive precursors» (i.e., Sua­res and Gide):

Curtius selbst versteht sich entschieden besser mil den 'Dichtem fur die Weni­gen', diesen 'Suchern von Kostbarkeiten'. Und diese verborgene Parteinahme gerade isl es, die das Buch aus dem Range eines Sammelwerkes in das dichte­rische hebt.

23. Heiss, Hanns, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919), Zeitschrift fur franziisischen und englischen Unterricht 19 (1920), 131-137.

Apart from a lengthy criticism of Curtius' failure to treat Verhaeren, Heiss welcomes Wegbereiter as an attempt to avoid escaping contem­porary problems by fleeing into «eine /'art pour /' art-miiBig betriebe­ne Philologie».

24. Klemperer, Victor, Zurn Verhiiltnis von Sprachwissenschaft und Volker­psychologie, Archiv fiir <las Studium der neueren Sprachen und Litera­turen 140 (1920), 125-130.

Klemperer compares Curtius' Wegbereiter with Eugen Lerch's prize­winning monograph, Die Verwendung des romanischen Futurums als Ausdruck eines sittlichen So/lens, (Leipzig, 1920). (Lerch's mono­graph is thoroughly discussed in lordan-Orr, Schools of Thought in Romance Linguistics, [Berkeley, 21970], pp.128--129.) Although Klemperer faults Lerch for insufficient linguistic evidence,. he recog-

25

nizes Lerch's work as serious scholarship. Curtius' study, by contrast, is far less serious, das sehr wenig ernste Bonner Buch is Klemperer's phrase for Wegbereiter. Curtius' mistake, as far as Klemperer is con­cerned, is in taking his 'literary precursors' too seriously: «Der Bon­ner Literarhistoriker nimmt alle AuBerungen der modernistischen Li­teratur bitter ernst». Writing in 1921, the Romanist Wilhelm Fried­mann (no. 34) considered this review by Klemperer to be exemplary of the lack of respect which Curtius found among his professional col­leagues.

25. Lerch, Eugen, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919), Literaturblatt fiir germanische und romanische Philologie 41 (1920), 115-120.

Lerch opens his review with a cutting remark concerning the publish­er's description on the book-jacket that the work is «revolutionary» which, Lerch adds, corresponds to the fire-engine red color of the jacket itself, «aber so geht es, wenn man sein Buch einem belletristi­schen Verleger, der auch die edel-bolschewistische Zeitschrift Das Forum (von Wilhelm Herzog) herausgibt, anvertraut». Lerch takes exception to the popularizing format of Wegbereiter, claiming that Curtius has ceased being a scholar in order to be an intellectual leader of German youth, and criticizes Curtius for distinguishing between the old and the new France, a distinction which Lerch contests: «es ist freilich unmoglich, Dinge historisch zu betrachten, die es noch nicht sind - gleichwohl aber hiitte das Buch sch on heute historischer ( und damit wissenschaftlicher) geschrieben werden konnen».

26. Platz, Hermann, Frankreich am Scheideweg, Hochland 27 (1919/1920), 458-465.

Platz's extensive summary of Wegbereiter emphasizes the importance for all the literary precursors of a return to Latinity and pays rel­atively little attention to Curtius' method except to note, «Dieser Art psychologisch-biographischer Essays mit aktueller geistesgeschichtli­cher Absicht begegnet man auBerordentlich selten».

27. Praz, Mario, La letteratura francese contemporanea nei giudizi di due stranieri, Rivista di Cultura 1 (15 October 1920), 16--23.

26

Praz compares two studies of contemporary French literature, (Cur­tius' Wegbereiter, and Mary Duclaux, Twentieth-Century French Writers) and finds on balance Curtius' study the better. Praz com­mends repeatedly the «characteristic clarity» of Curtius' exposition:

E sopratutto dal libro de! Curtius che risultano i lineamenti della cosidetta 'Re­naissance fran'Yaise', periodo il cui contrasto col precedente fa ricordare alla Duclaux i tempi di Ausonio, «quando i padri leggevano Seneca e Cicerone, e i figli erano arditi barbari cristiani».

28. Raab, Rudolf, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919), Literarisches Zentralblatt fiir Deutschland 71 (1920), 767-768.

Raab's short review of Wegbereiter characterizes the book as a «first­rate literary accomplishment» and an «exhortation» based on the «ethical demands» implicit in Curtius' conclusions.

29. Souday, Paul, Die gegenwiirtigen Tendenzen der franz6sischen Literatur Neue Ziiricher Zeitung 141Jh., no.1382, 23 August 1920, 1-2 (Feuil'. leton).

Souday's article uses Curtius' Wegbereiter as an occasion to discuss contemporary French authors in very general terms. It is neither laudatory (as Curtius' remarks in his Ruckblick 1952 might lead one to believe) nor critical of Curtius' book as such, but rather offers a broader context in which readers are encouraged to view the analogies between the various authors whom Curtius treats. Souday attributes these analogies to the influence of Bergson and doubts that the tendencies in contemporary French literature elucidated by Cur­tius will persist except in the work of Gide.

30. WechBler, Eduard, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919), Internatio-nale Wochenschrift fiir Wissenschaft 14 (1920), 170-174.

Besides the reviews of Hanns Heiss (no. 23) and of Wilhelm Fried­mann (no. 34), WechBler's recension is the only positive review which Curtius' Wegbereiter received from German Romanists. WechBler welcomed Curtius' study as an attempt to combat the German igno­rance of France, though WechBler doubts that a 'new France' has come into being. WechBler attributes the receptivity of contemporary French writers to German culture to the preceding reception of 19th­century German authors in France beginning with Bergson. WechB­ler is trying to ascertain a cultural affinity rather than German cultur­al superiority, as Peter Jehn suggests in his discussion of this review (no. 398).

1921

31. Anonymous, A German on the New France, Times Literary Supplement 20 (26August 1921), 543.

This anonymous review points to the potential political significance of Curtius' Wegbereiter:

Many a reader of this volume will wish that it might signify as much politically as it does intellectually. For to us it represents the first serious attempt by a German to understand the mind and soul of modern France.

The reviewer explains how Curtius' intention is to refute the cliche that French culture could be explained either in terms of esprit or of

27

decadence. The German affinity for Romain Rolland may be ex­plained, according to this reviewer, by the fact that Rolland is himself atypical of French. The reviewer suggests that Curtius over­emphasizes the importance of Andre Suares and that in general Cur­tius' exposition is original in intent but not in content.

32. FaBbinder, Klara M., Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter, Biicherwelt 18 (1921), 41.

In this short positive review FaBbinder sees Curtius' work as a means of promoting understanding between Germany and France.

33. Flake, Otto, Maurice Barres und der Nationalismus, Der neue Merkur 5 (1921), 214-216.

Viewing the situation of Germany in 1921 as parallel to that of France in 1873, Flake sees France's experience in the fifty years between 1870 and 1920 as a valuable example of national renewal. Flake places Curtius' study of Barres in this specific context:

Eine wundervoll klare, in solcher Klarheit iiber das geistige Niveau eines deut­schen Gelehrten hinausreichende Zusammenfassung dieser fiinfzig Jahre in Frankreich gibt Ernst Robert Curtius in seinem Buch iiber Maurice Barres. ( ... ) Der Untertitel: «Die geistigen Grundlagen des franzosischen Nationalis­mus» zeigt an, daB es sich bier zugleich um ein auf die heutige Situation ge­schriebenes Buch handelt, um eine Synthese von Objektivitiit gegeniiber einem gewiihlten historischen Thema und Aktualitiit - die Synthese gelang selten so rein. [214]

34. Friedmann, Wilhelm, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919), Die Neue-ren Sprachen 28 (1921), 368-371.

Friedmann begins by observing that the widespread acclaim which Wegbereiter received in the daily press sharply contrasts with the neg­ative reviews given the book by Curtius' professional colleagues. Friedmann considers that the study's major fault is that it appeared five years too late: the France portrayed here does not correspond with post-war France. Althougq Friedmann concedes that Wegberei­ter represents a serious attempt at explaining French culture, he finds that Curtius neglected individual poets' development: «er hat den Dichter als Gesamtpersonlichkeit zu erleben gesucht, ehe er an die entwicklungsgeschichtliche Studie ging».

35. Lerch, Eugen, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter (1919), Die Miinchener Zeitung (1921).

28

Despite intensive searching, it has not been possible to find this arti­cle which has assumed a legendary role in the history of Romance stu­dies in Germany because of Lerch's famous reproach here that Cur­tius' Wegbereiter represented an Anbiederung mit der Negernation. There are so many independent references to this article that its exis-

tence is assured, despite the fact that Lerch's well-known Social Democratic politics hardly correspond to the nationalist sentiment expressed here.

36. Muret, Maurice, Un livre allemand sur le nationalisme fran~ais, Journal des Debats politiques et litteraires, Edition hebdomadaire (1921), 526-529.

Muret admits the validity of Curtius' analysis of the young Barres and of his culte du moi, and credits Curtius for being the first to see the parallel between Descartes' tabula rasa and Barres' 'solipsism'. Otherwise Muret attacks Curtius' monograph on Barres for being too often «un pamphlet prussianissant et pangermaniste». Muret finds Curtius' error lies in his seeing a close correspondence between French nationlism and Pangermanism, which in turn leads Curtius, argues Muret, to misperceive the basis for future Franco-German reconciliation:

Pangermanistes allemands et nationalistes fran~ais, declare M. Curtius, vou­laient la guerre, ils ont la meme responsabilite dans la catastrophe. La recon­ciliation des deux peuples ne pourra se faire que sur l'aveu reciproque de leurs fautes egales. These manifestement fausse, pretention insoutenable, mais dont on desespere de montrer aux Allemands l'absurdite. [528]

37. Praz, Mario, Review of Curtius , Maurice Barres (1921), La Cultura 1 (1921), 86-88.

Praz finds that the comprehensiveness of Curtius' critical perspective lies in Curtius' going beyond purely aesthetic considerations:

II punto di vista del Curtius, nei suoi saggi su scrittori francesi moderni, e sempre pill comprensivo di quel che non sarebbe se egli avesse di mira un giudizio estetico. Egli non separa il pensatore dall'artista, ma segue con insistente e felice analisi le successive fasi dello spirito dell'uomo, e siccome questo parti­colare spirito, considerato nella sua totalita, reca, dello spirito del tempo in cui vive, un'impronta pill profonda che non considerato dal solo punto di vista estetico o pill esclusivamente individuale, cosi puO ii Curtius presentarlo come indice d'uno stato d'animo pill vasto, di tutta una corrente intellettuale.

Praz's observations are all the more interesting considering the fre­quent reproach from Curtius' colleagues (particularly from VoBler's school) that Curtius' approach was too aesthetic.

38. Prittwitz-Gaffron, E. v., Review of Curtius, Maurice Barres (1921), Li­terarisches Zentralblatt fiir Deutschland 72 (1921), 543-549.

This short positive review praises Curtius' attempt to understand Bar­res' fervent nationalism and hatred of Germany.

39. Schotthofer, Fritz, Der Geist des franzosischen Nationalismus, Frankfur­ter Zeitung, 3 July 1921.

Schotthofer considers Curtius' study of Barres as a «Very interesting

29

book» because it shows that «a destructive spiritual malaise» ( eine zerfetzende seelische Unruhe) lies at the heart of the kind of national­ism championed by Barres. This malaise, finds Schotthofer, has little in common with the «literary precursors of the New France» which Curtius had studied earlier.

40. Schultz-Gora, Oskar, Die deutsche Romanistik in den letzten zwei Jahr­zehnten, Archiv fur das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen

141 (1921), 208-221. Schultz-Gora's strong dismissal of Wegbereiter may be taken as char­acteristic of the opinion shared by most of Curtius' Romanist col­leagues on the value of his studies of contemporary France:

Hier wird uns in der Art des franz6sischen Conferenciertums eine Reihe von Schriftstellern vorgefiihrt, die in Frankreich selber kaum Beachtung, geschwei­ge denn Schiitzung genieBen, und die nichts weniger als «literarische Wegberei­ter» sind. ( ... ) Es liegt m.E. nicht nur eine wissenschaftliche Verirrung, son­dern was schwerer bedrtickt, eine v6lkische Entgleisung vor, indem es gerade nach dem Kriege wiirdig gewesen ware, sich in recht anstiindiger Entfernung von den heutigen Franzosen zu halten. [221]

41. Wolfram, Georg, Zur geistigen Einkreisung, Siiddeutsche Monatshefte

19 (1921), 238-240. Wolfram's positive discussion of Curtius' Barres is marred by Wolf­ram's excessive nationalism. Wolfram is primarily concerned with demonstrating that Barres was largely responsible for the pre-war 'revanchist' campaign in France against Germany. Wolfram dis­qualifies himself as a judge of the literary merits of Curtius' study but praises its quiet and matter-of-fact tone and finds Curtius' implicit condemnation of Barres to be «crushing» ( vernichtend).

1922

42. [Flake, Otto], Chronik Werenwags, Die Neue Rundschau 33 (1922),

205-206.

30

This article, which appeared anonymously and which Curtius men­tions in Rii.ckblick 1952, is Otto Flake's sharp reply to Eugen Lerch's charge (no. 35) that Curtius' studies of France constituted a «cozying­up with the nigger nation» (Anbiederung mit der Negernation). Flake is scandalized by Lerch's presumption:

Man darf nur dann unnachsichtig sein, wenn man deutlich fiihlt: bier ist einer nicht entgleist, sondern in einer Geistesrichtung gefangen, die ihn ~nmaBend macht. AnmaBung aber, ob sie sich selbst verkiindet oder zum Richter auf­wirft, wirkt, wenigstens auf mich, wie jeder Eingriff in die ungeschriebne ~o­ralitat: man wird unpersOnlicher Vertreter, unpersOnlicher R8.cher des Ge1sts, und diese Rache erscheint mir als die einzig erlaubte, Arroganz darf sich nicht

spreizen. [206]

43. Helmolt, Hans, Review of Curtius, Maurice Barres (1921), Mitteilungen aus der historischen Literatur N.F. 10 (1922), 54-55.

Helmolt faults Curtius' analysis of Barres and of the origins of his na­tionalism for not being political:

Leider ist [Curtius'] Gesamteinstellung zu schongeistig, zu literatenhaft: die ausschlaggebende Machtfrage ist fast gar nicht beriicksichtigt. Curtius kann !ei­der aus seiner elsa.Bischen Haut nicht heraus. Als Verstandigungspolitiker ver­meidet er es aufs peinlichste seines 'Heiden' jiingste Tatigkeit geniigend scharf zu tadeln.

Helmolt recommends Nationalismus im Leben der dritten Republik, ed. Joachim Kuhn, (Berlin, 1920), for a more «accurate» picture of French nationalism.

44. Hintze, Hedwig, Maurice Barres und der franzosische Nationalismus, Berliner Tageblatt, 29 January 1922.

Writing in this well-known liberal newspaper, Hintze admires the «art and tact» shown by Curtius in his study of Barres and points out that the work is an implicit condemnation of the kind of nationalism which led to the First World War:

Die Studie des geistvollen Literarhistorikers bleibt bei der kritischen Analyse des franz6sischen Nationalismus nicht stehen; sie wachst sich aus zu einer meist latent gebliebenen, aber dem Hellhorigen deutlich vernehmbaren Kritik des europiiischen Nationalismus iiberhaupt, jenes Nationalismus, <lessen Entfal­tung und Wachstum das 19. Jahrhundert sah, der jiingst im Weltkrieg seinen kaum noch zu iiberschreitenden Hohepunkt erreicht hat, aber jetzt, nach der Katastrophe, sich als unfiihig erweist, die groBen europiiischen Fragen zu l6sen.

45. Klemperer, Victor, Maurice Barres, Germanisch-Romanische Monats­schrift 10 (1922), 45-55; reprinted in: Victor Klemperer, Romanische­Sonderart, (Munich, 1926), 194-212.

Before reviewing Curtius' Barres, Klemperer criticizes Wegbereiter on three grounds: (1) Curtius confuses the literary leadership of a small group with the literary leadership of France; (2) Curtius empha­sizes the European character of the authors whom he handles at the expense of their Frenchness; and (3) Curtius fails to connect his 'new France' to its past, as though there were no historical precedents to the literary precursors whom Curtius discusses. Klemperer explicitly characterizes Curtius as an adherent of the George-Kreis ( «der ge­fiihlsmiiBig und sprachlich dem Stefan-George-Kreis zuzurechnende Verfasser»), a description which seems to reflect a widespread belief on the part of Curtius' colleagues. In discussing Barres, Klemperer welcomes Curtius' lack of hate and compares the monograph with a contemporary study, Der Nationalismus im Leben der dritten Repu­blik, ed. Joachim Kuhn, (Berlin, 1920):

31

Der Nationalismus im Leben der dritten Republik ist ein politisch gerichtetes und bei allem Bemiihen um Sachlichkeit doch oft verbittertes Werk, Curtius' Monographie dagegen halt sich der eigentlichen Politik fern und kennt keinen HaB, nur manchmal ein achselzuckendes Bedauern. (46]

At the same time, Klemperer denounces Curtius' «alten wunderscho­nen und edlen, nur !eider in die Irre fiihrenden Optimismus» regard­ing the political future of Europe.

46. Lederer, Emil, Review of Curtius, Der Syndikalismus der Geistesarbeiter in Frankreich (1922), Archiv fiir Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 49 (1922)' 818--821.

This review summarizes Curtius' lecture examining the socio­economic role of the intelligentsia in France. The application of union organization to French intellectual life (e.g., the founding of the Confederation des Travailleurs intellectuels) is indicative of the technical problems of organization whose resolution demands practical, rational measures. Curtius however held that cultural development does not follow economic reorganization but that cultural development goes beyond and surpasses economic develop­ment, yet occurs within a specific socio-economic context. Curtius' contention that the creation of a class of intellectuals must take place on socio-economic rather than a political basis earns Lederer's praise although he feels that the one does not exclude the other:

Damit wendet sich Curtius gegen alle romantische Schwarmerei, an welcher jetzt Deutschland und namentlich das intellektuelle Leben nicht arm ist, aber er iiberschatzt wohl die Bedeutung dieser Gruppen, welche gerade, in ihrem Vertrauen auf die 'reine Vernunft' und in ihren Traumen von einer besonderen Emanzipation der Intellektuellen die bewegenden riifte der wirtschaftlichen Umwalzung Ubersehen und so erst recht wieder romantisch werden.

47. Lerch, Eugen, Review of Curtius, Maurice Barres (1921), Literaturblatt fiir germanische und romanische Philologie 43 (1922), 119-124.

32

Lerch applauds the critical stance assumed by Curtius in treating Barres and welcomes Curtius' demonstration of Barres' consistency:

Curtius hat auch der naheliegenden Versuchung widerstanden, den jungen Barres, den asthetisierenden Propheten des lchkults, auszuspielen gegen den spateren chauvinistisch-traditionalistischen Parlamentarier und Propagandi­sten. ( ... ) (Curtius] betont vielmehr, ( ... )es handle sich um keine Bekehrung, um keinen Gegensatz zwischen den beiden Schaffenszeiten, sondern um «ein weit ausladendes Besitzergreifen von neuen groBen Gebieten». Die Breviere des Ichkults suchten nach Mitteln zur Steigerung der seelischen Energie.

Lerch claims that Curtius has achieved with his monograph on Barres what he had failed to accomplish with his Wegbereiter, namely writing «ein Erziehungsbuch fiir unsere J ugend».

48. Nobel, Alfons, Der franz6sische Nationalismus als Weltanschauung, Hochland 19 (1922), 232-236.

Nobel summarizes Curtius' study of Barres, emphasizing in particular the connection between Barres' aestheticism and his rabid national­ism. Curtius had elucidated a correspondence between Barres' culte du moi («!'exaltation qui s'analyse») and a profound nihilism. Barres' cultivation of French nationalism functioned as an over-compensa­tion of his own none-too-solid artistic ego. Nobel criticizes Curtius' for being too easy on Barres' hatred of Germany, and suggests that Curtius should have considered Barres' writings after 1914.

49. Reichwein, Adolf, Bund der Geistesarbeiter, Frankfurter Zeitung, 17 January 1922.

Reichwein's discussion offers a summary of Curtius' Syndikalismus der Geistesarbeiter and connects it to his study of Barres.

50. Steiner-Jullien, J., Review of Curtius, Maurice Barres (1921), Die neue Zeit, Wochenschrift der Deutschen Sozialdemokratie 40 (1922), 165-166.

Steiner-Jullien reproaches Curtius for not explaining sufficiently the reasons behind Barres' turning away from his early attachment to Goethe, Hegel and Wagner, and his subsequent embracing of such a fervent form of nationalism. He feels that Curtius should have provided more general analysis to explain the «remarkable nervous fear» which the French harbored toward the Germans in the wake of the world war.

1923

51. Amoretti, Giovanni Vittorio, Review of Curtius, Balzac (1923), II Con-cilio 2 (1923), 201-202.

Amoretti judges Curtius' Balzac to be all the more valuable for having captured the «elusive» and «not easily reducible» essence of Balzac's character. Of all the German critics, notes Amoretti, Curtius is the most qualified to treat this difficult subject because he is «privo di preconcetti aprioristici di razza, di 'cultura', di 'nazionalismi'».

52. Flake, Otto, Bucher: Balzac, Die Neue Rundschau 34 (1923), 929--931. Flake comments on Curtius' monograph within the context of the widespread diffusion of Balzac's works in German translation follow­ing i:he world war. Flake criticizes only the lack of an aesthetic eval­uation of Balzac in Curtius' book.

53. Rieger, Erwin, Die literarischen Wegbereiter des neuen Frankreich, Osterreichische Rundschau 19. Jh. (1923), 156--158.

Rieger is intrigued by Curtius' transformation of literary criticism in-

33

to Lebenskritik, and finds that this concept is as valid for Andre Sua­res (to whom Curtius had first applied it) as it is for Curtius himself. Rieger is impressed by the non-partisan, straightforward and thorough qualities of Curtius' work:

Unparteilichkeit, Uberparteilichkeit in bedrangtester Stunde isl einer der Hauptvorziige dieser Arbeit, ein weiterer die Unmittelbarkeit, rnit der sie, aus der Beriihrung mit akademischer Jugend entstanden, zu uns spricht, ja uns im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes anspricht. SchlieBlich ein driller Vorzug, der sich bei Curtius beinahe zu einem Fehler steigert: die Griindlichkeit.

54. Weidler, Norbert, Review of Curtius, Der Syndikalismus der Geistesar­beiter (1922), Wissen und Leben [later, Neue Schweizer Rundschau] 15

(1923), 947-948. In this short review Weidler praises Curtius for the concision and di­dactic clarity of his presentation of an extremely complicated subject, that of the creation of a political party for the intelligentsia.

1924

55. Angemeyer, Fred Antoine, Review of Curtius, Balzac (1923), Die Lite-

ratur 27 (1924), 115-116. Angemeyer emphasizes Curtius' unique qualities as a literary critic in Germany: «Curtius steht in seiner Kunst in Deutschland an einsamer

Stelle».

56. Appel, Carl, Review of Curtius, Balzac (1923), Zeitschrift fiir franzosi-schen und englischen Unterricht 23 (1924), 358-362.

Appel compares Curtius' rejection of the standard criteria of 'life and works' and his replacing them with «artificial» and «arbitrary» thematic categories in his study of Balzac with Hanns Heiss' more traditional monograph on Balzac from 1913. In spite of his «captivat­ing» style (in fesselnder Form), Curtius' refusal to assume a «Critical» position toward Balzac, similar to his approach to the authors treated in Wegbereiter, troubles Appel, who finds that a purely aestheticizing interpretation (diese iisthetisierende Auffassung) elevates the artist above all moral responsability. Curtius exaggerates Balzac's im­portance, according to Appel, for whom Balzac remains, citing Flau­bert, «un immense bonhomme, mais de second ordre».

57. Gillet, Louis, Un livre allemand sur Maurice Barres, Revue des Deux Mondes, periode 7, tome 19 (1924), 921-932.

34

Gillet's discussion of Curtius' work - which he readily admits is «Un morceau remarquable de biographic intellectuelle» - is so marred by Gillet's own rather touchy and apologetic nationalism that his defense of Barres against Curtius' disparagements seems, in retro-

l

spect, to support Curtius' contentions all the more. Above all Gillet contests the rigor of Curtius' portrayal:

o,n peut .~eme se. demand~r s'il n'en exage~e pas le caractere systematique. C est platstr de votr chez lu1 avec quelle certitude les idees barresiennes s'en­gendrent les unes les autres, la force de leur jointures, la nettete de leurs em­bran~hements et de leurs articulations. Et .sans doute, on ne saurait nier que Barres a voulu, dans quelques-uns de ses hvres, donner a sa pensee la consi· stance d'une doctrine: il a voulu qu'elle fllt un tout, un univers complet. Mais je doute qu'elle ait eu pour lui cette rigueur de construction. ( ... ) Je ne re· connais pas dans eel automate le geste de Barres (924].

Gillet, who notes that Barres himself showed him Curtius' book finds that Curtius' attacks sometimes stoop to mud-slinging («on au'. rait souhaite surtout que M. Curtius n'allat pas ramasser, dans la boue d'un journal socialiste de Strasbourg, une poignee d'ordures pour salir la conduite de Barres pendant la guerre» [926]). Moreover the connection posited by Curtius between Barres' culte du moi and his nationalism is, Gillet argues, fully logical in that 'national' identity complements individuality. In the midst of a national crisis, the in­dividual is the last resort of national strength, a phenomenon which recalls, for Gillet, «le cri cornelien: Dans un si grand revers que vous reste-t-il? Moi ( ... )».Gillet appears to detect in Curtius' lack of natio­nalism («M. Curtius, notons-le bien, n'est pas un nationaliste» [931]) the reason for his discomfort with Barres' patriotism: «La verite, elle echappe a M. Curtius dans un article recent sur la mort de Barres: c'est que l' Allemagne n'a pas de Barres» [932] - an envy which in fact, claims Gillet, betrays a hidden admiration. Gillet later apolo­gized for this review; in his discussion of Curtius' Die franzosische Kultur (Un tableau allemand de la France, Revue de Deux Mondes, periode 8, tome 3 [1931], 203, entry no.109 below), he says:

Son ouvrage est d'un galant homme autant que d'un savant homme. II y a tou­jours a apprendre de la fac;on dont un etranger nous considere: sur nous-memes d'abord, et puis sur }'auteur de la peinture. C'est ce double service que nous rend M. Curtius. Je le dis d'autant plus volontiers qu'il m'est arrive d'etre in­juste pour un de ces ouvrages. et que j'ai a son egard un tort a reparer.

58. Heiss, Hanns, Review of Curtius, Wegbereiter, 3. Auflage (1923), Deut-sche Literaturzeitung 45 (1924), 901-902.

Heiss' second review of Wegbereiter (see no. 23) emphasizes the suc­cess of the book in spite of its overwhelmingly negative reception in professional journals, and expresses the hope that Curtius will follow up with additional studies in the same critical direction, particularly because no one else in Germany was suited for such a task.

59. Lerch, Eugen, Review of Curtius, Balzac (1923), Literaturblatt fiir ger­manische und romanische Philologie 45 (1924), 316--324.

35

In this comparatively conciliatory review, Lerch characterizes Cur­tius' Balzac as the best example of a phenomenological-descriptive rather than a generic-literary historical approach, of the happy marriage of critical intuition with solid documentation, «Die friihere Methode vernachliissigte iiber dem Werden <las Sein - Curtius ver­nachliissigt iiber dem Sein <las Werden». Noting Curtius' inability to account for Balzac's development as an author, his failure to consider problems of genre and his over-identification of the author's work with the author's Wesen, Lerch pleads for a combination of phenomenological and historical approaches.

60. Martersteig, Max, Review of Curtius, Balzac (1923), Zeitschrift fiir Bii-cherfreunde, Beiblatt N. F. 16 (1924), 70--71.

Martersteig claims all «good Europeans» will welcome Curtius' «Un­prejudiced devotion» to Balzac. Nevertheless Martersteig criticizes Curtius for having excessively systematized his subject «nach deut­scher Griindlichkeit». Martersteig concludes by noting, «Diese Ar­beit gereicht deutscher Einfiihlungsmoglichkeit zum Ruhme und gibt der Hoffnung auf Erhaltung europaischer Integritat belebende Schwingen».

61. Urtel, Hermann, Review of Curtius, Balzac (1923), Germanisch-Roma-nische Monatsschrift 12 (1924), 42-47.

Urtel characterizes Curtius' approach to Balzac as an attempt to «un­clothe the poet philosophically» in an effort to determine how a writer reflects his age and culture in its totality.

62. VoBler, Karl, Review of Curtius, Balzac (1923), Deutsche Literaturzei-tung 45 (1924), 125-127.

Curtius' portrayal of Balzac's work and career as an uninterrupted emanation of his being strikes VoBler as interesting but not convinc­ing. VoBler is also not persuaded by Curtius' contention that a more profound elucidation of Balzac's personality can explain his apparent contradictions and inconsistencies.

1925

63. Anonymous, Review of Curtius, Balzac (1923), Times Literary Supple-ment 24 (19March 1925), 201.

This short review praises Curtius' clarity, noting «Curtius has the ad­vantages, and lacks the drawbacks, of his race in regard to philosoph­ical criticism; he seems able to be minute without being tedious or dwelling on unessentials».

64. Angemeyer, Fred Antoine, Review of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925), Die Literatur 28 (1925), 54---55.

36

Angemeyer praises Curtius' combination of 'poetic' and critical tal­ents in his evaluation of contemporary French literature and com­mends Curtius for having recognized Proust so early on.

65. Clau8, Max, Pontigny, Die Neue Rundschau 36 (1925), 1344. ClauB offers a short appreciation of Curtius' Entretiens d' Ete de Pon­tigny. (See Bibliography, nos.100, 103.)

66. Ga?amer, Hans-Georg, Review of Curtius, Balzac (1923), Logos, Inter-nationale Zeitschrift fiir Philosophie der Kultur 14 (1925), 361-362.

Gadamer (twenty-five y.ears old at the time of this review!) suspects that the remarkable umty and closure ( «ein Bild von erstaunlicher Einheit und Geschlossenheit») of Curtius' interpretation of Balzac stem from an epistemologically anachronistic transformation of Bal­zac: Gadamer feels that Curtius interprets the contemporary rather than the historical Balzac: «Curtius' Darstellung ist getragen von ei­ner letzten Endes ungeschichtlichen Selbstbestatigung der modernen Welt».

67. Schwiedland, E., Review of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925), Zeitschrift fiir Volkerpsychologie und Soziologie 1 (1925), 440-442.

Schwiedland provides a detailed summary of the book without critical commentary.

68. Spitzer, Leo, Wortkunst und Sprachwissenschaft, Germanisch-Romani-sche Monatsschrift 13 (1925), 180--186.

69.

Spitzer describes how he made use of Curtius' Wegbereiter in a semi­nar during the 1924 summer semester. Spitzer supplemented Curtius' interpretations with close stylistic analysis so that his students could draw connections between Curtius' 'literary' conclusions and the re­sults of linguistic analysis. Spitzer emphasize the importance of stylis­tics for Curtius in his study of Balzac, an aspect which Spitzer says both Lerch and VoBler neglected to note in their reviews of the book (nos. 59 and 62). This remark of Spitzer seems conciliatory: he tries to make Curtius' approach more palpable to VoBler and his students.

Thibaudet, Alfred, Critique fran~aise et critique allemande, Nouvelle Re-vue Fran~aise 25 (1925), 223-231.

In see king to clarify Curtius' contribution to the study of Balzac, Thi­baudet's observations on Curtius anticipate remarks made later con­cerning European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. The gener­ous perspective of Curtius' Balzac avoids what Thibaudet calls «le phylloxera des fiches». Thibaudet characterizes Curtius' Balzac (in contrast to the study by Andre Bellessort) «une reflexion que !'on fait pour soi-meme, pour eclaircir et classer ses propres idees, et aussi

37

pour des lecteurs qui comprennent a demi-mot et mettent quelque patience a la disposition de !'auteur». Thibaudet sees the difference between the German and French critic in the following terms:

Le critique allemand vise a une metaphysique de Balzac, le critique fran<;ais a une psychologie, a une morale, a une utilisation de Balzac. Le premier pense au foyer interieur de Balzac, le second a la lumiere qui se deplace, pour les eclairer successivement sur les parties du colosse. L'un en veut une intuition, l'autre une intelligence. [225]

1926

70. Anonymous, Review of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925), Times Literary Supplement 25 (280ctober 1926), 747.

Expressing only a few reserves, the Times reviewer claims that Cur­tius

has not only made himself the most authoritative interpreter of French litera­ture among German writers, but, by the mere fact that he brings a fresh Ger­man philosophical outlook to the study of French writers, has made no small original contribution to the criticism of French literature in general.

71. Appel, Carl, Review of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925), Zeitschrift fiir franz6sischen und englischen Unterricht 25 (1926), 456-460.

Appel finds Curtius' book filled with the Luft van Pontigny, i.e., with the conviction that the French and Germans must settle their differ­ences and forge a European culture which transcends their individual national cultures. Appel warns, however, of the danger in Curtius' appreciative rather than strictly critical treatment of modern French authors and in his 'metaphysical' approach:

Eine wahrhaft hohe Metaphysik, welche die Einheit van Wahrheit und Sch<in­heit verkilndet! Und wenn wir nun meinen, daB Kunst und Erkenntnis das glei­che sei, dann ist freilich der Kilnstler auch intellektuell dem Nichtkilnstler unendlich ilberlegen. Dann hat an die Stelle der Kritik die reine Huldigung zu treten. [ 458]

72. Gelzer, Heinrich, Review of Curtius, Balzac (1923), Archiv fiir <las Stu-dium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 149 (1926), 144--145.

38

Gelzer compares Curtius' Balzac with Ernst Bertram's Nietzsche, (Berlin, 1918): both works concentrate on the 'legendary' aspects of their subjects. Curtius' portrait of Balzac, according to Gelzer, must necessarily be a subjective one. Gelzer notes that Curtius' attempt to grasp a 'unified' Balzac points to one of the fundamental problems of aesthetic criticism: the excessive restriction of analytical criteria. By comparing Curtius with Bertram, a well-known member of the George-Kreis, Gelzer may have been trying to implicate Curtius by

L

association: if Curtius' Balzac could be considered, as was his Wegbe­reiter study, to emanate even indirectly from the George-Kreis, then its scholarly credibility was immediately open to question.

73. Heiss, Hanns, Review of Curtius, Balzac (1923), Zeitschrift fiir franz6-sische Sprache und Literatur 48 (1926), 348-351.

Heiss finds that Curtius' approach to Balzac - an attempt to penetrate into the interior of Balzac's personality - represents a major achieve­ment. This approach must be supplemented by insights into the general history of the novel itself. Heiss feels that Curtius' method could be dangerous if applied in an excessively aesthetic way which lacks Curtius' intuition for the artistic.

74. Hoffmann, A., Review of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925), Literarische Berichte aus dem Gebiete der Philosophie 6 (1926), 34.

A short summary is given here without critical discussion.

75. Klemperer, Victor, Review of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925), Deutsche Literaturzeitung 47 (1926), 809-817.

Klemperer offers a lengthy examination of the evolution of Curtius' views on France from Wegbereiter to Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa. Klemperer faults Curtius in Wegbereiter for blurring specifi­cally French characteristics and for idealizing his 'heroes'. For Klem­perer, Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa marks an improvement in Curtius' treatment of France because Curtius recognizes the specif­ically French characteristics of the authors he treats. Klemperer is even prepared to concede that in his civilization studies Curtius has approached the methodological sophistication of VoBler and Spitzer in the field of stylistics. Klemperer finds that Curtius overemphasizes Latinity in his analysis but considers that this fault is forgiveable be­cause it points to Curtius' idealism and to his longing for peace and reconciliation:

Der Et':tiker Curtius, der Mann des Friedens und der Verstiindigung, hat dem Literaturhistoriker Curtius manch einmal <las Konzept verdorben. Diesmal wird fast durchweg getrennte Rechnung gefilhrt, und da er nun den Historiker in seinen Feststellungen nicht mehr beirrt, so kann man auch an dem werben­den Friedensfreund seine reine Freude haben. [814]

76. Marterst~ig, Max, Review of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925), Zeitschrift fiir Biicherfreunde, Beiblatt N. F.18 (1926), 209-210.

Martersteig is heartened that Curtius' attempts to pave the way for Franco-German reconciliation which had initially experienced fre­quent «blunt rejection» have finally come to enjoy some «encourag­ing success». Martersteig sees in Curtius a 'good European':

39

Seit seinem Barres und dem Balzac, sowie zahlreichen Abhandlungen wissen wir, welche seltene Umf3.nglichkeit intimster Kenntnis des kiinstlerischen und philosophischen Schrifttums im modernen Frankreich, welche vorurteilslose, allein vom objektiven Wert bewirkte Einfiihlungskraft ihn zu einer Mission be­fahigt, die, um sie durchzufiihren, auBerdem noch ein gutes Tei! jener intellek­tuellen Tapferkeit voraussetzt, an welcher Nietzsche den 'Guten Europa.er' er­kennen wollte.

Martersteig also recognizes that Curtius' work is animated by a qual­ity which had become increasingly rare in Germany, that of 'creative' criticism, a quality which Martersteig feels will guarantee Curtius' future success.

77. Santoli, Vittorio, Review of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925), La Cultura 5 (1925/1926), 515-517.

Santoli welcomes Curtius' study but is quick to point out the serious limitations of Curtius' analysis. For Santoli, Curtius has been misled into «Una fondamentale sopravvalutazione di opere e di tendenze che paiono ricongiungersi al cerebralismo e allo stilismo raffinato dell' ul­tima fase de! decadentismo europeo anziche dare l'immagine di un nuovo avviamento dello spirito nell' agitata Europa dei nostri gior­ni». Santoli questions Curtius' criteria for determining what is 'uni­versal' or 'nationalistic' about a writer (for both Santoli and Curtius here, 'universal' means pan-European). Santoli feels that Curtius ac­cepts too readily the French tendency to identify France as the uni­versal heir of Latinity. Santoli observes that the defense of common European values advanced and celebrated by French writers does not extend beyond France, and cites Curtius in his chapter on Pontigny where Curtius pointed out the lack of consensus among the assem­bled intellectuals in designating the most influential contemporary authors. Curtius' characterization of Prezzolini as more 'European' than Carducci or Croce is clear evidence for Santoli that Curtius' cri­teria are false. Santoli finds Curtius' reduction of Europe to France and Germany patently false and more a matter of Curtius' personal taste. Santoli's closing remarks anticipate Curtius' turning to Italy; speaking of the universalism and humanism of Dante, Michelangelo, Galileo, Machiavelli, Vico, and the poets of the Risorgimento, San­toli notes:

e questo sempre, piU o meno chiaramente, hanno sentito molti dei maggiori fra i tedeschi i quali, in una forma o in un'altra, si sono rivolti all' Italia come a maestra di civiltil e di umanitil, da Volfgano Goethe a Jacopo Burckhard!.

1927

78. Friedmann, Wilhelm, Review of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925), Die Neueren Sprachen 35 (1927), 66-68.

40

79.

80.

81.

82.

Friedmann emphasizes Curtius' sympathetic handling of the cultural and political problems arising from the attempt to create a common ba~is for Franco-German reconciliation and mutual understanding. Fnedmann's remark, «Aus [Curtius'] Studien Iernt man den Men­schen weniger kennen als das Schaff en», anticipates criticism of Eu~ope_a~ Literature and the Latin Middle Ages that Curtius neglect­ed. md1V1dual authors. At the time, another criticism is voiced by Fnedmann m the closing remarks of his review which also anticipates remarks later made about Curtius' magnum opus: «So wird man denn das neue Buch von Curtius als europiiisch im besten Sinne bezeich­nen ki:innen».

Glaser, Ku~t, R:view of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925), Ze1tschnft fiir franzi:isische Sprache und Literatur 49 (1927) 182-183. '

G~aser's short positive review of Curtius' book dispenses with a de­tailed summary and simply recommends Curtius' book without further ado. Glaser feels that Curtius has continued in this latest work the same task of critically illuminating contemporary French liter­ature which he had begun in his Wegbereiter.

Heiss, Ha~ns, Review of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925), L1teraturblatt fiir germanische und romanische Philologie 48 (1927), 194--195.

Heiss emphasizes that Curtius' stylistic analysis of Claude! and Balzac has proven its further efficacy for his analysis of Proust and Valery.

Jan, Eduard von, Franzosische Literaturgeschichte und vergleichende Li­teraturwissenschaft, Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 15 (1927) 31~17. '

Von Jan applies Curtius' characterization of the French intellectual reaction to foreign cultures (i.e., a reworking of borrowed materials c~lminating in the enrichment of French culture which, in turn, per­mits France to assume a leading role in European cultural life) to contemporary French life.

Karo, Geo.rg, R~view of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925), Zeitschnft fiir Vi:ilkerpsychologie und Soziologie 3 (1927) 474--478. '

~aro concentrates on the political rather than on the literary implica­tions of Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa. Karo considers the as­similation of French intellectual influences to be a hopeless means of reconciling France and Germany. Karo argues that Curtius holds a cont~adictory concept of democracy: on the one hand, Curtius considers democracy the «necessary form of modern social order» and feels that «alle Einwiinde des organisch-konservativen Denkens

41

gegen die Demokratie und internationale Ethik. bedeutungslos sind» (Franzosischer Geist (281 ]), but yet calls for an mtellectual anstocra­cy (Aristokratismus des Geistes).

83. Rostovsky, Fritz, Review of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im neuen

84.

85.

86.

87.

Europa (1925), Die schiine Literatur 28 (1927), 72. . Rostovsky appreciates the thorough, informative and unpreten!Ious format of Curtius' book but criticizes the shorter sections on Bergson­ism and on literary quarrels as superfluous filler.

1928

Brun, Louis, Review of Curtius, Franz6sischer Geist im neuen Europa (1925), Revue germanique 19 (1928), 401-403. . .

Brun praises Curtius' «richesse d'aper~us et d'abondant butm de ht­terature comparee», and characterizes the refreshmg, non-preachmg tone of the book as «le conseil de ferme et calme bon sens donne aus freres intellectuels d'une Europe dechiree; au terme ii faudra neces­sairement songer a s'unir ou a perir».

Buenzod, Emmanuel, Review of Curtius, Proust (French translation, 1928), Bibliotheque universelle et Revue de Geneve 2 (1928), 1414-1415.

In this short note Buenzod praises Curtius for setting forth the im­portance of «contemplation» in Proust's art.

Fernandez, Ramon, Review of Curtius, Proust (French translation, 1928), La Nouvelle Revue Fran~aise 31 (1928), 154-155. .

Fernandez commends Curtius' analysis of Proust's art but disagrees with Curtius on Proust's 'Platonism':

Proust demeure prisonnier de la sensation et de la loi. (A~tre~ent,dit,,au point de vue philosophique, le platonisme remporte une v1ctolfe la ou Proust eprouve une defaite.

Spitzer, Leo, Zurn Stil Marcel Prousts, Stilstudien, II: Stilsprachen (Mu-nich, 1928), 365-366. .

Spitzer praises Curtius' synthesis of linguistic/analytical and literary/ philosophical approaches in his treatment of Proust.

1929

88. FaBbinder, Klara M., Brucke zu Frankreich, Deutsche Nachkriegslitera-tur uber Frankreich, Literarischer Handweiser 65 (1929), 725-738. .

FaBbinder's detailed survey grants Curtius' various works a pre-emi­nence among the entire body of postwar German writings on France:

42

es gibt jedenfalls kaum jemand in Deutschland, der wie Curtius so franzOsische Dinge van ihrem innersten Wesenskern aus zu erfassen und den Leser bis zu ihm hinzufilhren weiB. ( ... ) Kein Wunder, daB kein Deutscher in den Kreisen des geistigen Frankreich solches Ansehen als Vermittler zwischen den beiden Kulturen genieBt. [727]

89. Fernandez, Ramon, Review of Curtius, L'idee de civilisation dans la conscience franr;aise (1929), La Nouvelle Revue Fran~aise 33 (1929), 409-411.

Fernandez recognizes Curtius for «Un esprit de justice et de justesse, un tact et une bonne grace». While disagreeing with Curtius' claim that the influence of French rationalism was limited to France, Fernandez recommends Curtius' analysis for «ceux d'entre nous qui entendent continuer une tradition sans se laisser aucunement endor­mir par elle».

90. Hatzfeld, Helmut, Romantische Stilforschung, Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 17 (1929), 60-61.

Hatzfeld characterizes Curtius as a non-systematic and intuitive stylistic critic whose results, reminiscent of those of Friedrich Gun­dolf or of Ernst Bertram (once again the association of Curtius with the George-Kreis), are as attractive as they are precarious because their success depends more on Curtius' own personal intuition than on his method.

91. Lauret, Rene, Antwort an E. R. Curtius, Deutsch-Franziisische Rund-schau 2 (1929), 60-67.

In examining the basis for future Franco-German reconciliation Lau­ret singles out the growth of large numbers of (religious) 'free­thinkers' in both countries as an important factor for reducing nationalistic sentiment. While Lauret's analysis is itself not pertinent, it helps situate Curtius within the Franco-German dialogue of the 1920's. Lauret finds Curtius' limiting the discussion exclusively to scholarly aspects to be too restrictive. For Laurel the realm of action must be both scholarly and political so that Curtius' recommendation that the study of the literature of each country should serve as a bridge for understanding is hopelessly impractical. Lauret notes that most educated Germans and Frenchmen were rarely familiar in any complete sense with their own literature, let alone the literature of the nth er country. Nevertheless Curtius' contribution is valuable, allows Laurel, because it helps to recovu the neglected cultural heritage of both countries, though the very obscurity of the cultural inheritance of both countries leads to such neglect.

43

1930

92. Benario, Leo, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (1930), Zei­tungswissenschaft 5 (1930), 379.

In this short notice Benario calls Curtius' study of French civilization «eine meisterhafte Einfiihlung in die fremde Kulturwelt».

93. Derche, Roland, Review of Curtius, Proust (French translation, 1928), Europe, Revue mensuelle 19 (1930), 272-275.

Derche readily praises Curtius' monograph for exhibiting «une con­naissance intime et avertie de notre art et de notre litterature, une analyse penetrante et nuancee de I' esprit fran~ais», though he faults Curtius for neglecting «le facteur juif» in Proust, explaining, «a notre sens le genie proustien s'insere dans une categoric tres particuliere de la tradition fran~aise, celle des demi-juifs, dont Montaigne et M. Bergson sont Jes plus illustres representants». Derch does not hesi­tate to commend Curtius for having intuitively discovered the key to Proust's art before the publication of Le Temps retrouve. At the same time Derche is prepared to accept, albeit with some reserve, Curtius' notion of 'Proustian Platonism'.

94. Du Bos, Charles, Ernst Robert Curtius, La Nouvelle Revue Fran~aise 25 (1930), 669--{)89; reprinted in: Approximations, V, (Paris, 1932), 109-139; and reprinted again in: Approximations, (Paris, 1948, 1965), 1037-1058.

Du Bos gives a general overview of Curtius' writings from 1919 to 1930. Du Bos emphasizes the consistency, spaciousness, and unity of Curtius' work without referring to any 'evolution' in his thinking. (In­deed, Curtius' stress on social and historical cohesion in his studies of modern French literature may anticipate the similar striving for social and historial continuity in ELLMA; see entry no. 407 below for Cur­tius' reactions to this article.)

95. Forst de Battaglia, Otto, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (1930), Allgemeine Rundschau 27 (1930), 706--707.

The homogeneity and comprehensiveness of Curtius' portrayal of French civilization earn Forst de Battaglia's praise. He finds Curtius' presentation deceptively simple, «diese schockweise servierten Eier des Columbus», and takes issue only with Curtius' depiction of French religious life which Forst de Battaglia finds underestimates the intensity of the Catholic renaissance within the Church.

96. Lobstein, Jacques, Ein Franzose uber Ernst Robert Curtius, Deutsch­Franzosische Rundschau 3 (1930), 66--68.

44

Lobstein, in examining Curtius' essay Die Religion im Aufbau der franzosischen Kultur, Deutsch-Franzosische Rundschau 2 (1929),

L

919 ff., faults Curtius' handling of Port Royal, his neglect of the con­temporary French Catholic thinker Maurice Blonde!, and his failure to discuss Gide's La Porte etroite and Numquid et tu?. Lobstein wor­ries that the meanings of the French word culture and its German homonym Kultur are too vague to afford much purchase on questions of political economy, literature, art or history.

97. Mann, Klaus, Zu Ernst Robert Curtius' «Die franzosische Kultur», Die Literatur 33 (1930), 13-14.

This short review by the twenty-four-year-old Klaus Mann is both a summary and an appreciation of Curtius' study. The most interesting feature of this review is its introductory personal anecdote. Klaus Mann tells of meeting Curtius in Heidelberg and of how Curtius opened up a «new world» to him:

Es war eine Welt voll Reiz und Problematik, zugleich radikal und traditionsge­bunden (und das gerade erschien mirso besonders europaisch an ihr): Die Welt des geistigen Frankreichs von heute.

98. Pozzi, Catherine, Nous, vus de /'est, Le Figaro (20July 1930), 5. Pozzi's review of Curtius' Die franzosische Kultur emphasizes how Curtius had avoided the usual dangers of a manuel de civilisation and at the same time how Curtius had often espoused extremely difficult viewpoints (e.g., that of La Revue des Deux Mandes on education in the provinces): «Livre ecrit pour des Allemands, mais qui peint une France telle qu'elle veuille se reconnaitre». Pozzi regrets that Cur­tius' studies of France and of French literature had hitherto received so little attention in France and goes on to praise him for «un exemple remarquable de !'art d'eviter ces formules communes et tentantes».

99. Schwamborn, Heinrich, Das Gesicht Frankreichs, Abendland 5 (1929/ 1930), 265-268.

In this general discussion Schwamborn points to the central place held by Curtius' Wegbereiter in the discussion of France in Germany during the years following the First World War:

Unter denen, die sich um die 'seelische' Erkenntnis Frankreichs besonders er­folgreich und divinatorisch bemiihten, steht an erster Stelle E. R. Curtius, <les­sen vielleicht allzu morgenrotlich hoffnungsvoll gestimmtes Buch iiber Die [li­terarischen] Wegbereiter des neuen Frankreich uns zum erstenmal ein bisher viillig ungeahntes Gesicht dieses Volkes zeigte. [266]

100. Steinecke. Ludwig, Curtius-Bergstriisser: «Frankreich», Die Literarische Welt 6 (1930), 5.

Steinecke devotes most of his discussion to Curtius' volume. He finds that Curtius' judgment of France combines both distance and author­ity which in turn legitimize «die Tendenz zu einer universal[is ]ieren­den Denk- und Anschauungsweise». The clarity of Curtius' presen-

45

tation strikes Steinecke as refreshingly ununsual for an academic work: «in seiner Darstellung hat er die akademische Konvention be­reits iiberwunden, in seiner intelligiblen Prosa, die farbiger und nuan­cierter ist und mit den Ingredienzen europaischer Geistigkeit mehr und mehr sich bereichert». While Steinecke commends Curtius for having avoided one of the chief pitfalls of most comparisons of France and Germany, the juxtaposition of French civilisation and German Kultur, he feels that the German's sense of cultural discon­tinuity contrasts unavoidably, albeit incommensurably, with the Frenchman's consciousness of national continuity. Steinecke conclu­des by noting, «Curtius' Buch ist van zartlicher Liebe zu seinem Ge­genstand erfiillt, eine Liebe aber, die zu unterscheiden, Nuancen ab­zuwagen weiB und mit leiser Skepsis sich gegen unberechtigte Gel­tungsanspriiche distanziert».

1931

101. Arns, Karl, Review of Curtius, James Joyce (1929), Literarischer Hand-weiser 67 (February, 1931), 294.

Arns finds it significant that Curtius' persuasive demonstration of the mechanics of the structure of Joyce's Ulysses had escaped the notice of most critics: «Diese Tatsache, die Curtius auch nachweist, schei­nen die bisherigen Ulysses-Interpreten, unter denen der einzige ziinf­tige Anglist Fehr ist, nicht geniigend beachtet zu haben».

102. Bertaux, Felix, Review of Curtius-Bergstrasser, Frankreich (1930), Europe, Revue mensuelle 25 (1931), 422-425.

46

While Bertaux admits that the Curtius-Bergstrasser study is the most advanced of its kind in Germany, («nu! doute qu 'une etude comme celle que M. Curtius et M. Bergstrasser viennent, conjointement, de consacrer a la France, ne marque un niveau qui n'avait pas encore ete atteint dans ce genre de recherches en Allemagne», [422]), and that Curtius is prudent to avoid stereotypes, Bertaux situates Curtius' contribution to the study of French civilization squarely in a German

context:

Les jugements qu'il porte ne soot en derniere analyse pas differents de ceux que les Allemands de toujours ont portes sur les Fran~ais de toujours, mais - et c'est la qu'est la nouveaute, le progres que l'on ne saurait assez louer - a chaque pas I' Allemand qui avec M. Curtius serait entraine a dire, «le Fran<;ais est ... », ou «le Fran<;ais n'est pas ... », est mis en garde par M. Curtius lui-meme: «Ne nous y trompons pas, le Fran\=ais est aussi ... , le Fran<;ais n'est pas non plus ... ».

Bertaux wonders whether a more «insidious form» of nationalism is implicit in the «intellectual rationalism» [sic] of Curtius' study and of

I

l

Friedrich Sieburg's Gott in Frankreich?, and whether the «cult» of French civilization on both sides of the Rhine might not impede mu­tual understanding, «Reste a voir s'il n'est pas !'obstacle a une intel­ligence reciproque» [ 424]. Bertaux calls for a French translation of the Curtius-Bergstrasser study to serve as «le point de depart d'une discussion enfin digne de son objet»; it is important, Bertaux stresses, to understand where the differences between the French and the Ger­mans lie and to avoid gratuitous generalizations on what is 'German' or 'French', otherwise Bertaux asks:

Affirmer, gratuitement semble-t-il, des differences radicales de la psyche fran­<;aise et de la psyche allemande, n'est pas nous enfoncer dans un antagonisme qui pour n'etre pas celui de la guerre n'en porte pas moins en lui de quoi reen­gendrer les guerres? [425]

103. Briigelmann, H., Review of Curtius-Bergstrasser, Frankreich (1930), Ruhr und Rhein, Wirtschaftszeitung 12Jh., Heft 29 (17 July 1931), 6.

This short review, devoted chiefly to Bergstrasser's volume, ques­tions the wisdom of combining a literary and cultural analysis with an economic analysis, «[ein] kaum verstandlicher Fehlgriff des Verla­ges».

104. Chevalley, Abel, Review of Curtius, Proust (French translation, 1928), Mercure de France 203 (1931), 229-232.

Chevalley points to the influential role played by Curtius' work on subsequent critics of Proust; the appearance of the French translation of Curtius' book tends to prove that «Curtius voyait plus juste que ses disciples» (230]. Chevalley does not hesitate to stress the enduring value of Curtius' analysis:

11 n'est pas difficile, maintenant que l'ceuvre de Proust est complete, d'aller un peu plus loin et surtout plus profondement que Curtius. Ce qui etait difficile, au moment oU Curtius ecrivait, c'etait d'indiquer les directions. Or, son jalon­nage reste valable. [231]

While granting that Curtius' study is far from being a systematic approach to Proust, Chcvallcy finds that it constitutes an important beginning.

105. Dreyer, Ernst Adolf, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (1930), Revue d'Allemagne 5 (1931), 76.

Ir.. this short discussion Dreyer summarizes Curtius' volume, noting how his work implicitly posits France as the model of cultural refine­ment and unity for Europe.

106. Eschmann, Ernst Wilhelm, Curtius-Bergstriisser: «Frankreich», Die Tat 22, Heft 11 (February, 1931), 913-915.

Eschmann provides a short, and in light of Curtius' hostility to the

47

Tat-Kreis, a surprisingly positive review of the Curtius-Bergstriisser volumes. The review is matter-of-fact and in no sense political.

107. FaBbinder, Klara M., Review of Curtius, Die franz6sische Kultur (1930), Literarischer Handweiser 67 (1931), 550--552.

FaBbinder criticizes Curtius' neglect of the plastic arts and music in his treatment of French civilization but at the same time observes:

Die zentrale Stellung der Literatur, wobei das Wort in einem viel weiteren Sin­ne als nur 'schOne' Literatur zu nehmen ist, ihr starker EinfluB auf das unmit­telbare Leben des Tages, der Familie, Gesellschaft, Politik, konnte aber von niemand als von Curtius mit gr6Berer Sachkenntnis und tieferer Schau in jene, in Deutschland allzuoft iibersehenen Zusammenhiinge dargestellt werden.

108. Giese, Wilhelm, Review of Curtius, Die franz6sische Kultur (1930), Volkstum und Kultur der Romanen 4 (1931), 177-179.

Giese praises Curtius for avoiding empty abstractions in his presenta­tion of a structural analysis of French civilization.

109. Gillet, Louis, Un tableau a/lemand de la France, Revue des Deux Mon-des, periode 8, tome 3 (1931), 203-214.

Gillet provides a lengthy of Curtius' analysis of French civilization, noting that «Curtius represente dans I' Allemagne nouvelle la plus no­ble tradition de l'humanisme. Pas de cerveau plus ample, moins re­treci de partis pris» [203-204). Gillet stresses that Curtius treats poli­tical questions in the context of the history of ideas, «Curtius ne s' en occupe lui-meme que dans la mesure oil la politique touche a la forme des idees, a ce qu'on appelle aujourd'hui la mentalite fran~aise» [205].

110. Glaser, Kurt, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (1930), Litera-turblatt fiir germanische und romanische Philologie 52 (1931), 52-56.

48

Glaser presents a generally positive review of Curtius' approach, not­ing the methodological innovation inherent in Curtius' structural analysis of French culture, but reproaches Curtius for citing the French historian Lavisse's remarks on France's mission civilisatrice in his own portrayal of the French's self-image. On the one hand, Lavisse claimed, «France et Humanite ne sont pas des mots qui s'opposent l'un a l'autre; ils sont conjoints et inseparable. Notre patrie est la plus humaine des patries», but, on the other hand, (and this had made him unacceptable for Glaser), placed the entire blame for the First World War on Germany and Austria:

Chez nous on esperait pourtant eviler la guerre. Qui done oserait, en la decla­rant, commettre un si grand crime contre l'humanite? L'Autriche et l'Alle­magne ont commis ce grand crime. ( ... ) L'Allemagne etait de mauvaise foi et voulait la guerre.

I

l

111. Hatzfeld, Helmut, Review of Curtius, Die franz6sische Kultur (1930), Deutsche Literaturzeitung 52 (1931), 639-646.

Hatzfeld concludes that the joint Curtius-Bergstriisser study, by com­bining Curtius' «immanent soziologische Fragestellungen» with the historico-political approach of Bergstriisser, overcomes the weakness of earlier German studies of French civilization such as Eduard WechBler's Esprit und Geist and Hartig and Schellberg (eds.), Hand­buch der Frankreichkunde. The joint study is at once differentiated and unified.

112. Hippe!, Ernst v., Review of Curtius-Bergstriisser, Frankreich (1930), Reichsverwaltungsblatt 52 (1931), 298.

In this short discussion, v. Hippe! calls Frankreich a culmination of previous studies of France, «einen AbschluB und Gipfel». He con­cludes:

Stilistisch entspricht die essayhafte Leichtigkeit der Diktion bei Curtius so der our poetisch umschreibbaren Erfiillbarkeit seines Gegenstandes wie das schwe­rere Gedankengefuge Bergstriissers der Strenge staatlich-wirtschaftlicher Rea­litiiten.

113. Kiichler, Walther, Gedanken zu den Biichern von Ernst Robert Curtius und Arnold Bergstriisser iiber Frankreich, Die Neueren Sprachen 39 (1931), 161-167.

Kiichler seecks at length to refute much of Curtius' book on France. He points out the methodological danger in Curtius' claim that his perception of France stems from a personal point of view, for while all scholarship depends on a personal perspective, its results must be independently verifiable in order to be valid. Kiichler contest Cur­tius' distinguishing between the 'primary' nature of Germanic civil­ization and the 'secondary' nature of French culture. The German de­mand for renewal, Kiichler claims, represents a Faustian trait fully different from the curiosity of the French (as first noted by Julius Caesar who called the French novarum rerum cupidi).

114. Lerch, Eugen, Biicherpaket fiir Paris, Neuphilologische Monatsschrift 2 (1931), 150--155.

Lerch compares three important studies of French civilization: Fried­rich Sieburg, Gott in Frankreich?, Ein Versuch; Hartig and Schell­berg (eds.), Handbuch der Frankreichkunde; and Curtius-Bergstriis­ser, Fra."'.kreich. Lerch considers Curtius' monograph to be a highly cultivated essay rather than a proper piece of scholarship because much of Curtius' work had appeared earlier in article form in Die Neue Rundschau or in Die Deutsch-Franzosische Rundschau and be­cause Curtius only occasionally cited scholarly literature. Otherwise Lerch summarizes the contents of Curtius' book more or less without comment.

49

115. Mohrhenn, Werner, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (1930), Zeitschrift fiir franzosischen und englischen Unterricht 30 (1931), 229-

231. Mohrhenn reviews the success of Curtius' structural analysis of French culture and notes, «vertraute Tatsachen erscheinen in neuer, iiberraschender und doch oft wie selbstverstiindlich anmutender Be­

leuchtung».

116. Morsier, E. de, Review of Curtius-Bergstriisser, Frankreich (1930), Mercure de France 231 (1931), 242-244.

Concentrating on Curtius' part of the joint study, de Morsier prefaces his summary by noting:

Disons-le franchement, nous ne connaissons pas de pages ecrites par des Alle­mands sur la France, qui temoignent de plus d'intelligence, d'un plus probe souci de vente et d'impartialite. [242]

117. Pitrou, Robert, Review of Curtius, Diefranzosische Ku/tur (1930), Re-vue germanique 22 (1931), 218--219.

Pitrou voices a few reserves concerning Curtius' conclusions, particu­larly on the 'secondary' nature of French culture, but finds Curtius' emphasis on the pre-eminently intellectual nature of French patriot­

ism to be correct.

118. Raab, Rudolf, Review of Curtius-Bergstriisser, Frankreich (1930), Das humanistische Gymnasium 42 (1931), 119.

Raab finds that this study is indispensible for future students of French civilization and that the work avoids the frequent danger of joint ventures because Curtius and Bergstriisser share a common per­

spective.

119. Senechal, Christian, Ernst Robert Curtius et civilisation franr;aise, Revue

d' Allemagne 5 (1931), 65-71. Senechal's article marks the beginning of a rather nasty quarrel with Curtius. While admitting that Curtius' treatment of France consti­tutes «une etude grave, austere» which should be read in France, Senechal dismisses the opposition between 'civilisation' and 'culture' as «pure question de terminologie!», and proceeds to give Curtius a lesson in semantics. Senechal argues that since the two words are syn­onymous in French, they are - or ought to be - synonymous in

German:

50

si nous ne comprenons pas l'opposition chere aux Spengler et cie entre Kultur et Zivilisation, c'est qu'en rCalitC, les deux mots: culture et civilisation, ayant ete fran~ais avant d'avoir re~u le droit de cite en Allemagne, ont pris chez nos voisins des acceptions que nous avons quelque repugnance 3. adopter, et par amour de la clarte, et par droit de premier occupant. Pour nous, il ne saurait y avoir d'antinomie entre civilisation et culture, puisque la civilisation est un

120.

l

phenomene humain qui comporte precisement, entre autres etements, la cul­ture morale, scientifique, artistique et religieuse. Ainsi, tout le premier chapit­re de Frankreich croule: ses fondations sont de sable. [67]

In effect Senechal denies the distinct connotations of the two Fremd­worter because the two words in question are not as connotatively d1stmct m French as in German, a nationalistic solution to semantic problems! Senechal criticizes Curtius for imputing derivative qualities to French culture, «je reste surpris de voir un esprit precis tel que E. R. Curtius jongler legerement avec tant de termes indefinis: Sekun­diircharakter, Spiitcharakter der franzosischen Kultur!» [ 68]. More­over Senechal questions the legitimacy of any portrait of French civil­ization because such a study remains «Somme toute, un portrait statique et moyen», and therefore fails to be cognizant of the dynamic changes and of the wide variety of French life.

Senechal, Christian, Le point de vue franr;ais, Deutsch-Franzosische Rundschau 4 (1931), 682-684.

Senechal lists the obstacles to a moral rapprochement between France and Germany, including «la croyance en d'irrectuctibles differences entre les peuples». [684] At this point Senechal recalls his discussion of Curtius' Die franzosische Kultur (no. 119) noting how he had pointed to the dangers of a Frankreichkunde which predicated funda­mental and eternal differences between deutsche Kultur and civilisa­tion fran~aise:

Ainsi que le remarquait tres justement Felix Bertaux dans son articled' Europe [no.102] (et on ne le suspectera pas plus que moi de germanophobie!), nous sommes la en presence d'une forme nouvelle et insidieuse de nationalisme, et non moins redoutable que l'ancienne. [684]

Curtius replied to Senechal in a letter published a month later in the Deutsch-Franzosische Rundschau. Curtius opens his letter with a sa­vage attack on Senechal:

Ich habe es mir seit vielen Jahren zum Grundsatz gemacht, auf Angriffe nicht zu erwidern; ich halte es fiir eine erlaubte Form des Stolzes. Aber auch ein Wurm kriimmt sich schlieBlich, wenn er getreten wird. Zwar halte ich Herrn Senechal nicht fiir einen ebenbiirtigen Gegner, sondern fiir einen subalternen Skribenten und engstirnigen Schulmeister. Ich ha be es auch mit einem amiisier­te~ Lfrcheln hingehen !assen, daB er in unserer sogenannten Schwesterzeit­schrift, in der Revue d'Allemagne, mir die Leviten gelesen hat [no.119], denn diese Zeitschrift - aber nein, dariiber will ich meine Gedanken fiir mich behal­ten. Wenn aber dieser wichtigtuerische Pedant und volkerpsychologische Kleinkrii­mer seinen Fliegenschmutz in deutschen Zeitschriften ablegt, ist es vielleicht angebracht, ihm einmal etwas auf die Finger zu geben und seine geistigen Pro­portionen auf <las gebiihrende MaB zuriickzufiihren.

51

52

Curtius sketches out the history of his associatton with Senechal, which explains in part the vehemence of his remarks:

!ch babe schon var mehr als zehn Jahren den Vorzug gehabt, den pildagogi­schen Ambitionen von Herrn Senechal ausgesetzt zu sein. Er geh6rt fiir mich in die Kategorie der priitensi6sen Besserwisser und Querulanten, denen wohl kein Schriftsteller entgeht. Er gehOrt zu den Leuten, die mich jahrelang under­folglos mit belehrenden Zuschriften begliickt haben. ( ... ) Ich will die Akten des Falles hier nicht ausbreiten, sondem nur soviet sagen: als die besagte 'Schwe­sterzeitschrift' den Angriff des Herrn Senechal auf mein Frankreichbuch brach­te, wurden mir gewisse psychologische Zusammenhilnge blitzartig klar. Da ich nicht giitlich und privatim auf seine pildagogischen Anmahnungen eingegangen war, muBte er seinem gekrilnkten Ehrgeiz in aller Offentlichkeit Luft machen. Wenn er nun aber seine Aufk:liirungst3.tigkeit in der Deutsch-Franz6sischen Rundschau fortsetzt, wollen wir uns stellen. [777]

With heavy sarcasm Curtius proceeds to demolish Senechal's crit­icism of his alleged crypto-nationalism:

Herr Senechal ist nicht nur Pildagoge und Kritiker, sondern auch ein Psycho­loge von wahrhaft unheimlichen Scharfsinn; er ist geradezu ein Maskenabrei­Ber, ein Entlarver. !ch glaubte es doch so schlau angefangen zu haben. Als deutschtiimelnder Nationalist hatte ich mir eine ganz besondere perfide Metho­de ausgedacht, um die Franzosen hinters Licht zu fiihren. Ich wiihlte die Maske des Europilers und die Mimik des Verstiindigers. lch begniigte mich nicht da­mit, zehn Jahre lang groBe franzosische Schriftsteller der deutschen Leserschaft nahezubringen, zu deuten, zu empfehlen, ans Herz zu legen, nein, ich verfaBte, um ganz sicher zu gehen, ein Buch Uber die franz6sische Kultur, das sogar von franzOsischen Kritikern als eine verstandnisvolle und vom Geist der Sympathie getragene Auslegung franzosischen Geistes empfunden wurde, wilhrend gewis­se deutsche Heissporner es mir 6ffentlich als Vergehen angekreidet haben. ( ... ) Dabei kann er sich auf die Autoritat von Herrn Bertaux berufen, mit dem ich bereits ein Hiihnchen zu rupfen hatte, als er in einem seiner geistvollen kultur­psychologischen Essays aus dem Anblick der wurstessenden Deutschen weit­tragende philosophische Folgerungen zag. [777-778]

The quarrel was far from over: in the following issue of the Deutsch­Franz6sische Rundschau Eugen Lerch in turn attacked Curtius for his «shameful» reply and for not discussing the question of eternal differ­ences between the French and the Germans in a more matter-of-fact way, (Verstiindigung oder bloj3e Du/dung, [855-857]). Senechal re­plied in a short letter, refusing to use insult to answer insult and ci­ting, in a postscript, the few positive remarks he made in his review (which sound rather gratuitous when one recalls the criticisms which these positive comments served to introduce). Curtius, however, had the last word. His reply, Deutscher und franzosischer Standpunkt [1028], answers what Curtius perceived to be attacks against his own person, and he does not fail to point out how hypocritical Eugen Lerch's intervention in this quarrel was:

Aber eines lasse ich mir nicht bieten: daB man meine literarische T8tigkeit als I

l

eine «neue, hinterlistige Form des Nationalismus» verd8chtigt. Professor Lerch soil am b~sten wissen, daB ich gegen diesen Vorwurf geschiltzt bin; hat doch er selbst rn1ch nach dern Erscheinen der Literarischen Wegbereiter des neue Frankreich ~eschuldigt, ich h8tte mich «mit der Negernation angebiedert: [no.35]. Mein Standpunkt hat sich seit damals nicht geilndert.

121. Schweitzer, Albert, Aus meinem Leben und Denken, (Leipzig, 1931) ~. '

Sch.weitzer gives . a. highly sympathetic portrait of Curtius' family, notmg that «Trad11Ionen der Gelehrtenaristokratie verbanden sich in dieser Fa~ilie als~ m'.t denen der Geburtsaristokratie», and stressing the gentthty and c1v1hty of Curtius' mother.

122. Ungem-Stemberg, Roderich v., Review of Curtius-Bergstrasser, Frank-reich (1930), Der Heimatdienst, 11.Jh., No.8 (April 1931), 128.

In this short dicussion, v. Ungem-Stemberg finds that the Curtius­Bergstrasser study presupposes extensive familiarity with France on the part of its readers, for whom the work must be «auBerordentlich anregend und genuBreich». The only omission which Ungem-Stem­berg finds in the study is the lack of a chapter on the «social biology» of France, («als eine empfindliche Lucke ist aber das Feh/en eines so­zialbiologischen Kapitels»).

1932

123. Anonymous, French Culture [Review of Curtius, Die franz6sische Kul­tur (English translation, 1932)], Times Literary Supplement 31 (31 March 1932), 224.

Besides a summary and short excerpts from Curtius' book, the re­viewer restricts himself to the following observation:

Curtius writes soberly, never raising his tone in either praise or blame. Often, indeed, he contents himself with analysis and explanation, without comment. It is evident, however, that his study is based not only upon knowledge of equal depth and breadth, but upon considered admiration - one might almost add, af­fection. The whole tone is not merely impartial, but friendly.

124. Anonymous, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (English trans-lation, 1932), The Sociological Review 24 (1932), 210--211.

The general review consists of a series of excerpts and concludes with the recommendation, «Altogether this is a book which every lover of France should read with interest and pleasure».

125. Allison, John M. S., France Drags on the Coat-tails of Progress, Yale Review N. S. 21 (1931/32), 857-860.

Allison reviews a number of contemporary studies of French civiliza­tion, including the monographs of Curtius and Sieburg, for both of whom he has high praise. Curtius and Sieburg reveal in their re-

53

spective works a deep understanding of the «intellectual unity that underlies [French] society and that makes it possible for France to have a life as a state in spite of its diversity». From Allison's remarks one can reconstruct the implicit political context of such a valoriza­tion of French culture in the late 1920's: «In the opinion of the two German writers, France stands as a protest against modern haste, a too great emphasis on material advancement, and a complete absorp­tion of the individual, which they acknowledge is the very creed that

Germany has accepted» [860].

126. Aneschi, Luciano, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (French translation, 1932), Leonardo 3 (1932), 418-419.

Aneschi appreciates the fact that Curtius is sensitive to the difficulty of his undertaking and summarizes Curtius' contribution in the

following terms:

Nell inserire i dati di un penetrantissimo esprit de finesse (che giunge immedia­tamente al fondo delle cose, talora illuminandone i riflessi psicologici, talora da essi liberandosi e come improvvisamente svolgendosi) in un sistema di coordi­nate fissate da un chiaro esprit de geometrie (che, pen), non pretende di immo­bilizzare le soluzioni) sta ii senso attuale e ii valore della particolare sensibilita

saggistica del Curtius. [419]

127. Beckerath, Herbert von, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (1930), Schmollers Jahrbuch fur Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volks­wirtschaft im Deutschen Reiche 56 (1932), 131-134.

Von Beckerath summarizes and recommends the Curtius-Bergstriis-

ser study.

128. Bellessort, Andre, Un livre allemand sur la France, Correspondant, 104. annee, tome 327 (1932), 133-143.

Bellessort is exceptionally critical of Curtius' analysis of French civil­ization. He finds the entire proposition of 'civilization-studies' some­what artificial: «Je regrette le temps oil ii n'etait pas toujours ques­tion de se comprendre entre !es !es differents pays. Les gens des siecles passes n'avaient pas toujours ce mot a la bouche» [134]. Bel­lessort finds Curtius' observations to be the most interesting when Curtius speaks from personal experience; he questions Curtius' selection of representative French authors and then presents «Un certain nombre d'erreurs» [137] on Curtius' part, concluding, «Ces reflexions et d'autres semblables, nous donnent a penser que M. Curtius n;a pas encore respire assez d'air fran~ais» [138]. On the other hand, Bellessort commends Curtius' remarks on Michelet, on the «Guerelle des Anciens et des Modern es», on French Catholicism, on the surprisingly religious character of the Capetian monarchy'. on the undoing of French Protestantism, and on the psychological character of French literature. At the same time, Bellessort feels

54

that Curtius' work will only exacerbate differences between the French and Germans by showing how fundamentally different the two peoples' conceptions of civilization are from one another.

129. Blair, Eric, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (English transla­tion, 1932), The Adelphi 4 (1932), 553-555.

Blair is impressed by the 'Englishness' of Curtius' analysis and notes (apparently without irony):

This book is an attempt to sum up, from a purely cultural, non-political point of view, the special contribution that France makes to civilization. It is written by a German, and a terrifically learned one, but its general attitude to life and thought is quite of the English stamp. In effect Herr Curtius' criticism of France is that a German finds the French intelligence very much smaller than his own though more perfected and perhaps more adult.( ... ) In other words, French culture is classical and anthropocentric, and to those outside the classical tradi­tion it looks rather like a straight-waistcoat though an exceedingly elegant one. This is the sum of Herr Curtius' conclusions, and apart from the scholarship shown, it is very much what would be said by any well-informed Englishman. [553]

130. Blonde!, Georges, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (French translation, 1932), Revue des etudes historiques 99 (1932), 307-308; re­printed in: Revue internationale de l'enseignement 53 (1933), 122-123.

Blonde! praises Curtius' book as «le meilleur livre qu'un Allemand ait ecrit sur la France» and briefly summarizes it.

131. Bosisio, Alfredo, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (French translation, 1932), II Convegno, Rivista di letteratura e di arte 13 (1932), 363-368.

Bosisio commends Curtius' equanimity in handling French civiliza­tion, calling his study «Un saggio ricco, diligente, affettuoso, sopra tutto affettuoso». He questions however the notion that «i'idea francese di civilizzazione consiste nello sforzo di tradurre in termini universali le caratteristiche della vita nazionale», since «la cosi detta tendenza universalizzatrice francese» may also be seen as a «Spirito sistematico, coordinatore, chiarificatore». Bosisio objects to Curtius' claim «che ii temperamento francese sia sostanzialmente antilirico», but remains intrigued by Curtius' remarks on the secondary nature of French culture, noting «ii rilievo di questo carattere derivato e tanto piu utile all'intelligenza dello spirito francese, quanto meno e da esso riconosciuto, quasi comportasse umiliazione» [368).

132. Church, Richard, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (English translation, 1932), The New Statesman and Nation N.S. 3 (1932) 622-623.

Church summarizes Curtius' observations and finds that Curtius has

55

«made a neat and concise job of his survey of the French national character».

133. Cronheim, Fritz, Deutscher Geist in Gefahr?, Die Hilfe, Wochenschrift fiir Politik, Literatur und Kunst, 38.Jh., No.13 (26March 1932), 310--312.

Cronheim, in welcoming Curtius' analysis of the connection between political extremism and cultural nihilism, is sensitive to its unusual features, as, for instance, its recommendation of medievalism as the basis for a new humanism. Cronheim is also sensitive to Curtius' non­traditional application of philology: «Diese Rede iiber den Humanis­mus stellt alles in den Schatten, was van der offiziellen Philologie un­ter Fiihrung van Werner Jaeger zur Erneuerung antiken Geistes ge­sagt word en ist». Cronheim understands Curtius' book as a warning to create a new European cultural synthesis through a creative pre­servation of the European cultural inheritance.

134. Dietz, Jean, L'Essai de M. Curtius sur la France, Revue franco-belge 12 (1932), 346--363.

Dietz discusses Curtius' observations on French civilization at length, characterizing Curtius as «le plus fran~ais des ecrivains allemands contemporains» [347]. Dietz's criticisms are few: Curtius might have emphasized more «une forme particulierement fran~aise de la justice: ( ... ) la repugnance au privilege» [351]; and French patriotism is, for Dietz, not as bound to the soil as Curtius maintains.

135. Dupeyron, Georges, Review of Curtius, Die franz6sische Kultur (French translation, 1932), Europe, Revue mensuelle 30 (1932), 467-469.

While Dupeyron is sensitive to Curtius' striving for Franco-German reconciliation, he is dissatisfied both with Curtius' work and with that of Eugen Diesel, Die deutsche Wandlung, explaining:

Mais justement, parce qu'ils ne depassent pas ce point de vue profondement ra­cial et [cette] necessite par une historique tradition dite psychologique, ils n'apportent au fond rien du nouveau, et pour ce qui est d'un rapprochement franco-allemand, ne laissent apercevoir aucune solution. Il ne s'agit pas en effet de rechercher les differences, puis les identites. Ces deux termes sont inconci­liables. Ils conduisent a une hostilite permanente. [468]

136. Eliot, T. S., A Commentary, The Criterion 12 (1932), 73--79.

56

Eliot's review of Deutscher Geist in Gefahr leads to a discussion of the opposition of the transient and the eternal, in which Eliot argues against the egocentricity of contemporary society which leads to total ignorance of the values of the past and an «over-estimation of the im­portance of our time».

I

l

137. Fernandez, Ramon, Review of Curtius, Die franz6sische Kultur (French translation, 1932), La Nouvelle Revue Fran~aise 39 (1932), 133-137.

Fernandez considers that Curtius exhibits extraordinary tact in por­traying French culture and observes that Curtius «a droit ii notre ad­miration et ii notre gratitude». Nevertheless, Fernandez twits Curtius for too often appealing to the latest trends. As for Curtius' perspec­tive on France and Germany, Fernandez finds that «Curtius ( ... ) se tient entre les deux nations disputantes». Regarding the more com­plex and controversial question of the 'secondary' nature of French culture, Fernandez disagrees with Curtius and finds that the maturity necessary for the comparative success of the French in the creation of their nation stems from experience rather than from age. The alleged 'secondary' nature of French culture is particularly misleading for the history of French philosophy, and Fernandez is quick to point out Curtius' confused handling of this topic. At the same time, Fernandez admits, Curtius' synthesis represents a valuable contribution to the understanding of France.

138. Gillet, Louis, Une mystique de l'humanisme, M. E.-R. Curtius, Revue des Deux Mandes, periode 8, tome 10 (1932), 937-948.

Gillet's discussion of Deutscher Geist in Gefahr is a profoundly sym­pathetic exposition of Curtius' work, although Gillet fears that Cur­tius will not be heard, «j'ai peur que cette voix attristee ne crie un peu dans le desert» [937]. In light of Gillet's other reviews of Curtius' ear­lier writings (nos. 57 and 109), it is moving to read the following tes­timonial:

M. E.-R. Curtius est un des rares esprits veritablement moderes de cette Alle­magne tout entiere frenetique. ( ... ) M. Curtius, si je ne me trompe, est de ceux qui ont accepte honnetement !'experience republicaine. [938] ( ... ) Il faut rendre cette justice a M. Curtius qu'il demeure fidele a lui-meme. Il n'a pas va­rie dans sa foi. Ce qu'il reprochait naguere a Barres, de faire des valeurs mo­rales une affaire de tribu, une chose de chair et de sang, c'est ce qu'il reproche aujourd'hui aux nationalistes allemands. [939]

139. Goldring, Douglas, Review of Curtius, Die franz6sische Kultur (English translation, 1932), Bookman 81 (1932), 323.

Goldring praises Curtius' work, noting, «the impartiality, sympathy, and detachment which he has brought to his task are characteristic of modern German scholarship».

140. Heilborn, Ernst, Review of Curtius, Deutscher Geist in Gefahr (1932), Die Literatur 34 (1932), 411-412.

Heil born praises Deutscher Geist in Gefahr as a corrective to contem­porary nationalists and explains how Curtius seeks to link a different understanding of German nationalism with humanism as an answer to Nazism:

57

Den neuen Humanismus erblickt Curtius durchaus in Verm3hlung mit Natio­nalismus. Aber gerade weil Curtius das tut, wendet sich die Kritik dieses Kon­servativen gegen die Nationalisten von heute. Es ist der abgeirrte Konser­vativismus, ein kulturzerst6rerischer, unter dem wir leiden: ( ... ) «Unsere Na­tionalisten sind sehr kurzsichtig, wenn sie eine antir6mische, antisiidliche, an­tiwestliche Stimmung erzeugen, die schlieBlich dazu fiihren miiBte, daB unserc geistige Erbgiiter nur noch beim r6mischen Deutschland geborgen waren».

141. Howe, Quincy, France Seen From Germany, The New Republic 71 (1932), 186-187.

Howe compares the English translation of Curtius' Die franz6sische Kultur with the English translation of Friedrich Sieburg's Gott in Frankreich?, Ein Versuch and finds that «the Curtius book is the less readable. Entire pages seem to have been lifted from some encyclo­pedia, and the work as a whole is neither complete nor suggestive».

142. Jourdan, Henri, «Frankreich» von Ernst Robert Curtius, Zurn Problem der Kulturkunde, Deutsch-Franzosische Rundschau 5 (1932), 85-99.

Jourdan explains the different reactions to civilization studies or Kul­turkunde in terms of two philosophical positions: the first hold that reason (Vernunft) constitutes the true essence of humanity, so that it is impossible to argue a priori for the existence of a nation as a uni­form whole. Knowing the content of a culture is equivalent to under­standing a culture. Moreover, the best possible characterization of a nation either is transitory or condemns nations to eternal conflicts. In this latter case, civilization studies serve to reinforce dangerous nationalistic prejudices. From the point of view of this first philosophical position, Curtius' study is reprehensible. The second philosophical position takes as its point of departure the phenomenological distinction between 'truth' (Wahrheit) and 'prag­matic validity' (Sachgiiltigkeit). This attitude stems directly, avers Jourdan, from the Enlightenment, and finds its best contemporary expression in Max Scheler's Nation und Weltanschauung (1932). An individual culture is perceived in terms of its incommensurability and its uniqueness. Proceeding from this phenomenological perspective, Curtius scrutinizes precisely those contradictory aspects of French culture, a procedure which allows him to define more clearly what is specifically, incommensurably and uniquely French. According to Jourdan, the older generation of philologists advocate the first position while the younger generation adheres to the second and attacks the entrenched position of university erudition, «die Festen schulmiiBiger Gelehrsamkeit».

143. Kayser, Rudolf, Anmerkungen zu «Deutschem Geist in Gefahr», Die Neue Rundschau 43 (1932), 720.

Kayser defends Curtius' adherence to the ideals of a humanistic past

58 L

in Deutscher Geist in Gefahr on the grounds that every culture needs the past. Kayser finds that the challenge in 1932 is to remain in pos­session of one's historical heritage.

144. Lavergne, Magdaleine, Review of Curtius, Die franz6sische Kultur (French translation, 1932), L'Annee politique et economique 7 (1932), 353-358.

Lavergne summarizes Curtius' essay briefly and positively, objecting only to Curtius' presuming a pre-established harmony between Ca­tholicism and the French. She is prompted to doubt Curtius' assump­tion because, she notes, it took three centuries of persecutions and massacres to convert that third of the French population which was Protestant under the Valois.

145. Le Sidaner, Louis, Un essai sur la France [Review of Curtius, Die fran­zosische Kultur (French translation, 1932], Nouvelle Revue Critique 16 (1932), 257-269.

Le Sidaner delivers a harsh critique of Curtius' study:

ce livre qui donne de notre pays une idee nettement pejorative est, malgre son apparente et (j'en suis persuade) sincere bonne foi, de ceux qui expliquent et voire meme excusent le dedain et la haine que certains jeunes Allemands eprouvent pour nous. [257]

Le Sidaner admits that the work has its felicitious moments which are clouded over by «multiples erreurs». The remainder of the review is largely composed of anecdotes which Le Sidaner uses as counter­arguments to Curtius' book. Le Sidaner concludes by charging that Curtius' study upholds Franco-German differences and thus fails to serve the goal of Franco-German reconciliation:

quelles que soient les mreurs, usages ou conceptions qui puissent differencier les Fran,ais et les Allemands, ii ne faut surtout pas oublier tout ce qui les rap­proche. Et de ce «tout», I' auteur de l'Essai sur la Francene dit pas un seul mot! [264]

146. Maack, Rudolf, Humanismus als Rezept, Kreis 9 (1932), 234-239. In this highly critical assessment of Deutscher Geist in Gefahr, Maack finds that Curtius vacillates between demonstrating the intellectual perils of Germany and pointing to the remedies for these dangers. At the same time, Curtius' remedies strike Maack as inconsistent:

Weder durch Ertirterung noch durch Prophezeihung wird dem 'Humanismus des 20. Jahrhunderts' der Weg gebahnt, sondern nur durch eine Bereitung des Herzen, durch die Weckung eines neuen Sinnes und einer neuen Liebe zur An­tike. Jeder gute Griechisch-Lehrer - will uns scheinen - leistet mit seiner be­scheidenen Arbeit dazu mehr als Curtius mit seinem gescheiten Buch. [238]

147. Mueller, Gustav, Review of Curtius, Deutscher Geist in Gefahr (1932), Books Abroad 6 (1932), 422.

59

Mueller briefly summarizes Curtius' book, calling it «a very serious appeal which is not without faith that this crisis may be successfully

overcome».

148. Naumann, Hans, Deutsche Nation in Gefahr, (Stuttgart, 1932). Naumann, Germanist colleague of Curtius in Bonn, wrote this cu­rious pamphlet as an answer to Curtius' Deutscher Geist in Gefahr, though Naumann fails to mention Curtius or his book even once. The substitution of Nation for Geist in the title summarizes Naumann's re­sponse to Curtius. For Naumann, education was historically the pre­rogative of the bourgeoisie; consequently, the decline of education was symptomatic of the decline of the bourgeoisie itself:

So miissen die Klagen iiber den Bildungsabbau folgerichtig sich auflosen in Klagen iiber den Untergang des Biirgertums, das die Bildung trug. Nicht der gesamtdeutsche Geist, sondern zunachst nur der Geist des deutschen Biirger­

tums isl damit in Gefahr. [30]

The rectification of this intellectual crisis lies in the creation of a new «conservative, social and national» bourgeoisie:

Aber besiinne man sich auf eine Form wie diese: «Konservativ, nicht reaktio­niir; sozial, nicht sozialistisch; Uber allem national», so lieBe sich vielleicht ein neues Biirgertum schaffen und ein groBer Teil seiner Bildung bewahren. [36]

Naumann's pamphlet is thus important for two reasons: first, it un­derscores how fundamentally liberal Curtius' position was in the po­litical climate of 1932, particularly in comparison with the conserva­tive position espoused by Naumann; and second, it is evidence of the on-going negative reception of Curtius' ideas by the conservative aca­

demic establishment.

149. Ohms, Erna, Review of Curtius, Deutscher Geist in Gefahr (1932), Die Christliche Welt 46 (1932), 811-812.

Writing in this Protestant journal, Ohm commends Curtius' striving for a renaissance in German intellectual life. She refers to Deutscher Geist in Gefahr as «<las Buch des bekannten und gerade in jiingeren akademischen Kreisen geschiitzten Romanisten Curtius».

150. Overmans, Jakob, Rettung durch Humanismus?, Stimmen der Zeit 123

(1932), 413-415. This Jesuit reviewer is largely skeptical of the recent movement which he calles «neo-humanism». In the literature treating this topic (Over­mans lists, among other works, Deutscher Geist in Gefahr, Gertrud Baumer, Neuer Humanismus, [Leipzig, 1930], Lothar Helbing, Der dritte Humanismus, [Berlin, 1932], and a new German translation of Boethius' De consolatione philosophiae), Overmans welcomes the «European» orientation given by Curtius to humanism and concurs

60 L

with Curtius on the important role played by the Catholic church in keeping German nationalism in check:

Obwohl Curtius dem wesentlichen EinfluB der katholischen Kirche fremd ge­geniibersteht, betrachtet er sie im Gegensatz zu «Sehr kurzsichtigen« Nationa­listen durchaus nicht als eine Gefahr fiir echtdeutsche Kultur, sondern als die Macht, die zum Gliick «bis auf weiteres noch in der Lage ist, den KulturzerstO­rern Einhalt zu gebieten».

151. Picard, Roger, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (French translation, 1932), Revue d'histoire economique et sociale 20 (1932), 409-410.

In this short review Picard notes:

Moins brillant que l'essai de son devancier [i.e., Friedrich Sieburg, Gott in Frankreich?, Ein Versuch], ce nouveau livre d'un eminent critique allemand sur la France est peut-etre plus comprfhensif. En tout cas, ii ne s'exposera pas au reproche de dissimuler quelque hostilite inconsciente ou quelque agacement latent a l'egard de notre pays.

152. Rosenberg, Artur, Deutsch-franzosische Kulturdebatte, Die Literatur 34 (1931132), 661.

In this review of the French translation of Die franzosische Kultur, Rosenberg views Curtius' observations on France as a continuation of a polemic on Franco-German cultural difference dating back to the publication in 1750 of an essay by Melchior Grimm on German liter­ature in the Mercure de France. Curtius, like Grimm, stresses the traditionalism and radicalism of the French intellectual tradition. Ro­senberg considers that the generally positive reaction in France to Curtius' work (he mentions, as an example, how Raymond Escolier, former French cabinet minister under Briand, had recommended Curtius for the Nobel Peace Prize!) is further proof of the validity of his analysis. Rosenberg explains that the objections raised against Curtius by the «intellectual left» in France are themselves symptoma­tic of the vitality of the traditionalist/radical split in France (which Curtius had treated himself) and, in turn, lead to an increased willing­ness on the part of the French to participate in the community of nations:

Der Widerspruch gegen Curtius' Frankreichwerk riihrt mithin nicht aus Geg­nerschaft; er ist eine erfreuliche Bekundung des Willens nach Riickkehr in die Gemeinschaft der Volker. Es scheint aber, als hiitte das Spiegelbild, das Frank­rcich in der jiingsten Zeit Otters vom Ausland, besonders von Deutschland, vorgehalten wurde, eine tiefere Wirkung gehabt, als ware mit der Erweckung des Widerspruchs auch der Wille zur Gemeinschaft gestiirkt warden.

153. Rychner, Max, Review of Curtius, Deutscher Geist in Gefahr (1932) Kolnische Zeitung (5 March 1932), No. 129, Unterhaltungsblatt.

61

Rychner emphasizes that Curtius' defense of humanism is directed at attacks from both right and left:

Wie nahe stehen sich der Revolutionarismus der extremen Rechten und der der Linken: «Traditionen, Programme, Weltanschauungen und Bindungen, Fiktio·· nen und Vorbehalte, das alles wird im Strudel der Entwicklung untergegangen sein» -, das stammt aus der Tat ... und kOnnte aus einem Kommunistenblatt sein.

Rychner also explains Curtius' use of the word «humanism»:

Curtius befreit <las Wort vom Schulstaub, um ihm seinen ewigen Glanz zuriick­zugeben. Der Humanismus darf nicht einer seiner geschichtlichen Formen gleichgesetzt werden: er ist das dauernde produktive Prinzip des abendliindi­schen Menschen, als solches nicht an eine Wissenschaft oder Schule gebunden.

154. Saint-Jean, Robert de, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (French translation, 1932), Revue hebdomadaire 41 (1932), 360-365.

De Saint-Jean welcomes Curtius' lack of pedantry («dans une contree ou le pedantisme forme souvent la ran~on de la science, [ Curtius] se distingue par !'art singulier, pousse parfois jusqu'a la coquetterie, qu'il possecte de charger son cours de faits et de textes sans l'alour­din>). At the same time, while Curtius' willingness to draw often dar­ing conclusions is intellectually refreshing, de Saint-Jean finds Cur­tius' criticism of French literary history frequently cliche-ridden: it is well and good to claim that French literature has no high points and is a literature of moderation, but this fails to account for a Rabelais, for a Balzac, for a Rimbaud. Curtius' essay comprises «un document psychologique curieux par sa dualite», in that on the one hand Cur­tius argues against schematization and the other hand Curtius con­veys, albeit in disguised form, many of the «themes simples qui cou­rent outre-Rhin sur la France».

155. Schalk, Fritz, Das Ende des Dauerfranzosen, Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Wis-senschaft und Jugendbildung 8 (1932), 51-69.

62

Schalk's important essay examines the fundamental assumptions of recent French civilization studies in Germany, concentrating first on Eduard WechBler's Esprit und Geist, Versuch einer Wesenskunde des Deutschen und Franzosen, (Bielefeld, 1927), as a typical and danger­ous examples - based on faulty semantic research - of the attempt to elucidate 'eternal' or 'lasting' qualities in French culture, and turning second to the Curtius-Bergstriisser study. Schalk schows little sympa­thy for WechB!er's research and approach, noting:

Aber nur allzu oft haben wir in den letzten Jahren erlebt, wie jene universale philologische Tendenz zuriicktreten muBte vor einer politischen, die die For­schung, die ihren Zweck in sich tragt, zu einem Mittel macht, das «feindliche Ausland zu durchschauen, sich ihm gegeniiber zu behaupten>>i sie also im Grunde degradiert. [53]

Schalk finds WechB!er's results subjective and arbitrary, lacking all claim to methodological rigor and tainted with the worst kind of «national impressionism». The study of Romance languages and liter­atur~s is, no_tes Schalk, admittedly and unavoidably influenced by outside poh!ical concerns which indeed come to the fore in civiliza­tion studies. The interaction of philological and political premises in the field of civilization studies points to the theoretical importance of civilization studies for philology. Curtius and Bergstriisser, thanks to their double approach, help to clarify the interpenetration of philo­logical and political problems:

Nach der methodischen Grundiiberzeugung beider Autoren miissen sie sich _ und sogar stiindig - iiberschneiden. Denn der Plan von Curtius geht ja davon aus, daB man «Frankreichs Politik nicht verstehen kann, wenn man sein Kul­turbewuBtsein nicht versteht», und das Phiinomen, das sich auch Bergstriisser immer wieder aufdriingt, ist die Einheit von Geist und Politik. ( ... )Was Curtius und Bergstriis~er bier im Auge haben, ist nicht eine neue Entdeckung, sondern gemeinsame Uberzeugung all er Forscher, die eine Art Totalit8.tsanalyse von Frankreich geben wollten. [65]

Qualifying WechBler's attempt to determine «konstante iiberzeitliche Wesensziige» as «eine typische Scheinfrage» which confuses historical and natural scientific research, Schalk points out how Cur­tius and Bergstriisser resolve this muddle:

Sowohl Curtius' als Bergstriisser's Arbeit gipfelt in einer prinzipiellen Frage: nach WesenszUgen der franz6sischen Kultur und nach Wesensziigen der franz6-sischen Politik. Der Terminus hat allerdings nicht mehr dieselbe Bedeutung wie in den friiheren Arbeiten zur Kulturkunde, von konstanten Wesensziigen ist iiberhaupt nicht mehr die Rede, und dem Versuch, den franzosischen Geist zu definieren, stehen beide Autoren mit einer gewissen Reservatio und Skepsis gegeniiber. [ 68]

Schalk considers that Curtius' approach constitutes an important challenge to traditional philology:

Zu prinzipieller Diskussion scheint nun Curtius, der seine Untersuchungen selbst als «Fragment und Experiment» bezeichnet und sich der v6/ligen Anders­crtigkeit seiner Problemstel!ung gegeniiber der traditionellen Philologie bewuBt ist, besonders aufzufordern. [63]

At the same time, Schalk finds that Curtius has not been completely successful in resisting the temptations of civilization studies:

Aber faktisch ist doch auch Curtius der Versuchung, dem franziisischen Geist Eigenschaften zuzuschreiben, sowenig entgangen als der Tendenz, die franzO­sische Entwicklung nicht aus sich selbst, sondern als Abweichung von der deut­schen zu begreifen. [69]

For Schalk the solution to the problem of determining 'essential char­acteristics' of the French lies in a universal historical approach:

Und die prinzipiellste Frage nach Wesensziigen der franzosischen Kultur wird

63

<loch erst sinnvoll, wenn die deutsch-franz6sische Entwicklung im Licht der abendliindischen, d.h. universalhistorisch betrachtet wird. [69]

156. Schlumberger, Jean, Review of Curtius, Deutscher Geist in Gefahr (1932), La Nouvelle Revue Fran~aise 38 (1932), 922-925.

Using France as the basis for comparison, Schlumberger argues that the decline of humanism in Germany results from the decline, in­deed, from the disappearance, of the bourgeoisie, that the precarious position of culture in Germany lies in the hybrid nature of the bour­geoisie and its lack of effective political power. Schlumberger con­nects the decline of humanism to the rise of a rabid, violence-prone anti-intellectual nationalism.

157. Schon, Eduard, Review of Curtius, Deutscher Geist in Gefahr (1932), Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung 8 (1932), 378.

While criticizing the uneven und sometimes careless organization of Curtius' argumentation, Schon discusses Curtius' notion of conserva­tism:

Die Gefahren, die zur Stunde den deutschen Geist umlauern, sind zahlreich und verschiedener Art. Ihnen alien stellt Curtius eine einzige Gegenwehr ent­gegen, den konservativen Gedanken. Auch dem Humanitiitsgedanken ent­nimmt er Abwehr- und Heilkraft. Aber nie heiBt ihm die Rettung ein bloBes Konservieren, ein reaktionares Gegenstemmen, ein stures Neinsagen, sondern eine Erneuerung aus der ldee der Dauer, ein Neuerwerben des reichen alten Vatererbes, das die geistige Not der Zeit zu verschleudern oder als unwert ab­zustoBen verfiihre.

Schon is concerned, however, by the conspicuous absence of France in Curtius' remarks and wonders:

Der Frankreichkenner kommt wenig zu Wort. Und das ist sehr merkwiirdig. Denn wo ist der konservative Gedanke und die Sicherung des Geistigen <lurch die Tradition miichtiger und bewuBter als in Frankreich?

158. Schwank-Telfan, F. H., Review of Curtius, Deutscher Geist in Gefahr (1932), Allgemeine Rundschau 29 (1932), 166--167.

After a brief summary of the major points of Deutscher Geist in Ge­fahr, Schwank-Telfan notes that «Curtius' Ausfiihrungen ( ... ) ge­ben vielseitige Anregung zum N achdenken iiber die gegenwiirtige geistige Lage in Deutschland und kliiren manchen Begriff und man­che Situation» [167].

159. See, Henri, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (French transla-tion, 1932), Revue historique 170, 57e annee (1932), 336--337.

64

While pointing out a few weak points in Curtius' analysis, (e.g., Cur­tius' over-estimation of the importance of Paris, the exaggeration of the precocity of French national unity when compared with Ger­many, the attribution to philosophy of a «secondary role» in French

L

intellectual life), See welcomes Curtius' monograph as a contribution to the «rapprochement intellectuel et moral de la France et de l' Al­lemagne».

160. Spitzer, Leo, L'etat actuel des etudes romanes en Allemagne, Revue d'Allemagne 6 (1932), 572-595.

Spitzer regrets the breakdown of communication between German and French Romanists as a result of the world war, and among Ger­man-speakmg Romamsts themselves. This overview of German Ro­manists, appealing for the application of evolutionary approaches in criticism, is preliminary to Spitzer's primary concern, an analysis of Curtius' methodology in Die franzosische Ku/tur, which interests Spitzer because of Curtius' attempt to combine encyclopedic know­ledge with an attempt to account for all domains of cultural activity. Spitzer fmds that Curtius' cosmopolitanism contrasts vividly with Eduard WechBler's nationalism. At the same time Spitzer detects a shift in Curtius' research away from France and toward Rome (this in 1932!). Spitzer's description of Curtius is exceptionally generous:

philologue double d'un politique ( ... ) politique cosmopolite de !'esprit, il bent, si l'on veut, le ministere de la d6fense de l'esprit occidental, et ii le tient non pas d'un :Etat ou d'un peuple particulier, mais de la civilisation entiere. [592]

161. Steinecke, Ludwig, Neuer Humanismus?, Die Literarische Welt 8 (8July 1932), 1-2.

Steinecke's article is a reply to a two-part essay by Leopold Dingriive, Wiederauferstehung des deutschen Humanismus, Die Literarische Welt 8 (27May 1932), 1-2; (1July1932), 1-2. In his discussion of the applications of humanism, Dingriive had dismissed the contemporary social upheaveal and the clash of different political movements as an «apparent dynamic» (scheinbare Dynamik) which bore little relation to the «actual» intellectual state of Germany. Dingriive had conceded humanism an auxiliary role in the formation of a new social order. Steinecke's criticism of Dingriive, in turn, concentrates on Dingriive's refusal to relate humanism to contemporary intellectual, social, and economic realities:

man [kann] das Problem des deutschen Humanismus und seiner moglichen Er­neuerung nur auf Grund einer Analyse der konkreten Gegebenheiten unseres geistigen, sozialen und Okonomischen Daseins iiberhaupt erst 'richtig' stellen, iichtig formulieren.

Steinecke then commends Curtius' Deutscher Geist in Gefahr for ful­filling «diese Forderung nach einer kritischen Besinnung auf die mit diesem Problem uns unmittelbar gegebene Tatsiichlichkeit». Besides praising Curtius' pragmatism and courage, Steinecke approves the

65

connection which Curtius draws between the crisis of bourgeois cul­ture and the crisis of humanity.

162. Strauss, Walther, Zurn Problem des Nationalismus, Central-Verein-Zei­tung, Blatter fiir Deutschtum und Judentum, Organ des Central-Vereins deutscher Staatsbiirger jiidischen Glaubens, 22 (1932), 206.

In this journal of Jewish German opinion, Strauss writes in an extra­ordinarily positive vein about Curtius' Deutscher Geist in Gefahr. Strauss explains that Curtius' book is directed against the «national» and «Social» circle of the journal Die Tat and against the conscious «Traditionslosigkeit unserer Rechtsradikalen». Strauss explains that Curtius' humanism does not prescribe familiarity with classical anti­quity but rather «die immer wieder sich erneuernde lebendige Aus­einandersetzung mit dem ewigen Gedankengehalt dieser vergange­nen Zeit», in accordance with which one acquires respect for one's fellows. Strauss understands Curtius' book as a «sharp» attack on «den zurzeit herrschenden Antisemitismus der rechtsradikalen Krei­se», evidenced in Curtius' rejection of the popular opposition of Ger­manic and Jewish culture («die beliebte Entgegenstellung von Juden­tum und Deutschtum»). Strauss' interpretation of Curtius' remarks on abgefallene Juden bears repetition in light of subsequent attacks on Curtius for alleged anti-Semitism (Nerlich, no. 389, and Jehn, no. 398):

(Curtius] nimmt allerdings auch gegen diejenigen Juden Stellung, die in Oppo­sition gegen die kulturellen deutschen Werle stehen, und bezeichnet diese Ju­den als von der !dee des Judentums, vom Glauben des auserwiihlten Volkes, abgefallene Juden. ( ... ) Hierzu isl doch gegeniiber Curtius zu sagen, daB die iiberwiegende Mehrheit der deutschen Juden bestimmt und bewuBt deutsche Kultur bejaht und die ideellen Werle deutscher Vergangenheit direkt oder in­direkt in sich aufgenommen hat und ihr Leben in diesem Geist lebt. So isl der Wunsch von Curtius, daB das deutschsprechende Judentum sich zu einer deut­schen Kulturgesinnung bekennen moge, in Wirklichkeit schon liingst in Erfiil­lung gegangen. Curtius weist noch darauf hin, daB in dieser Hinsicht uns vor al­lem Gundolfs groBes Beispiel vorleuchten moge, der doch wie kaum ein zwei­ter die deutsche Geistesgeschichte geliebt hat.

163. Thiebaut, Marcel, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (French translation, 1932), Revue de Paris 39 (1932), 231-234.

66

Thiebaut's generally enthusiastic review summarizes Curtius' obser­vations, adding some precisions. Thiebaut feels that neither a hierar­chy in which 'civilization' is higher than 'culture' nor a close differ­entiation between the two concepts exist for the French. Thiebaut also points to the general semantic complexities surrounding the word 'civilization', and commends Curtius in particular for his analy­sis of «la double tendance conservatrice et radicale» in French life.

L

Thiebaut concludes by urging Curtius to write a similar essay on the Germans for the French.

164. Werner, Bruno, /st der deutsche Geist in Gefahr?, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 71.Jh., No.101-102, (2March 1932), Unterhaltungsblatt, Lite­rarische Beilage der D.A.Z.

Werner takes Deutscher Geist in Gefahr to be a criticism not only of «the present rulers of the Prussian state» but also of «that national movement which will probably soon replace it». Werner attacks Cur­tius for concentrating on the dangers of the national movement, while ignoring the Marxist threats to German culture. Moreover, the Ro­manist Curtius misperceives Germany, otherwise, according to Wer­ner:

die Betrachtung der jungen Menschen der neuen nationalen Bewegung wi.irde ihm besser als alle Schriftwerke lehren, dall hier - zwar unklar, mil den wider­strebensten Intentionen ( ... )- sich der beste, sauberste, und jugendfrischeste Teil des Volkes zusammengefunden hat.

In addition Werner maintains that Curtius misjudges the racial poli­cies of the «national movement»:

Notgedrungen muB daher der Verfasser zu Feststellungen kommen wie jener: «daB der nationale Gedanke beschlagnahmt isl von radikalisierten Massen, de­ren nationale Gesinnung auf die primitive Formel des Judenhasses und des Rassenmythos gebracht werden kann» [Deutscher Geist in Gefahr, 27].

Werner's at times condescending, at times sneering attitude toward Curtius, permeated with anti-intellectualism, is all the more interest­ing as a document of social history because it was written under no compulsion and delivers its criticism in such a matter-of-fact tone that Werner must have assumed his conclusions were obvious to his readers.

165. Zorn, Walther, Review of Curtius, James Joyce (1929), Monatsschrift fiir hiihere Schulen 31 (1932), 75-76.

Zorn summarizes Curtius' analysis and commends Curtius' treatment of Joyce's literary technique and thematic construction as well as Cur­tius' explanation of Joyce's neologisms.

1933

166. Brecht, F. J., Review of Curtius, Deutscher Geist in Gefahr (1932), Das humanistische Gymnasium 44 (1933), 64.

Praising the courage and timeliness of Curtius' book, Brecht offers a single criticism: «Die idealistisch-humanistische Geistigkeit scheint bier doch die Gewalt der realen Gegebenheiten zu leicht zu neh­men».

67

167. Ernie, Louis, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (French trans-

168.

169.

lation, 1932), Cahiers du Sud 20 (1933), 225-227. Ernie is favorably disposed toward Curtius' analysis of France:

Ses demonstrations, ses conclusions, echafaudees sur le solide terrain de l'his­toire et de la philosophie experimentale, ne nous paraissent point suspectes; au contraire, elles ajoutent un peu plus d'ordre et de clarte a notre intime con­ception de l'ame franc;aise. [225)

Ernie's conclusion points to the methodological skillfulness of Cur­tius' treatment of France:

II faut rendre cette justice il Ernst Robert Curtius: de la premiere il la derniere page de son livre, ii s'efforce d'etre clairvoyant, lucide, a peine inspire par un sentiment facile a l'egard de la France. II ne compare pas un peuple a un autre, ne les oppose point. Au contraire, a travers mille differences evidentes de tem­perament, il essaie d'etablir un courant continu d'estime et de comprehension, une sorte d'hypnose affective. Il veut avant tout deblayer le terrain encombre, ramener il de plus justes expressions le dialogue franco-allemand. [227]

Feig!, Hans, Review of Curtius, Deutscher Geist in Gefahr (1932), Jahr­buch deutscher Bibliophilen und Literaturfreunde 28./29. Jh., (1932/ 1933), 226-227.

This short review praises Curtius' non-traditional approach to humanism, which Feig! characterizes as «diesen echten Humanismus, also durchaus keines Philologen-Humanismus». Feigl is sensitive to the courage behind Curtius' book, calling it «ein prii.chtiger Lanzen­ritt des bekannten Bonner Romanisten fur den von so vielen bereits zum alten Eisen geworfenen, ja sogar verachteten Humanismus».

Hallett, John, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (English translation, 1932), Fortnightly Review 137 (1933), 526-527.

Hallett provides a sympathetic account of Curtius' «full and sugges­tive book», noting how Curtius

dedicates his book to the cause of Franco-German rapprochement. It is only here and there than a vein of gentle malice is allowed to appear, as when he quotes the claim of a French mystic that «Jesus had given His Mother to France in token of His love of her», or of a French scholar who declared that France won the war through her fidelty to the philosophy of Descartes. [526]

170. Klemperer, Victor, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (1930), Historische Zeitschrift 147 (1933), 193-197.

68

Klemperer praises the joint Curtius-Bergstrii.sser study for over­coming the limitations of other contemporary studies of French civi­lization, particularly Eduard WechBler's Esprit und Geist, whose scholarly value suffers, says Klemperer, from the lingering distortions of martial passion (noch verzerrende Kriegsleidenschaft). Klemperer is pleased with what he considers an evolution in Curtius' handling of France, noting on Curtius' part «eine vollige Abkehr von schwii.rme-

l

171.

172.

rischen Jugendirrtiimern und [ein] kaum verhiillt[er] Widerruf der friiheren Meinungen». The faults of Curtius' study, in particular Cur­tius' posited dichotomy between a fully Latinized French civilization with its major features being Kennen und Bildungserlebnis and Ger­man culture characterized by its Erkennen und Urerlebnis, are made up for by Curtius' subtle and warm understanding. This review forms an important pendant to Klemperer's posthumously published essay, Das neue deutsche Frankreichbild, written in 1933 (no. 339).

M'.ch~~s, Ro~ert: Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (1930), Ar­ch1v fur Sozialw1ssenschaft und Sozialpolitik 69 (1933), 757-760.

Mi~hels. prais~s t~e comprehensiveness of the joint Curtius-Berg­strasser mveshgahon and commends Curtius for having avoided hair­splitting subtleties (Tilfteleien), pathologic generalizations, and schol­arly risky trifling, all features of Eduard WechB!er's Esprit und Geist. Mic~els criti~iz7s some small po'.nts but concludes by saying that readmg Curtms monograph 1s «em GenuB fur den Sachkenner wie fur den Astheten».

Putman, Samuel, Review of Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (French translation, 1932), Books Abroad (1933), 309-310.

Putnam offers an enthusiastic review of Curtius' monograph:

The book is remarkable for its delicacy, its tact, and its insight. At first glance it may almost seem that Professor Curtius is leaning backward in his effort to be nice to the French; but an attentive reading reveals the fact that good man­ners do nohn the least interfere with the author's honesty and frankness. ( ... ) On a bnstlmg pohhcal topic such as the Rhine frontier, he achieves, without the faintest hedging, an admirable suspension of judgment. ( ... ) His approach IS always scholarly, impartial, detached yet animated, while it is seldom indeed that one encounters so much charm brought to bear upon so delicate a critical work.

173. Riither, Eugen, Zwischen den Bildungsidealen, Zeitschrift fiir deutsche Bildung 9 (1933), 53-57.

Ruther's point of departure is a comparison of what Ruther takes to be Curtius' explicitly non-political educational philosophy in Deut­scher Geist in Gefahr with that of the explicitly National Socialist educational ideas of Ernst Krieck in his Nationalpolitische Erziehung. Riither interprets the two works as representative of diametrically opposed approaches and tries to find areas of agreement between the two. This review, it might be noted, it one of the few largely dis­passionate, and at the same time, negative evaluations of Curtius' book. While Ruther recognizes that Curtius' perspective is explicitly non-political in comparison with Krieck's, he finds that Curtius' ex­planation of the relationship between education and das Nationale

69

demands comment. Riither considers that Curtius misperceives the current «nationalistic» movement:

was fiir Krieck Sinn unserer Bildung ist - eben die Selbstbestimmung des Vol­kes - ist fiir Curtius eine Angelegenheit, die mit einem geschichtlichen H1n­weis («AnschluB an den gotischen Menschen», C.27) und mit der A.nmerkung abgetan wird, daB der Begriff 'Volk' <lurch Vorlesungen usw. geklart werden kOnne. So ist es nicht erstaunlich, daB Curtlus das wesenthche konservattve Moment in der von Krieck gemeinten nationalen Revolution ilbersieht ~n~ .le­diglich einen Nationalismus bekarnpft, <lessen Gesinnung «auf die pnm1hve Formel des Judenhasses und des Rassenmythos gebracht werden kann» (C.27).

Curtius' analysis of the National Socialist movement demonstrates for Riither his unfamiliarity with current events, «eine gewisse Fremdheit gegeniiber Ereignissen, die unvermeidlich in irgendeiner Weise den Schicksalsweg des deutschen Volkes bestimmen werden». The autonomy of the intellect which Riither feels Curtius advocates can lead to total anarchy, an important misinterpretation considering Curtius' criticism in Deutscher Geist in Gefahr of «freischwebende In­tellektuellen». Riither protests Curtius' rejection of the irrational, finding Krieck's analysis of the potential for good and evil in the ir­rational to be more convincing, particularly since Riither believes that the education of the German nation is possible only through the consciousness of the irrational aspects of common life, («Das deut­sche Volk[ ... ] bedarf einer Empor-Bildung zu sich selbst. Sie ist nur moglich <lurch Besinnung auf die irrationalen volkischen Lebensele-

mente» ).

174. Sauter, Hermann, Deutscher Geist in Gefahr?, Volkischer Beobachter no. 83 (24 March 1933), Beiblatt.

Sauter's review of Deutscher Geist in Gefahr is clear evidence for the precariousness of Curtius' position in Nazi Ger_many. Sauter (who in 1936, at the age of twenty-nine, was named director of the Stadtb1-bliothek and Stadtische Volksbiicherei in Munich) claims that Curtius misunderstands what the deutscher Geist really is because of his con­tinuous contact with Jews and with confused Jewish-minded thinkers («Umgang mit Juden und Jiidischgesinnten verirrten Herzen»).(The targets of this remark are most likely Friedrich Gundolf and Aby Warburg, and perhaps the editorial board of Die Neue Rundschau m which Curtius frequently published.) Sauter considers Curtius' citing Goethe to be a false tactic which in no sense establishes the 'German­ness' of his book. Sauter finds that Curtius' contention that the younger generation was hostile to culture (kulturfeindlich) and nihil­istic in fact shows how little contact Curtius actually has with young Germans. The fundamental opposition between Curtius' conception of Germany's mission and that of the Nazis stems, according to Sau­ter, from Curtius' rejection of the new, powerful German will:

70

L

die Curtius'sche 'Bejahung' der deutschen Sendung ist, wie wir sahen, in Wirk­lichkeit eine Verneinung des machtvollen neuen deutschen Wollens. Das aber isl unser G/aube; daB der wahre deutsche Geist erst dann wieder zu Ehren kommt und zu wiirdiger Weltgeltung befahigt ist, wenn er gereinigt isl von dem in dem verflossenen Jahrzehnt der sog. 'geistigen Freiheit' aufgebauften Ballast.

Sauter's review - which appears in the official Nazi party newspaper and must therefore be taken as a serious statement of party policy _ ends with a dark warning: Curtius' activities as a scholar and resear­cher can fulfill an important task in the New Germany, but Curtius, in his function as a cultural critic and policy-maker (Kulturpolitiker), is not fit to teach because he possesses too little understanding of the true, i.e., biological foundations of German culture, «[Curtius hat] fiir die wahren, namlich biologischen Grundlagen der deutschen Kul­tur nur wenig Verstiindnis». This threat may explain why subsequent discussion of Curtius' work in the German press and in German scholarly journals drastically decreased.

1934

175. Brion, Marcel, Review of Curtius, Balzac (French translation, 1933), Cahiers du Sud 21 (1934), 503-504.

Brion's favorable review of Balzac appears to be a response to Jean Catesson's highly critical review which had appeared in the same journal, Cahiers du Sud, somewhat earlier in that same year (see following entry). Brion notes:

[Curtius] a trace de Balzac une image qui me parait beaucoup plus exacte et beaucoup plus complete que toutes celles qui nous avaient ete montrees jusqu'il present [503] ( ... )Par l'originalite des points de vue et la feconde intui­tion qui guide sa recherche, le Balzac d'Ernst Robert Curtius ( ... ) est plus en­core qu'une puissante prospection en des terres connues, un admirable portrait d'ftme qui nous restitue, immense et mysterieux comme la creation elle-meme, le vrai Balzac. [504]

176. Catesson, Jean, Review of Curtius, Balzac (French translation, 1933), Cahiers du Sud 21 (1934), 398-399.

Catesson is extremely critical of Curtius' monograph:

Les defautes de ce livre soot assez importants: cette enumeration et cette ana­lyse des principaux themes balzaciens, souvent paraphrase trop scolaire, man­quent parfois de rigueur. Surtout les limites de ce commentaire sont evidentes: l'a!.lteur d6crit, avec une fidelite d'assez bon observateur, les manifestations d'un genie dont la nature intime demeure un peu voilCe.

1935

177. Burkhardt, Rosemarie, Methodisches zu Curtius' Aufsatz: «Jorge Man-

71

rique und der Kaisergedanke», Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie 55 (1935), 187-193.

Burkhardt defends her own study of Jorge Manrique against Curtius' dismissal of it and argues that Curtius' concentration on Manrique's revaluation of imperium over-emphasizes one motif at the expense of the work's unity, a criticism which anticipates comments made regard­ing Curtius' topological method in general:

Man kann natiirlich jedes Kunstwerk als Durchgangspunkt oder Sammelbek­ken unendlich vieler geistesgeschichtlicher Entwicklungslinien fassen - ebenso gut wie als 'Durchgangspunkt' des Kaisergedanken konnte man Manrique auch als 'Durchgangspunkt' des Fama-, des Todesgedanken, des ubi-sunt-Motivs be­trachten, alle moglichen Liingsschnitte sprach-, literatur-, und geistesgeschicht­licher Art an ihm vornehmen - man kann aber auch versuchen, alle diese We­sensziige eines Kunstwerks in ihrer Aufeinanderbezogenheit und Verkettung darzustellen - unter (vorliiufiger) Opferung der geschichtlichen Einordnung. ( ... ) Die Geschichte eines literarischen Gemeinplatzes hat <loch mit der Erfas­sung des ihn verwendenden Einzelkunstwerkes nicht unbedingt etwas zu tun.

Burkhardt claims that Curtius' 'stylistic' demonstration of a continuity in the consciousness of the Latin literary tradition is historically in­adequate. One may ascertain, says Burkhardt, that an historical con­tinuity in fact exists and at the same time fail to grasp «den besonde­ren Sinn dieses Stilmittels in jeder Epoche und jedem Kunstwerk».

178. Pitrou, Robert, Le «cas» Brunetiere vu par un Allemand, Melanges de litterature, d'histoire et de philologie offerts a Paul Laumonier, (Paris, 1935), 543-548.

The appearance of a monograph in 1933 on Brunetiere by Jacques Nanteuil prompts Pitrou to review Curtius' Habilitationsschrift on Brunetiere. Pitrou finds that Curtius was correct in reproaching Bru­netiere for his lack of methodological rigor and for introducing the notion of the evolution of literary genres (because, one might add, like the 'intertextuality' which this method anticipates, it is woefully reductive):

Reduire toute l'evolution litteraire a l'action des reuvres sur les reuvres, sans presque tenir compte des autres elements, expliquer la Pleiade du XVI' siecle en disant simplement qu'elle a «voulu autre chose que Clement Marat», ou encore l'Andromaque en disant que Racine a «voulu faire autre chose que Corneille dans son Pertharite», c'est vraiment un peu sommaire! [546]

179. Tronchon, Henri, Review of Curtius, Balzac. (French translation, 1933), Revue Germanique 26 (1935), 284-285.

72

Tronchon welcomes the French translation of Curtius' monograph and warmly exclaims, «Que de richesse, que de jugements pene­trants, qu'on retrouve avec plaisir!».

I L

180.

1936

Winkler, Emil, Review of Curtius Zur Interpretation des Al · 1· d . . ' =m~a [Ze1tschnft fiir romanische Philologie 56 (1936), 113-137) z ·t h ·f f. f ·· · h , e1 SC Ti t ur r~nzos1sc e Sprache und Literatur 60 (1936), 241-242.

Wmkler replies her~ to Curtius' criticism of his articles on the Vie de Saint Alexis'. and nd1cules Curtius for claiming to be historical and for attackmg Wmkler for being impressionistic. Winkler's objections un­derscore .the contmued hostility of many medievalists to Curtius' comparative approach:

Wenn 1?-an n~r wiiJ3t~, ~o.rin sein Methode «geschichtlichen Verstehens» sich von me1ner «1mpress1on1stischen Einfiihlungsfreude» unterscheidet. Durch die SchluBapotheose von Hofmannsthal? Hofmannsthal - kein Irrtum· Hof h l' 1 . manns-

t a . a s Kronzeuge gegen «impressionistische Einfiihlungsfreude»?

Karl Uitti explained the significance of the Curtius/Winkler contro­versy over the Vie de Saint Alexis in the following terms:

Curtius, who examined the Alexis in terms of the poetics current at the time in o~der to refute the a~sthetic anti-historicism of critics like Emil Winkler, con­s!ltutes .a rare_ exception to [the] trend toward specialization and fragmentation m Alexis studies. [Story, Myth and Celebration in Old French Narrative Poetry 1050-1200, (Princeton, 1973), p. 9] '

1939

181. Menendez Pidal, Ramon, La epica espaiiola y la «Literartisthetik des Mit-telalters», Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie 59 (1939), 3-9.

Although Menendez Pidal had admitted in his study of «la leyenda de! Rey Roderigo» that even the most original authors owe eighty percent of their creativity to the tradition in which they are trained, he argues here that explaining a writer too much in terms of tradition is dangerous. The fundamental question regarding medieval epic poetry 1s whether epic was inspired directly by the deeds which it ce­lebrates or indirectly by the historical accounts of those deeds. In the former case, what in fact is taken from historical reality might appear nevertheless to be a topic. Curtius supposed that the Carmen Campi­doct~ri~ was a panegyrical life of El Cid, having an exclusively literary msp1rat10n. Menendez Pidal contests this by pointing out chronolog­ical inconsistencies which amount to «la negacion de una vision total biografica». Moreover, the topics which Curtius isolated in the Car­men do not prove literary inspiration, only analogous content. The final p~oblem with Curtius' approach to medieval vernacular epic is, accordmg to Menendez Pidal, his handling the Poema de/ Cid as though it were the Chanson de Roland:

Tratar el Poema del Cid como la Chanson de Roland de tan irreal poesia, in-

73

terpretar los dos poemas en serie, en el mismo taller de la critica, es negar el caracter diferencial de dos literaturas y dos pueblos. En el Poema de/ Cid hay mucho artificio literario, si no, no seria gran poesia; hay adem:ls innovaciones revolucionarias del genero epico. ( ... ) pero su sistema seleccionador de la rea­lidad, su artificio, sus ideates epicos, son completamente diversos de los del gran poeta frances.

1940

182. Spender, Stephen, September Journal, Horizon 1 (1940), 102-121; 211-224.

74

The occasion for this piece by Spender was the outbreak of the Se­cond World War in September 1939 which coincided with the failure of his first marriage. In stream of consciousness fashion he gives a se­ries of reminiscences of Germany from 1929 to 1932, all with the pur­pose of helping him come to terms with the double catastrophe of the war and of his failed marriage. Apparently Curtius played a signifi­cant role for the young poet as mentor. Spender recounts how he told Curtius of the rather loose life which had led in Hamburg:

He listened to me with an amusement which slightly yet affectionately was laughing at as well as with me. It forgave a lot. In my deepest friendships, with Auden, with Christopher Isherwood and with Curtius, I have been conscious of being thus 'taken with a pinch of salt'. ( ... ) From the first, Ernst Robert's attitude to me was one of gentle raillery; and I think that because he saw so far beyond me and at the same time loved me, I owe more to him than to any other older person. ( ... )I showed him poems I had written, and, to my surprise, in­stead of reading them with the superiority which I might have expected from a scholar immersed in the world's greatest literature, he read them with evident delight, and made some translation of them, which were afterwards published in the Neue Schweizer Rundschau. [212-214]

Curtius represented for Spender the opposite Germany from that of Hitler:

With Curtius I was in contact with the Germany of Goethe, Holderlin and Schiller. That is an Apollonian Germany, a Germany of the sun, not the Dio­nysian Germany of Hitler who rouses himself from a torpid dullness into a frenzy of words and actions. ( ... ) It was not the madness of Holderlin that Cur­tius liked but the peaceful development of a poem such as Brat und Wein in which the sun-steeped and vine-bearing German landscape is lifted at the end of the poem into a unity with the German conception of Greece. ( ... ) Curtius was an egoist, an egoist of the liberal, Goethe tradition. His life was organized with an enlightened selfishness: he did not take more than he could take, nor give more than he could give. He would not put himself out, even for his best friends, if he thought that his own resilience was going to be depressed by their needs. ( ... ) I do not mean that he was unsympathetic, but that he was un-self­sacrificing because what he had was of too great an objective value to himself and to others to sacrifice. He did not enter into their lives because his generos­ity lay in the freedom with which they could enter into his. [216-217]

These recollections are important for understanding Spend ' Rhein/and Journal (see below, entry no.187), which unleashed~~: controversy over Curtius' political stance during the Nazi peri d These reminiscence~ howe_ver do ~ot reveal that Spender was in ~n; profound sense fam1har with Curtms' scholarship or writings.

1941/1942

183. Ruggieri, Ruggero Maria, Estetica letteraria de/ Medioevo, Cuitura neo-latina 1 (1941), 192-212; 2 (1942), 143-173.

Both articles are summaries of two of Curtius' essays: Zur Literar­iisthetik des Mittelalters, Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie 58 (1938), 1-50, 129-232, 433-479; and Dichtung und Rhetorik im Mit­te/alter, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift 16 (1938), 435-475. Ruggieri al­so explams the background of Curtius' dispute with Glunz but does not provide a specific critical discussion.

1943

184. Bascour, H., Review of Curtius, Theologische Poetik im italienischen Trecento: Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie 60 (1940), 1-15; and Theolog1sche Kunsttheorie im spanischen Barack, Romanische For­schungen 53 (1939), 145-184, Bulletin de theologie ancienne et mectie­vale 4 (1943), 370-371.

Bascour agrees with Curtius' exposition of the controversy on the value of poetry between Albertina Mussato and Giovannino da Man­tova, as well as with Curtius' explanation of Giovanni de! Virgilio's epitaph of Dante as a theologus-poeta. Bascour feels that Curtius' in­vestigations of the Spanish Baroque complement his earlier studies.

185. Mann, Klaus, Andre Gide and the Crisis of Modern Thought, (New York, 1943); German translation: Andre Gide und die Krise des moder­nen Denkens, (Munich, 1948, 1966), 15-17.

The opening chapter of Mann's book depicts the reception of modern French literature in Germany after the First World War and reads like a highly abridged form of Curtius' Wegbereiter. Mann had Cur­tius to thank for his being received by Gide in Paris. Apart from ex­plaining Curtius' role as an intermediary, Mann defines the political ar.d cultural significance of French literature for Germany in the 1920's:

To many of us the goings-on in Paris seemed more attractive and significant than what occurred in Moscow or in Rome. France - most bitterly loathed by German nationalists - remained, or became again, the love and hope of Ger­man liberal intellectuals. [5]

' 75

l

186. Schalk, Fritz, Review of Curtius, Schrift- und Buchmetaphorik in der Weltliteratur, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift 20 (1942), 359-411, Romani­sche Forschungen 57 (1943), 136-141.

Schalk summarized Curtius' 1942 essay (which later formed the basis for Chapter 16 of European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages), adds a few corollary examples, and notes a number of faulty transla­tions. The further interest of this rather dry recension is that it repre­sents the only positive review, indeed, the only positive scholarly notice taken, of Curtius' writings by a German Romanist during the entire Nazi period, an act which surely demanded a good measure of Zivilcourage11

•

1945

187. Spender, Stephen, Rhineland Journal, Horizon 12 (December 1945), 394-413; reprinted as German Impressions and Conversations, Partisan Review 13 (1946), 5-24; partial German translation as Zerbrochene Brucke uber den Rhein, Der Ruf, Unabhangige Blatter der jungen Ge­neration 1. Jh., no. 9 (15 December 1946), 6-7; 2. Jh., no.10 (!January 1947), 6-7.

Spender's article seems, in retrospect, to have sparked the entire dis­cussion since 1945 regarding Curtius' political attitude toward

11 Regarding Schalk's conduct during the Third Reich, one can refer to Geschichte der Universitiit Rostock, 1419-1969, Festschrift zur FunfhundertfUnfzig-Jahr-Feier der Uni­versitiit, ed. Giinter Heidorn et al., (Berlin [East], 1969), I, 254: «Ander Rostocker Universitat diente der § 3 des genannten Gesetzes [i.e., Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums vom 22.Januar 1935] z.B. dem Rektor Brill dazu, den Roma­nisten Schalk fiir eine Versetzung an eine andere Universitiit vorzuschlagen, da <die Entwicklung seiner Persiinlichkeit weiterhin zu schweren Bedenken Veranlassung> ge­be. Schalk war von der Universitat Hamburg im Jahre 1932 an die Rostocker Univer­sitat gekommen, um bier Lehrveranstaltungen am Romanischen Seminar neben seiner Tatigkeit in Hamburg mit zu iibernehmen. Angriffe von faschistischen Studenten, die bereits in Hamburg gegen ihn erfolgt waren, setzten sich in Rostock fort. Zwei Vor­wiirfe erhob man gegen Schalk. Hamburger Studenten behaupteten, er babe Verbin­dungen zu kommunistischen Studenten; Rostocker Studenten warfen ihm vor, seine Lehrveranstaltungen nicht im Sinne der nationalsozialistischen Machthaber durchzu­fiihren. Wenn auch Schalk den Kommunisten geistig nicht nahestand, so reichten die­se Vorwiirfe der Nazi-Studenten jedoch fiir Brill aus, die Versetzung Schalks beim Reichsministerium zu erreichen. ( ... ) So wurde Schalk im Jahre 1936 nach Kiiln ver­setzt, nachdem eine Berufung nach Erlangen gescheitert war». Since the authors of this official Festschrift had no special reason to single out Schalk, their portrayal of his difficulties during the Third Reich - although plagued by somewhat imprecise para­phrasing - is all the more valuable, particularly in light of the charges made by Michael Nerlich, who apparently overlooked this positive depiction of his former teacher.

76

l

Nazism. It is therefore useful to provide excerpts of Spend • . .fi er s most s1gm 1cant remarks:

After Hitler's seizure of power it would have been easy for [C 1· ] I ur tus to eave Germany and go to Paris, Madrid, Rome, Oxford or Cambridge Hi's ·1· .G . ~~ m ermany was made no easier by the fact that he had in 1932 bl. h d bo k. h' h h . I ' 'pu is e a

o. m w 1c e vm ently and even hysterically denounced the activities of the Nazis m the German Universities. This book nevertheless was a deli f th G 1 d.t. . . ence o e

erman ra i ion, wntten in a nationalist spirit. Besides attacking the N · ·t alt k d th I . . . . az1s, 1

ac e e pro etanan1zatton of hterature and it criticized th · fl f Jewish ideas. e in uence o

Since 1933, I have often wondered why C(urtius] didn't leave Ge I think really the reason was a passion for continuity a rootedness 1·n h. rma~y · . . , 1s environ-ment which made him almost immovable. He had modelled his life on the idea of. Goethe who boasted that during the Napoleonic struggle he had been like a mighty chff to~ering above and indifferent to the waters raging hundreds of feet beneath him. If he always detested the Nazis, he also had little sympathy for the Left, and the movement to leave Germany was for the most part a Left­wards one. Above all, he may have felt that it was his duty as a non-political figure, to st.ay m Germany, in order to be an example before the young people of. the contmmty of a wiser and greater German tradition. In spite of every­thmg, he was very German.

From 1933 to 1939 I saw little of him because I was scarcely ever in Ger­many, but I remember staying with him for a few days in 1934. At that time he did not concern himself with politics, but his flat had become a centre where every visitor came, and upbraided the regime, usually from a Catholic point of view. ( ... )

. During the next years I heard from friends that his life became increasingly d1ffic~lt. At first he seemed indifferent to the Nazis and went on teaching, while refusmg to do any of the things which the Nazis required of him. I suppose that later on he must have compromised to some extent, or he would have been im­prisoned. Apparently he became more and more unhappy and was driven into greater isolation. Sylvia Beach, who saw him in Paris in 1936 or 1937, told me that then, before he would talk to her, he insisted on taking a taxi to a cafe in a suburb, and even then he kept on looking round to see if he was observed. He had to stop teaching French and took to medireval Latin. Then, finally, he gave up teaching almost entirely. [398-399]

It is important to recall that Spender's observations rest primarily on supposition and hear-say. His remarks on Deutscher Geist in Gefahr reflect a rather superficial acquaintance both with the book as well as with the historical context in which it was written. The German trans­lation represents in fact an adapted version of the original (the trans­lator's name is not given). The pertinent passages of the German version present a different impression than the original:

Professor X. zum Beispiel ist ein Gelehrter, der vor 1933 einen weltweiten Ruf als Autoritat im Bereiche der franzosischen Literatur genoB. Nach 1933 blieb er auf der Universitat, aber er gab seine franziisischen Vorlesungen aufund be­hielt nur seinen Lehrstuhl fiir mittelalterliches Latein. Gezwungen, das Fach aufzugeben, in dem er eine so groBe Autoritat gewesen war, verlor er seine Po­sition zuerst in Deutschland und der Welt und dann auch an seiner eigenen

77

Universitat. Er lebt heute in vergleichsweiser Zuriickgezogenheit, obwohl er an der Universit3.t wieder dozieren wird. Seine politischen Ansichten haben sich inzwischen betr:lchtlich ge3.ndert (er war ein Mann des Zentrums) under erhofft sich nichts mehr von den Deutschen. Er begrii13t die Besatzung, denn fiir die gegenwartige Zeit retie sie miiglicherweise Deutschland vor den Deut­schen. Er verachtet die Franzosen mit einer Bitterkeit, die beinahe unglaublich ist und die zweifellos mit seinen persOnlichen Enttauschungen zusammenh3.ngt. Zur gleichen Zeit ist er aber immer noch ein bedeutender und respekteinfl6-13ender geistiger Kritiker Frankreichs. Er ist erschreckt iiber die Russen und sein geistiger Defaitismus hiillt sich nun die Formen diisterer Reflexionen dar­iiber, daB die Russianisierung Europas unvermeidlich sei. ( ... )Er ist doch nur noch ein Schatten seines friiheren Selbst.

Regardless of the inaccuracies of both the original and German adap­tation, the importance of Spender's essay stems from the discussion which it unleashed, particularly the reply from «H.» (no.190). In this light, it appears that Curtius' own portrayal of his political motives in the Foreword to European Literature and the Middle Ages comprises an implicit answer to Spender's charges and that Curtius' reply was not an attempt to assume an unwarranted posture but rather an effort to clarify the situation from which his writings sprung.

1946

188. Bascour, H., Review of Curtius, Dante und das lateinische Mittelalter, Romanische Forschungen 57 (1943), 153-185; and Zur Geschichte des Wortes Philosophie im Mittelalter, Romanische Forschungen (1943), 290-309, Bulletin de theologie ancienne et medievale 5:1 (January 1946), 39-40; 5:2 (April-June 1946), 56-57.

Bascour applauds Curtius' extremely modest efforts to regard Dante in terms of medieval Latinity, particularly Dante's relationship to Chartrian allegory and 12th-century poetic treatises.

189. Cappuyns, M., Review of Curtius, Das ritterliche Tugendsystem, Deut­sche Vierteljahrsschrift 21 (1943), 343-368, Bulletin de theologie ancienne et medievale 5:3 (October 1946), 106.

Cappuyns welcomes Curtius' refutation of Ehrismann's «theses ten­dancieuses et un peu fantaisistes».

1947

190. «H.», Lehrstuhl der Wiirde, Deutsche Beitrage 2 (1947), 461-465.

78

The anonymous author, perhaps Gustav Rene Hocke, is quick to de­fend Curtius' against Spender's criticisms (no.187), pointing out the inaccuracies and mistakes of Spender's account.

1948

191. Gide, Andre, Journal, 1889-1939, (Paris, 1948), passim. Out of all of Gide's various musings in his Journal, two are of special interest for Curtius:

1. The frequently cited entry from May 12, 1927, in which Gide comments that he feels a greater spiritual affinity to Curtius than to anyone else [841].

2. An entry from June 1932, in which Gide discusses his being si­multaneously a Christian and a Communist: Gide notes that «<la conversion au communisme est a la mode en Allemagne depuis dix ans>, me dit Curtius» [1132].

192. Karg-Gasterstadt, Elisabeth, Ehre und Ruhm im Althochdeutschen, Bei­trage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 70 (1948), 308--331; reprinted in Eifler (ed.), Ritterliches Tugendsystem (1970), 253-276.

This detailed investigation tends to show that while the connotation which Ehrismann assigned to Middle High German ere, diverge from the connotations of Old High German era the development of OHG era anticipates its later semantic expansion in MHG:

Alles, was ich bisher zum althochdeutschen Begriff i!ra vorbringen konnte, fallt unter Ehrismanns Abschnitt B, unter "Ehre in der fremden Vorstellung", der subjektiv erfaBte Ehrbegriff, im 12./13. Jahrhundert Mittelpunkt und Kern der ritterlichen Ethik, fehlt in unsrer Zeit noch viillig. i!ra ist noch keine Tugend, die man ausiibt; sie ist "<lurch ehrliche und tiichtige Leistung erworben", ein Gut, das man besitzt, ein bonum fortunae, das seinen Platz im utile, nicht im honestum des mittelalterlichen Tugendsystems hat. Ansatze zur kiinftigen Ent­wicklung sind vorhanden. (p. 316, [Eifler, p. 261])

193. Kayser, Wolfgang, Das sprachliche Kunstwerk, Eine Einfiihrung in die Literaturwissenschaft, (Berne/Munich, 1948, 161973), 72-75; 194.

In this study, which along with ELLMA exerted an enormous influence on German literary studies in the 1950's, Kayser comments on Cur­tius' topological research prior to the publication of ELLMA. He clearly recognizes Curtius' indebtedness to the works of Menendez Pidal (treating tradicionalidad literaria) and of Maria Rosa Lida de Malkiel, and sees in Curtius' studies an opportunity to systematize this earlier research and to help in investigating humanistic and Baroque emblems:

Von alien Seiten und aus alien Literaturen kommen in jiingster Zeit die Beitrii­ge zur Toposforschung, die E. R. Curtius nun in rechten FluB und in ein ein­heitliches Strombett gebracht hat. Es ist zu hoffen, daB dadurch endlich auch ein Gebiet aufgeschlossen wird, das zum Schaden fiir die Literaturgeschichte des Humanismus und des Barocks vemachl3.ssigt worden ist: die EMBLEMATIK

[75].

79

1949

194. Anonymous, Between Two Worlds: Curtius, «ELLMA», Times Literary Supplement 48 (19August 1949), 544.

After a short summary of ELLMA, the reviewer notes that Curtius' demonstration of the tenuous continuity of the Western literary tradition is reassuring even if «much of the immense erudition dis­played might be said to demonstrate no more than that a common­place remained a commonplace». At the same time, behind Curtius' creative comparatism lies «an angry recognition of the inadequacy of our present departmentalized courses of 'modern language' studies in the universities».

195. Delhaye, Philippe, L'enseignement de la philosophie morale au XII' siecle, Mediaeval Studies 11 (1949), 77-99; German translation reprinted without textual appendices in Eifler (ed.), Ritterliches Tugendsystem (1970), 301-340.

Without mentioning Curtius' criticisms of Ehrismann, Delhaye sets out to demonstrate that ethical and theological education were distinct from one another during the 12th century, («ii cette epoque deja on distinguait une ethique philosophique et une morale theolo­gique» [77]), a separation posited by Ehrismann which Curtius had contested. In addition, Delhaye judges from a late 12th-century list of works studied and commented upon in Parisian schools that Cicero enjoyed far greater popularity than Curtius had allowed, though this observation says nothing regarding Cicero's transmission in Ger­many.

196. Dirlmeier, Franz, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Welt und Wort 4 (1949), 477-478.

Dirlmeier's review is a positive tribute from a layman.

197. Frenzel, Herbert, La proposta di E. R. Curtius per una «Storia de/la teoria poetica», Giornale italiano di filologia 2 (1949), 318-328.

80

Frenzel reviews three excursuses published at the end of ELLMA and explains the background of Curtius' method. Frenzel characterizes Curtius' method as «Una fenomenologia intuitiva puramente poetica con una forte risultanza - non intenzione - poetica» [323). While Frenzel argues that Curtius' systematization of literary phenomena according to Sinnfiguren can lead to «affermazioni gratuite» [327] (as, e.g., Curtius' claim that Rimbaud exhausted the topos of the poeta­magus in his poem «Bateau ivre»). What particularly interests Fren­zel is Curtius' attitude toward sociology, and Frenzel observes a con­tinuity between Curtius' position in Deutscher Geist in Gefahr and his implicit attitude in ELLMA:

L

II Curtius ha definito la sua posizione di fronte alla sociologia tempo fa, nel suo scritto di polemica culturale Deutscher Geist in Gefahr (Stuttgart, 1932): «L'in­certezza teorica delle sue basi sara superata attraverso ii lavoro di generazioni. E' molto piu importante che la sociologia, giil. adesso -dopo ii primo secolo del­ta sua storia - abbia reso una ricca mole di risultati conoscitivi. Una imposta­zione sociologia dei problemi non puO pill essere tralasciata, oggi, da nessuna scienza conoscitiva. Un atteggiamento de! pensiero fertilizzato (befruchtet) _ non <determinato>! (eingestellt) - e addirittura un imperativo non solo per Ia scienza, ma per qualsiasi riflessione spontanea e prescientifica ... » (o.c., p.82).

Nel binomio «befruchtet» e «eingestellt» sta il nocciolo della questione. Esso segna le due pretese diverse, con le quali la sociologia si e posta di fronte alla storiografia politica e letteraria: la tendenza, pill modesta, di voler assecon­dare le indagini della storiografia con elementi di carattere sociale ed economi­co; e quella «totalitaria» di diventare una scienza generale alla quale si debbano subordinare le singole discipline della storiografia. Questa divergenza di due fi­nalitil. fu giil. stigmatizzata dal Troeltsch in una recensione, publicata nel 1916 (cont. in Gesammelte Schriften, Bd.4) dove la prima fu definita «legittima», e la seconda come «fonte di tutti gli errori e confusioni». ( ... ) Piu tardi, nel Hand­worterbuch der Soziologie di Th. Geiger (1931), le due tendenze furono esatta­mente distinte sotto i termini di «Sociologia» e «Sociologismo», che dovrebbero essere tenuti in buona considerazione, perche molti giudizi errati o ingiusti pro­vengono dalla confusione di queste due parole.

II Curtius non riprende l'argomento nella sua presente opera, ma ci consta, che i tre studi in questione, e specialmente quello sulla «Existenzform des Dich­ters», rappresentano invece una presa effettiva di contatto con la sociologia, nel senso di una filologia «fertilizzata» da questa. [325]

Frenzel then discusses Gyorgy Lukacs' Goethe und seine Zeit, (Berne, 1947) as «l'esempio tipico de! genere che ii Geiger defini come 'sociologismo'» [326), and finds that Curtius' handling of the problem of poetic theory in his excursuses represents, in contrast to Lukacs, a more cautious and modest opening up to important sociol­ogical concerns:

Se veramente si intende aprire una finestra verso la sociologia, questa dev'essere fatto in maniera molto pill cauta e su un piano pill modesto. E cre­diamo che l'unico luogo dove, finora, sia possibile e necessario farlo, consista ndle riposte al problema della «Dichtungstheorie». [327]

198. Friedrich, Hugo, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Schweizer Monats-hefte 29 no. 8 (November, 1949), 502-505.

After giving a summary of ELLMA, Friedrich raises a number of im­portant problems: first, Curtius' reduction of literature to the me­dieval transmission of classical texts ignores literatures outside this historical tradition, with the result, for instance that German authors who wrote without specific reference either to Latin or to the various Romance literatures fall outside of Curtius' definition of literature. Such a definition of literature entails, according to Friedrich, disqual­ifying most of German literature except for the works of Goethe,

81

Hofmannsthal and George, (a curious objection in light of Curtius' consistent efforts to underscore Germany's cultural rootedness in Europe). Second, Friedrich finds that Curtius' treatment of topoi in terms of their chronological recurrence or persistence (Beharren) rather than with regard to their evolution (Verwandlung) cannot ac­count for cases of literary 'creativity'.

199. Hocke, Gustav Rene, and Gerhard Sanden, Kampf um Goethes Schat­ten: Ernst Robert Curtius' Angriff auf Karl Jaspers - Eine Diskussion, Welt am Sonntag 2. Jh., no.19 (8 May 1949), 9.

The editors of Welt am Sonntag requested a student of Curtius (Hocke) and a student of Jaspers to explain and to comment upon the Curtius-Jaspers dispute over the value of Goethe for postwar Ger­many. Hocke says that Curtius' defense of Goethe was thoroughly consistent - Curtius had even rebuked T. S. Eliot for having criticized

Goethe. Hocke observed:

Goethe ist fiir Curtius ( ... ) ein sicherer Gravitationspunkt deutsch-europiii­scher Geistigkeit. ( ... )Was Curtius also zur Schiirfe veranlaBte, ist die Sorge, es k6nne das 'Modeme' wieder so romantisch iibersch:ltzt werden, daB ein rie­siger Spiegel kontinuierlichen Seins, wie Goethe es ist, wieder einmal, sagen wir es ruhig, verhiingt werden wiirde.

Sanden points out matter-of-factly that Curtius had misinterpreted Jasper's speech on the occasion of his accepting the Goethe-Prize to constitute three separate attacks on Goethe, which in tum gave rise to Curtius' fear that a campaign against Goethe had been launched.

200. H[ohoff], C[urt], Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Hochland 42

(1949), 303-305. This Catholic reviewer offers a largely positive review of ELLMA, but reproaches Curtius in general for having written about Christianity as though he were an outsider, and in particular, for his remark on Je­rome ( «nach dem Tode des Papstes zieht [Hieronymus] sich mit eini­gen seiner romischen Freundinnen und Schiilerinnen nach Bethle­hem zuriick und nimmt seine hebraischen Studien wieder auf»). Such observations, notes Hohoff, lead one to «telling conclusions regard­ing the writer's temperament».

201. Horst, Karl August, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Deutsche Bei-trage 3 (1949), 278--283.

Apart from paying generous tribute to Curtius, Horst discusses Cur­tius' affinity to C. G. Jung in his formulation of a morphology of lit­erary tradition and stresses that Curtius' rhetorical studies aim at un­covering literary archetypes - the fundamental structures of literary composition - rather than at regurgitating the history of rhetoric.

82

202. Laistner, M. L. W., Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Speculum 24 (1949), 259--263.

While characterizing ELLMA as a masterpiece, Laistner takes issue with Curtius on several important points dealing with the history of rhetoric: first, Curtius ignores Isocrates; second, Curtius presupposes a pan-European uniformity in the curriculum of the auctores for the entire medieval period, when in fact such uniformity cannot be presumed even as late as the 12th century; third, Curtius neglects codicological problems in his discussion of the transmission of classical authors, and, contrary to available manuscript evidence, concludes that Cicero's orations were little read. Laistner's criticism of Curtius' treatment of Cicero's reception during the 10th and 11th centuries is of particular importance for evaluating Curtius' attacks on Ehrismann's «ritterliches Tugendsystem».

203. Marouzeau, J., Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Revue des eludes latines (1949), 396-397.

Marouzeau criticizes ELLMA for its chaotic organization but admits it is valuable for stimulating further study.

204. Maurer, Friedrich, Das ritterliche Tugendsystem, Deutsche Vierteljahrs­schrift 23 (1949), 274-285 [written 1944]; reprinted in Maurer's Dichtung und Sprache des Mittelalters, Gesammelte Aufsiitze, (Berne/Munich, 1963), 23-34; and in Eifler (ed.), Ritterliches Tugendsystem (1970), 146-161.

While admitting that Curtius was correct in pointing out faults in Ehrismann's theory of a system of chivalric virtues, Maurer argues on the basis of a close interpretation of Walther's Erster Reichston (<<ich saz uf eime steine») and of comparisons with other Middle High Ger­man writers that triadic ethical systems were commonplace:

Aber trotz aller Freiheit hat es das ritterliche 'Tugendsystem' auch als 'System' gegeben, nicht nur dem Inhalt nach als freie Gruppierung einer Anzahl sich iiberall findender Werte; sondem es isl auBer Zweifel, daB eine Zusammenfas­sung dieser Werte zu ganz bestimmten Gruppen, niimlich jenen drei 'Wertge­bieten', und eine Abstufung dieser Gruppen untereinander tatsiichlich vorhan­den ist. Sie ist nicht iiberall in der gleichen Weise klar ausgepriigt, aber doch weitgehend erkennbar und gerade bei dem Dichter, den Curtius allein behan­delt hat, bei Walther von der Vogelweide, besonders deutlich. (p. 283-284, [Eifler, p.159]).

Moreover, Maurer claims, John of Salisbury's depiction of the per­fect knight in Policraticus VI. 8 resembles similar descriptions found in the Rolandslied and in the works of Hartmann, Wolfram and Hros­witha of Gandersheim.

205. Milch, Werner, Goethe, Curtius, Jaspers und die Offentlichkeit, Archiv der Hessischen Nachrichten, (3June 1949).

83

Milch presents an impartial, balanced examination of the Curtius-J as­pers dispute on Goethe, and observes that the two scholars take dia­metrically opposed positions on Goethe. Jaspers, in his existen­tialism, represents the interests of the present vis-a-vis Goethe, and concentrates on the contemporary relevance of the classic German poet. Curtius' point of departure is Goethe himself: for Curtius, contemporary readers of Goethe should not insist on the primacy of their concerns but seek instead to understand Goethe on his own tenns. Milch defines this difference as that between normative philo­sophical thought and historical thinking, and feels that both approaches make profound and legitimate demands which both need to be considered.

206. Minder, Robert, Etudes allemandes recentes sur Goethe et /'Allemagne, Revue de litterature comparee 23 (1949), 426--431.

In a brief notice Minder writes concerning ELLMA:

Peu de livres du 'Goethe-Jahr' seront aussi fideles que celui de Curtius a !'esprit profond du poete: par delil I' Allemagne et la France, I' auteur guide par la no­tion de Ia 'Weltliteratur', retourne jusqu'aux sources de la grande tradition oc­cidentale et la voit peu a peu se constituer sous ses formes diversifiees.

207. Naumann, Hans, Hartmann von Aue und Cicero?, Deutsche Viertel­jahrsschrift 23 (1949), 285-287; reprinted in Eifler (ed.), Ritterliches Tu­gendsystem (1970), 19~193.

Naumann claims that a passage from Hartmann reveals a close knowledge of Ciceronian ethics, (i.e., the division between summum bonum, honestum and utile). In Hartmann's Der arme Heinrich, the protagonist confesses:

daz herze mir dO alsO stuont als alle welttoren tuont den daz rretet ir muot daz sie ere und guot ane got miigen han. (vv. 395ff.).

(«Mein Sinn stand mir damals so, wie alle Welttoren, denen das ihr torichter Sinn sagt, daB sie Ehre und Gut, ohne Gott haben kon­nen»). The protagonist's admission that ere ( = honestum) and guot ( = utile) were indivisable from divine grace ( = summum bonum) demonstrates, as far as Naumann is concerned, that Hartmann was influenced by Cicero. (Curtius, it will be recalled, contested Cicero's ever having postulated an ethical triad of summum bonum, honestum and utile.)

208. Orr, John, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Modern Language Review 44 (1949), 57~571.

84

Orr, in this brief review, calls ELLMA «one of the most important books of our time».

209. Rostagni, A., Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Revista di Filologia e di Istruzione classica 27 (1949), 249-253.

Rostagni characterizes ELLMA as a fusion of Geistesgeschichte and philology despite Curtius' protests to the contrary. Rostagni denies that the study of modern literatures has anything new to teach classi­cal philology since the former depends on the latter for its methodol­ogy. ELLMA conveys for Rostagni «l'impressione delle cognizioni manualistiche, che non sgorgano vive dalla ricerca e dalla con­vinzione personale». Rostagni faults Curtius for having interpreted Isidore of Seville's poetics as original when in fact Isidore was borrowing from Suetonius' De poetis. Moreover, Rostagni considers that Curtius relies too heavily on the importance of literary tradition at the expense of «gli impulsi della originalita, della ribellione (consapevole o inconsapevole), della liberazione dai modelli, dalle forme dai luoghi prestabiliti».

210. R[uggieri], R[uggero] M[aria], Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Cul-tura neolatina 9 (1949), 230.

Ruggieri gives a short positive review, praising in particular Curtius' contribution to the understanding of the social aspect of poetic language: «quello [aspetto] per cui gli uomini grandi e piccoli hanno i loro 'loci communes' nei quali si incontrano e si riconoscono, attestando, nella lingua e nel pensiero, una fratellanza che !'opera de! genio sublima».

211. Sobry, Paul, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Leuvense Bijdragen, Tijdschrift voor Moderne Philologie, Bijblad 39 (1949), 123-125.

Sobry wonders whether Curtius' book requires a «corrective» since Curtius' exclusively «pre-aesthetic» viewpoint is insufficient for the appreciation of a literary work as a unique aesthetic product and fails to account for the development of 'personal style'.

212. Spitzer, Leo, Zurn Goethekult, Die Wandlung 4 (1949), 581-592. In examining the dispute between Curtius and Jaspers over the im­portance of Goethe, Spitzer faults Curtius' position that the rehabili­tation of humanism in postwar Germany entailed suspending all cri­ticism of Goethe. Moreover, Spitzer finds the politicized reception of Goethe dangerous when it means that any depreciation of Goethe can be construed as an attack on the German nation itself. Goethe should not be taken to represent the entire intellectual heritage of Germany. Spitzer warns German scholars against over-identification with Goethe because it sets an alarming precedent in accordance with the syndrome, «Wir Geistigen verehren alle bedingungslos Goethe -

85

so miigen auch wir, als Stand, im gebiihrenden Abstand, verehrt wer­den» [ 591].

213. Spitzer, Leo, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), American Journal of Philology 70 (1949), 425--431.

Spitzer's review is the earliest critical discussion which interprets Cur­tius' ELLMA as «an abandonment of all aesthetic, philosophic and mod­ernistic tendencies» and a «return» to historical and philological concerns, reflecting, according to Spitzer, «a bitter note of iconclasm directed against himself, a will to matter-of-fact, ascetic, philological aridity, as if to chastize his former nature». This last remark stands in sharp contrast to Spitzer's own observations in 1932 (no.160), in which Spitzer detected a shift of direction in Curtius' research from France toward Rome. Spitzer finds that Curtius' book affords a «powerful new synthesis» of topology, but warns that «the ascertain­ment with the help of Curtius of a topos in a poem may blind the stu­dent to what the individual poet has done with it and how he has transcended it». Spitzer takes particular exception to Curtius' chapter on Dante, noting traces of George's influence on Curtius here. Spit­zer complains that Curtius neglects the works of German emigre Ro­mance scholars, a reproach which overlooks Curtius' explicit apology in his Foreword that most foreign scholarship from 1933 to 1945 -that is, during the time when the entire essays were written which later were collected in ELLMA - was simply not accessible to him in Germany.

214. Wentzlaff-Eggebert, Friedrich-Wilhelm, Ritterliche Lebenslehre und An­tike Ethik, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift 23 (1949), 252-273; reprinted in Eifler (ed.), Ritterliches Tugendsystem (1970), 162-189.

Wentzlaff-Eggebert takes as his point of departure what he considers to be Curtius' successful refutation of Ehrismann's system of chivalric virtues. He argues first that medieval theoreticians of chivalric educa­tion such as Thomasin von Zerclaere and Hugo von Trimberg lacked any 'systematic' approach to the question of chivalric values; second, that medieval German poets did not borrow their concepts of chival­ric virtues from Antiquity because Christianity exerted far greater in­fluence than Cicero; and third, that the reality of chivalric life demanded a general theory of chivalry but not a system.

1950

215. Auerbach, Erich, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Modern Language Notes 65 (1950), 348-351.

86

Auerbach finds that ELLMA constitutes a «radical rejection of all na­tional or chronological isolation within European civilization», but

criticizes the book for two shortcomings: first, Curtius neglects the to­pos of oxymoron which played such a significant role in the fusion of pagan learning with Christianity; and second, Curtius completely fails to treat the complex problems of allegory. These two weaknesses show that Curtius is more interested in «the continuity of classical patterns» than in «certain basically Christian phenomena», and that his study is more aesthetic and literary rather than historical.

216. Auerbach, Erich, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Romanische For­schungen 62 (1950), 237-245; reprinted in Auerbach's Gesammelte Auf­siitze zur romanischen Philologie, (Berne, 1967), 330--338.

In this review, Auerbach stresses that Curtius demonstrates literary continuity at the expense of the particular and the individual. Auer­bach questions to what extent the continuity of Latin rhetorical education broke down in the 8th century since, for Auerbach, Grego­ry of Tours' mistakes in Latin should not explained as a topos. Auer­bach finds Curtius' characterizing Jerome as a pre-humanist to be misleading because Jerome's attitude toward learning stemmed from his radical ascesis rather than from his Latin education. Jerome's 'un­classical' Latin style only underscores this. On the other hand, Ber­nard of Clairvaux, despite his hostility to rhetorical education, excels many of his most famous models. Auerbach also chides Curtius for his faulty handling of the conflict between Scholasticism and poetic creativity in Dante.

217. Benn, Gottfried, Doppelleben, Zwei Selbstdarstellungen, II: Doppel­leben, (Wiesbaden, 1950), 178-179; reprinted in Benn's Autobiographi­sche und vermischte Schriften, (Wiesbaden, 1961), 147.

Benn's discussion of «Stil und Entartung» includes a number of re­flections on historical changes in style. Benn posits that most literary scholarship lacks a fundamental method and therefore borrows meth­ods from other disciplines. As a result literary scholarship fails to account for stylistic, thematic, linguistic, syntactical or metaphorical interrelationships and contexts. ELLMA alone, Benn observes, studies literary expression over time as aesthetic forms and is therefore able to demonstrate the potential and actualized modes of literary style (what Benn calls Genotypus and Phiinotypus) and to account for changes in literary style over time ( «Dieses Buch zeigt fur vie le lite­rarische Stilhaltungen und Ausdrucksabstufungen die genotypische Bt:harrungs- und die phiinotypische Verwandlungszone»).

218. Bezzola, Reto R., Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Erasmus 3 (1950), 692-696.

Bezzola points out Curtius' debt to his scholarly forerunners (Ghel­linck, Haskins and Raby) and underscores the provisional nature of

87

Curtius' synthesis. At the same time Bezzola anticipates the abuse of topology («ii est ii. craindre que les epigones non avertis de M. Curtius - et ils ne manqueront pas - se bornent ii. une histoire des 'topoi'»). Bezzola concludes that Curtius' book will force scholars of European literature to revise their verdicts regarding the imitation of Antiquity prior to the Renaissance.

219. Croce, Benedetto, Dei filologi «che hanno idee», Quaderni della Critica 16 (1950)' 118--121.

Croce argues that Curtius is misled in ELLMA by his own critical ab­stractions and, in his confusion over the relation of history to crit­icism, mistakes the task of philology («la filologia non e la critica e none la storia»). For Croce, ELLMA consists simply of a series of ex­cursuses which have been strung together. Croce objects in particular to Curtius' treatment of the differences between poetry and prose. One might recall that this formal distinction was of central im­portance for Croce's poetics. Curtius' application of topology, under­stood either as the continuity of classical rhetoric or as the recurrence of similar content, must have been especially irritating to Croce. Moreover Croce disagrees with Curtius that generic preconceptions give rise to a poetic work ( «procreare una opera di poesia») because, Croce maintains, a genre does not constitute a transitus ab intellectu ad rem.

220. D[abel], G[erhard), Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Die Gegenwart 5, no. 6 (1950), 23-24.

Dabe! welcomes the 'Europeanization' of literary historiography and wonders whether Curtius' book calls for a reform of the teaching of literature at the university-level. Dabe! contends that Curtius' appli­cation of philological techniques proves the continued scholarly worth of philology, particularly in answer to critics from Dilthey's school.

221. Kristeller, Paul Oskar, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa (Lettere, Storia e Filosofia, Serie 2) 19 (1950)' 205-208.

88

Kristeller finds that Curtius' emphasis on the study of forms and ideas as the components of intellectual continuity is essentially correct, though this approach inevitably entails a lack of unity in his book. Kristeller chides Curtius for his use of Jung and Toynbee:

E siccome il Curtius non risparmia le sue punte al Croce, al Burdach, al Jaeger, al tomismo, al marxismo o all'esistenzialismo, ci saremmo aspettati anche una maggiore riserva di fronte alle teorie meno accertate della psicoanalisi o di Toynbee.

Kristeller's closing remarks point to Curtius' somewhat maverick po­sition among his colleagues:

L'insistenza sulla continuit3. della tradizione letteraria richiama gli studiosi anche al compito, attuale oggi come ai tempi della tarda antichita, della conser­vazione dei monumenti di quella tradizione, minacciati di distruzione non tanto dalla rabbia e dal pregiudizio degli ignoranti, quanta dall'indifferenza e dalla pigrizia di quelli che dovrebbero sapere.

222. Kuhn, Hugo, Zurn neuen Bild vom Mittelalter, Deutsche Vierteljahrs-schrift 24 (1950), 530-544.

Kuhn's review of ELLMA concentrates largely on the ramifications of Curtius' notion of European unity based on medieval Latin rhetoric. Kuhn maintains that Curtius' limitation of the subject to the historical reception of rhetoric presupposes from the start the very unity it seeks to prove. The 'Rome' which serves as Curtius' standard of unity was itself complex and not nearly as homogenous as Curtius seems to presume, just as Curtius' assumptions regarding the unity of the me­dieval curriculum are similarly oversimplified. Kuhn criticizes Cur­tius' shortcomings in ELLMA to confront medieval German literature. Kuhn regrets the discredit into which stylistic criticism (Stilforschung) has fallen, in part because Curtius, in his «militant empiricism», seeks to reformulate the structures of medieval thought by considering the interrelationship between intellect and style in terms of strict causal and historical connections. Kuhn suggests that art historical investiga­tion can lead to an appreciation of the kinds of structures which Cur­tius seeks to uncover. Curtius' notion of rhetorical tradition leads him, Kuhn contends, to overlook the 'natural' forms of expression which parallel the prescriptions of rhetorical tradition and which are indeed often imitated or borrowed by that tradition.

223. Maurer, Friedrich, Zurn ritterlichen 'Tugendsystem', Deutsche Viertel­jahrsschrift 24 (1950), 526-529; reprinted in Eifler (ed.), Ritterliches Tu­gendsystem (1970), 194-198; and in slightly abridged form in Maurer's Dichtung und Sprache des Mittelalters, Gesammelte Aufsiitze, (Berne/ Munich, 1963), 34-37.

Maurer argues that Ehrismann's equating Middle High German ere with Latin honestum largely rests on a confusion of honestum (better rendered in Middle High German by tugent) with honos.

224. Panzer, Friedrich, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Historische Zeit-schrift 170 (1950), 109-115.

Panzer offers a brief digest of ELLMA which stresses the Romanist character of Curtius' analysis and describes the intellectual climate in which the book was written. In particular he applauds Curtius for his demonstrating that Ehrismann misinterpreted ancient sources in his

89

«ritterliches Tugendsystem». At the same time Panzer holds that Curtius underestimated the European ramifications of medieval Ger­man literature, which, though not exerting widespread influence in the Romance world, did influence Anglo-Saxon, Scandanavian and Eastern European literatures.

225. Pisani, V., Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Paideia 5 (1950), 255-264. Pisani is moved by Curtius' erudition and appreciates fully the politi­cal situation which gave rise to it. Pisani devotes much of his review to two source problems: first, he gives numerous examples in which important passages from Tasso and Marino which themselves lack Latin models served as influential sources for subsequent European writers; second, he illustrates topological parallels between Sanskrit literature and classical and medieval Latin literature. In both cases Pisani finds reason to question the primacy of medieval Latin litera­ture as posited by Curtius.

226. Preaux, J. G., Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Latomus 9 (1950), 99-102.

Preaux praises Curtius' efforts to overcome the narrowness characteristic of the study of individual national literatures.

227. Rohlfs, Gerhard, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Archiv fiir das Stu-dium der Neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 187 (1950), 139-140.

In this short review Rohlfs praises Curtius for being the first Ro­manist since Grober to bridge successfully two disciplines, medieval French and medieval Latin, and for making the subject come alive.

228. Schirokauer, Arno, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Journal of Eng-lish and Germanic Philology 49 (1950), 395-399.

Writing as a Germanist, Schirokauer argues that an anti-historical view of history informs ELLMA and that topology is the offspring of anti-Romantic source studies (i.e., since Curtius neglects «individual creativity» so favored by the Romantics). Schirokauer finds Curtius' neglect of Scandanavian, Proven~al and Arabic literature to be detri­mental to a proper historical understanding of European culture. Schirokauer rebukes Curtius for his attacks on Ehrismann and refers to studies on the problem of Ciceronian influence on the formulation of chivalric codes by Friedrich Mauer and Hans Naumann.

229. Sulger, Kurt, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Romanic Review 41 (1950), 208--211.

90

After a brief presentation of Curtius' study, Sulger criticizes Curtius for failing to differentiate between «Creators and mere reproducers» and between «the 'right and wrong imitation' of the past». Sulger claims that Curtius fails to determine a «classical norm» when he dis-

tinguishes between Classicism and Mannerism and argues that spontaneity in literary creation cannot be accounted for by topology.

230. Vernet, A., Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Bibliotheque d'Humanis-me et Renaissance 12 (1950), 377-387.

After an extensive and positive resume of ELLMA, Vernet char­acterizes Curtius' book as a renewal of Faral's research on the Latin sources for medieval French jongleurs and for the romans courtois. He praises Curtius' study as «Un acte de foi en l'avenir de cette cul­ture occidentale a laquelle, des 1932, Mias! sans succes, !'auteur ten­tait de rallier un monde oublieux de ses traditions veritables».

231. Wehrli, Max, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Anzeiger fiir deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 64 (1948/1950), 84-91.

After his summary of ELLMA, Wehrli examines Curtius' failure to take medieval German literature into serious consideration particularly because this literature did not originate largely either a~ a reaction or as a reflex to the 12th-century Latin renaissance and therefore cannot be said to derive in any immediate sense from the medieval Latin tradition.

232. Zumthor, Paul, Mayen Age et Latinite, Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philo-logie 60 (1950), 151-169.

This extensive carefully summarizes ELLMA, noting its indebtedness to previous scholarship in the field of medieval Latin, most im­portantly Eduard Norden (Die antike Kunstprosa), Edmond Fara! (Les arts poetiques du XII' siecle), and F. J. Raby (A History of Latin Secular Poetry in the Middle Ages). Zumthor points to a number of imprecisions, particularly in Curtius' defining the relation of the «an­tik-mittelmeerisch» to the «modern-abendlandisch». While non-Ro­mance cultures were 'Romanized', their absorption into the Ro­mance world was accompanied by the enrichment of classical culture with non-classical elements, a process particularly evident in the de­velopment of the plastic arts and in the adaptations of classical sources made by medieval authors. Zumthor considers Curtius' omissions to be quite serious: his book lacks all consideration of lyric poetry and theater. Lyric poetry presents numerous topoi borrowed not from the medieval Latin tradition but from Islam, such as the figures of le losengier (Arabic mamman) and of le jaloux (Arabic hasid), and the theme of the enslavement of the lover to the beloved (which, while expressed in feudal terminology, goes back to several Arabic models). Curtius also neglects popular tales and Celtic sub­ject-matter, and fails to treat non-classical influence on medieval vernacular versification. Nevertheless, despite these shortcomings, Zumthor praises the moral intention behind Curtius' book:

91

La tentative de Curtius ( ... ) pousse la philologie et l'histoire litteraire jusqu'il leur aboutissement logique: I' expression d'une verite morale serieuse, et reelle· ment importante pour l'homme, elle depasse le stade de la constatation et de la critique des fails, et mene ii une 'prise de conscience'. [162-163]

233. Zumthor, Paul, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Neophilologus 34 (1950), 60--61.

This short review condenses Zumthor's much longer discussion (see above) and adds that Curtius' arguments, while clearly persuasive, treat only grammatica and rhetorica and could have been complemented with studies of dialectica and musica.

1951

234. Alonso, Damaso, Un aspecto de! petrarquismo: la correlaci6n poetica, in: Damaso Alonso and Carlos Bousoiio, Seis calas en la expresi6n lite­raria espafzola, (Madrid 1951, 31963), 75-107.

Alonso raises a number of serious objections to Curtius' exposition of medieval Latin influences on Spanish Golden Age literature. Curtius contended specifically that earlier studies of Spanish Mannerism emphasized French and Italian influence and ignored the medieval Latin tradition. In reply Alonso examines the phenomenon of versus rapportati ( = correlaci6n, one of Curtius' seven mannerist criteria) and maintains that correlaci6n in Golden Age authors stems directly from Italy, and originally from Petrarch, rather than from medieval Latin literature. Alonso feels that Curtius forgot one thing, that «no hay ningun elemento formal en el gongorismo espaiiol que no proce­da de la poesia italiana» [106]. As a correction of Curtius' mannerist criteria (hyperbaton, annominatio, periphrasis, logodaelia, versefiil­lendes Asyndeton, versus rapportati, Summationsschema), Alonso proposes the following:

Creemos que lo primero que habria que hacer - antes del inventario propuesto por Curtius - seria un inventario de los manierismos italianos; idesde antes de Petrarca, desde el mismo sigloXIII!, y compararlos no solo con los provenza­les, sino con los latines (y, nose olvide, con los cirabes). S61o asi sabrfamos exactamente que fue, en poesia, el Renacimiento italiano, que quieren decir 'Edad Media' y 'Renacimiento' cuando se habla de literatura italiana. [107]

235. Battistessa, Angel J., Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Logos (Buenos Aires) 6 (1951), 262-274.

92

Battistessa briefly summarizes ELLMA and then discusses in greater detail Curtius' handling of Gracian and of Mannerism, providing a paraphrase rather than a critical evaluation of Curtius' discussion, and seeming to accept readily the continuity of Latinity in Spain.

236. Beau, Albin Eduard, Review of Curtius, Kritische Essays (1950), Biblos, Revista de la Faculdade de letras, Universidade de Coimbra 27 (1951), 493-497.

Following a lengthy summary of the individual essays, Beau observes that Curtius' two essays on T. S. Eliot, the first from 1927, the second from 1949, underscore a consistency and continuity in Curtius' literary approach and, at the same time, the rise of a new critical attitude:

Sao afirma<;oes que, expressas no primeiro ensaio sobre T. S. Eliot, de 1927, desde entao nada p_er~eram do seu signif~cado, para Curtius. Veio, porem, acrescer uma consc1enc1a nova, que se expnme no segundo ensaio, de 1949, na apreciai;ao do rigorismo critico do mesmo T. S. Eliot, suscetivel de degenerar num negativismo esteril, e de abalar a sua pr6pria autoridade.

Beau argues that the appeal of Curtius' literary criticism lies in its largely intuitive character whose worthiness, however, is demeaned by Curtius' frequent sarcasm and censure of other critics.

237. Beumann, Helmut, Topos und Gedankengefii.ge bei Einhard, zugleich Besprechung von ELLMA, Archiv fiir Kulturgeschichte 33 (1951) 337-350; reprinted in Beumanns's Ideengeschichtliche Studien zu Einhard, (Darmstadt, 1969), 1-14.

After outlining the major points of Curtius' theory of topoi, Beu­mann presents an exceptionally detailed rhetorical analysis of Ein­hard's Praefatio as an additional demonstration of the validity and the applicability of Curtius' theory.

238. Carteggio Croce-Vossler, ed. Vittorio de Caprariis, (Bari, 1951), 288; German translation, Briefwechsel Croce-VofJler, translated and intro­duced by Otto VoBler, (Frankfurt, 1955), 295.

At the end of one letter (dated 24 January 1924), VoBler tries to in­terest Croce in contributing to the newly revived Deutsche Literatur­zeitung, and mentions his own review of Curtius' Balzac which ap­peared there (see entry no. 62). Somewhat schadenfroh, VoBler gloats that Curtius overlooked Croce's essay on Balzac. This letter should be read alongside Curtius' letter to Carl Schmitt on VoBler (see entry no. 413).

239. Cavelti, Leo, Ernst Robert Curtius als Kritiker, Neue Schweizer Rund-schau (1950/1951), 467-472.

Reviewing Curtius' Kritische Essays, Cavelti notes how Curtius' crit­ical procedure presents clear affinities to the attitude of Hofmanns­thal, «Um iiberhaupt sehen zu konnen, muB man den Sand aus den Augen kriegen, den die Gegenwart bestiindig hineinstreut». Cavelti sketches out the major feature of Curtius' approach in his essays, namely the valorization and re-valorization of the exempla maiorum,

93

particularly Vergil and Goethe, as a corrective for the present and as an antidote to critical self-confirmation (Selbstbestiitigung).

240. Diez Mateo, Felix, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Mar de! Sur (Lima) 16 (1951), 83--87.

Diez Mateo suggests that Curtius' synthesis resembles those of Thu­cydides, Saint Augustine, Hegel, Spengler and Toynbee - all consti­tute a response to a specific historical crisis. He emphasizes how Cur­tius strives to transcend narrow national literatures and considers the importance of Spanish literature for Curtius' synthesis, particular for Curtius' distinction between Mannerism and Classicism.

241. Fara!, Edmond, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Romania 71 (1951), 113--115.

Faral's review is particularly interesting in light of Curtius' debt to Fa­ral's own earlier rhetorical studies. Fara! is generous in his praise: «L'attitude de M. Curtius tranche sur celle de ses devanciers. Elle consiste a faire entrer la masse des faits particuliers sous le comman­dement de principes generaux». Fara! is especially attracted by Cur­tius' attempt to uncover fundamental structures and to understand «the intimate dispositions of the intellect which find their formal ex­pression in literature». Fara! recognizes that Curtius' vast synthesis is at once impassioned, committed and, he adds, dangerous, for few possess Curtius's erudition and «justesse d'esprit». Fara! exhorts in closing, «Mais qu'on sache bien qu'il ya des privileges de prince, aux­quels le roturier ne saurait pretendre».

242. Jan, Eduard von, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Deutsche Literatur-zeitung 72 (1951), 202-207.

Following a summary of ELLMA, von Jan comments positively on Curtius' innovative redefinition of the notion of literary tradition as a «community formed by the great authors over the centuries». The re­mainder of the review is devoted to applying Curtius' remarks on the survival of classical rhetoric to Provern;al literature, a subject which Curtius neglected in ELLMA. Provern;al lyric, von Jan notes, was cul­tivated at the court of the vice-count of Marseilles Barra! des Baux in a manner consistent with the Latin rhetorical tradition. Similarly, he adds, modern Provern;al literature reveals a profound consciousness of the Greco-Roman literary tradition, evidenced, for example, in the title of the collected poems of Bruno Durand, Lou camin roumieu.

243. Kohler, Erich, Einheit europiiischer Literatur [Review, Curtius, ELLMA (1948)], Aufkliirung 1:7, (1951), 177-178.

94

This short and positive review (which appeared in a rather obscure and short-lived journal and thus escaped wide notice) concentrates

on the political message behind ELLMA which Kohler finds antic­ipates a coming awareness of the unity of European literary culture:

eine grundlegend neue Betrachtungsart fur die Deutung der bisher allzu isoliert behandelten europiiischen Literaturen eingeleitet zu haben, ist wohl die groBte Leistung des ebenso temperamentvollen wie gelehrten, an Entdeckungen und Anregungen so reichen Buches von E. R. Curtius. Es ist somit, vielleicht nicht ohne Absicht, auch ein politisches Buch geworden.

Kohler briefly criticizes Curtius' dismissal of modern literary studies. At the same time Kohler readily admits that Curtius offers a com­pletely new evaluation of medieval literary creativity «Das Mittelalter als eigenwertig-schopferisches und nicht nur reproduktives Binde­glied wird hier ganz neu bewertet».

244. Lida de Malkiel, Marfa Rosa, Perduraci6n de la literatura antigua en Occidente, Romance Philology 5 (1951), 99-131; reprinted in Lida de Malkiel's La Tradici6n c/asica en Espana, (Barcelona, 1975), 271-338, with additional notes, 336-338.

This, the longest and most detailed review of ELLMA, begins with detailed chapter summaries which introduce Lida de Malkiel's thor­ough discussion. She finds that Curtius' directing his book to a non­specialist public is a mark of his generosity and comprises a personal scholarly sacrifice on his part toward the end of preserving European humanism. Like other reviewers, Lida de Malkiel admits the over­whelming validity of Curtius' thesis. She organizes her discussion with the double purpose of enriching and correcting Curtius' notion of continuity. Curtius omits any mention of Arabic influence on the origins of Romance lyric and neglects Spanish Jewish authors. Cur­tius subscribes too rigidly to such antitheses as Latin/Romance, verse/ prose, rhythm/rhyme, and tragedy/comedy. This overstrict adherence makes Curtius unable to account for the occurrence of mixed genres, a permanent feature of the European literary landscape starting with Menippean satire, and evident in the mixture of tragic and comic in Shakespeare or in siglo de oro drama. Curtius misjudges the alleged cultural backwardness of Spain; as counter-examples, Lida de Mal­kiel proposes the Aristotelianism of Spanish Arabs and Jews, Spanish Thomism, and Alfonso de la Torre. Curtius, moreover, ignores Hel­lenistic Judaism, an especially significant phenomenon for under­standing syncretism in Antiquity, as, e.g., in the works of Philo and Josephus. Curtius fails to discuss the Bible in treating the unity of European culture. Lida de Malkiel reproaches Curtius for an exces­sively 'Europacentric' focus («extra Occiden[tem] nulla salus»), and she suggests that the continuity of European culture extends beyond Europe. Lida de Malkiel finds that Curtius' aversion to Milton's Par­adise Lost and to Tasso's Gerusalemme Liberata is too closely tied to

95

his own personal aversion to Neo-Classicism. She finds that the de­valuation of the individual author and the exaltation of topology re­veal a typical German distaste for reality: «Tai metodo es un caracte­ristico procedimiento aleman que, con !eves variantes, expresa un mismo despego de la realidad». She examines several examples where Curtius' topological procedure is misleading. For example, she claims, the puer senex topos in no way dates back to the first centuries of Christianity but can be documented in Iliad and in Sanskrit and Chinese texts, among others. This topos represents for Curtius an im­portant point of contact with Jungian psychology. Lida de Malkiel comments here, «precisamente por ser universal y eterno no es posi­ble considerarlo como t6pico creado en fecha determinada y trans­mitido por imitaci6n libresca». She concludes by noting that the ulti­mate contribution of ELLMA resides in Curtius' complementing nor­mative topology with an historical topology.

245. Maurer, Friedrich, Tugend und Ehre, Wirkendes Wort 2 (1951), 72-80; reprinted in Maurer's Dichtung und Sprache des Mittelalters, Gesammel­te Aufsiitze, (Berne/Munich, 1963), 335-345; and in Eifler (ed.), Ritter­liches Tugendsystem (1970), 238-252.

Maurer distinguishes three historical stages in the semantic develop­ment of Middle High German ere:

Der erste ist jener vorbereitende, daB namlich seit Notker der Begriff und In­halt von honestum in die Nahe von honos-era geriickt wird, ohne daB das Wort era zu seiner Wiedergabe verwandt wiirde. ( ... ) Der zweite Schritt macht das Wort era selber allmahlich zur Aufnahme der sittlich-moralischen Inhalte fii­hig; fur ihn wird noch die gesamte mittelhochdeutsche Zeit gebraucht. Der letzte Schritt, der die Ausscheidung der urspriinglichen, 'auBeren' Inhalte bring!, ist im Gegensatz zu der parallelen Wortgeschichte von tugent auch heu­te noch nicht abgeschlossen. (p. 78, [Eifler, p. 250]).

Maurer finds no evidence for an equivalence of honestum ( = tugent) and ere and no evidence that ere and tugent ever shared the same meaning, except for a single example in Wernher von Elmendorf.

246. Neubert, Fritz, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Neuphilologische Zeitschrift 3 (1951), 163-174.

96

Neubert offers an overwhelmingly favorable review of ELLMA but objects to Curtius' estimation of John of Salisbury (because John of Salisbury opposed the election of a German to the Papacy in 1160 and failed to mention the translatio imperii to Germany since be preferred to see the unity of Christendom in the Papacy). Neubert maintains that the cultivation of rhetoric can lead to abuses and exaggerations. He also wonders whether every topos and commonplace should be viewed as a component of the cultural heritage. Neubert finds Cur­tius' characterization of Petrarchism as a «plague» to be misleading

and inconsistent with his own treatment of Mannerism in Spanish literature. Neubert considers that Curtius' neglect of Proven~al and of Middle High German literature presents a highly distorted image of European literary culture.

247. Neumann, Eduard, Der Streit um das «ritterliche Tugendsystem», Erbe der Vergangenheit, Germanistische Beitrage, Festgabe fur Karl Helm zum 80 .. Geb.urtstag, ed. Ludwig Wolff, (Tiibingen, 1951), 137-155; re­pnnted m Eifler (ed.), Ritterliches Tugendsystem (1970), 199-219.

Neumann presents a comprehensive defense of Ehrismann against Curtius' attacks. Curtius, Neumann claims, drastically oversimplifies Ehnsmann's 1919 essay in his refutation, positing a fixed system where Ehrismann did not. Moreover, Neumann demonstrates in ex­tensive detail the widespread influence of Ciceronian ethics which Ehrismann had assumed. The impact of Cicero's ethical writings was, argues Neumann, both direct and indirect, as, e.g., in Ambrose's De officiis ministrorum, an adaption of Cicero's De officiis. Neumann mentions that Curtius' claim that summum bonum only occurs once in Cicero's De officiis reveals that Curtius was relying more on the Index of Atztert's Teubner edition rather than on a close knowledge of the text itself, in which summum bonum occurs another five times. (This so-called «peinliches Versehen» has assumed somewhat legend­ary proportions among Germanists in their private remarks dis­counting Curtius.)

248. Pabst, Walter, Review of Curtius, Kritische Essays (1950), Romanisti-sches Jahrbuch 4 (1951), 445-449.

Pabst connects the «EuropabewuBtsein» of Curtius' Kritische Essays with the European orientation of ELLMA, and praises Curtius' inten­tions of making so many European authors critically accessible to a German public. However, Pabst finds Curtius' remarks on the relationship of Goethe to Italian literature (specifically to Dante and Manzoni) inadequate.

249. Schroder, Rudolf Alexander, Gruf3 an Ernst Robert Curtius, Merkur 5 (1951), 674-679.

Schroder provides a personal encomium encompassing a brief survey of ELLMA and of Kritische Essays.

250. Zitzmann, Rudolf, Der Ordo-Gedanke des mittelalterlichen Weltbildes und Walthers Spriiche im ersten Reichston, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift 25 (1951), 40--53; reprinted in Eifler (ed.), Ritterliches Tugendsystem (1970), 220--237.

In this important contribution on the structure of medieval thought, Zitzmann examines in detail the ramifications of the widely diffused Biblical citation, «Omnia in mensura et numero et pondere disposui-

97

sti» (Prov. 11:21), on the medieval conception of order. He argues that the tripartite organization of Walther's Erster Reichston reflects programmatically this hierarchical notion of order and thus constitu­tes an important piece of evidence in favor of a 'system' of ethical values.

1952

251. Auerbach, Erich, Philologie der Weltliteratur, Weltliteratur, Festgabe fiir Fritz Strich zum 70. Geburtstag, (Berne, 1952), 39-50.

In discussing the pertinence and the survival of the concept of Welt­literatur, Auerbach wonders how the necessary synthesis of the wealth of materials can be reached. Simple encyclopedic accumula­tion of knowledge offers no solution. Curtius' ELLMA may however provide one possible solution. By starting with a relatively small fo­cus, the survival of rhetorical education, Curtius is able to mobilize and organize a massive amount of information. Such a sharply fo­cussed and clearly delineated starting point is methodologically in­dispensible for the realization of Curtius' intentions.

252. Chatillon, F., Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Revue du moyen age latin 8 (1952), 170-176.

While generally receptive to Curtius' study, Chatillon faults Curtius for not making the synthetic aspect of his work more explicit. Never­theless, the synthesis which Curtius posits is overwhelmingly evident. At the same time Chatillon objects:

«Europfilsche Literatur», «Weltliteratur»: mirage, fictions, fictions anti-histo­riques oil s'obliterent un peu trop les caracteres propres des peuples, fictions vaines, car elles n'apportent aucune solution aux grands problemes de ce temps.

With this remark, Chatillon appears to deny the implicit political in­tention behind ELLMA. Chatillon criticizes Curtius for ignoring the Fathers, noting that «Der Affe als Metapher» receives more attention than Saint Augustine. The Bible strikes Chatillon as conspicuously absent. Chatillon is displeased that Curtius neglects the works of such medievalists as Ludwig Ott, Martin Grabmann and Etienne Gilson.

253. Krog, F., Review of Curtius, Kritische Essays (1950), Die Neueren Spra­chen, N.F. 2 (1952), 148-150.

Krog's review of Curtius' career as a literary critic emphasizes the consistency of Curtius' interdisciplinary approach to literature.

254. Lehmann, Paul, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Deutsches Archiv fiir Geschichte [ab 1951: fiir Erforschung] des Mittelalters 9 (1952), 303-304.

98

After noting that Curtius' ELLMA offers nothing new f h . d' IL . OT SC olars m

me ieva atm, Lehmann praises the study for making th . . f w t 1 . e contmmty 0 es em cu ture smce Antiquity accessible t th . .

C t' • b · 0 e non-specialist ur ms ook reqmres a second volume to treat the d1'sc t' . . . w t 1 . on mmties of es ern cu ture as well as its non-Latin elements (. B .

G · I I · 1.e., yzantme ermamc, s am1c - and one should add Celt' . fl '

255. ' 1c-1n uences).

Rychn.er, Max, «Kritische Essays zur europiiischen Literatur» Sphiiren der Bucherwelt, Aufsatze zur Literatur, (Zurich, 1952) 124-i32

Rychner's resume of Kritische Essays seeks to d~mon t t. h d~e.p~y rooted Curtius' work is in the German traditions ~al~ ow cnticism. o 1terary

256.

257.

Schroder, Walter Johannes, Der Ritter zwischen Welt und Gott Id d Problem des Parzivalromans Wolframs von Eschenbach 'cw ee un 1952), chapter 10: Seinsethik und Normethik in Wol'rams p' . 1e1m18a5r, 216 · d · . J' arz1va -

; rep:mte m Eifler (ed.), Ritterliches Tugendsystem (1970) 34l-376 Schroder arg~es that Curtius' demonstration of the faulty derivatio~ of ~hnsmann s th~ory of chivalric values does not provide sufficient 1ust1f1cat1on to reiect the possible existence of a system of ethical values among Middle High German authors. Scholarly inquiry here however, must proceed inductively rather than deductively. Schrode; then carefully and thoroughly investigates ethical values in Wolfram.

1953 @ Anonymous, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (English translation, 1953), Times L1t_erary S~pplement 52 (4December 1953), 783.

The Tzme~ re~1ewer praises the erudition and mastery of detail «With comp~ratlve lightness of touch» which Curtius shows in tracing the recept10n of Latin literature in the Middle Ages.

258. Auerbach, Erich, Epilegomena zu «Mimesis», Romanische Forschungen 65 (1953), 1-18.

In commenting on the various discussions of Mimesis, Auerbach pa~ses to respond specifically to Curtius' criticisms (contained in the articles: Die Lehre von den drei Stilen, Romanische Forschungen 64 [19.52], ~7-7?; and G.ustav Grober und die romanische Philologie, Ze1tschnft fur rnmamsche Philologie 67 [1951], 257-277). Curtius' two .maior ob1ect10ns to Mimesis were that Auerbach connected P.oetI: genres t~ levels of style and that he had overemphasized the sigmf1cance of figural or typological interpretation. Auerbach claims that Curtius' objections were misfounded: instead of confusing gen­res and le~els of style, Auerbach maintains that he provided a history of the vanous forms of mimetic representation, a procedure which

99

259.

260.

261.

should not be misconstrued as a collocation of theoretical opinions on mimesis. Moreover, Auerbach continues, allegory was as important and as permanent a phenomenon as the surviving influence of classi­cal rhetoric. Curtius' application of topology is incorrect because it ignores allegory.

Buist, Walter «Europiiische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter», Grundsiitzliche Bemerkungen, Wirkendes Wort (1952/1953), 56-58.

Buist finds that Curtius misperceives the task of philology and histo­ry, since philology deals with countless readers whose various read­ings of a particular text (text understood, following Humboldt, as «kein Werk (Ergon], sondern eine Tatigkeit (Energeia]») presuppose the non-repeatability of a single or particular reading, whereas histo­ry treats events whose historical character is unchanging. Buist main­tains that philology confronts an irresolvable problem in treating literary texts because earlier readings of a text escape reconstruction. The historicity or historical fortune of a text explodes its uniformity. Buist argues that the meaning which a literary work possessed for its original historical audience is the major component of a work's historical character, not the participation of that same work in any literary tradition.

de Boor, Helmut, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur van den Anfiingen bis zur Gegenwart, Bd. 2: Die hOfische Literatur, Vorbereitung, Blute, Ausklang, (Munich, 1953, 91960), 3--19; reprinted in Eifler (ed.), Ritter­liches Tugendsystem (1970), 377-400.

Despite the didactive propensity of Middle High German poets, de Boor maintains that they did not subscribe to a chivalric system of values. He concedes that Curtius rightly questioned whether the Mo­ralium dogma or the adaptation by Wernher von Elmendorf provided an adequate theoretical basis for such a system. Courtly life, accord­ing to de Boor, was characterized by its styles or attitudes, and thus did not lend itself to systematization. Yet de Boor thinks Ehrismann was correct in positing a hierarchy of goodness which formed the basis for courtly thought.

Neumann, Eduard, Zurn «ritterlichen Tugendsystem», Wirkendes Wort 1. Sonderheft (1953), 49-61; reprinted in Eifler (ed.), Ritterliches Tu­gendsystem (1970), 277-300.

Neumann presents additional evidence for his defense of Ehrismann (see entry no. 247 above). He gives examples from Middle High Ger­man poets in which one finds not a slavish incorporation of Cicero­nian ethics which were taught alongside of rhetoric, but rather a crea­tive use of various ethical concepts which attest to a wealth of newly felt tensions ( einen Reichtum neu erlebter Spannungen) and thereby

100

attest further to the versatility of ethical and religious structures of thought in the Latin Middle Ages.

262. Nostitz'.Oswalt von, E.R.Curtius und der franz6sische Geist, Wort und Wahrhe1t 8 (1953), 878--880.

263.

264.

The appearance of Curtius' Franzosischer Geist im zwanzigsten Jahr­hundert in 1952, incorporating his Wegbereiter and several additional new contributions, prompts von Nostitz to examine Curtius' evalua­tions in light of the nearly four decades which had elapsed since Cur­tius' original ~914 lectures on the «literary forerunners of the New France». Curtms resembles Friedrich Schlegel, von Nostitz claims in his effort to interpret French culture for a German public. Besides finding that Curtius overvalued Romain Rolland and Andre Suares von Nostitz expresses his regret that Curtius did not interest himself in French authors after Proust.

Politzer, R. L., Review of Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Comparative Litera­ture 5 (1953), 171-176.

After a summary of ELLMA which begins by explaining that Curtius' point of departure is the investigation of the history of the Bergsonian foncti~n fabulatrice within the whole of European civilization, Polit­zer raises several objections. First, Curtius' stress on the «merely for­malistic» sacrifices the importance of content, «if relationships in form are more obvious, are they not less meaningful?» Second, Cur­tius' analysis of the rise of national literatures and the continuity they exhibit with regard to Latinity is particularly misleading when applied to Italy because Curtius' model for the vernacular continuation of La­tinity is France:

In Italy the consciousness of the direct heritage of Rome, the idea of an unin­terrupted continuity, was so great that it smothered for a long time any possi­bility of a national literature in the vernacular. Some 150 years after the writer of the Roland had sung the praise of dulce France, Dante still had to defend the use of the vernacular for poetry, a vernacular which even for him was still only a vulgar form of Latin. [175]

Third, Curtius traces a single detail from one author to another, rather than «synthesizing detail within the same author», an approach which is eventually meaningless because it considers literary features within an extended historical context which is imposed extrinsically upon them.

1954

Frenzel, Herbert, Latinita di Dante, Riassunto de/le teorie dantesche di Ernst Robert Curtius, Convivium 22 (1954), 16-30.

Frenzel offers a summary (without critical commentary) of Curtius'

101

various works on Dante for the benefit of an Italian public, thereby making available in a unified format many scattered articles other­wise inaccessible.

265. Gillie, D.R., Honour to the Pedants, The Spectator no. 6569 (21 May 1954) , 624--625.

Gillie considers ELLMA to be «the apology of pedants by a pedant -if we use the term in the light of his own defence of his mediaeval pre­decessors». Furthermore Gillie adds, «In his own person (Curtius] has used pedantry as a glorious means of defying barbarism and keep­ing civilisation alive».

266. Hammerle, Karl, Das Titania/ager des Sommernachttraumes als Nach­hall des Topos vom «locus amoenus», Shakespeare Jahrbuch 90 (1954), 279-284.

Hammerle briefly shows how Spenser in The Fairy Queen made use of the locus amoenus topos (whose characteristics were first eluci­dated by Curtius) and how Shakespeare in A Midsummer Night's Dream consciously borrowed various landscape features from Spenser as a loosely arranged echo of this topos.

267. Jones, Charles W., The Tradition of Rhetoric, Yale Review 43 (March 1954), 459-461.

Applauding the appearance of Curtius' ELLMA in English, Jones limits his criticisms to pointing out some of Curtius' shortcomings: the neglect of Celtic, Teutonic, Byzantine and medieval Hebraic influ­ences in the Middle Ages, not to mention his ignoring the Church and monasticism («it is but a tour de force to write as if the medieval Church had not existed»), as well as Curtius' neglect of manuscript evidence.

268. Kimpel, Ben, Professor Curtius on the Tradition, Poetry 84 (1954), 158-162.

Calling Curtius' topoi «omnipresent ideas» or «traditions», Kimpel remarks that Curtius demonstrates «a quietly urbane humor which seems more French than German and is so unassertive that it can easily be missed in the mass of facts. Professor Curtius has enough learning to be able to afford to play with some of it - unlike most American scholars, he does not have to hoard it for an emergency».

269. Konrad, Gustav, Europageist und Philologie - Forschung und Gesin-nung, Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 35 (N.F. 4) (1954), 44--67.

102

Konrad reviews a number of postwar German philological and histor­ical writings which stress patterns of European cultural continuity: Curtius, ELLMA; Auerbach, Mimesis; Heinz Gollwitzer, Europabild und Europagedanke; Eduard von Jan, Die Holle bei Dante und Que-

270.

vedo (a study of Dante's influence in Spain); and Ernst Howard D' Kultur der Antike (a monograph stressing the indispensabili;y ~~ Gr.eek culture. for a def1mhon of European continuity). Konrad pmnts out .earlier scholarly precedents for such a notion of continuity m the wntmgs of Burckhard!, Ranke and Troeltsch, and of course in Goethe's plea for Weltliteratur.

Lenz-Medoc, Paulus, Die Sorbonne ehrt Ernst Robert Curtius, Die Zeit (2 December 1954), 4.

The Sorbonne's bestowal of an honorary doctorate on Curtius th f G • e ITS! erman to receive this distinction since the end of the Second World War, redounds, says Lenz-Medoc, all the more to Curtius' cre­dit since the degree of French esteem for Curtius corresponds to the «freedom of judgment» shown by the French in conferring this degree.

271. Menendez Pidal, Ramon, Formulas epicas en el «Poema del Cid»: cuest'.6n met6di~a, Romance Philology 7 (1954), 261-267; reprinted in Menendez P1dal s Los godos y la epopea espafiola, (Madrid, 1956) 241-255. '

Menendez Pidal contests Curtius' dating of the Poema del Cid. Cur­tius had compared a formula from the Old French epic Aymeri de Narbonne, v. 3900, «ne vos quier a conter» with v. 1310 of the Cid «non las. ~uiero contar». Menendez Pidal contends that, like man; anh-trad1!ionahst cntJcs of medieval epic poetry, Curtius «razona bajo la insostenible hip6tesis de que los primeros textos hoy conser­vados ( o de que se tiene noticia) son los primeros que han existido». Curtius' notion of a literary topos strikes Menendez Pidal as im­precise and vague because it fails to account for spontaneous creation: «El t6pico vulgar espontaneo, poligenetico, no tiene valor demostrativo ninguno para jalonar una efectiva tradici6n literaria». Moreover, Menendez Pidal notes, verses which attest to an enormous popular diffusion of a text cannot establish «generic derivation» ( una derivaci6n genetica) with reference to vernacular epic and are there­fore invalid for dating purposes.

272. Naumann, Walter, Ernst Robert Curtius Yearbook of Comparative Literature 3 (1954), 65-67. '

Naumann offers a brief portrait of Curtius' career, and stresses how Curtius strives in ELLMA to view European literature in its totality. Na!!mann also points to similarities between Aby Warburg and Cur­tius: each scholar studied the survival and continuity of Antiquity in his respective discipline.

273. Pabst, Walter, Review of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im 20. Jh. (1952), Romanistisches Jahrbuch 6 (1953/1954), 228.

103

In this short review Pabst examines the Protestant Curtius' essay on the French Catholics Jacques Maritain and Henri Bremond and un­derscores the critical usefulness of a psychological analysis of reli­gious experience.

274. Schwietering, Julius, The Origins of the Medieval Humility Formula, Publications of the Modern Language Association 69 (1954), 1279-1291; reprinted in: Schwietering's Philologische Schriften, eds. Friedrich Ohly and Max Wehrli, (Munich, 1969), 438--449.

Schwietering offers here an extremely detailed answer to Curtius' dis­missal of the critical term Demutsformel, noting that in Middle High German poetry the Demutsformel is not a Curtius-type of topos but occurs in a highly specific context: «the whole prayer-complex grouped around the person of the poet in relation to his work». Such a Demutsformel has nothing to with a captatio benevolentiae. Writing in his Foreword to Schwietering's collected works, Friedrich Ohly situated the importance of this article:

Die stiirkere und feinere Beachtung des geschichtlich variierenden und diffe­renzierenden Einschlags in die gegebene Formel unterscheidet diese elastische­re Untersuchung von der starrer auf Erweis von Kontinuitat bedachten Topos­forschung seit E. R. Curtius, dessen spate Kritik ihm Jahrzehnte spiiter AnlaB zu (dieser] souveriinen Antwort gab.

1955

275. Jan, Eduard von, Review of Curtius, Franzosischer Geist im 20. Jh. (1952), Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 36 (N.F. 5) (1955), 183.

In reviewing this book which combines Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa with a number of newer contributions, von Jan insists that Curtius' medieval studies in no way represent a turning away from his earlier studies of French civilization. Both ELLMA and Franzosischer Geist im 20. Jh., von Jan maintains, spring from the same intellectual attitude or Geisteshaltung, particularly from the idealistic belief in «the possibility and necessity of a unified Europe».

276. Lausberg, Heinrich, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (English translation, 1953), Archiv fiir das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 191 (1955), 236.

104

Besides noting the excellent quality of the English translation of ELL­MA, Lausberg adds several valuable, albeit terse, remarks on the He­brew origins of the puer senex topos, and on Sanskrit parallels to the topos offortitudo et sapientia. He also gives additional parallels to the Buch der Natur and provides a passage from Quintilian which may constitute the first example of «la religion des LettreS>>.

277. Stolpe, Sven, Erinnerungen an meinen Lehrer Ernst Robert Curtius, Der christliche Sonntag 7.Jh., no.43 (230ctober 1955), 344.

Stolpe gives his personal recollections of Curtius in the mid-'twenties and immediately following the Second World War. Stolpe sees the fact that Curtius introduced him to Valery Larbaud and Charles Du Bos after the war as proof that Curtius' interest in modern French literature remained unshaken in spite of his concentrating his scholar­ly activity in the field of medieval studies.

1956

278. Hommage ii Ernst Robert Curtius, Allemagne d'Aujourd' hui 5 (Septem­ber-October 1956), 7-26.

i. Robert Minder, Hommage ii Ernst Robert Curtius, 7-8. Minder gives a brief biographical sketch of Curtius and introduces the contributors to this special issue.

ii. Jean Cocteau, [s.t.], 9.

Speaking of Curtius' conciliatory approach, Cocteau notes, «Je reste convaincu, contre toute preuve, que !'entente secrete des hommes de notre style l'emporte un jour sur la terrible mesentente des peuples».

111. Rudolf Alexander Schroder, [s.t.], 9. Schroder gives here a short personal tribute to Curtius.

iv. Henri Jourdan, Esquisses pour un portrait, 10-11. Jourdan, the French translator of Curtius' Balzac, notes that during a visit to Curtius shortly before the Reichstag fire in March 1933, he had observed Curtius' turn toward the Middle Ages, «Deja ii se tournait vers ce moyen age la tin qui allait peu it peu I' env011ter. L' envoiiter, mais pas l'engloutir».

v. Albert Beguin, E. R. Curtius en Allemagne et ii Paris, 11-12. Beguin comments on the hatred directed at Curtius by his colleagues: «II fallait voir, vers 1930, de quelle haine Curtius etait l'objet de la part de ses collegues des Universites d'Allemagne».

vi. Claude David, Thematique de Curtius, 12-13. David, the French translator of Curtius' Kritische Essays, observes that Curtius' method was consistently thematically oriented, regardless whether the subject matter was medieval Latin or modern French liter­ature. David finds that Curtius' use of the term Restauration constituted in no sense a rejection of the present but a rehabilitation - hence restor­ation - of the past for the present. David reiterates that Curtius struggled against a profound tendency in German thought which strove to separate Germany from Latinity, and that Curtius sought to reformu­late the meaning of German nationalism within a European context.

vii. Armand Berard, Souvenirs de trois epoques, 14-17.

105

In this portrait of Curtius in Heidelberg and Bonn, Berard recalls Cur­tius' efforts toward Franco-German intellectual rapprochement.

viii. Jacques Heurgon, Curtius et Rome, 18-20. . Heurgon argues that Curtius' idealization of Rome did n~t stem from a valorization of historical Roman military imperialism, mdeed, notes Heurgon, «le culte des Empereur~ etait a ses yeu.x le sign~ d~ besoin de divinisation qui avail hante l'Empue». Heurgon fmds Curtms turmng to the Latin Middle Ages to be a mark of his intellectual sohtude.

ix. Wolf Bergmann, Begegnungen, 21-22. . Bergmann discusses Curtius' attitude to George, noting .'.'So ko~nte ~r. m George, z.B. eine neue deutsche Haltung sehr hoch schatzen, die m1t ~h­rer Wendung zu Frankreich und Dante der Latinitiit wgekehrt "'.'ar, m­dessen er des Rheinliinders imperiale Verstiegenhe1ten d1skuss1onslos sich selber iiberlieB». Curtius, according to Bergmann, sought to defend poetry with a vehemence hardly seen since Friedrich Schlegel.

x. Jean Hippolyte, Rencontre, 23. . . Hippolyte speaks of visits following the Second _"World War.with Curtms and recalls conversations concerning Claude! m which H1ppolyte was impressed with Curtius' extensive familiarity with Claudel's work (and this at a time when, according to some critics, Curtius had all but turned

his back on contemporary France!). xi. Jean-Paul Aron, E. R. Curtius et l' «Essai sur la France», 24.

Aron praises the profundity of Curtius' portrayal o~ France: «La_Fra~ce de Curtius est plus frarn;aise que la France, pmsqu elle nous amene a la

mieux comprendre». . xii. Roger Kempf, «Savez-vous /'adresse de Curtius il qui je voudrazs ~nvoye~

man /ivre? Faut-il HERR, faut-il PROFESSOR?» (Marcel Proust a Andre

Gide, juillet, 1920), 25-26. . , . . . In this personal recollection, Kempf stresses C~rtms non:ms!ztutwnal professional orientation: «Nous n'etions pas qmttes en Im de.cemant, peu avant sa mort, un doctoral honoris causa. Peut-etre ava1t-il trop ignore Jes Ministeres: ses vrais amis etaient ailleurs».

279. Beau, Albin Eduard, Review of Freundesgabe fer E. R. Curtius (1956), Boletim de Filologia 16 (1956), 14~142.

Beau comments on the unusual format of the Freundesgabe, the «al­most total absence among the collaborators of Romance philolo­gists». The eighteen contributions from poets, litera~y crHic~ and philosophers reflect, remarks Beau, «O ambito da 1rradia<;ao do

espirito do pr6prio Curtius».

280. Bentmann, Friedrich, Ernst Robert Curtius zum Gedenken, Die Neue-

ren Sprachen N.F. 5 (1956), 546-549. . , . In this necrology Bentmann recalls how Curtms teachmg of co~­temporary French literature was influential in redefining Romamst

106

studies, in redirecting the discipline from primarily linguistic research and the study of a highly select canon of received authors. Bentmann also describes the fear of students in Curtius' seminars and notes that Curtius aimed at reaching «the happy few» in his seminars. Bent­mann concludes by claiming that Curtius' evolving opinions on French culture were the result of a maturation in his outlook.

281. Bergstriisser, Arnold, Ernst Robert Curtius, Jahresring 56/57 (1956) 307-316.

Bergstriisser, Curtius' collaborator on the 1930 joint study of French civilization, underscores the 'civilizational' approach in all of Curtius' research. The larger part of this essay is devoted to reviewing Curtius' contacts with France during the 1920's (including Emile Mayrisch's decades in Pontigny and Curtius' friendship with Pierre Vienot, the author of Incertitudes allemandes) and with America at the end of his life (starting with an interest in Emerson, T. S. Eliot and Henry Adams, and extending to his concern for the American reception of Dante, and to his acquaintance with the works of Thornton Wilder and with the educational policies of Robert Maynard Hutchins, the late president of the University of Chicago). Bergstriisser's necrology is remarkable for how little space it gives to ELLMA, which becomes, from Bergstriisser's perspective, more a work on European civiliza­tion than on topology.

282. Favez, Charles, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (French translation, 1956), Revue beige de philologie et d'histoire 34 (1956), 457-458.

Favez gives a short favorable summary without critical discussion.

283. Frenzel, Herbert, Ricardo di E. R. Curtius, Convivium N. S. 24 (1956), 373-375.

Frenzel points to the Goethian impulse underlying Curtius' research stemming from Goethe's advice to Friedrich Diez to study the Ro­mance languages and from Goethe's notion of Weltliteratur. Frenzel remarks that Curtius' topology resembles nuclear physics in that Cur­tius sought to uncover «le ultime unita dell'espressione poetica», and as such Curtius' approach is profoundly modern.

284. Friedrich, Hugo, Ernst Robert Curtius, Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 18 (1956), 436-438.

Friedrich comments on the profound symbolism of Curtius' choosing to die in Rome, a choice symptomatic of his yearning for universality, for a «humane Weltoffenheit». Friedrich claims that Curtius, during his childhood in Alsace, came to abhor both German and French na­tionalism. Friedrich stresses the increasingly universal orientation in Curtius' works on the complementary relationship between his re­search on the Middle Ages and his essays on modern European liter-

107

ature. While conservative, Curtius, according to Friedrich, should not be considered reactionary.

285. Haas, Helmuth de, Philologie als geistige Grof3macht, Ernst Robert Cur-tius, Hochland 48 (1955/1956), 320--330.

The review of Curtius' writings underscores the European orientation of his critical activity. Curtius realized that the importance of Europe following the Second World War would recede and assume a less in­fluential role in world politics. The Franco-German conflict which had previously dominated European history would also become out­dated. Curtius' works champion a European perspective, notes de Haas, as a solution to past national differences and as a basis for a new identity for Europeans.

286. Hess, Gerhard, Ernst Robert Curtius, Ruperto-Carola 8.Jh., Bd.19 (1956), 105--107.

In examining Curtius' career, Hess insists on the close interrelation­ship between Curtius' writings on modern French authors and on the Latin Middle Ages. Hess maintains that ELLMA in consistent with Curtius' commitment to modernity, that is, to a demonstration of the relevance of the humanistic tradition to the present.

287. Hocke, Gustav Rene, Uber Manierismus in Tradition und Moderne, Merkur 10 (1956), 336--363.

108

Hocke attempts to apply Curtius' use of the term 'mannerism' (bor­rowed from Vasari's description of the later Michelangelo's artistic technique or maniera) in characterizing the stylistic features of 16th­and 17th-century mannerism, in order to draw parallels to 20th-cen­tury literature. Curtius had avoided identifying mannerism with any specific period in literature, maintaining instead that mannerism was the opposite of classicism («alle literarischen Tendenzen, die der Klassik entgegengesetzt sind, mogen sie vorklassisch oder nachklas­sisch oder mit irgendeiner Klassik gleichzeitig sein»). Mannerism, which characteristically contains, according to Castiglione, acutezza recondita, is historically manifested in various literary styles: in Spain, conceptismo or Gongorismo; in Italy, concettismo or Marinis­mo; in England, Euphism; in France, precosite; in Germany, Sinnge­dicht. Hocke draws a parallel between Gracian's definition of concep­to («Un acto de! entendimiento que ex prime la correspondencia que se halla entre los objetos») and Baudelaire's correspondances. Hocke is guided by the principle that poetic discourse which is 'manneristic', while not free of rhetorical constraints, assumes all the same new lin­guistic dimensions: «Im Manierismus weitet sich die Sprache, noch gehemmt von den Ziigeln der antiken Rhetorik, zu einem stromen­den FluB». In other words, corresponding to Curtius' position, Hocke

stresses the rhetorical aspect of mannerism, that classicism and man­nerism represent antithetical applications of rhetorical principles.

288. Hocke, Gustav Rene, Schopferische Kritik, Zurn 70. Geburtstag van Ernst Robert Curtius, Rheinische Post (Diisseldorf), no. 88, (14April 1956), n.p.

In this appreciation Hocke claims that the on-going literary success of those authors first acclaimed by Curtius resides in the special tension between the present and history found in the works of these writers. Hocke notes that Curtius' combination of modern and medieval literature offers a special exception to the more prevalent literary tendencies in Germany, i.e., either avant-guardism or dry-as-dust literary scholarship.

289. Horst, Karl August, Zur Methode van Ernst Robert Curtius, Merkur 10 (1956), 303-313.

Horst examines the philosophical assumptions underlying Curtius' writings. Since Curtius made relatively few theoretical pronounce­ments, the reconstruction of the philosophical ramifications of Cur­tius' work depends on a series of anecdotes, a procedure which un­derscores in turn the pragmatic, non-systematic nature of Curtius' approach:

Die Anekdote namlich ist, im Gegensatz zur Theorie, die von der Sache allein zu handeln vorgibt, die Situation von Mensch zu Mensch. Die Anekdote ist ad hominem gerichtet, was in der Theorie verpont ist, und stellt den einzelnen auf die Probe. (305]

Curtius combined an intensive and an extensive approach in reading literary works. The intensive approach comprises a close reading of the text, a method borrowed from classical philology. This intensive method, however, when pursued to its logical end, loses sight of the 'phenomenon' of the work itself and must therefore be supplemented with an extensive approach, that is, with a consideration of the work with regard to other works. Curtius' method might be better appre­ciated when viewed in light of remarks made by Benedetto Croce and by Karl VoB!er in their correspondence. Croce's aesthetics, notes Horst, rely upon a reduction of literary works to pure autonomous aesthetic principles, divorced from the phenomenological aspects of a literary work (that is, apart from considerations of sources, diction, historical linguistics, and rhetorical techniques). VoBler's idealism, on the other hand, admits the relevance of these phenomenological aspects only as a concession to the pedagogical necessities of teaching a particular literary work. Horst observes that Curtius' granting prece­dence to the phenomenological aspects of a literary work over theoretical concerns constitutes the only means of making an inten-

109

sive textual reading productive, and requires the eclectical considera­tion of as many of the exterior or phenomenological aspects of a work as possible coupled with the application of as many critical methods as possible. Curtius' approach thereby overcomes the methodological differences between the natural sciences and the humanities and demonstrates profound affinities to the philosophical approach of Max Scheler in his Die Wissensformen und die Gesellschaft, to the conviction of Ortega y Gasset that thought was an activity, and to the historical researches of Toynbee.

290. Jaserich, Hellmut, Ernst Robert Curtius, Zurn siebzigsten Geburtstag (14.April 1956), Der Monat 8.Jh., no.91(April1956), 11-13.

J aserich gives here a short tribute to Curtius with a survey of Curtius' work along with a number of biographical anecdotes. He recounts a legendary incident which illustrates Curtius' frustration with his stu­dents. Curtius asked the students in his seminar on etymology what the abbreviation log. in Meyer-Liibke's REW meant. One student re­plied «logical», another «logarithm», rather than the correct «Logu­doresian» (a dialect in northern Sardinia with conservative features). Curtius responded in exaggerated(?) despair, «Ja, meine Darnen und Herren, das heiBt logudoresisch, wer das nicht weiB, der lebt ja wie im Traum».

291. Mertner, Edgar, Topos und Commonplace, Strena Anglica, Festschrift fur Otto Ritter, eds. Gerhard Dietrich and Fritz W. Schulze, (Halle a.S., 1956), 178-224; reprinted in Jehn (1972), 20-68.

Mertner provides a detailed examination of the historical and norma­tive use of the term topos, documented with examples largely drawn from English literary history, in order to demonstrate that Curtius misapplied the term. Though topos was not completely fixed in its meaning and application, it never meant historically what Curtius uses it to mean:

Diese Auffassung von Topos als vagem Sammelbegriff fiir etwas in der Litera­tur Tradiertes und stereotyp Obemommenes hat mit dem - auch noch so we1t gefaBten - antiken Begriff Topos oder Locus communis schlechterdings nichts mehr zu tun. [180]

Mertner's extensively documented exposition takes Curtius' historically anomalous application as its point of departure and does not comment on the implications of Curtius' arguments for literary continuity.

292. Munteano, B., Ernst Robert Curtius, Revue de litterature comparee 30 (1956), 283-285.

110

This necrology stresses the consistency of Curtius' methodology re­gardless of his subject - whether modern or medieval. Curtius com-

bined the most ancient tool of literary criticism, i.e., rhetoric, with the most modern, i.e., comparative literature (whence the title of Curtius' 1949 essay, Antike Rhetorik und Vergleichende Literaturwis­senschaft, Comparative Literature 1 [1949), 24ff.). Munteano is not persuaded that Curtius uncovered essential constants in literature.

293. Porqueras May, A., Ernst Robert Curtius, Revista de Filologia espaiiola 40 (1956), 393-397.

This obituary of Curtius accentuates his interest in Spain and provi­des a bibliography of his works which treat Spanish subjects.

294. Rohlfs, Gerhard, Ernst Robert Curtius, Jahresbericht der Bayrischen Akademie der Wissenschaft (1956), 208-216; reprinted in: Archiv fur das Studium der Neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 193 (1957), 296-300.

Rohlfs' necrology summarizes the major stages of Curtius' career, mostly on the basis of Curtius' own remarks in Ruckblick 1952. He lays stress on Curtius' European orientation, his cultivation of a new psychological-phenomenological method, and his contributions to the German understanding of France. Rohlfs also notes the im­portance of England, next to that of France, for Curtius' writings in the 1920's.

295. Roncaglia, Aurelio, Prospettive della filologia romanza, Cultura neolati-na 16 (1956), 95-107.

In considering the prospects for Romance philology, Roncaglia argues for a synthetic point of view encompassing the well-document­ed unity of the Romance world rather than for a comparative vision - like Curtius' - which endeavors to reconstruct a lost unity. This syn­thesis requires professional specialization which strives for a universal point of view. For this reason Roncaglia rejects Curtius' call for a­bandoning specialization in favor of 'universalism'. He maintains that the progress of Romance philology will depend on the tension be­tween the demands of specialization and those of universalism: «la necessita d'integrare un certo specialismo particolaristico con un cer­to universalismo panromanza ed europeo e ii problema fondamentale e addirittura costitutivo della nostra disciplina» [103].

296. Ross, Werner, Das geistige Europa, Ernst Robert Curtius zum 70. Ge-burtstag, Rheinischer Merkur (Cologne), no.14 (6April 1956), 7.

Ross speaks of the freshness of Curtius' approach to the intellectual exchanges between France and Germany in the 1920's. During this time, Ross explains, Curtius concentrated increasingly on history and philology in response to the growing dangers to the German in­tellectual tradition. Curtius, in effect, sought to renovate Romance philology. Ross also describes the difficult political situation in the

111

Romance Seminary in Bonn during the Nazi period: «in Bonn saB ihm der Extraordinarius [Gerhard] Moldenhauer vor der Nase, der das stramme Gebaren der Marine-SA in die anriichige Romanisten­atmosphiire verpflanzte». Ross also explains the connection between Curtius' professional isolation and the adjective «journalistic» which his colleagues often used to describe him: «Das eine ist an dieser Kennzeichnung richtig, daB Curtius sich nie mit jenem Wissen­schaftsbetrieb befreunden konnte, der sich in den Fachbliittern unter AusschluB der Offentlichkeit sein Stelldichein gibt». Ross also elucidates the nature of Curtius' much discussed 'conservatism': «Ein neuer Konservatismus ist im Werden, der sich nicht als Hiingen an dem, was gestern war, sondern als Leben aus dem, was immer gilt, versteht».

297. Rutten, M., Review of Curtius, Kritische Essays (1951), Revue beige de philologie et d'histoire 34 (1956), 459-461.

This Flemish review stresses the European context of Curtius' re­search, noting how the different monographs and studies from differ­ent periods of Curtius' career complement one other.

298. Schalk, Fritz, Ernst Robert Curtius, Arbeitsgemeinschaft fiir Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Mitteilungen Heft7 (June 1956), 10--14; reprinted in: Romanische Forschungen 69 (1957), 124-126.

Schalk's obituary accentuates the creative aspect of Curtius' research which combines philology, literary criticism and translation. Curtius' approach represents for Schalk a combination of conservatism ( un­derstood as the preservation and consciousness of tradition) and ini­tiative. Schalk calls Curtius a «humanist sui generis», a description which underlines the profoundly non-institutional position held by Curtius within academe.

299. Schlumberger, Jean, Dank an Ernst Robert Curtius, Merkur 10 (1956), 302.

Schlumberger pays tribute to Curtius' clear analysis of French civilization and of 20th-century French authors.

300. Schlumberger, Jean, Adieu a Ernst Robert Curtius, Le Figaro litteraire (28April 1956), 3.

Schlumberger's necrology applauds Curtius' courage in mediating French intellectual traditions to Germany.

301. Schroder, Rudolf Alexander, Gedenkrede auf Ernst Robert Curtius, Die Neue Rundschau 67 (1956), 528-534; reprinted in: Orden pour le Merite, Reden und Gedenkworte 2 (1956/1957), 13-19.

Schriider's eulogy reviews Curtius' career, noting the complementary

112

and recurrent aspects of Curtius' research interests, and ends by ex­pressing the fervent hope that Curtius' work will find successors.

302. Sieburg, Friedrich, Lorbeer fur E. R. Curtius, Die Zeit no.15 (12April 1956), 2.

Sieburg, who, as the Paris correspondent of the Frankfurter Zeitung during the 1920's, like Curtius acted as a mediator of French culture in Germany (particularly evident in his Gott in Frankreich?, Ein Ver­such, [1929]), summarizes the dominant trends in Curtius' writings. Sieburg explains that Curtius tried to make a place for Literatur in German culture, «Wir Deutschen kennen den Begriff der Literatur in diesem Sinne nicht; wir kennen !eider nur Dichter und Denker». Sie­burg maintains that Curtius' turning to the Middle Ages clearly grew out of his modernist concerns, evident in his work from the 1920's on contemporary French authors and on T. S. Eliot and James Joyce. Sieburg concludes by wondering whether the hostility toward culture ( Kulturhaf3) which Curtius had excoriated in Deutscher Geist in Ge­fahr has in fact been extinguished in Germany.

303. Usinger, Fritz, Ernst Robert Curtius, zum 70. Geburtstag, Deutsche Rundschau 82 (1956), 396-397; reprinted in: Usinger's Miniaturen, Kleine literarische Gedenk-Bilder, (Merzhausen, 1980), 79-81.

Usinger provides a short review of Curtius' career and a personal tribute to him.

1957

304. Bergmann, Wolf, Zurn Tode von Ernst Robert Curtius, Neue Schweizer Rundschau 56 (1956/1957), 307-312.

In this personal tribute, Bergmann emphasizes Curtius' ties to Max Rychner, editor of the Neue Schweizer Rundschau. Bergmann takes note of the accuracy of Curtius' portrayal of France and expresses the hope that Curtius' writings will represent an «open» system of critical possibilities.

305. Boleo, Manuel de Paiva, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (Portuguese trans­lation, 1957), Revista portuguesa de filologia 8 (1957), 481.

This review welcomes the publication of ELLMA in Portuguese and finds the translation generally satisfactory.

306. Bumke, Joachim, Die Auflosung des Tugendsystems bei Wernher von El­mendorf, Zeitschrift fiir deutsches Altertum 88 (1957), 39-54; reprinted in Eifler (ed.), Ritterliches Tugendsystem (1970), 401-421.

Bumke shows convincingly that Wernher von Elmendorfs adapta­tion of the Moralium dogma represents an extensive reworking of the original. Wernher did not concern himself with the definition of virtue so important in his source but concentrated instead on practical

113

suggestions, and thus turned what had been a moral treatise into a di­dactic poem, replacing its honestumlutile dichotomy with a treatment of re ht, milte, st<£te and maze (recalling a similar emphasis found in Thomasin von Zerclaere). This shift reflects in all likelihood, Bumke demonstrates, the influence of didactic passages in Gautier de Cha­tillon's popular Alexandreis.

307. Dufrenne, Mikel, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (French translation, 1956), Revue d'Esthetique 10 (1957), 213-214.

Dufrenne commends Curtius' «passionate» rehabilitation of philol­ogy, «passione parce qu'il combat sans menagement la pratique actu­elle de la science litteraire, et meme - sreur ennemie? - de la litterature, et enfin de l'histoire qui pense nations ou etats et non ci­vilisations». At the same time Dufrenne criticizes Curtius' restricting himself to philology:

Son propos est de montrer, dans la litterature, la permanence de certains tours et de certains themes, et non de montrer comment se compose une conception du monde; ii reste dans Jes limites de la philologie. Du mains enseigne-t-il il quel point la philologie peut eveiller la reflexion, lorsqu'elle est ainsi pratiquee: de main de maitre.

308. Fernandez, Dominique, La Litterature, est-elle une rhetorique?, La Nou-velle Revue Fran~ais 9 (1957), 894-902.

In this favorable review of ELLMA, Fernandez, observes that Curtius' thesis is not born from «Une cervelle retrecie de pedagogue, mais d'une conscience angoissee d'humaniste». Fernandez mentions the importance of the influence of Toynbee, C. G. Jung and Georges Du­mezil on Curtius. In discussing Curtius' treatment of Hofmannsthal, Fernandez explains Curtius' use of the word tradition: «tradition ne veut pas dire dans le passage cite: continuite historique de !'Europe, mais: restauration catholique de !'Europe. Ce passage est d'ailleurs unique». Fernandez wonders why Curtius does not mention 19th­century Russian literature, and reflects that the current cultural crisis does not touch upon literature as such as much as upon the con­ception of literature which for Curtius constitutes a learned tradition:

Il faudrait etudier le developpement des litteratures realistes et populaires, il partir du roman fran~ais, anglais, russe et americain; montrer que ce n'est pas la culture europeenne qui est morte, mais un nouveau public mondial qui est ne. [902]

309. Frappier, Jean, Sur «La litterature europeenne et le moyen age latin», Revue de Paris 64 (September 1957), 148-152; reprinted in Frappier's Histoire, mythe et symboles, Etude de Iitterature fram;ais, (Geneva, 1976), 111-115.

114

After summarizing ELLMA, Frappier briefly considers Curtius' omis­sions, particularly his failure to treat the Bible. For Frappier the Gre-

co-Roman tradition does not sufficiently account for either the gene­sis or the range of medieval literature. Moreover, it is incorrect to view the Middle Ages as a trait d'union between Antiquity and European modernity. Frappier criticizes Curtius' interpretation of the motif of translatio studii in Chretien's Cliges: Curtius had taken exception to Etienne Gilson's interpretation and maintained that Chretien's prologue should not be construed as a humanistic pro­fession of faith. (On this last point, see: Michelle Freeman, Chretien's «Cliges»: A Close Reading of the Prologue, Romanic Review 67 (1976], 89-101.)

310. Groult, P., Culture medievale, Les lettres romanes 11 (1957), 333-334. Groult gives a short appreciative summary of Curtius' article on Tra­dizione medievale e cultura moderna, Convivium 24 (1956), 1-15, without critical summary. (See Bibliography, entry no. 305.)

311. Lausberg, Heinrich, E. R. Curtius, Neue Deutsche Biographie, (Berlin, 1957), III, 447-448.

Lausberg presents a short biographical notice on Curtius, considerab­ly expanded in his essay published in Bonner Gelehrte (entry no. 380).

312. Lausberg, Heinrich, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (2nd printing, 1954; and Spanish translation, 1955), Archiv fur <las Studium der neueren Spra­chen und Literaturen 193 (1957), 71-72.

After noting the overwhelming success of ELLMA, Lausberg explains in detail the locus theologicus of the nomina Christi mentioned by Curtius (233, n. l). Lausberg reviews the Spanish translation, corrects one faulty translation, and comments on several questions of Mariol­ogy.

313. Leder, Joseph, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (French translation, 1956), Etudes, 90• annee, no. 294 (July-August-September, 1957), 141-142.

Leder maintains in this short review that the unity of ELLMA derives principally from Curtius' intention itself to demonstrate the continui­ty of the European literary tradition.

314. Leleu, Michelle, Charles Du Bos et Curtius, Cahiers Charles Du Bos 2 (December 1957), 3-4.

Leleu introduces the French translation of Curtius' first essay on Du Bos (from: Die Literatur 28[October1925), 10-17). She traces briefly the course of their friendship, noting the growing rift between the two which stemmed from Curtius' disapproval of Du Bos' remarks on Gide's homosexuality in his Dialogue avec Andre Gide. She notes:

II est pennis de penser que, dans les derniers temps, cette amitie naguere si confiante et harmonieuse avait subi quelque alteration dans sa nature meme. Au lendemain de la mort de Du Bos, Curtius confiait a un ami commun: «Lit-

115

terairement et intellectuellement nous n'avions plus beaucoup de choses en commun, excepte W. Pater, Keats et la peinture. Mais sur un plan beaucoup plus profond, j'eprouvais pour lui un amour et un respect qui n'ont jamais va­rie et ne le feront jamais» (Lettre a Jacques Heurgon du 16 aoilt 1939).

315. Rychner, Max, Lesen als Begegnung, Curtius zum 70. Geburtstag, den er nur um vier Tage uberleben sollte, Arachne, Aufsatze zur Literatur, (Zurich, 1957), 311-332.

Rychner's personal meditation on reading which is dedicated to Cur­tius ends in an encomium on Curtius' contribution in transforming the experience of reading various authors into an encounter ( Begeg­nung) with the unity of mankind.

316. Schalk, Fritz, Ernst Robert Curtius, Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 19 (1957), 416-420.

Schalk's comments on the format of the Freundesgabe point to two recurrent features of Curtius' career: the little sympathy shown Cur­tius by his Romanist colleagues in Germany, and Curtius' combina­tion of poetry and scholarship:

Die Herausgeber haben es fiir das Richtige gehalten, keinen deutschen Roma­nisten zur Mitarbeit aufzufordern, aber sie haben in einer Zeit, in der die Wis­senschaft immer mehr in einzelne Gebiete zu zerfallen droht, Poesie und For­schung in mannigfalten Zweigen und Richtungen sich vertreten !assen.

317. Spitzer, Leo, Ernst Robert Curtius, Hispanic Review 25 (1957), 24-25. In this necrology Spitzer reaffirms the discontinuity of Curtius' career, moving from medieval studies under Grober toward a role as arbiter elegantiarum following the First World War and then re­turning to a 'neo-positivist' position in response to Nazism. Spitzer the Hispanist applauds Curtius for showing that «many of the so­called 'baroque' features of siglo de oro literature, and also much of what is called 'typically Spanish' in that literature, is only a con­tinuation of much older inter-Romance or Latin trends». Although Curtius, as far as Spitzer is concerned, perhaps ignored change too much, he still praises Curtius' finesse in recognizing that «the truth of continuity is as great as the truth of change».

1958

318. Frank, Grace, and U. T. Holmes, Jr. and E. H. Wilkins, Ernst Robert Curtius, Speculum 33 (1958), 460-461.

116

This short necrology emphasizes how Curtius endeavored to clarify «the universal tendencies derived from Rome that have formed the basis of European literature».

319. Hennecke, Hans, Ge/ehrte Liebeserkliirungen, Ernst Robert Curtius Kritik, Gesammelte Essays zur modernen Literatur, (Giitersloh, 1958» 272-275. '

Hennecke argues that Curtius' approach represents ultimately a kind of applied humanism (Humanismus am Werke) which strives for a critical orientation based on «Vital reason» (vita/e Vernunft), that is on a combination of intuition, creativity and intelligence, rather tha~ on ideology. The critic-scholar, says Hennecke, must love his subject as a precondition for understanding it, as Curtius did.

320. Hourlier, J., Review of Curtius, ELLMA (French translation, 1956), Re-vue d'histoire ecclesiastique 53 (1958), 245.

Hourlier suggests in this brief review that a more appropriate title for Curtius' work would be L'esprit de /'Europe medieva/e, d'apres sa rhetorique.

321. Jackson, W. T. H., Review of Curtius, ELLMA (French translation, 1956), Romanic Review 49 (1958), 203--205.

Jackson uses this review to examine the reception of ELLMA in the first ten years since it appeared. Jackson criticizes the superficial application of the concept of topos by many writers who have failed to study the particular merits and specific ramifications of the topoi which they pretend to be investigating. This approach has little pur­chase for the continued study of rhetoric in the Middle Ages. Jackson comments on the polemic regarding «das ritterliche Tugendsystem», finding that while Curtius was justified in general, he was frequently unfair and sometimes inaccurate in his criticism of Ehrismann. Jack­son concludes by noting that Curtius' research fulfills an important precondition for a greater synthesis of medieval literary scholarship.

322. Lausberg, Heinrich, Review of the Freundesgabe (1956), Archiv fiir das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 194 (1958), 242-243.

Lansberg examines succinctly the contents of the Freundesgabe.

323. Petronio, Giuseppe, Ernst Robert Curtius o la critica de/ luogo comune, Societa 14 (1958), 781-799.

This famous Marxist scholar sees in Curtius' ELLMA a fundamentally Roman Catholic book which diverts literary criticism away from his­torical problems by transforming the topos into a metahistorical con­struct. Previously, Petronio notes, the Marxist critic had to fight against Croce; now, he contends, the danger comes from so-called philologists and stylistic critics, both groups having an aesthetic rather than an historical orientation. Curtius' cultural analysis is all the more dangerous for Petronio because it hides an elitist ideology. Petronio discounts Curtius' nova rhetorica, finding it not so different from the 'old' rhetoric. As a counter-example to Curtius' plea for

117

continuity, Petronio compares the syntax of Boccaccio with that of Guittone d'Arezzo. Finally, Curtius' approach is dangerous not only because of its (alleged) Catholicism but also because of its appeal to irrazionalismo psicanalitico (i.e., the connection which Curtius draws between his topoi and a Jungian collective unconscious).

324. Pickering, F. P., On Coming to Terme with Curtius, German Life and Letters N.S. 11 (1957/1958), 335-345; reprinted in Pickering's Essays on Medieval German Literature and Iconography, (Cambridge, 1980), 177-

180; 223--225. In this cranky and disorganized review Pickering challenges Curtius essentially on two grounds: first, Curtius fails to recognize a hierarchy of genres governed by subject matters (an objection which recalls the Curtius/ Auerbach dispute which Pickering does not mention); sec­ond, Curtius' suggestion that the Fathers should be read as 'liter­ature' strikes Pickering as misdirected because the scholar should concentrate on Patristic thought rather than use it as a source of potential topoi. Pickering reduces Curtius' approach to a mechanical topology, and having set up this straw man, proceeds to tear it down.

325. Van Tieghem, Philippe, Review of Curtius, ELLMA (French translation, 1956), Revue d'histoire litteraire de la France 58 (1958), 374-376.

For Van Tieghem ELLMA reflects Curtius' awareness of the impend­ing rupture between modern literature and the formal (i.e., rhetorical) tradition of Antiquity as this tradition had been trans­mitted. Van Tieghem stresses the profound affinity between Curtius' phenomenological approach to literature and a philological one.

1959

326. Adler, Alfred, Curtius and the Old French Epic, Symposium 13 (1959),

88--95.

118

Adler examines Curtius' five essays on the Old French epic from the perspective of Curtius' own criteria for evaluating the formation of epic poetry. Curtius felt that the origin of Old French epic should be viewed in the context of historical events during the period of Philip II Augustus ( ca.1200) and in the context of a comprehensive repertory of narrative themes and stylistic devices occurring within the entire body of Old French epic poetry. This approach could cast light on the intimate relationship between the chanson de geste and history and provide the basis for appreciatin individual differences between the various epic poems according to their proper narrative and stylistic context. Adler finds that the 'Carolingian' aspirations of Philip II Au­gustus played a significant role in the «fermentation» of epics dealing with Charlemagne; thus the formation of epics in the cycle du roi re-

fleets a symbiosis between history and popular tradition. Adler warns, however, that Curtius' emphasis of the need for a repertory of topoi tends to lead to a mechanical treatment of literary works. Adler connects Curtius' antagonism toward Auerbach's theory of the sepa­ration and hierarchy of styles (in Mimesis) with Curtius' failure to dif­ferentiate between various Old French epics whose individuality in fact often derives from the peculiar combination of styles found in a single work. Adler characterizes Curtius' discussion of Renaut de Montauban as «a beautiful document humain of a German scholar's faith in the redeeming power of Romanic culture», recalling the young Goethe's love for Renaut and his three brothers (Die Kinder Heyemann) and Jacob Grimm's enthusiasm for the same poem.

327. Hocke, Gustav Rene, Manierismus in der Literatur, Sprach-Alchemie und esoterische Kombinationskunst, Beitriige zur vergleichenden europiii­schen Literaturgeschichte, (Hamburg, 1959).

Hocke extends to the study of literature the approach he had taken in his Die Welt as Labyrinth, (Hamburg, 1957), an investigation ofman­neristic constants in the history of art. Curtius' manneristic criteria serve as Hocke's point of departure, though he largely takes them out of their original context of a mannerist/classic dichotomy. Some crit­ics (see Hauser, entry no. 353) have tended to reject Curtius' original remarks because of Hocke's systematic expansion of them here, whereas others (Yuill, see entry no. 360) dissociate the two.

328. Tubach, Friedrich, The «locus amoenus» in the «Tristan» of Gottfried of Straf3burg, Neophilologus 43 (1959), 37-42.

Tubach argues in very concise terms that Gottfried's application of the locus amoenus topos follows programmatically earlier medieval Latin examples; he contends that the depiction of the Minnegrotte (vv. 16734-16770)

shows a minimum of deviation from the tradition pattern evident in classical and middle latin [sic] landscape presentations. It contains the customary six in­gredients of the elaborate examples of the topos. Their elaborations follow a deliberately applied numerical pattern, the traditional scheme of summariza­tion is present. [ 41]

Tubach distinguishes five topical pleasances in Gottfried's Tristan from other depictions of nature there in order to underscore the con­ventionality of the former. (See Rainer Gruenter's more nuanced treatment of the same problem, entry no. 338.)

1960

329. Alonso, Damaso, Tradition or Polygenesis?, Modern Humanities Re­search Bulletin no. 32 (November 1960), 17-34.

119

Alonso argues that an individual poet's original and personal (i.e., idiosyncratic) expression which may present the symptoms of poly­genesis, remains original and personal regardless of literary borrow­ings. Several examples call Curtius' topology into question, as for in­stance the occurrence of a formula in the Poema del Cid independent of several parallel formulas in a number of Old French epics. The 'injuries of love' topos is found in Sanskrit, Hellenistic, Persian and Arabic texts as well as in European works, which favors the hypo­thesis that such correlative examples occur because of polygenesis and not because of literary tradition.

330. Horst, Karl August, Ein Lehrmeister europiiischer Bi/dung, Zeitwende, Die neue Furche 31 (1960), 658-668.

Horst presents here a series of personal recollections of Curtius which underscore the consistency of Curtius' commitment to ancient, me­dieval and modern literature.

331. Poggeler, Otto, Dichtungstheorie und Toposforschung, Jahrbuch fiir As­thetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft 5 (1960), 89-201; reprinted in part in Jehn (ed.), Toposforschung (1972), 69-74; and in Baeumer (ed.), Toposforschung (1973), 22-135.

P6ggeler expatiates on the theoretical assumptions and ramifications of Curtius' «poetological topology», providing an implicit defense of Curtius' method against the criticism that Curtius had abused the his­torical application of the term topos. P6ggeler repeatedly refers to Curtius' use of the topos as the foundation of an historical topology (historische Topik) which is not systematic and normative like the to­pology of classical Antiquity (die antiken Topoi):

Curtius hat die normative Topik der antiken Rhetorik umgeformt zu einer hi­storischen Topik, zu einer Erforschung von Grundaussagen, von Denk- und Ausdrucksschemate, die immer wieder von der Tradition weitergegeben, die neu gefunden oder neu verlebendigt werden und zum bloBen Klischee erstar­ren k6nnen. [108]

P6ggeler's central defense of Curtius is that the poetological (dich­tungstheoretisch) thrust of his topological studies represents a methodological innovation, regardless of terminological in­consistencies, and contributes to the formation of a phenomenology of literature.

332. Rizzo, Gino, Va/ore e limite del contributo de Ernst Robert Curtius agli studi danteschi, Italia 37 (1960), 277-286.

120

Rizzo contests in a somewhat fussy manner Curtius' contention that Dante's works reflect the essential characteristics of medieval Latin literature and that medieval Latin literature is as important as trouba­dour lyric and the poetry of the dolce stil nuovo for understanding the

Commedia. Rizzo, moreover, objects to Curtius' claim that a critical orientation which considers Dante within the context of medieval Latin is in effect contrary to 'official' Dante scholarship.

333. Rychner, Max, Nachwort, in: E. R. Curtius, Buchertagebuch, (Berne/ Munich, 1960), 113-114.

In reviewing the literary career of his longtime friend, Rychner stresses the similarity in approach and intention found in all of Cur­tius' writings: ELLMA and Buchertagebuch both share the same kind of intellectual breadth and both underscore the need for a broad per­spective in literary criticism.

334. Tijeras, Eduardo, Ensayos criticos de Curtius, Cuadernos hispanoameri-canos 44 (1960), 112-120.

Tijeras gives a resume of each of Curtius' essays, demonstrating im­plicitly the consistency in Curtius' critical approach from the earliest essay on Emerson, written in 1924, to the last essay on Goethe, com­posed in 1951.

335. Vinay, Gustavo, Filologia e ambizioni storiografiche, Studi medievali, ser. 3, vol.1 (1960), 195-202.

In this bizarre misinterpretation of Curtius in what is supposed to be a review of the French translation of ELLMA, Vinay criticizes Curtius for the discontinuity of his argumentation: the density of philo­logical, theological, philosophical, sociological and psychoanalytical references confuse and annoy Vinay who speaks of «Un mare agitato di riferimenti ( ... ) la cui suggestivita non vale sicuramente a rendere migliore la navigazione». Vinay claims that Curtius' critical dogma­tism contradicts his professed defense of liberty. The breadth of Cur­tius' perspective means that the field for research is limited only by the individual researcher's physical stamina. Vinay makes short shrift of Curtius' claim that Dante's Commedia can be understood as an en­counter with Vergil. This contention shows, according to Vinay, that Curtius confuses the solution of a critical problem with a catalogued summary of cultural influences («la somma di una elencazione cul­turale»). Curtius therefore fails to see how simple the relation of Dante to Vergil really is! (On this last point, see Robert Hollander, II Virgilio di Dante: Tragedia nella «Commedia», [Florence, 1982].) Vinay argues that Curtius' literary and aesthetic emphasis miscon­strues medieval Latin literature as well as the important problems of medieval Latin philology. Finally Vinay reproaches Curtius for erect­ing an edifice of literary critical thought in which concern for literary technique replaces concern for philosophical content.

336. Wentzlaff-Eggebert, Friedrich-Wilhelm, «Devotio» in der Kreuzzugs-

121

predigt des Mittelalters, Ein Beitrag zum ritterlichen Tugendsystem, in: Volk, Sprache, Dichtung, Festgabe fiir Kurt Wagner, eds. K. Bischoff and L. Rohrich, (GieBen, 1960), 26-33; reprinted in Eifler (ed.), Ritter­liches Tugendsystem (1970), 422--430.

Wentzlaff-Eggebert demonstrates how homilies treating the crusades repeatedly appeal to a notion of chivalric devotio which fuses Christian and Classical values, and argues that historical reality is more clearly revealed in this one example of the semantic develop­ment of devotio than in a reconstructed system of chivalric virtues.

1961

337. GaB, Karl Eugen, Pisaner Tagebuch, Aufzeichnungen, Briefe, ed. P. E. Hiibinger, (Darmstadt, 1961), passim.

GaB' remarks on his teacher Curtius in the letters which he wrote to his wife during the war provide important insight into Curtius' po­sition at this time (all the more so when one recalls that Curtius viewed GaB as his successor):

- May 23, 1943: Bewunderungswiirdig fur die Art, wie jemand seinem Lebens­sinn die Treue halt, ist mir Curtius, der in seinen Briefen mit keinem Wort die Zeit erwahnt. Sie kann ihn vemichten, aber nicht antasten. [305] - February 8, 1944: So legte [Curtius] einen sehr amiisanten Bericht eines Freundes Uber einen Besuch bei Jaspers in Heidelberg bei, vor dem er wohl doch Achtung empfindet, <lessen Philosophenhaltung er aber stets ein wenig ins Liicherliche ziehen muB, weil sie seiner Natur gar zuwider ist. [332] - June 26, 1944: In [Curtius'] letzte[m] Brief war er so resigniert, weil keiner der Fachgenossen mehr rechtes Verstiindnis fiir historische Fragestellungen hiitte und die Kenntnisse der Harer immer diirftiger wiirden. [364-365]

338. Gruenter, Rainer, Das «Wunnecliche ta!», Euphorion 55 (1961), 341-403.

122

Gruenter presents a detailed and nuanced investigation of the locus amoenus topos in Gottfried's Tristan, supplemented with carefully chosen comparisons to such other Tristan texts as the Saga, Sir Tris­trem and La Tavola Ritonda and to a number of medieval Latin works. Gruenter persuasively and exhaustively shows that Gottfried was indeed influenced by the use of the locus amoenus topos by his predecessors, but by the same token borrowed elements from de­scriptions of Paradise in clerical poetry, from the long exegetical tra­dition of the Song of Songs, and from the Natureingang so character­istic of Minnesang. The importance of this detailed analysis (which supplants that of Tubach, see entry no. 328) serves to enrich Curtius' earlier observations on the pleasance by showing the delicate inter­weaving of various literary traditions which occur in combination with the topos and by demonstrating at the same time Gottfried's

own poetic originality in incorporating so many literary conventions in his work.

339. Klemperer, Victor, Das neue deutsche Frankreichsbild, (1914-1933), Ein historischer Oberblick, Beitrage zur romanischen Philologie 1 (1961), 17-61; 2 (1962), 70-115.

This posthumously published essay by Klemperer, written between March 11th and April 16th, 1933, and a moving document humain more than a finished piece of scholarship (Klemperer did not publish it with his collected essays, Var '33-Nach '45, Gesammelte Aufsiitze, [Berlin, 1956)), reviews in detail German studies of French culture undertaken between 1914 and 1933. Klemperer favors Curtius' Weg­bereiter over Eduard WechBler's Esprit und Geist. It is significant that Klemperer identifies Curtius' studies of French civilization as being authoritative for the contemporary intellectual left: «[ Curtius' Weg­bereiter] ist fiir die kulturpolitische Linke so maBgebend, wie WechB­ler's Buch die kulturpolitische Rechte beherrscht» [(1962), 71]. Klemperer approves Curtius' book because it emphasized the Latin element in French culture which WechBler had disparaged. More­over, Klemperer recommends the study of Antiquity as a remedy for the faults and shortcomings of the studies of French civilization which had been produced until then, a suggestion which, one might add, anticipates Curtius' interest in the transmission of classical culture in ELLMA:

Im Programm des Franzosischen Gymnasiums fiir das Jahr 1930 heiBt es einlei­tend: «La connaissance de l'antiquite etant la base de toute la culture euro­peenne et la connaissance de la France, representant principal de la culture europeene occidentale, donnant du relief aux particularites de la civilisation al­lemande, notre ecole considere comme devoir essentielle de mener notre jeu­nesse a ces sources intellectuelles et de lui faire comprendre notre civilisation allemande». Um auf derart ideale Weise franzOsische Kulturkunde und in ihr indirekte Deutschkunde zu treiben, muB man sich dem Altertum und Frank­reich mil gleicher Hingebung widmen konnen. [(1962), 115]

340. Tuve, Rosemund, Baroque and Mannerist Milton?, Journal of English and Germanic Philology 60 (1961), 817-833; reprinted in: Essays by Rosemond Tuve: Spenser, Herbert, Milton, ed. Thomas Roche, Jr., (Princeton, 1970), 262-280.

Tuve dismisses Curtius' use of the term 'mannerist', basing her argu­ment on examples taken from English literature:

Curtius' attempt to call literary pieces Mannerist if they used hyperbaton, an­nominatio, periphrasis (a thing we can indeed determine and agree on) pro­vided no criterion; for all literature does so, and for a hundred reasons. This cannot separate Lycidas from Drayton's Mortimeriados, to say nothing of severing a Mannerist Nativity Hymn from a Renaissance Camus. Curtius him­self moved toward one of the ways to make this observation of something ubi-

123

quitous into a criterion that can differentiate, by implying that it was the pre­sence of very many or too many such devices which could bring a work under the rubric of Mannerism. [819-820]

Tuve explains her uneasiness with Curtius' terminology, commenting on «too many such devices» (which is, it should be noted, Tuve's own inference rather than Curtius' implication):

Of course the moment «too many» comes in, our criterion is no longer based upon the presence of something determinably there, but upon a norm in the mind or sensibility of the judge. One's discomfort about this is not due to an un­willingness to depend on evaluations referable chiefly to a reader's impression­istic report of his reactions. People can agree that there is «too much» of some­thing, but usually they do so not because firm evidence can be brought to bear, but rather because their tastes click and their linguistic sensibilities are similar. [820]

Tuve is amused at critics «who like Curtius know exactly what the <one way of saying things naturally> would be» (824), and adds, «Crit­icism properly discusses such matters, but neither as a first step nor without safeguards touching evidence». Tuve's criticism of Curtius distorts Curtius' remarks on mannerism rather severely. She omits four of Curtius' seven criteria for mannerism, overlooks his classic/ mannerist dichotomy (or misconstrues it, as the title of her article seems to imply), and seems to have misunderstood Curtius' applic­ation of the term in a non-art historical sense (as he explicitly states, «Es steht hier nicht zur Erorterung, ob <las Wort Manierismus als kunstgeschichtliche Epochenbezeichnung gut gewiihlt und wie weit es berechtigt ist. ( ... ] [wir miissen] <las Wort freilich aller kunstge­schichtlichen Gehalte entleeren» ELLMA, p.275).

1962

341. Schlumberger, Jean, Conversations au bard du Rhin, Pierre de Cenival et E. R. Curtius, <Euvres completes, VII, (Paris, 1962), 92-96, 127-131.

124

In the first of these two articles, Schlumberger recalls a conversation with Curtius in January, 1932, in which the two discussed the problems attending the reception of Goethe. Curtius characterized the failings of the academic critics of Goethe in the following terms: «Leur critique est retrospective. ( ... ) Ils traitent Goethe comme un mort, alors que sa place est parmi Jes vivants». This pronouncement shows to what extent Curtius' later dispute with Jaspers on Goethe could have been predicted from Curtius' attitude toward Goethe even prior to the Nazi takeover. In the second essay Schlumberger praises Curtius' analysis of France, hinting that Curtius' conscious­ness of, and pride in his Germanness helped him to a clearer per­spective of France. Schlumberger mentions Curtius' joy in visiting the

French provinces, for there he could see firsthand the settings so often portrayed by Balzac in his novels.

1963

342. Cases, Cesare, I tedeschi e lo spirito francese, in: Saggi e note di lettera­tura tedesca, (Turin, 1963), 5-58; German translation: Die Deutschen und der franzosische Geist, in: Stichworte zur deutschen Literatur, Kri­tische Notizen, (Vienna, 1969), 15-72, 413-418.

Cases sketches out a clear history of the German love-hate relation­ship to French culture. If one drastically simplifies the wealth of do­cumentation which Cases provides, this relationship has historically posited French culture as the opposite of classical civilization (as for Goethe, Schiller and Nietzsche) or of German culture (as for Wag­ner). Out of this dichotomy evolved the notion of the inalterability of French culture, of the Dauerfranzoser, and led to a polemic involving the leading German Romanists of the first half of the 20th century (VoBler, Curtius, Schalk, Spitzer, Friedrich). Cases explains:

In sostanza questi studiosi, in modo indipendente e in forme pill serie, prose­guono la linea nietzschiana del recupero di una cultura francese pili accetta al palatto germanico del periodo imperialistico, ma la proseguono in un momento in cui e diventato pill evidente che e la stessa cultura francese a modificarsi in tal senso, ciO che riduce le deformazioni e guarantisse una maggiora obiettivita, ma al con tempo segna i limiti che presiedono a mo I ti degli sforzi per un 'intesa culturale franco-tedesca nel periodo di Weimar. [51]

The cultural Wegbereiter whom Curtius studied afforded the only appearance of discontinuity, according to Cases, whereas French society in general gave the mistaken impression of continuity.

343. Frenzel, Elisabeth, Stoff-, Motiv- und Symbolforschung, (Stuttgart, 1963, 41978), passim.

In this overall survey of literary scholarship treating themes, motifs and symbols, Frenzel points briefly to the important impetus given such research, particularly since 1960, by ELLMA, a phenomenon which underscores the fact that Curtius' work has received its most favorable reception among comparatists. Frenzel treats topoi as small, discrete units which can be subsumed by literary motifs, an im­portant terminological distinction which Frenzel proposes in her dis­cussion of the differences between themes (Stoffe) and motifs (Motive):

Die Abgrenzung nach dem umfassenderen Begriff des Stoffes hin bedarf der Ergiinzung <lurch die Abgrenzung gegeniiber den kleineren Einheiten. Einzel­stehende sog. Ziige und Bilder, die der naheren Charakterisierung, dem Schmuck, der Stimmung oder auch der geistigen Erhellung des Inhalts dienen, sind keine Motive. Sie iiben im Gesamt des Inhalts keine notwendige, sondern

125

eine nur additive Funktion aus und reichen hiiufig auf das Gebiet des Stilisti­schen hiniiber. ( ... ) Besonders deutlich wird die Wachstumsmoglichkeit klei­ner Einheiten zu Motiven an den sog. Topoi, aus der antiken Rhetorik stam­menden klischeeartigen Ziigen, deren Bedeutung durch die von Ernst Robert Curtius angeregte Toposforschung immer starker erhellt wird. [29-30]

By treating topoi in this manner, Frenzel transforms them into the building-blocks or constituent elements of motifs, a practical solution which seems to have effectively laid to rest many of the termino­logical disputes regarding Curtius' use of topoi, and allowed Frenzel to incorporate Curtius' results into her own fruitful research in per­haps the most methodologically rigorous fashion found in subsequent topological research (cf. Stoffe der Weltliteratur, Stuttgart 1962, 41976; and Motive der Weltliteratur, Stuttgart 1976).

344. Gsteiger, Manfred, Vermiichtnis der deutschen Romanistik, Ernst Robert Curtius, Literatur des Obergangs, (Berne/Munich, 1963), 163--168.

Gsteiger points to the parallels between Curtius' Wegbereiter and ELLMA: both books appeared immediately after a world war to plead for understanding and reconciliation. The hopefulness of the first was dampened by the scepticism of the second. For Gsteiger, Curtius' goal in literary criticism resembles that of Proust in A la recherche du temps perdu: «le temps retrouve».

345. Helbing, Lothar, Zur Einfiihrung, in: Friedrich Gundolf, Briefwechsel mit Herbert Steiner und Ernst Robert Curtius, (Amsterdam, 1963), 58-70.

126

Helbing provides an exceptionally strange defense of George in answer to Curtius' explanation of the reasons for his falling out of fa­vor with George. Helbing feels that Curtius was sadly misinformed concerning George's motives for rejecting Die literarischen Wegberei­ter des neuen Frankreich: Curtius, the would-be disciple, failed to un­derstand the Master George. Helbing vehemently rejects Curtius' use of the term Maximinkult, and argues, repeatedly an old charge, that Curtius' Christianity led him into the «lap of the Catholic church», making him unable to understand George's 'paganism'. The single most important bit of information in this introduction is that Curtius sent the manuscript of Wegbereiter as early as July, 1916 to Georg Bondi (the publisher of the George-Kreis), in the hope that George would grant his imprimatur, which Friedrich Gundolf even expected. In a letter to Gundolf, George explained his rejection of Curtius' book by recommending that Curtius «Wiirde besser weit-entlegene themata wlihlen». This suggestion cannot be construed as a demon­stration of George's having inspired Curtius' medieval research, first because Curtius knew nothing of this letter, and second because Cur-

tius' interest in the Middle Ages stemmed initially from his training under Grober.

346. Mann, Thomas, Briefe, 1937-1947, (Frankfurt, 1963), 569. Mann wrote to Hermann Hesse on November 25, 1947 that he found Curtius' essay on Hesse (first published in Merkur 1[1947],170-185; and reprinted in Kritische Essays) to be the best current evaluation of Hes.se's Glasperlenspiel. Mann, however, noted that this essay «war im Ubrigen wenig genieBbar, politisch gar nicht anzuhoren, - es ist da eine wenigstens partielle intellektuelle Schrumpfung und selbst Ver­elendung, die man bei fast alien findet, die all die Zeit drinnen geses­sen haben, und die zugleich degoutiert und traurig stimmt». Curtius' reactions to Mann are found in several letters which Curtius wrote to Gide (see entry no. 407 below).

347. Ritter-Santini, Lea, Introduzione, in: E. R. Curtius, Studi di letteratura europea, (Bologna, 1963), I-XV.

Ritter-Santini traces Curtius' career in all its intellectual breadth, stresses its unity and consistency, and explains Curtius' reasons for wanting to die in Rome. This appreciative introduction represents perhaps the first sympathetic treatment of Curtius' work by an Italian since Mario Praz's reviews from the 1920's (entries nos.27 and 37; compare with Benedetto Croce, no. 219 and with Giuseppe Petronio, no. 323), and comprises an important effort of cultural and in­tellectual mediation.

348. Rothacker, Erich, Heitere Erinnerungen, (Frankfurt, 1963), 57, 85, 95. In this series of personal reminiscences, Rothacker recalls a scene from the Heidelberg city swimming pool on August 1, 1919, where he saw Ernst Troeltsch, Karl VoB!er, Hans Driesch, Richard Thoma and Curtius all sitting around the swimming pool - an example of the concentration of intellectual talent at the University of Heidelberg at this time. Rothacker, in a more serious tone, tells of the collaboration of several professors at the University of Bonn in the formation of «philosophical-sociological study group»:

Zusammen mit dem geistvollen Sozialokonomen Joseph Schumpeter und dem Universalhistoriker Fritz Kern, zeitweise E. R. Curtius und spater Hans Nau­mann, organisierte ich eine «Philosophisch-soziologische Arbeitsgemein­schafb. ( ... )Die Nazis haben dieser Arbeitsgemeinschaft, die eine Wohltat fur das damalige Bonn war, sofort ein Ende bereitet. [95]

349. Thalmann, Marianne, Romantik und Manierismus, (Stuttgart, 1963). In this diffuse study, Thalmann investigates manneristic tendencies among German Romantic writers, though her remarks do not ad­vance the investigation of literary mannerism because they lack a co­hesive focus.

127

350. Veit, Walter, Toposforschung, ein Forschungsbericht, Deutsche Viertel­jahresschrift 37 (1963), 120--163; reprinted in part in Baeumer (1973), 136-209.

128

This survey (which builds on Veit's Studien zur Geschichte des Topos der Goldenen Zeit van der Antike bis zum 18. Jahrhundert, Inaug.­Diss., Kiiln 1961), reviews the historical rhetorical background be­hind Curtius' specific application of the term topos, which Veit traces back to the rhetoricalization of poetry in late Antiquity as found in Quintilian's discussion of topoi as sedes argumentorum. Veit wonders what poetic theory and exordia topics have in common besides the element of 'tradition' (and a highly fluid concept of 'tradition' at that). Veit allows nevertheless that Curtius' loosely defined notion of topoi permitted a large measure of freedom to succeeding research­ers. Veit cites Rudolf Kayser on the advantages of Toposforschung: first it afforded sharper focus for research on definite themes and motifs, and second it permitted a clearer understanding of the historical evolution of specific themes. Curtius' rhetorical emphasis and partial neglect of extra-textual, historical aspects underscores, says Veit, the obvious affinities between Toposforschung and stylistic criticism.

At this point Veit considers the importance of medieval Latin rhetoric for medieval German literature, noting the puzzling refusal of so eminent a medievalist as Helmut de Boor to view Waltharius, Ruodlieb and Hroswitha's Terentian plays as pertinent for contem­porary medieval German poetry. This part of Veil's survey revolves around three questions: first, whether parallels or coincidences among topoi stem from literary tradition and rhetorical education or from some unconscious new creation out of the Zeitgeist, through a kind of stylistic compulsion, (that is, one needs to determine to what extent literary tradition and rhetorical education assume a tran­scendental - one might say 'metalinguistic' - role in the form of topoi); second, whether 'original' composition existed during the Middle Ages; third, how correct Curtius' evaluation of medieval German literature is. Veit summarizes at length the remarks made by Otto Piiggeler (Dichtungstheorie und Toposforschung, entry no. 331) in order to elucidate the poetological ramifications of Curtius' application of topoi as the «leading viewpoints of thought which be­come crystalized as formulas» in literary criticism and in other in­tellectual disciplines. Piiggeler had argued that topology constitutes neither a theory of topoi nor a systematic explanation of topoi but rather «an anthology of fundamental pronouncements» ( eine Stellen­auslese van Grundaussagen) and provides thereby an almost per­manently provisional basis for future research. In this manner topology incorporates the historical tradition of the topics and lays the foundation for a potential reconciliation of topical and dialectical

thought on the one hand with apodeictic or critical/systematic thought on the other, a reconciliation as proposed by Aristotle and Vi co.

Veit next examines the Aristotelian background behind the entire question of the topics, since Aristotle's importance for the dis­cussion of topology had hitherto been completely neglected. For Aristotle the topos was that part of speech from which a dialectical conclusion follows, that is, a topos for Aristotle comprised a formal element of discourse, rather than a 'receptacle' for a specifically de­lineated, recurrent content. A topos afforded a means of verifying the truth of a statement. For this reason Veit finds Curtius' transla­tion of Quintilian's definition of a topos as sedes argumentorum as «Fundgruben fiir den Gedankengang» (English, «storehouses of trains of thought») to be misleading because it emphasizes content at the expense of form. Veit cites several rhetorical writer to support his contention, e.g., C. Julius Victor («hi loci ideo communes appellan­tur, quia in omni genere causarum ex his argumenta duci possunt») and Cassiodorus ( «collectiones argumentorum quae Graeci topica di­cunt»). Veit notes that the dilemma for future topological research is that Curtius' application of the term topos has so strongly influenced research that a return to the Aristotelian meaning of the term is im­possible, regardless of the inadequacies of Curtius' use of the con­cept. Given this dilemma Veit suggests a redefinition of topos as a «discrete cognitive element» (Denkform). Veit devotes the re­mainder of his survey to applying this new definition to the results of several studies on topoi. For example, Veit claims, the subsequent monographs influenced by Curtius' topos of poetry as theology present even more profound agreements with one another in light of Veil's redefinition of a topos as a Denkform.

351. Wellek, Rene, The Crisis of Comparative Literature, Concepts of Crit­icism, (New Haven, 1963), 288.

Wellek cites a passage from Curtius' Franzosischer Geist im 20. Jahr­hundert:

Ich weiB nur eine Art, ein guter Europa.er zu sein: mit Macht die Seele seiner Nation haben, und sie mit Macht nahren von allem, was es Einzigartiges gibt in der Seele der anderen Nationen, der befreundeten oder der feindlichen. [237]

Wellek claims that this remark amounts to a recommendation of cultural power politics on Curtius' part, to a notion according to which the various elements of a foreign culture are used to strengthen the culture of the nation on the receiving end. Arthur Evans pointed out that Wellek seriously misinterpreted this passage:

Wellek has read too hastily: the citation is not from Curtius himself, as it is clearly purported to be, but from Andre Suares! Nor can it be said to be quoted by Curtius in support of his own views; rather it is drawn from the section, Zurn

129

Bi/de Frankreichs (pp. 223-42), in which the German critic surveys objectively, largely through quotation, the different conceptions of their own country held by the authors treated in the main part of the Wegbereiter. [entry no. 379, 100, n.29]

1964

352. Friedrich, Hugo, Epochen der italienischen Lyrik, (Frankfurt, 1964), 536.

Friedrich offers an important commentary on Curtius' use of the term 'mannerist':

Es ist vorgeschlagen warden, den Terminus 'Barack' iiberhaupt abzuschaffen und ihn durch 'Manierismus' zu ersetzen. Hierbei hat man insofern recht, als barockes Dichten ein Sonderfall des manieristischen ist. Da letzteres aber im Wechselrhythmus der Stilmoglichkeiten als ein Typus literarischen Verhaltens beharrlich wiederkehrt, bietet sein Name keine Handhabe zur chronologisch genauen Kennzeichnung. Der Begriff des Manierismus ist sehr wohl verwend­bar, wenn man mit ihm jenen iiberzeitlichen Typus versteht ( ... ) Um aber die manieristische Literatur des 17. Jahrhunderts (in Italien, Spanien, England, Deutschland) zu kennzeichnen, scheint immer noch der Terminus 'Barack' am dienlichsten.

353. Hauser, Arnold, Der Manierismus, Die Krise der Renaissance und der Ursprung der modernen Kunst, (Munich, 1964), 38-39.

130

Hauser rejects Curtius' conceptualization of literary mannerism:

Ernst Robert Curtius ist in besonderem Ma.Be bestrebt, aus dem Manierismus einen geschichtlich so gut wie indifferenten, sich naturgesetzlich wiederholen­den, jedesmal die gleiche formale Struktur aufweisenden Stil zu machen. Das kann man freilich our, wenn man die beiden Begriffe manieristisch und manie­riert voneinander zu unterscheiden unterla.Bt. Was Curtius und diejenigen, die den gleichen Fehler begehen, irrefiihrt, ist der Umstand, daB der Manierismus immer auch ( ... ) einen manierierten Zug an sich triigt. ( ... ) Es handelt sich hi er aber um zwei vollkommen verschiedene Erscheinungen und dementsprechend um zwei verschiedene Bedeutungen, die man mit dem Wort Manier verbindet. ( ... ) [Man kann] natiirlich vom einen 'Manierismus' der verschiedensten ge­schichtlichen Perioden sprechen, doch nur auf eine ganz allgemeine, abstrakte Weise, die mit Geschichte vie! weniger als mit Psychologie und Kunstkritik zu tun hat.

Hauser, in his eagerness to draw parallels between historical events from the first half of the 16th century and the development of Man­nerist art, fails to recall that Curtius simply borrowed the term 'man­nerism' from art history without intending to comment on the validity of art historical periodization (something, however, which Gustav Rene Hocke attempts in his Die Welt als Labyrinth, Manier und Ma­nie in der europiiischen Kunst, Hamburg 1957), that Curtius specifi­cally used 'mannerism' in tandem with 'classicism' in discussing lit­erary styles, and that Curtius was careful to distinguish between prob-

!ems facing the literary scholar and those confronting the art historian.

354. Horst, Karl August, Vorbemerkung, in: E. R. Curtius, Ein Briefwechsel mit Jose Ortega y Gasset (1923-1949), ed. K. A. Horst, Merkur 18 (1964), 903-914.

Horst explains the evolution of Curtius' reaction to Ortega y Gasset, a change which might best be illustrated by citing two letters from Curtius:

- March 12, 1924: Deutschland ist seit Krieg und Revolution immer mehr ost­lichen (russischen und asiatischen) Einfliissen verfallen. Nach meiner Oberzeu­gung ist es notwendig, diesen Tendenzen wieder die klare Gestalt lateinisch­mittelmeerischer Cultur entgegenzustellen. Und dabei will es mir scheinen, als ob Spanien in dieser Beziehung gegenwiirtig wichtiger sei als Italien, dessen Geist mir allzu egocentrisch erscheint. Auch das Denken Benedetto Croces halte ich fiir - unbewuBt - national begrenzt und fiir einseitig. - October 21, 1949: Nicht Ihnen habe ich mich entfremdet, wohl aber - in ge­wissem MaBe - der Philosophie. Dafiir bin ich der Geschichte niiher geriickt: einer auBerphilosophischen Geschichtsanschauung, deren Meister fiir mich Goethe, Ranke und Burckhardt sind. Diese Wandlung ist mir wohl bewuBt: sie bedeutet Entfaltung meiner Entelechie.

355. Rocher, Daniel, Tradition latine et morale chevaleresque (Apropos du «Ritterliches Tugendsystem»), Etudes germaniques 19 (1964), 127-141; German translation with addendum published in Eifler (ed.), Ritterliches Tugendsystem (1970), 452-477.

Rocher maintains that the Moralium dogma could have been access­ible to a German lay public as early as the last quarter of the 12th century, and that it was symptomatic of a «precocious» Ciceronian renaissance. Citing Delhaye, he defends the division between moral philosophy and moral theology which Curtius had contested. Perhaps the most important contribution of Rocher's article is the clarification of the relationship of the Moralium dogma to its Ciceronian source:

Tel1es sont les limites de la 'christianisation' du traite ciceronien par Guillaume de Conches. II n'a pas ajoute aux valeurs de l"honnete' et de !"utile' une troisifme valeur divine, qui les dominerait. Mais l'existence des deux p6les de Ia moralite, leur 'polarite' est mieux preservee par l'abaissement inflige a la communaute sociale. Opposition de l"honestum' et de l"utile' dans la quoti­diennete des choix, depassement intime dans la conscience personelle, qui per­ce a jour les faux biens, voila Ce que le Moralium dogma philosophorum pro­posait a ses eleves, a ses lecteurs. [135]

Rocher's remarks need to be considered together with those of Bum­ke (entry no. 306) whom he does not mention. Rocher defends the existence of triadic structures in Walther von der Vogelweide and re­jects the «atomisme» which led Curtius to question their occurrence.

356. Willson, H. Bernard, Walther's «Erster Reichston», The Germanic

131

Review 39 (1964), 83-96; German translation published in Eifler (ed.), Ritterliches Tugendsystem (1970), 431-451.

Prompted, it seems, largely by Zitzmann's elucidation of medieval structures of thought (see entry no. 250), Willson argues that the three strophes of Walther's Erster Reichston «constitute an absolute unity in trinity and are thus an analog of the Holy Trinity itself» [84]. Willson then discusses parallels between Walther and Hugh of St. Victor

Walther's Reichston strophes contain much, whether explicit or implicit, that finds a clear echo in Hugh of St. Victor. The German poet has a profound knowledge of the principles of «sozial-ethischer Symbolism us» and the analogical way of thought which inspires it is entirely familiar to him. This does not nec­essarily mean that he is directly influenced by Hugh in particular, who is, after all, only one representative, albeit an outstanding one, of the tendency. [94]

On the basis of these rather loose parallels, Willson rejects Curtius' earlier contention that Walther's three Giiter represent merely a random triad.

1965

357. Marianelli, Marianello, lntroduzione, in: Rudolf Borchardt, Pisa, Soli-tudine di un impero, (Pisa, 1965), xii-xiii.

Marianelli compares Borchardt's with Curtius' attempts to uncover the unity of medieval Europe. For Borchardt this unity derived from «componenti ellenica, provenzale e Ghibellina» and for Curtius from the continuity of classical rhetoric. Borchardt and Curtius, as well as Benn, explains Marianelli, resolved the problem of medieval cultural unity in an aesthetic, existentialist manner. Both Borchardt and Cur­tius favored the openness toward the West's intellectual tradition found in Italian and French nationalism as an answer to the nihilism of Nazism, an attitude which meant that Curtius and Borchardt (him­self of Jewish origin) were sympathetic during the late 'twenties and early 'thirties to Italian Fascism's valorization of Italy's Roman past. Curtius' initial response to the early cultural policies of Italian Fas­cism should not be construed as an endorsement of Nazism, a po­sition put forth in recent years by certain leftist critics of Curtius who equate Fascism with Nazism.

358. Veit, Walter, Topos, in: Literatur (Das Fischer Lexikon), eds. W.-H. Friedrich and W. Killy, (Frankfurt, 1965), Il/2, 563-570.

132

Veit briefly explains that topological research strives politically to re­cover a lost sense of the cognitive unity (Sinneseinheit) of the various European literatures and seeks to formulate a kind of 'literary biol­ogy' which studies the rise of new topoi and thus uncovers the

'genetic' structures of formal literary elements. Veit then considers the thorny problem of distinguishing topoi from motifs, themes, cliches and symbols. He goes back to Quintilian's notion of topoi as sedes argumentorum and explains:

Zu diesem Zweck aber ist eine Abgrenzung des Topos von anderen literari· schen Formelementen notwendig, dem Begriffe, dem Inhalte und der Funktion nach. Wir fassen den Topos als selbstandiges Formelement auf, indem wir auf seine Bedeutung als Quelle der Argumente in der Rede und Dichtung zuriick­gehen. Mit ihm soil zuniichst etwas bewiesen werden. [567]

Veit convincingly shows how a number of rhetorical arguments are transformed into examples of the modesty topos, establishing a pattern of exchanges between rhetorical and literary tradition:

Im gegenseitigen Austausch zwischen Rhetorik und Literatur verfestigt sich die Formulierung, doch bleibt der Charakter des Arguments bestehen, und das Ar­gument wird zum festen Formelement in der Dichtung, indem ein Autor es von anderen iibemimmt und im eigenen Werk einordnet. [568]

The argumentative function of a topos differentiates it from such other formal elements as motifs or themes. Veit goes on to argue that the principal task facing topological research is not the collecting and cataloguing of topoi but the elucidation of the changing relationship to reality which they reflect:

Die poetischen Topoi vor allem erhellen in der Interpretation nicht nur den Zu­sammenhang der Nationalliteraturen, sondern dariiber hinaus das in ihnen aus­gesprochene und dem Wandel unterworfene Verhaltnis zur Wirklichkeit. [570]

In terms of this challenge, Veit contends that topoi transcend their original argumentative context and become discrete cognitive ele­ments (Denkformen), a suggestion which recalls Veil's own earlier redefinition of topoi as Denkformen (see entry no. 350).

359. Wilhelm, James J., The Cruelest Month, Spring, Nature, and Love in Classical and Medieval Lyrics, (New Haven, 1965), xv-xvii, 39-43.

In this somewhat diffuse study which posits itself (p. xvii) as «a cri­tique or expansion of [Curtius'] chapter on "The Ideal Landscape"» [ELLMA, chapter 10, pp. 189-207], Wilhelm faults Curtius for having restricted his analysis to rhetorical tradition:

The tracing of any rhetorical tradition must combine analysis with historical comparison. It is possible for a latter poet to skim off the superficial rhetorical elements of an earlier poet for his own use; but this study is not so much con­cerned with rhetorical similarities as it is with similarities of total form. [39]

Wilhelm, however, does not develop the expected critique of Curtius' topological method in any extensive fashion. He contests the 'ideal­ized' features of vernal landscapes as isolated by Curtius, taking 'idealized' to mean "perfect" rather than "standard", this latter meaning being closer to Curtius' sense of the term Jdeallandschaft

133

which does imply a value judgment but a portrayal «mit ihrer typi­schen Ausstattung» (90], as Curtius says when he introduces the term earlier in his magnum opus.

360. Yuill, W. E., Literary Pot-Holing, Some Reflections of Curtius, Hocke and Marianne Thalmann, German Life and Letters 19 (1965), 279-286.

Yuill reviews three books written in the wake of Curtius' suggestion that Mannerism was a more critically useful antipode to Classicism than Romanticism: Gustav Rene Hocke, Die Welt als Labyrinth, (Hamburg, 1957), and Manierismus in der Literatur, (Hamburg, 1959); and Marianne Thalmann, Romantik und Manierismus, (Stutt­gart, 1963). Yuill finds that the systematization of Mannerism in these works is precisely what Curtius warned against (ELLMA, p. 284) and constitutes neither literary history nor literary criticism but liter­ary mythology.

1966

361. Blumenberg, Hans, Die Legitimitiit der Neuzeit, (Frankfurt, 1966), 68-74; reprinted in: Jehn (1972), 150-154; revised, expanded version in Blu­menberg's Die Legitimitiit der Neuzeit, 1: Siikularisierung und Selbstbe­hauptung, (Frankfurt, 1979), 130-140.

Blumenberg considers that topology represents of secularization of historical categories and that the search for 'constants' in the humani­ties which is implicit in topology entails the unavoidable danger of an epistemological loss or renunciation (Erkenntnisverzicht) since it po­sits an atomistic absolutism without further theoretical purchase (Be­fragbarkeit). As such topology constitutes a dangerous rejection of historicism.

362. Cilento, Vincenzo, II mito medievale de/la «lranslatio studii», Filologia e letteratura 12 (1966), 1-15.

Cilento provides a brief but exhaustive history of the myth of trans­latio studii, a poetological ideal central to Curtius' notion of the con­tinuity of Latin rhetorical education.

363. Emrich, Berthold, Topik und Topoi, Der Deutschunterricht 18, Heft 6 (1966), 15-46; reprinted in: Jehn (1972), 90-121; and in Baeumer (1973), 210-251.

134

In order to clarify the historical background for Curtius' proposal of a Rhetorica nova, Emrich surveys the history of topoi in Greek rhe­torical tradition, (drawing on examples from the Topics and the Rhetoric of Aristotle and from Sophistic application of received Aristotelian usage), and in the Latin rhetorical tradition, (with ex­amples taken from Cicero, Quintilian, Priscian and Boethius). He

finds that Curtius' non-traditional application of the term topos is nevertheless justified:

Die Berechtigung fiir die historische Topik von Curtius sehe ich einmal in der Vielfalt der Aspekte, die Topik und Topoi in der Antike boten, und in der Aus­wirkung der Rhetorik auf die Texte begriindet, vor allem aber in der Umkeh­rung eines Systems, das der literarischen Produktion diente, zu einem Instru­ment des Textverstandnisses. Mit dieser Umwandlung setzt er lediglich eine Tradition fort, deren Anf3nge ich bei Erasmus und in Melanchthons Kornmen­tar zum R6merbrief vennute und die man Uber die Barockzeit bis in die klas­sische Philologie hinein verfolgen konnte. Er verfahrt also weit weniger selbst­herrlich als Aristoteles, sondern erinnert nur an eine Methode, die er zugleich erweitert und verfeinert.

364. Gelley, Alexander, Ernst Robert Curtius: Topology and Critical Method, Modern Language Notes 81 (1966), 579-594.

Gelley stresses the importance of a visionary, intuitive and transhistorical orientation in Curtius' writings. He explains that Cur­tius' rejection of Auerbach's concepts offigura and mimesis stemmed from his refusal to accept a differentiation between allegory in the Hebraic-Christian tradition and allegory in classical authors. Auer­bach's «dialectically historical viewpoint» was antipathetic to Curtius' «transhistorical, unifying, implicitly Platonic orientation». Deutscher Geist in Gefahr was motivated, Gelley feels, by an attempt to link na­tional literatures to Latin sources in order to «disclose a pattern that would testify to a perennial humanism». The restoration and initia­tive (or creativity) which Curtius connects with humanism recall Vyacheslav Ivanov's defense of humanism found in his 1920 letters to Mikhail Gershenzon, a parallel which prompts Gelley to comment that «in the early period of the Nazi threat Curtius took upon himself a task prefigured by Ivanov's response to the Russian Revolution». Gelley maintains that topoi are concrete for Curtius and function as constants. Topoi have a concrete quality so that topology can escape the reductionist shortcomings of Geistesgeschichte. At the same time, this orientation in turn leads to theoretical problems for topology. Gelley argues, for example, that Curtius' notion of a text is too inert and undifferentiated to afford much purchase on intertextual prob­lems, and is remarkably ahistorical because texts are simultaneously coextensive and timeless. Curtius was guided here by Hofmannsthal's vision of «a certain eternal European mythology».

365. Hock", Gustav Rene, Begegnungen mil Ernst Robert Curtius, Merkur 20 (1966), 690-697.

Hocke provides a series of personal reminiscences ending with a re­flection on Curtius' religious orientation.

366. Pickering, F. P., Literatur und darstellende Kunst im Mittelalter, (Berlin,

135

1966), 49-51; English translation, Literature and Art in the Middle Ages, (London, 1970), 61--<i3.

Pickering selects a number of passages from ELLMA which he claims show that Curtius opposed investigating parallels between literature and art history. On p. 21 (English translation, p. 11) Curtius chides dilettant attempts to draw parallels between art history and literature based on «dem hochst fragwiirdigen Prinzip der 'wechselseitigen' Er­hellung der Kiinste» because such efforts lead to «an art historical system of periodization by successive styles». Curtius' point is that lit­erary scholars frequently lack sufficient art historical training and are thus prompted to borrow art historical categories which may have little bearing on literature, (and which can lead to dangerous tautol­ogies). Pickering might have usefully referred to the debate sur­rounding Curtius' rejection of the term 'baroque' in favor of 'manner­ist'. In his own English translation Pickering seems prepared to con­cede that the passages which he cites were directed more toward «misguided literary historians» than at art historians, though his Ger­man original implies that Curtius sought somehow to 'dispatch' art historians, «ich drucke unten einige Stellen ab, wo [sic] Curtius die Kunstwissenschaftler [sic] und ihre Stoffe 'abfertigt'». In fact Curtius claims that «art» (which he deliberately calls Kunstwissenschaft in order, as he explains in a footnote quite explicitly, to distinguish it from the «historical discipline of art history») has an easier task than literary studies. Pickering, in his eagerness to fault Curtius, apparent­ly failed to note Curtius' distinction and so turned Curtius' remarks into an attack on art history. Once he has knocked down this 'straw man', a gratuitous gesture in any case, Pickering presents himself as the champion of the interdisciplinary study of literature and art.

1967

367. Della Terza, Dante, Ernst Robert Curtius, Belfagor 22 (1967), 166--185.

136

Della Terza posits that Curtius' career was dominated by a profound dichotomy, what he calls «la doppia disponibilitii o ii duplice condi­zionamento della cultura di Curtius: due livelli di coscienza, due pro­spettive di lavoro». Della Terza feels that Curtius was never able to synthesize these two perspectives which derive ultimately from Cur­tius' position as an Alsatian torn between France and Germany. (One should note that Curtius was a first-generation Alsatian.) Della Terza detects in Curtius' writings an «accentuato pathos mondano», and, without the benefit of archival materials published by Lausberg (see below, entry no. 380), claims that Curtius' work reflects «[le] varie fa­si d'una carriera accademica, svoltasi in modo piuttosto casalingo e normale», an extraordinarily misleading characterization, to say the

least. Della Terza also sees parallels between the career of Grober and that of Curtius: both wrote dissertations on the manuscript tradi­tion of some Old French work, Grober on Fierabras, Curtius on Li Quatre Livre des Reis; both finished their careers with works of in­tellectual synthesis, Grober with his Grundri/3, Curtius with ELLMA. Furthermore, Della Terza notes, Curtius' 'anti-historical' phenome­nology endeavors to define a Platonic absolute and thereby to combat the historical forces which threaten the autonomy of a work of art.

368. Imai, Michiru, Kritik bei Ernst Robert Curtius, Doitsu Bungaku no. 39 (Autumn, 1967), 69-78; German summary, 140--141.

Imai examines the importance of creativity during the first part of Curtius' career as a prelude to his writing ELLMA.

369. Jongkees, A.G., Translatio studii: /es avatars d'un theme medieval, Mis­cellanea Mediaevalia in memoriam Jan Frederik Niermeyer, ( Gronin­gen, 1967), 41-51.

Jongkees' brief, well-documented summary of the most important passages from medieval authors on the theme of translatio studii com­plements Cilento's earlier article (no. 362).

1968

370. Braubach, Max, Die Gesellschaft der Freunde und Forderer der Rheini­schen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitiit zu Bonn ('Geffrub'), Wege und Formen der Studienforderung, 150 Jahre Rheinische Friedrich-Wil­helms-Universitat zu Bonn, 1818-1968, (Bonn, 1968), 96--97.

Braubach discusses Curtius' contribution in building up the French collections of the Romance Seminar library of the University of Bonn in 1917 and 1918.

371. Grosse, Ernst Ulrich, Sympathie der Natur, Geschichte eines Topos, (Munich, 1968), 9-22.

Although Grosse repeats the theoretical and historical criticisms of Curtius' use of the term topos, and rejects Walter Veit's redefinition of a topos as a Denkform (see entry no. 350) because of its formal em­phasis - a definition which Grosse recasts as a Denkbild in order to accentuate the cognitive aspect and aesthetic context of a particular topos - Grosse's study essentially continues with some theoretical re­finements Curtius' approach to topology.

1969

372. JauB, Hans-Robert, Paradigmawechsel in der Literaturwissenschaft, Lin­guistische Berichte 1:3 (1969), 44-56.

137

JauB borrows the notion of 'paradigm' from Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, applies it to literary scholarship, and notes how various literary scholars utilize different models or paradigms as a basis for judgment. The models can vary from the authors of classical Antiquity to modern European writers (e.g., Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare) to the text itself (this last example is characteristic of stylistic criticism or of textually immanent aesthet­ics). Curtius, according to JauB, revived the classical paradigm which constitutes, JauB claims, a remarkable case of the hypostasis (Hy­postasierung) of 'tradition' (i.e., setting up tradition as an absolute). JauB explains this approach as a reaction to Nazism which marked, as far as JauB can tell, the «retreat of philology into the catacombs of the past» at the price of denying the pre-eminence or sovereignty of history ( Geschichtshoheit) in the return to timeless Jungian arche­types.

373. Mertz-Rychner, Claudia (ed.), Ernst Robert Curtius (14. IV. 1886---19. IV. 1956), Max Rychner (8. IV. 1887-10. IV. 1965), Ein Briefwechsel, Merkur 23 (1969), 371-382.

Mertz-Rychner discusses the background of Curtius' friendship with Max Rychner. The letters from the 1920's reiterate the theme of Cur­tius' professional isolation. One June 19, 1927, Rychner wrote Curtius:

Das Phiinomen Frankreich, wie es sich heute comme il se produit, findet nicht das ihm gemaBe deutsche Sprachorgan, das es faBt. Dieses muB zum Tei! ge­schaffen werden. Das ist vor allem Deine Funktion, die Klimperer, Lerchen und Nachtigallen, meme M. Jeann Chaud ii Fribourg, schaffen es nicht.

Rychner's puns on the names of Curtius' German Romanist col­leagues are important: Victor Klemperer becomes a «Klimperer», roughly, "someone who beats a tune out of a piano"; Eugen Lerch becomes a «Lerche», a lark; and Jeann Chaud refers of course to Hanns Heiss. This tone presupposes a common perspective between the two correspondents. Curtius' remarks to Rychner on ELLMA some twenty years later echo the same theme: on August 9, 1948, Curtius wrote:

Mein Buch wird die Fachleute argern, weil es ein halbes Dutzend Fiicher iiber­greift. Man wird tun, als sei es nicht da.

374. Obermayer, August, Zurn Toposbegriff der modernen Literaturwissen­schaft, Jahrbuch des Wiener Goethe Vereins, N.F. 73 (1969), 107-116; reprinted in: Jehn (1972), 155-159; and in: Baeumer (1973), 252-267.

138

Obermayer seeks to clarify the terminological confusion surrounding the word topos. He differentiates between Curtius' use of the term and its occurrence in subsequent topological research. Obermayer

defends Curtius' historically non-traditional application of the term and argues that such expressions as topos, motif, symbol, metaphor and allegory do not constitute discrete concepts but comprise topological «possibilities»: (1) a topos can represent either a definite content of a conceptual model (Vorstellungsmodell) or a linguistic formula; (2) the meaning of a topos qua linguistic formula can vary historically; (3) a topos qua conceptual model need not recur in a fixed linguistic form; (4) a modified (topological) concept can be ex­pressed in a variable linguistic form.

375. Turek, Leszek, A. N. Wiesiolowski-E. R. Curtius, Z rozwai:ari na temat stosunku strukturalizmu do ewolucjonistycznej tradycji, (= Veselovski and Curtius, Discussion of the Relationship of Structuralism to Evolutio­nist Theory), Studia estetyczne 6 (1969), 245-259.

Turek compares the 'positivist' (or Russian formalist) approach of Alexander Veselovski with the 'structuralist' approach of Curtius. Veselovski's concern with constants in literature matches Curtius' interest in topoi. The English summary notes:

The positivistic outlook tends to neglect intercultural differentiation by reduc­ing qualitative aspects of culture to quantitative indices, whereas structuralism, especially when acception C. G. Jung's theory of archetypes as its basic assump­tion, opens up a parallel perspective by conceiving cultures as generated by constant and unchangeable features of the human psyche.

1970

376. Beller, Manfred, Von der Stoffgeschichte zur Thematologie, Ein Beitrag zur komparatistischen Methodenlehre, Arcadia 5 (1970), 1-38.

Beller takes stock of the methodological advantages and disavantages of a number of thematic studies (Stoffgeschichte) from the mid- and late-'sixties which frequently consist either of positivistic collections of materials or of generalizations taken from intellectual history. Bel­ler reviews Veil's redefinition of topoi as Denkformen (see entry no. 350). Beller finds Veil's definition provocative because, given Veit's reliance on Aristotelian rhetoric, it seeks to re-orient topolog­ical investigation along philosophical lines. However, the precision envisaged in Veil's definition 'damns with faint praise' the continued application of the term by literary scholars, («nur daB [Veit] eben in der Absicht, den durch Curtius eingebiirgerten Toposbegriff exakter zu definieren, diesen gleich wieder aus der Literaturwissenschaft hin­auskomplementiert hat» [27]). Beller posits that a new differentiation among philosophical, rhetorical and literary topoi may provide the needed methodological clarification:

139

Eine Revision von Curtius' zu eng verstandenem Toposbegriff war zweifellos notwendig. Jedoch mit Riicksicht auf seine unbestrittenen Ergebnisse bei der Erforschung des Nachlebens der Antike, besonders wilhrend des Mittelalters und des Barock, und im Hinblick auf seine weiterfiihrende Verwendung sind mindestens drei Aspekte des Begriffskomplexes zu unterscheiden: I. ein 'phi­losophischer' Toposbegriff, der die den allgemeinverbindlichen Themen und ihren ilsthetischen Ausdrucksformen zugrunde liegenden Denkprinzipien auf­deckt, 2. ein 'rhetorischer' Toposbegriff, der das urspriinglich sophistische und mit der Entfernung von der aristotelischen Topik zunehmende Interesse an den Konkretisierungen der Beweis6rter, also an der Tabulatur der 'loci commu­nes', bezeichnet, und 3. ein 'literarischer' Toposbegriff. Die Curtius als eine falschverstandene Topik angelastete Untersuchung stilistischer Klischees und literarischer Versatzstiicke - von ihrem allgemeinen Denkprinzip abgezogener rhetorisch-technischer Argumente - gehort demnach zur zweiten Begriffskate­gorie und ware gemilB dem Katalog der rhetorischen Poetik, die gegenwilrtig vor allem von der Barockforschung entdeckt wird, abzuhandeln. [27]

Beller proceeds to argue that thematics (Thematologie) encompasses Stoffgeschichte and overcomes its methodological shortcomings for literary scholarship.

377. Dronke, Peter, Poetic Individuality in the Middle Ages, (Oxford, 1970), 1-32.

140

Like Menendez Pidal, Dronke criticizes Curtius' notion of literary tradition for excluding oral poetry. The 9th-century Old French Eu­lalia appears to have influenced subsequent Latin versions so that, at least in this one case, the vernacular poet loosed the tongue of the Latin one. Curtius' remarks on the backwardness of Spanish liter­ature (see Lida de Malkiel's objections on this same point, entry no. 244) ignore the discovery of several cantigas de amigo which were probably in circulation in Spain before 900. The Auto de Los reyes ma­gos (ca. 1150) also marks a significant advance over contemporary Latin plays on the same subject as well as the Latin exegetical tradi­tion. Dronke maintains that the rhetorical similarities between ver­nacular and Latin texts do not depend strictly on learned literary techniques. He raises a number of objections to Curtius' notion of the topos: first, a topos which may seem unoriginal when considered alone may turn out to be remarkably original when considered in its proper rhetorical context; second, a topos cannot be determined a priori; third, the history of a particular topos over time blurs qual­itative distinctions. Dronke seems to identify - perhaps only for the purpose of argument - Curtius' method with generalized topological research which makes some concession to stylistic criticism. Dronke introduces several examples (which form the basis for the later chapters in his book) which help delineate the traditional and non­traditional in poetry: the Ruodlieb (a unique example of «epic romance in a learned tongue»), Semiramis (a poetic dialogue which

L

«challenges our customary notions of medieval 'imitation' of classical poetry»), Abelard's planctus cycle (considered in light of the ver­nacular and Latin planctus tradition), and Hildegard of Bingen's poetry as well as her Ordo Virtutum (in order to ascertain her «wholly individual use of imagery» and her creation of a new poetic genre).

378. Eifler, Giinter, Einleitung, in: Ritterliches Tugendsystem, (Wege der Forschung, LVI), ed. by Giinter Eifler, (Darmstadt, 1970), vii-xx.

Eifler provides a general introduction to the history of the contro­versy surrounding the 'system of chivalric virtues' and sees in seman­tic investigation the best possibilities for advances in researching medieval ethical values.

379. Evans, Arthur R., Ernst Robert Curtius, in: On Four Modern Human-ists, ed. Arthur R. Evans, (Princeton, 1970), 85-145.

This biographical essay on Curtius is, next to Lausberg's (which makes use of archival material not available to Evans, see below no. 380), the fullest portrait of Curtius. Its greatest advantage lies in its careful and detailed depiction of the profound unity and con­sistency evidenced in Curtius' life and writings.

380. Lausberg, Heinrich, Ernst Robert Curtius, 1886-1956, in: Bonner Ge­lehrte, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Wissenschaft in Bonn, 150 Jahre Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat zu Bonn, 1818-1968, (Bonn, 1970), Bd. 7, Sprachwissenschaftler, 214-235.

Lausberg's is the most exhaustive and best documented biography of Curtius, with generous quotations from university archives and pri­vate correspondence. Lausberg lists all the seminars which Curtius offered in the course of his career, important evidence both for Cur­tius' consistent representation of his discipline and for the develop­ment of his thought. Lausberg's portrait shows to what extent Curtius was considered an academic outsider, if indeed not an academic rene­gade, intellectually isolated and continually confronted by hostile col­leagues, a segregation apparent in Curtius' receiving a chair in Hei­delberg only thanks to Gundolf and in Curtius' succeeding Meyer­Liibke in Bonn despite Meyer-Liibke's own opposition to the appointment.

381. Poggeler, Otto, Dialektik und Topik, in: Hermeneutik und Dialektik, ed. R. Bubner, K. Kramer and R. Wiehl, (Tiibingen, 1970), II. 272-310; partially reprinted in: Jehn (1972), 160-173.

In a consideration of the relation of dialectic (philosophical investiga­tion) to topics (here representative of rhetorical study), Poggeler em­phasizes how Curtius' research on topoi seeks the creation of a new method of literary investigation. Curtius himself did not attempt to justify the study of topoi by referring to the secularization of me-

141

dieval though but rather sought to establish the basis for a new syn­thetic 'mythology', a kind of structuralism of literary consciousness. In this respect, Curtius' approach confronts a dilemma: in spite of the importance of literary history for topology, Curtius' application of to­poi is itself not consistent with literary historical usage.

382. Varanini, Giorgio, Ernst Robert Curtius, Enciclopedia dantesca, (Rome, 1970), II. 295-297.

Varanini lists Curtius' two most important contributions to the study of Dante: first, Curtius' research facilitated «Un' intelligenza non ap­prossimativa ma compiuta ed esatta delle opere dantesche latine come delle volgari, troppo spesso interpretate e dichiarate alla luce della so la produzione coeva in italiano, in provenzale e in francese»; second, thanks to Curtius' method, it is possible to determine lexical, morphological, stylistic and thematic Latinisms, central to under­standing the rhetorical context of Dante's vernacular works, particularly of Dante's application of the modus tractandi borrowed from scholasticism.

1971

383. Perrin, Olivier, Avec Curtius, Revue des Deux Mondes (April-June, 1971), 110--119.

142

Perrin reminisces here how Curtius helped him at the end of the war after he had left his position as a Fremdarbeiter at a mining operation near Aachen. During a rare leave in Paris, Perrin obtained Curtius' name and address from Claude Bourdet, the son of Catherine Pozzi (a close friend of Curtius whose review of Die franz6sische Kultur ap­peared in Le Figaro, sees entry no. 98 above) and an active member of the French resistance. Perrin explains that Curtius had gone into hiding at the end of the war when his induction into the Volksturm was ordered specifically in retaliation for his refusing to assume the presidency of a new Franco-German cultural association under Nazi aegis. Curtius found shelter with Frau von Wedderkop, the widow of a former museum director in Berlin, who resided in the M6nchshof in Oberbreisig outside of Bonn. (Perrin's explanation requires slight correction: Frau Ilse Curtius told this writer that Curtius was away from home, bringing his library to safety, when men came to their appartment to induct him. Alerted by his wife, Curtius did not return to Bonn. Though the Curtius' appartment was not destroyed, it was made uninhabitable by nearby bomb blasts. This fact needs to be noted when one recalls Stephen Spender's description of the Curtius' appartment as so barren, a characterization which Spender freely ex­tended to Curtius himself. Furthermore, since at the end of the war

384.

all 'able-bodied' men up to the age of sixty-five were inducted into the Volksturm, there is some question to what extent Curtius' induc­tion was in fact motivated as an act of punishment). When Perrin, following Frau Curtius' instructions, arrived at the M6nchshof, an upset Curtius told him that Claude Bourdet had just been arrested by the Gestapo (Curtius' most probable source of information, as his wife explained to this writer, was an Allied broadcast). In the remain­der of this essay Perrin recounts how Curtius and his wife spent the last part of the war as eyewitnesses to the bombardments preceding the American crossing of the Rhine at Remagen. The Americans had hardly crossed the Rhine when T. S. Eliot arrived «comme par en­chantement» to visit Curtius (it should be recalled that Eliot, writing in the Freundesgabe, speaks of the recurrent rumors that Curtius had been arrested and imprisoned in a concentration camp).

Pollmann, Leo, Literaturwissenschaft und Methode, (Frankfurt, 1971); Bd.1: Theoretischer Tei! und methodengeschichtlicher Uberblick, 142-144, 148--154.

Pollmann distinguishes between the 'early' and 'late' Curtius. The po­litical and cultural concerns central to Wegbereiter and Barres dem­onstrate, Pollmann claims, that Curtius was VoB!er's literary historical successor. This observation fails to consider contemporary comments on Curtius' work, including VoBler's well-documented and recurrent hostility to Curtius, and is built on an erroneous chronol­ogy: Pollmann has Barres (1921) precede Wegbereiter (1919, 31923; based on lectures from 1914 which Curtius offered as early as July, 1916 to the publisher Georg Bondi). For Pollmann, the 'later' Curtius gave up his 'VoBlerian' orientation when he turned his attention to topoi. Defending Curtius against JauB' charge that ELLMA represents «den Riickzug in die Katakomben», Pollmann notes (perhaps with unintentional condescension):

Mir will es aber zugleich das redliche Bemiihen um eine praktikable und wis­senschaftswiirdige Llisung scheinen. Wie sehr Ernst Robert Curtius damit auch grundsatzlich auf dem rechten, den Geist aus dem Dilemma herausfuhrenden Weg war, mag daraus ersichtlich werden, daB er mit der philologischen 'Kata­kombenarbeit', die er in diesen Jahren leistet, Steinchen um Steinchen zum groBen Mosaik europaischer Einheit fugt, die bier im philologischen Detail auf­leuchtet, er so, vielleicht ohne es zunachst zu wissen, die -Oberwindung des na­tionalen Denkens betreibt, auf den Frieden zuarbeitet und auf sein groBes Werk Europiiische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter (1948). [150-151]

Pollmann correctly distinguishes between Curtius' use of topoi and subsequent topological analysis:

Der Begriff des Topos sollte sich aber zusehends als problematisch erweisen, als man dazu iiberging, den von Curtius gewiesenen Weg weiterzubeschreiten und Uber eine Geschichte der Topoi bzw. einzelner Topoi ein Stiick Geschichte

143

abendliindischen Denkens und literarischer Entwicklung aus der Literatur her­auszulosen hoffte. Hierbei erwies sich der Curtius'sche Begriff des Topos als schlechthin unbrauchbar. [152].

1972

385. Carr, Godfrey R., Goethe or Jaspers?, Publications of the English Goethe Society 42 (1972), 37--64.

Carr analyzes in careful detail the Curtius-Jaspers polemic on Goethe within the context of both scholars' works. Their dispute over Goethe probably stems in part from Curtius' over-hasty reading of Jaspers' 1947 acceptance speech of the Goethe-Prize which was published two years later in Die Welt am Sonntag. The speech, originally entitled Unsere Zukunft und Goethe, appeared under the editor's title Aufleh­nung gegen Goethe - eine kritische Untersuchung, giving the article the appearance of an excerpt from a forthcoming book by Jaspers which Curtius in turn counted as the third attack on Goethe commg from the Heidelberg philosopher. Curtius' astonishingly vehement reaction - all the more so given the two year delay between Jaspers' speech and Curtius' attack - can be explained, according to Carr, as Curtius' objection to «that form of philosophical thought represented by Jaspers, which feels justified in applying to literary figures criteria which are not simply literary». The second cause of this difference goes back to Jaspers' and Curtius' different positions on the crisis of German culture on the eve of the Nazi takeover (e.g., Jaspers' Die geistige Situation der Zeit, (1931], and Curtius' Deutscher Geist in Ge­fahr, [1932)). Carr argues that «Jaspers' belief that only through an intensive preoccupation with a particular science can one attam an awareness both of its limits and by inference of the whole» is dia­metrically opposed to Curtius' appeal for Allgemeinbildung and a re­turn to the cultural heritage of Germany. Curtius viewed Jaspers as an apologist for modernity, for the belief that «the present age is unique and without historical analogy», which constitutes a «con­temporary manifestation of the historical hostility of philosophy to the humanist tradition».

386. Fischer, Ludwig, Curtius, die Topik und der Argumenter, Vorstudien zur Argumentationsanalyse auch in der Werbung, Sprache im technischen Zeitalter 42 (1972), 114-143.

144

Fischer provides a highly derivative criticism of Curtius' use of the term topos, repeating the objections of Mertner (no. 291) and Emnch (no. 363), and maintains without evidence that Curtius fled fr?m historical reality into the 'eternal verities' of literature, appealing «above all to a run-down concept of Weimar-era aesthetics» (einen

heruntergekommenen Beg riff vor allem der weimarischen A.sthetik). Fischer then presents a rather far-fetched proposal based on modern advertising practices to replace the rhetorical theories of classical An­tiquity.

387. Friedrich, Hugo, Curtius, Gedenkrede zu seinem 80. Geburtstag, (ge­sprochen im Hessischen Rundfunk am 20.April 1966), in: Romanische Literaturen, Aufsiitze, II: ltalien und Spanien, (Frankfurt, 1972), 185-194.

Friedrich reports that Curtius told him during the Second World War that he wished to die in Rome (on the symbolism of this choice, see Friedrich's obituary, no. 284, and Ritter-Santini's remarks, no. 347). Friedrich examines the fascination which Rome possessed for Curtius as a symbol of Romanitas, incorporating a notion of universal, cos­mopolitan virtue. After reviewing Curtius' various writings, noting how they culminate in Curtius' interest in the Middle Ages, Friedrich stresses that Curtius himself was terribly conscious of the provisional nature of ELLMA.

388. Jehn, Peter, Ernst Robert Curtius: Toposforschung als Restauration, (statt eines Vorworts), in: Toposforschung, Eine Dokumentation, ed. Peter Jehn, (Frankfurt, 1972), vii-ixiv.

Jehn wonders how Curtius could have made such a 'fundamental' mistake to assign topoi such a «protean» form, since this application of the term flies in the face of historical evidence. The answer for Jehn is that Curtius deliberately abused the term topos for the pur­poses of restoring a discredited and intellectually bankrupt bourgeois notion of culture; Jehn refers to «die subjektivistische Willkiir und Oberfliichlichkeit des Curtius'schen Topos». Jehn considers Curtius' use of the topos of puer senex as an example of this alleged subjective and arbitrary inconsistency (Jehn might have seen Lida de Malkiel's remarks of Curtius' application of this topos, no. 244, for another ex­planation). Having unmasked his victim, Jehn triumphantly pro­claims:

Die Eliteideologie, zusammen mil der Ideologie von SchOpfertum und schOp­ferischer Entwicklung, ist demnach das Resultat einer bestimmten gesellschaft­lichen Entwicklung des Biirgertums im Zeitalter des Imperialismus.

Jehn argues that Curtius turned to topology as a result of the historical crisis of the bourgeoisie in Germany («spiitliberale BewuBt­seinskrise») and considers Curtius' essays from 1927 to 1932 (later collected in Deutscher Geist in Gefahr) as examples to prove his the­sis. The crux of the issue is Curtius' opposition to communism (i.e., Curtius' antagonism to communism is patent proof for Jehn that Cur­tius was a fascist):

145

[Curtius'] Kampf gegen Sozialismus und Kommunismus, den er mit dem Fa­schismus teilt, erweist ihn auch darin als dessen Parteigiinger.

Jehn's criticisms raise serious issues; they underline the importance of understanding the social context of Curtius' career. Nevertheless, the investigation of Curtius' position in Weimar society and in Nazi Ger­many must in the long run suffer from the documentary shortcomings of Jehn's exposition. Jehn, for example, misinterprets Hans Nau­mann's Deutsche Nation in Gefahr (no.148) as being in basic agree­ment (eine wesentliche Ubereinstimmung) with Deutscher Geist in Ge­fahr. One might recall three reviews from 1932 and 1933 which Jehn has overlooked. Victor Klemperer (the only German Romanist from this period who retains any credibility for current leftist critics) admitted in 1933 (no. 339) that Curtius' views of France were «authoritative» (maf3gebend) for the intellectual left of the 1920's. Writing in 1932, the German Jewish reviewer Walther Strauss (no.162) interpreted Curtius' Deutscher Geist in Gefahr as a specific refutation of Nazi anti-Semitism. Finally, the Nazi party functionary Hermann Sauter, writing in the official Nazi party newspaper V 6/ki­scher Beobachter explicitly warned Curtius against misleading the youth in his teaching. Thus, to say the least, it is historically wrong to characterize Curtius as an adherent of fascism simply because he was not a communist.

389. Nerlich, Michael, Romanistik und Anti-Kommunismus, Das Argument 72 (1972), 276--313.

In this polemical broadside, Nerlich aims at unmasking the anticom­munist orientation of German Romanists and at exposing the 'myth' of Curtius as a resistance-fighter. Nerlich's charges against Curtius can be briefly outlined:

1. Curtius' Wegbereiter represents the consensus of the German Ro­manist establishment on modern France. Nerlich supports this claim with a single quotation from Walter Benjamin who wrote in his journal in 1919, «Das Buch von Curtius ( ... ) werde ich auch lesen. Es ist ja vorderhand das einzige, was es hieriiber gibt. DaB es ahnungslos ist, erweist j a sch on die Zusammenstellung der im Ti tel genannten Autoren ebendort mit Romain Rolland». Perhaps it might have been more useful to cite Benjamin after he had read the book. Nerlich claims that Curtius' interest in French civilization - and by extension, the interest of the Romanist 'establishment' - was thoroughly tainted by German nationalism and in fact so unable to free itself from this nationalism that Curtius was led to «declare his love for the conserva­tive France» (Liebeserkliirung an das konservative Frankreich). Ner­lich cites Victor Klemperer (no. 339), but, like Jehn, overlooked Klemperer's observation that Curtius' views were authoritative for

146

the intellectual left - and, moreover, not to be confused with the opinions of Eduard WechBler. An examination of reviews of Wegbe­reiter, Barres and Die franzosische Kultur simply does not support this charge.

2. Nerlich maintains that the 'myth' of Curtius as a figure of intellectual resistance, besides being false in the first place, ignores several state­ments by Curtius in Deutscher Geist in Gefahr which cast a decidedly different light on Curtius' politics: Curtius, for instance, according to Nerlich, only partially condemned the Nazis' hatred of 'Western civi­lization'; Curtius' nationalism, claims Nerlich, presents affinities with the so-called «Langemarck-Blut-Mythos» (the enormous German losses - particularly among units composed primarily of students - at the battle of Langemarck in the First World War gave rise to a legend of self-sacrifice and willingness to die for Germany); Curtius' remarks on 'fallen Jews' in Deutscher Geist in Gefahr show that Curtius really was an anti-Semite; Curtius was sympathetic to the revival of the idea of 'Rome' among Italian Fascists. As for the point that Curtius was a figure of intellectual resistance, one needs to recall that Curtius' Foreword to ELLMA (which is often construed as Curtius' self-depic­tion as a resistance figure) appears to have been an answer to Stephen Spender's charges that Curtius must have compromised himself (see entry no.187). Nerlich criticizes the legendary proportions of this view of Curtius. It would have been helpful if Nerlich had differentia­ted between Curtius and his alleged promoters, that is, the pop­ularization of Curtius is really a separate matter from Curtius' con­duct during the Nazi period. This would doubtless have given his ex­position more focus but at the same time probably detracted from his ideological thrust. As for Curtius' only 'partial' condemnation of the Nazis' hostility toward the West, one should remember first that Ner­lich's examples drawn from Deutscher Geist in Gefahr in fact antedate the Nazi seizure of power, whence their general nature, and second that Curtius' remarks struck the Nazis and their sympathizers as quite specific, (see the review of Bruno Werner from the Deutsche Allge­meine Zeitung which appeared in 1932, no. 164; and that of Hermann Sauter from Volkischer Beobachter which appeared in 1933, no.174). As far as Curtius' nationalist sentiments are concerned, Curtius' own remarks in reply to Christian Senechal's attacks can be cited (see above, entry no.120). The review by Walther Strauss which appeared in the Jewish German journal Central-Verein-Zeitung (see above, no. 162) show how Curtius' remarks on abgefallene Juden were inter­preted by contemporary Jewish German observers as philo-Semitic. As for Curtius' sympathy to the Italian Fascist idea of 'Rome', one should refer to the explanation given by Marianello Marianelli (see above, entry no. 357; see also Dronke, entry no. 408).

147

3. Nerlich argues that Curtius' appeal to «der reine Geist» - pure tran­scendent, disinterested intellect which translated into practical terms entailed a desire to avoid politicizing the universities - corresponds to Croce's and VoBler's concept of a genuine civitas humani generis. Given this alleged affinity Nerlich infers that Curtius must also have shared VoBler's support of Franco. Given the prevalence of the no­tion of Geist in German thought, Nerlich's criticism is too unfocussed to afford much insight into possible connections between Curtius and VoBler. Nerlich's criticism is all the more remarkable given the re­marks by VoB!er (entry no.62), by his pupils Eugen Lerch (entries nos. 25 and 35) and Victor Klemperer (entries nos. 15 and 24) and by Croce (entry no.219), all antagonistic toward Curtius' writings. (See also Horst's contrasting Curtius' method with those of Croce and VoBler, entry no. 289.) Nerlich's exposition of the social and historical context in which Curtius' writings were received must there­fore be rejected because of its superficial and slipshod doc­umentation.

1973

390. Baeumer, Max L., Vorwort, in: Toposforschung, ed. Max L. Baeumer, (Darmstadt, 1973), vii-xvii.

In his introduction to this anthology, Baeumer differentiates between the traditional use of topoi in rhetorical theory and Curtius' «new cat­egory of historical topoi». Baeumer observes that the difficult question whether a clear definition of a topos would ever be agreed upon remains open. Baeumer's approach is even-handed and judi­cious compared with the introductory remarks by Jehn to his anthol­ogy (entry no. 388).

391. Katsura, Yoshiki, Einige Bemerkungen zu «ELLMA>>, Doitsu Bungaku no. 53 (1973), 16-26.

Katsura criticizes Curtius' unconventional definition of topoi and argues that topoi as conceived by Curtius are trivial and reductive, i.e., they are used without regard to their content. According to Katsura, one needs to distinguish between a topos in its original form and the changes which it undergoes in the course of time. Curtius' notion of topoi cannot afford, says Katsura, an adequate basis for dem­onstrating the cultural and intellectual unity of Europe. Moreover, Katsura notes, while Curtius' approach is historical in sweep, it ignores the specific historical conditions impinging on literary creation.

392. Kowal, Michael, Introduction, in: E. R. Curtius, Essays on European Literature, translated by Michael Kowal, (Princeton, 1973), ix-xxiv.

Kowal judiciously surveys Curtius' career as a literary critic. Several

148

of Kowal's prefatory remarks might be usefully repeated here. Kowal accentuates the inseparability of Curtius' medieval and modern inter­ests:

[Curtius] had begun his academic career with a dissertation on an Old French text, Li Quatre Liv res des Reis (published in 1911), and a study of the late nine­teenth century French critic Ferdinand Brunetiere (1914). The two poles, me­diaeval and modem, of his scholarship were therefore fixed at the outset. [ix]

Moreover, Kowal interprets Curtius' remarks on Friedrich Schlegel as a disguised commentary on his own experiences as a mediator be­tween France and Germany:

Curtius' conception of his task as a mediator, and the hopes and disappoint­ments he met in executing it, may be read between the lines of his essay on Friedrich Schlegel, in whose efforts on behalf of German understanding of France he obviously saw a forerunner of his own. [ x]

Finally, Kowal clarifies the reasons for Curtius' rejection of Geistes­geschichte:

Vitalism and dynamism - but shaped and controlled by broad erudition and scholarly discipline - these are the postulates of Curtius' criticism. It is what he means when he speaks of the cooperation of intelligence and intuition. The antipathy toward Geistesgeschichte is not to be viewed merely as an ideological skepticism toward a method which he considered of dubious validity, but must be regarded as an intimate constituent of what Curtius likes to describe as a writer's «form of mind». [xii-xiii]

393. Uhlig, Claus, Loci communes als historische Kategorien, chapter four of Uhlig's Hofkritik im England des Mittelalters und der Renaissance, Stu­dien zu einem Gemeinplatz der europiiischen Moralistik, (Berlin, 1973), 139-174.

In spite of the difficulties involved in Curtius' application of the term topos, Uhlig attempts to determine to what extent this modern crit­ical notion fits into the (English) Renaissance concept of «common­place». Uhlig concentrates on the commonplaces of court life (vita aulica) and a number of related loci such as adulatio, ambitio and calumnia, and finds some room for agreement between 'historical categories' of court life and contemporary Renaissance notions of topoi.

1975

394. Schalk, Fritz, Geleitwort, in: E. R. Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur, 2nd printing, (Munich, 1975), vii-xiv.

Schalk argues that Curtius' Die franzosische Kultur gave the modern study of French civilization its decisive impetus because it widened the field of philological activity to include cultural considerations (one should also refer to Schalk's 1932 essay, Das Ende des Dauer-

149

franzosen; see above, entry no. 155). Schalk explains that Curtius kept his distance from contemporary politics since his scholarship could have easily been overextended and abused if it were mixed-up in contemporary politics. (One thinks how Curtius considered the writings of Maurice Barres which had appeared before the First World War, avoiding Barres' more inflammatory works composed during and immediately following the war.) Schalk lists the determin­ing influences on Curtius: Guizot, Histoire de la civilisation en France depuis la chute de l' Empire romain, (1830); Taine, Tableau de la France, (1833); and Max Scheler, Schriften zur Soziologie und Welt­anschauungslehre, (1923-24). Similar studies followed that of Cur­tius, e.g., Salvador de Madariaga, Espana, ensayo de historia contem­poranea, (1931); Percy Ernst Schramm, Der Konig von Frankreich, (1939); Leonardo Olschki, The Genius of Italy, (1949); Americo Castro, La realidad hist6rica de Espana, (1954); and C. Sanchez-Al­bornoz, Espana, un enigma hist6rico, (1956). Schalk finds that the appearance of the Pleiade encyclopedia La France et !es Frani;ais, (1972), affords additional confirmation of the soundness of Curtius' approach.

1976

395. Bornscheuer, Lothar, Topik, Zur Struktur der gesellschaftlichen Einbil-dungskraft, (Frankfurt, 1976), 138-178.

150

Bornscheuer, in this widely focussed synthesis of the impact of 'topical' thought on a number of academic disciplines, Bornscheuer criticizes Curtius for terminological confusion. Curtius, Bornscheuer claims, was unable to see his own methodological shortcomings:

Es geh6rt zu den charakteristischen SelbstmiBverstandnissen von Curtius, die Briichigkeit des in ihm sich verk6rpernden Irrationalismus, Akademismus und Asthetizismus nicht durchschaut zu haben. Widerspriichlichkeit und Urteilsri­gorismus sind schon manchem gutmeinenden Curtius-Rezensenten aufgesto­Ben. Und gerade am Toposbegriff treten die methodologisch-begrifflichen In· konsequenzen beispielhaft zutage. [145]

Echoing an old complaint, Bornscheuer explains Curtius' method­ological failings as an «inheritance of the George-Kreis»:

Curtius' Faszination an der spatantik-mittelalterlichen Topik entspringt einem Asthetizismus der Kleinform und einem Asthetizismus der DbergrOBe, einem mit gelehrtem Detaillismus gepaarten Byzantinismus und einer heroisierenden Form- und Genieiisthetik. Dieses Erbe des George-Kreises verhindert jede Einsicht in die komplexen Vermittlungsprozesse der Topik zwischen dem rea­len Bildungswesen, den sprachlich-gesellschaftlichen Kommunikations- und Ausdruckskonventionen, den historisch-politischen Problemerfahrungen und schlieBiich einem stilistisch-kompositorisch-intentionalen Werkgefiige. [146]

Since Bornscheuer attempts to uncover the social context for various schools of rhetorical thought, he is necessarily drawn to criticize what he perceives as Curtius' neglect of this particular problem.

396. Ritter-Santini, Lea, 11 critico come lettore di metafore, in: Harald Wein-rich, Metafora e menzogna: la serenita dell'arte, (Bologna, 1976), 9-11.

Ritter-Santini distinguishes between the more matter-of-fact recep­tion of Curtius' writings in France, where Curtius' affinities to struc­turalism have been most widely noted, and the politicized reception of his work in Germany, where Curtius serves either as a source of (perhaps too easy) consolation for Germans in search of their in­tellectual identity within an older humanistic tradition or as a target for others, chiefly Marxist critics, who define themselves outside of the humanistic tradition which they hold to be a vestige of 'late capi­talistic' society.

1977

397. Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich, Toposforschung, Begriffsgeschichte und For­men der Zeiterfahrung im Mittelalter, in: Beitrage zum romanischen Mit­telalter, Sonderband zum lOOjahrigen Bestehen der Zeitschrift fiir roma­nische Philologie, ed. Kurt Baldinger, (Tiibingen, 1977), 1-16.

In this review of Elisabeth Gossmann's Antiqui und Moderni im Mit­telalter, eine geschichtliche Standortbestimmung, (Paderborn, 1974), Gumbrecht contrasts Gi:issmann's application of Begriffsgeschichte ("the history of concepts", a method of social historical research pioneered by Werner Conze, professor of history at Heidelberg) and Curtius' application of topology. On the one hand Gumbrecht posits Begriffsgeschichte as the successor of topology:

Toposforschung und Begriffsgeschichte als wissenschaftliche Methoden haben als ersten Verfahrensschritt das Aufsuchen von rekurrenten Sprachphiinomenen gemeinsam. Diese partielle Obereinstimmung mag zum einen der Ausgangs­punkt fiir ihre in der Mediiivistik hiiufige Vermischung sein, zum anderen legt er die wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Einordnung der Begriffsgeschichte als Nach­folgerin der Toposforschung nahe. [5]

On the other hand, Gumbrecht finds that Begriffsgeschichte as practiced by Gi:issmann neglects to present parallels between Latin and vernacular sources and thus fails to realize an ideal transition from topology to Begriffsgeschichte. Gumbrecht argues that the lack of purchase from studies such as Gossmann's, which has led to the in­creasing isolation of medieval studies, can be overcome only through the rigorous and consistent application of a begriffsgeschichtliche Me­thode which, rather than losing itself in Biographismus, must address important social historical questions:

151

Toposforschung, so hatten wir festgestellt, sucht die Genese der uns in schrift­lichen Zeugnissen iiberlieferten volkssprachlichen Kultur durch den Aufweis von Filiationen zur lateinischen Kultur zu erkliiren, und eben deshalb pflegen ihre Einzelstudien Belege aus beiden Kulturbereichen zu priisentieren. DaB E. GOssmann fast ausschlieBlich lateinische Texte zitiert, kann man als eine wei­tere Folge ihres gescheiterten Obergangs zwischen zwei Forschungsparadigmen ansehen. Ergiinzte man in der begriffsgeschichtlichen Auswertung ihrer Arbeit die priisentierten lateinischen Belege, um solche aus volkssprachlichen Gattun­gen wie der Epik, dem hiifischen Roman, der Chronik, und geliinge es auch hier, Verwendungstypen auf Verwendungsbereiche zuzuordnen, dann lieBe sich ausgehend von der Beobachtung der diachronischen Entwicklung von Ver­schiedenheiten und Ahnlichkeiten des Wortgebrauchs in lateinischen und volkssprachlichen Verwendungsbereichen die Frage nach der Entwicklung der Beziehungen zwischen beiden gleichzeitig bestehenden Kulturen als sozia/ge­schichtliche Frage stellen. Diese Frage fiihrte bisher iiber die Filiationsfor­schung immer wieder zum Biographismus, der in den Mittelalterstudien schon wegen der Quellensituation meist fruchtlos bleibt. In der konsequenten Anwendung der begriffsgeschichtlichen Methode auf ih­ren herkiimmlichen Objektbereich, das ist die wichtigste Folgerung aus unserer Problemskizze, liegt eine Chance der Mediiivistik, jene Isolierung zu iiberwin­den, nach deren Grunden wir eingangs fragten. [16]

398. Jehn, Peter, Die Ermiichtigung der Gegenrevolution, Zur Entwicklung der kulturideologischen Frankreich-Konzeption bei Curtius, in: Kritik der Frankreichforschung, ed. Michael Nerlich, (Karlsruhe, 1977), 110--132.

152

Jehn argues that Curtius' image of France in his writings from the 1920's was based on reactionary premises designed in fact to support German «Cultural hegemony» (one recalls Wellek's phrase, «culture power politics», see entry no. 351 above, which Jehn might have mentioned). Jehn maintains that Curtius' resorting to humanism was already pre-programmed in his attitude toward France and that this form of humanism constituted a sell-out (Ausverkauf) and surrender to German Fascism. Curtius' observation that the intelligentsia «braucht Freiheit und findet diese selbst unter Mussolini noch eher als unter der Ko min tern» suffices for J ehn to prove that Curtius en­dorsed Italian Fascism. Jehn's concluding remarks are plagued with inconsistency; he notes:

[Curtius'] totale Selbstpreisgabe ( ... ) allein konnte seinem BewuBtsein die eige­ne pers6nliche Integritiit sichern und sein positivistisches -Oberleben im Fa­schismus gleichwohl ermiiglichen! [127]

This statement implies that if Curtius had not abandoned his studies of French civilization, then he would have placed himself in a danger­ous position. But if one is to believe that these same studies of France were culturally hegemonial and latently Fascist anyway, then Curtius would have had no reason to give them up. Jehn might have recalled the hostility which greeted Curtius' studies of France from his Ger-

man Romanist colleagues as well as the overwhelmingly positive and comparatively matter-of-fact reception of these writings in France (one might compare the remarks made by such French reviewers as Maurice Muret, Louis Gillet, Louis Brun, Robert Pitrou, Henri Jourdan, Ramon Fernandez, Jean Schlumberger, Charles Du Bos, Catherine Pozzi, Henri See, Magdeleine Lavergne, Marcel Thiebaut and Robert de Saint-Jean; as well as Curtius' remarks in reply to Christian Senechal). Victor Klemperer's remarks that Curtius' views were authoritative for the intellectual left of the 1920's should suffice to make Curtius more palatable to current Marxist critics.

399. Schwab, Klaus, Zurn Goethe-Kutt, in: Zur literarischen Situation, 1945-49, ed. Gerhard Hay, (Frankfurt, 1977), 240--251.

Schwab gives a very brief exposition of early post-war pedagogical attempts either to rehabilitate or to come to terms with Goethe, with a short treatment of the Curtius-Jaspers polemic. The inadequacies and bias of this article are immediately apparent when compared to Godfrey Carr's 1972 essay (see above, entry no. 385).

1978

400. Carr, Godfrey R., Curtius as an Intellectual, Journal of European Studies 8 (1978), 231-245.

Carr seeks to explain how Curtius' writings reflect the difficulties of an intellectual in German society. This article is plagued with a num­ber of inaccuracies: Carr calls Wegbereiter Curtius' first publication, and claims that Curtius was not allowed to teach during the Nazi period (a list of seminars taught by Curtius is found in Lausberg's bio­graphical essay, see above, entry no. 380). Carr relates the ambi­guities of the word Geist to the ambiguities of the social role of the in­tellectual whose task was «to express the creative spirit of the nation and in so doing define its identity».

401. Notz, Marie-Fran~oise, Reflexions sur la fonction de jalonnement attri­buee par Curtius au paysage epique, Charlemagne et l'epopee romane, Actes du VII° Congres international de la Societe Rencesvals (Liege, 28aout - 4septembre, 1976), (Paris, 1978), 337-344.

Notz considers briefly the question of identifying a topos within a !iterary work:

Si un topos ne peut etre identifie que par son appartenance a un corpus, on peut se demander comment ce corpus a pu etre reuni. II faut done qu'il y ait dans la forme topique quelque chose qui la fasse reconnaitre dans un texte isole; dans le cas particulier de I'epopee, nous pensons que c'est son opposition au vraisemblable. [339]

153

If a topos were realistic, argues Notz, then the model for an allegedly topical description could just as easily be reality as literary tradition. Notz also observes that topoi connect a literary work to a public and a tradition and thereby prevent a work from being autonomous.

402. Weinrich, Harald, «Deutscher Geist», European Literature, «Medium /Evum Latinum»: Thirty Years After Ernst Robert Curtius' Book «ELL­MA» (1948), Romance Review 69 (November, 1978), 261-278; short­ened, modified German version published as Deutscher Geist, europiii­sche Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, Merkur 32 (1978), 1217-1229.

Weinrich's essay, originally presented as a guest lecture at Princeton in April, 1978, recreates for the benefit of succeeding scholars the at­mosphere in which ELLMA was received among German university students at the time of its publication. Speaking of his own personal reaction as a first-semester student, Weinrich notes:

I reacted in that 1948 post-war situation not only as a young student but also as a young German who saw in this beautiful tradition and fantastic continuity between Western Literature and the Latin Middle Ages the unsuspected chance to be all at once reintegrated, together with my nation, into the good old family of civilized and cultivated mankind. (262]

Weinrich belittles leftist critics such as Nerlich and Jehn (see entries nos.388, 389 and 398 above) by pointing to the clearly defined and at once profound continuity in Curtius' career. Weinrich explains in detail the context for Curtius' conservatism. Curtius abhored the Tat­Kreis and their espousal of a «conservative revolution» because of «their romantic flirting with irrationalism, their willingness to admit idiosyncratic German values outside the mainstream of common Western culture». Weinrich explains that Curtius' attacks on sociol­ogy must be understood as a very specific criticism of Karl Mann­heim's theory that intellectuals were necessarily classless, character­ized as freischwebende Intellektuellen who were «ready to serve any­body who is willing to hire them». Weinrich posits the continuity championed by, indeed represented by Curtius' writings themselves as a remedy for such uprootedness. Decrying the perversion of Cur­tius' topology in the mindless compiliation of topoi, Weinrich notes that Curtius interiorized history, an explanation which resolves bril­liantly the question of Curtius' relationship to history.

403. Wellek, Rene, The Literary Criticism of Ernst Robert Curtius, PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 3 (1978), 25-44.

154

Wellek investigates the political attitudes behind Curtius' work, par­ticularly Curtius' early attraction to the George-Kreis, his turning away from George and toward Hofmannsthal and Borchardt. Wellek dismisses Curtius' studies of French civilization, claiming «mostly he

operates with the most worn-out cliches» such as the contrast be­tween French civilisation and German Kultur. Wellek feels that Cur­tius' hopes for a new humanism as expressed in Deutscher Geist in Gefahr «were not only impractical in the Germany on the eve of Hit­ler but are completely Utopian in any foreseeable circumstances». Wellek tries to classify Curtius' approach theoretically, and, while al­lowing for the impetus given to medieval studies by ELLMA, calls the rest of Curtius' criticism «'thematics': a study of the leading motifs, themes and ideas of the writers selected mainly by a criterion which looks for allegiance to some kind of optimistic pantheism». [ 42]

1979

404. Dubois, Claude-Gilbert, Le manierisme, (Paris, 1979). Dubois situates Curtius' remarks on mannerism historically within the discussion of the historicity of mannerism, noting «Curtius en reste a un stade descriptif de son analyse, sans s 'interroger sur !es raisons qui poussent au choix de ces figures au detriment d'autres ni sur les rapports qui peuvent exister avec des codes differents» [174]. He distinguishes Curtius' approach from Hocke's:

L'etude formaliste, par le biais de la morphogenese, devrait ouvrir des horizons sur la sociopsychologie: c'est ce que refuse Curtius, c'est ce que tente Hocke, qui (comme Hauser) insiste sur le r6le de I'etrangete, du reve et de la d6mence, repercutes sur le plan culture! par le choix des figures compliquees et des formes etranges. (175]

In the final analysis, Dubois rejects Curtius' mannerist/classicist di­chotomy because it reflects the weakness of dialectical thought:

Opposer le classique et le romantique, le classique et le baroque, c'etait etablir des oppositions, et inscrire le discours de la critique dans une rhetorique de l'antithese. Mais on ne peut opposer le classique et le maniCrisme, puisque l'un decoule de l'autre et n'a d'existence que par l'autre. L'opposition n'est que for­melle et dCfinit en fait un mode d'engendrement ou de passage d'une reuvre a une autre. (179]

At the same time Dubois sees mannerism as a constant:

On peut considerer le maniCrisme comme un mode d'engendrement stylistique independant de toute topologie historique: chaque fois que nous assisterons it la predominance de la maniere sur la matiere, du signifiant sur le signifiC, a un processus d'imitation differentielle ( ... ) d'un modele anterieur, aboutissant it une recherche d'expressivite, nous pourrons parler de manierisme. (180]

405. Heinzle, Joachim, Boccaccio und die Tradition der Novelle, Zur Struk­turanalyse und Gattungsbestimmung kleinepischer Formen zwischen Mit­telalter und Neuzeit, in: Wolfram-Studien, V, ed. Werner Schroder, (Berlin, 1979), 41-62.

155

Prefatory to his review of the theoretical importance of otherness or 'alterity' (Alteritiit) in Hans-JOrg Neuschiiffer's Boccaccio und der Be­ginn der Novel/e, (Munich, 1969), and in Hanns Fischer's Studien zur deutschen Miirendichtung, (Tiibingen, 1968), Heinzle discusses the importance of 'identity' in Curtius' medieval studies. Heinzle dis­counts any lasting contribution from Curtius' ELLMA, but is careful to dissociate himself from what he calls the current fashion of denounc­ing Curtius as a heretic:

Auch wer nicht bereit ist, ohne weiteres in die nachgerade modisch gewordene Curtius-Verketzerung einzustimmen, kann sich der Einsicht nicht verschlieBen, daB dieser Entwurf letztlich weder sein wissenschaftliches Ziel erreicht hat, noch - im weitesten Sinne des Wortes - kulturpolitisch erfolgreich gewesen isl. Ganz zu schweigen von der offenkundigen Oberschiitzung des Anteils der Schule an der Konstituierung und Entfaltung der nachantiken Literatur und der erst in jiingster Zeit ins allgemeinere BewuBtsein getretenen Problematik des Toposbegriffs selbst, hat sich gezeigt, daB das Curtius'sche Programm einer historischen Topik zwar keineswegs notwendig und vom Ansatz her - wie ge­gen manche Kritiker festzuhalten ist -, wohl aber in seiner Durchfiihrung auf eine Preisgabe der Geschichtlichkeit des Gegenstandes hinauslief.

Heinzle fears, however, that the 'alterity' approach which is dia­metrically opposed to Curtius' affirmation of continuity risks commit­ting the same mistake of overlooking the historicity of its subject:

Nicht mehr soil das Kontinuierliche, sondern gerade das Diskontinuierliche der Entwicklung die Beschaftigung mil einer Schriftproduktion rechtfertigen, de­ren kategoriale Andersartigkeit im Verhaltnis zur - wie auch immer abgegrenz­ten - neueren Literatur ihr eine «Unersetzbare hermeneutische Funktion» [JauB] verleihe. Es wird oft iibersehen oder vergessen, daB damit ein Verstiind­nismodell zum Programm erhoben wird, das schon vor und neben dem Curtius­'schen Modell die literarhistorische Praxis in nicht geringem Umfang geleitet hat. Der Blick auf diese Praxis, geschiirft durch die neuere Theoriediskussion, zeigt indessen, daB dieser 'Mediavistik der Alteritiit' zufolge einer ganz analo­gen Einseitigkeit der Fragerichtung nicht weniger die Gefahr in die Wiege ge­legt isl, ihren Gegenstand zu verfehlen, als jener 'Mediavistik der ldentitiit'.

406. Mann, Thomas, Tagebilcher, 1918-1921, (Frankfurt, 1979), passim. The entries made by Thomas Mann in his diaries from 1918 to 1921 mention Curtius several times. Mann was apparently very familiar with Curtius' Wegbereiter and Barres. Curtius also acted as an inter­mediary between Romain Rolland and Mann, as the following entry shows: «Curtius teilte mir betreffende Passage aus einem Brief von Rolland mit: <]'admire Th. Mann, et je ne voudrais pas qu'il y eut de doute>. Also eine direkte Botschaft».

1980

407. Dieckmann, Herbert and Jane M. Dieckmann, eds. Deutsch-franzosi-

156

sche Gespriiche, 1920-1950, La Correspondance de Ernst Robert Curtius avec Andre Gide, Charles Du Bos et Valery Larbaud, (Frankfurt, 1980).

Excerpts from Curtius' correspondence help illuminate many contro­versial issues in the reception of his writings. As early as 1922, Cur­tius wrote Gide of his emphasizing Vergil and Dante in his teaching, «ich suche immer die antike, humanistische und romanische Tradi­tion zu betonen, und zwinge meine Studenten, auch Virgil und Dante zu lesen» (letter no. 32, February 12, 1922, p.51). On March 26, 1923, Curtius wrote Mme. Mayrisch: «je fais une cure d'humanites en relisant une fois de plus Homere et Virgile, nourriture substantielle et toujours divinement fraiche» (p. 69). Apparently during the 1920's there were persistent rumors that Curtius had converted to Catholi­cism. Curtius was absolutely categorical in denying these rumors (see an excerpt from a letter which Curtius wrote Carl Schmitt on this same topic, entry no. 413); as he explained to Gide in a letter written on April 17, 1927:

J'apprends que vous me croiriez «converti», c'est-:l-dire catholique. C'est un bruit qui reprend regulierement, mais c'est une erreur. Je suis chretien, et les mystiques n'ont jamais cesse de m'attirer. Mais je ne pourrai jamais me rallier a l'Eglise romaine. Mon attitude a son egard est celle des Anglicans et des eglises orientales dites orthodoxes. [86]

In 1946 Curtius wrote Gide concerning the latter's condemnation of existentialism and concerning his own changing attitudes toward Bal­zac and Proust:

J'applaudis a votre censure de l'existentialisme dont on nous rebat les oreilles, meme en Allemagne. ( ... ) Je prepare un livre sur le moyen age. Pour me cte­lasser, je relis de vieux auteurs qui autrefois m'enchantaient: Balzac et Proust. Helas! A 60 ans le jugement est milri, et je trouve dans les deux bien des choses mauvaises. [145]

Curtius also describes meeting Thomas Mann after the war, and Cur­tius' depiction of Mann provides a rather different perspective on Mann's claim (see entry no. 346 above) that Curtius and other Ger­mans who did not emigrate suffered from «eine wenigstens partielle intellektuelle Schrumpfung»:

Je viens de telephoner avec Th. Mann, actuellement ici au «Baur au Lac». Nous dejeunerons avec lui demain. II vient de declarer dans un journal zu­richois qu'il n'ira pas en Allemagne «pour ne pas se desolidariser avec l'emi­gration». Je crois plut6t qu'il a peur. Je t3.cherai de lui faire voir le tort qu'il se fait en se laissant accaparer par la soi-disante emigration et lui proposerai votre voyage en Allemagne comme exemple. Mais c'est un homme qui aime ses aises. [152]

( ... ) J'ai dejeune l'autre jour avec Th. Mann. II n'ira pas en Allemagne «pour ne pas se desolidariser avec l'emigration»! C'est un grand artiste, mais le contraire d'un grand caractere. Et pas intelligent. II gobe tout. [154]

157

In 1930 Curtius wrote to Charles Du Bos concerning his reaction to Du Bos' portrait of him (see above, entry no. 94):

En relisant votre etude j'ai ete frappe par la forrnule «la restitution de !'unite». Elle m'a frappe ii la fa~on d'un eclair, elle m'a revele un aspect de ma vie spi­rituelle que je n'avais saisi de fa<;on si lucide. Restituer l'unite - en vivant, en pensant, en aimant; c'est en effet un besoin de l'ame, obscur et puissant, my­sterieux et profond; c'est une direction qui exalte, tout en les depassant, nos ac­tivites terrestres; c'est une voie dans laquelle je me sens engage. [308]

Curtius wrote to Du Bos concerning Deutscher Geist in Gefahr:

Je prepare un petit ecrit sur la crise de !'esprit en Allemagne. En meme temps j'ai repris Platon s6rieusement, dans le texte et je fais un travail sur Jorge Man­rique, admirable lyrique espagnol du 15' siecle. II faut se refugier dans Jessa­pientum temp/a serena pour echapper aux soucis politiques et economiques dont la pression augmente tousles jours. (314]

In 1933, following the death of his father, Curtius replied to Du Bos' condolences:

Avec moo pere meurt une fois de plus la vieille Allemagne idealiste dont Jes maitres du jour ne veulent plus entendre parler. Je succede a une tradition d'honneur et de vertu, d'humanite et de piete qui est repudiee aujourd'hui. (329]

408. Dronke, Peter, Curtius as medievalist and modernist, Times Literary Supplement 79 (3 October 1980), 1103-1106.

158

Dronke briefly sketches out the influence of Gustav Grober on Cur­tius and notes how the analysis presented in his dissertation «tended to give Curtius a certain mental paradigm for the way vernacular authors are influenced by Latin materials - a paradigm that he was to apply less happily at times later on, in other contexts». Dronke sees a parallel between Curtius' interpretation of Joyce's Ulysses and the structure of ELLMA, that is, ELLMA represents Curtius' attempt at «spanning from the Homeric world to a new creative apprehension of the classical inheritance, integrating earlier worlds - the ancient, and that medieval Christian one which plays so large a part in the text of Joyce's novel - by the means of an elaborate series of interrelations, so that the whole achieves a richness and density greater than the sum of the ingredients». Dronke also publishes selections from Curtius' correspondence from 1934-1939 and 1946-1949 with Gertrud Bing (Aby Warburg's assistant and later director of the Warburg Institute during the 1950's). Dronke remarks that Curtius' letters, most of them written when Curtius was able to travel briefly outside of Ger­many and write without fear of censorship, «give a unique testimony to what it was like for a brave anti-fascist to live on in Nazi Ger­many». In a letter written from Rome in 1937, Curtius complains about the Italian Fascist 'urban renewal' of the city which was leading

to a «destruction of scholarly and cultural life». Curtius' letters Dronke points out, show how often, in the course of his writing th~ articles which later formed the core of ELLMA, his thoughts turned to Aby Warburg.

409. Gross, Stefan, Ernst Robert Curtius und die deutsche Romanistik der zwanziger Jahre, Zurn Problem nationaler Images in der Literaturwissen­schaft, (Bonn, 1980).

In this clearly focussed monograph, Gross compares Curtius' views on French civilization with those of Eugen Lerch and Victor Klempe­rer. Gross contrasts civilization studies as practiced by Curtius, Lerch and Klemperer with 'imagology' - a research method cultivated by Hugo Dyserinck, professor of comparative literature in Aachen, which dispenses with the investigation of 'national psychology' (V6lkerpsychologie) and endeavors to elucidate the (subjective) structures of national perception and self-perception. Curtius, Gross argues, was conscious of the pitfalls and shortcomings of the 'national psychology' method, yet was unable to overcome the contradictions implicit in this approach:

Auseinandersetzungen um Definitionen nationaler Entitiiten und deren Gtiltig­keit spielten in den zwanziger Jahren nicht nur in der Romanistik eine groBe Rolle, und die in den dreiBiger Jahren sich endgiiltig durchsetzenden Uisungs­modelle viilkischer und rassischer Art konnten ihren Verfechtern und den sol­cher 'Wissenschaft' Vertrauenden mancherlei Rechtfertigungsniite nehmen und ldentifikation mit nationalsozialistischer Politik erleichtern. Von Viilker­psychologismen zum Rassismus, so k6nnte auf begrenztem Teilbereich der ge­dankliche Weg von Weimar zum Dritten Reich beschrieben werden.

Es ist nun nicht von der Hand zu weisen, daB Curtius in eben dieser Diskus­sion, deren Thematik, wie sich zeigte, wesentlicher Bestandteil auch seiner Ar­beiten der zwanziger Jahre war, zumindest teilweise die Intention hatte, auf na­tionalen Stereotypen beruhendes Denken zu bekampfen. DaB er sich selbst von <lessen Ansiitzen nicht zu l6sen vermochte, daB er zwischen Imagologie und Viilkerpsychologie steckenblieb, verhinderte eine akzeptable wider­spruchsfreie Aussage. [84-85]

Gross also replies to Nerlich's championing of Klemperer (see entry no.389 above); he observes:

Da ich mit Nerlich einer Meinung bin, daB eine romanistische Legendenbil­dung nicht unbedingt wiinschenswert ist, miichte ich u.a. der Gefahr entgegen­wirken, daB an die Stelle der 'Curtius-Legende' nun eine Klempers tritt, worin letzterer als der lobenswerte Gegenpart zu Curtius aufgebaut wird. (62]

Gross demonstrates in detail that Klemperer's studies of French civi­lization - even those from the 1950's - were themselves strongly in­fluenced by the stereotypes of the 'national psychology' approach.

410. Hoeges, Dirk, Literatur und Evolution, Studien zur franz6sischen Litera-

159

turkritik im 19. Jahrhundert: Taine - Brunetiere - Hennequin - Guyau, (Heidelberg, 1980), 78--81.

Hoeges elucidates the influence of natural scientific theories on lit­erary criticisms in 19th-century France. These theories gradually supplanted historical and social models:

In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird versucht, den dargelegten Vorgang, die Ablo­sung historisch-gesellschaftlich ausgerichteter Erklarungs- und Verstehensmo­delle durch die Herrschaft eines naturwissenschaftlichen Modells, der Evolu­tionstheorie, faktisch zu zeigen in Gestalt einer Prii.sentation, seine Komplexi­tat freizulegen und seine zahlreichen Implikationen deutlich zu machen. [13]

After demonstrating the close affinities between Brunetiere's literary theories and contemporary scientific theories of evolution, Hoeges rejects Curtius' attempt to interpret Brunetiere's application of the principle of evolution as «metaphorical». Hoeges finds that Curtius employed sophistry to answer Brunetiere's claim that classical French tragedy was dead, and that Curtius confused Brunetiere's distinction between evolutionary and historical methods.

411. Butter, Gerhard, La theorie des topiques comme modete de production de texte, Quelques hypotheses sur E. R. Curtius et le «Grant et vray Art de pleine Rhetorique» de Pierre Le Fevre, in: Du mot au texte, ed. Peter Wunderli, (Tiibingen, 1981), 263-275.

160

Butter argues that the controversy surrounding Curtius' use of the term topos essentially misses the point of Curtius' research. Granted, Curtius was partially to blame by somewhat arbitrarily identifying re­current stereotypic textual elements with the topoi of classical rhet­oric, nevertheless the peremptory nature of Curtius' terminology should not divert inquiry from the fundamental issue whether rhe­torical theories (including those treating commonplaces) exercise in­fluence over contemporary literary production. Curtius' research un­derscores the need for a historic rhetoric rather than for a systematic rhetoric (as envisaged by Heinrich Lausberg). Answering this ques­tion may permit connecting Curtius' literary topoi with a tentative theory of rhetorical commonplaces. Butter's examination of Pierre Le Fevre's remarks on invention in his Grant et vray Art de pleine Rhetorique (published posthumously in 1521) affords a striking parallel between rhetorical theory and Curtius' application of the term topos. Le Fevre posited his exposition of rhetoric not as a de­fense of oratorical eloquence but as a (somewhat naive) apology for poetry, an attitude coinciding with Curtius' assumption that rhetoric came to be used for literary rather than for its initial practical pur­poses. Butter further notes that Le Fevre's treatment of loci (lieux), while closely following classical usage, introduces the distinction be­tween lieux proper and lieux communs, the latter corresponding re-

markably with Curtius' topoi. This affinity prompts Butter to wonder whether Le Fevre's distinction reflects an older school practice, dat­ing back to the 13th century. Further evidence for this theoretical parallel would, Butter implies, go a long way in corroborating Cur­tius' theory.

412. Kuntz, Edwin, Deutsch-franzosische Gespriiche, Ein Beitrag zum Wir­ken und zur Biographie von Ernst Robert Curtius, Rhein-Neckar-Zei­tung (Heidelberg), (12/13September 1981).

Kuntz welcomes this collection of letters for demonstrating the immediacy of Curtius' contacts to France. Kuntz notes, «Wir haben durch Curtius vi el von dem Frankreich der zwanziger J ahre kennen­gelernt. Jetzt lernen wir im Detail kennen, welch unsiigliche Miihe Ernst Robert Curtius das gekostet hat».

413. Nagel, Rolf, Briefe von Ernst Robert Curtius an Carl Schmitt, (1921/22), Archiv fiir das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 133. Jh., Bd. 218, (1981), 1-15.

These letters offer additional valuable evidence on Curtius' position vis-ii-vis his Romanist colleagues. On November 19, 1921, Curtius wrote Schmitt:

Ich brauche Ihnen nicht zu sagen, daB es mir eine groBe Genugtuung ware, wenn Sie den Barres besprachen. Eventuell als Replik auf Lerch, der sich wohl wieder bemiihen wird, mich zu zerschmettern. Mit seinem ereintement der Wegbereiter hat er iibrigens in Fachkreisen sich mehr als mir geschadet. Die Miinchener bilden eben eine societe d' assurance mutuelle. lodes scheint VoBler eine Schwenkung zu meinen Gunsten - seit dem Barres - gemacht zu haben, wie ich wohl aus einer Karte entnehme, die er mir neulich schrieb; und aus einer Rezension von Klemperer [see above, entry no.15] der ebenfalls merk­wiirdig wohlwollend geworden isl. Beitrage zu einer Psychologie des Urteils -von Akademikern! [4]

In a letter a week later, Curtius mentions an English student's diffi­culties in Marburg, and one finds another example for the recurrent rumors of Curtius' conversion to Catholicism (see Curtius' remarks to Gide on this same point, entry, no.407):

Das Miss M[urray] katholisch ist, erschwert natiirlich das Einleben bier sehr. Als vor einem Jahr die Liigenmeldung von meiner Konversion hier verbreitet wurde, babe ich in diesem Punkt allerhand Erfahrungen gemacht. [5]

414. Richards, Earl Jeffrey, Dante and the «Roman de la Rose»: An Investi­gation into the Vernacular Narrative Context of the «Commedia», Beihef­te zur Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie, Bd.184, (Tiibingen, 1981), 94-98, 101-103.

In examining parallels between the Roman de la Rose and the Com-

161

media, Richards shows that Dante's description of the river and foun­tain of light in Pd. 30 combines the depiction of the fountain of life in the biau pare at the end of the Rose (vv. 20435-20447) and the des­cription of the river and fountain of light in Alanus' Anticlaudianus VI. 234-249, presenting an example of a far more complicated media­tion of Latinity than Curtius envisaged in his article Dante und A/a­nus ab Insulis, Romanische Forschungen_62 (1950), 28--31. Richards also treats the motif of «<las Staunen der Gotter vor Argo» (which Curtius treated in his essay Das Schiff der Argonauten, Kritische Essays, pp. 398--428), showing that Dante's source for this motif in Pd. 33 must have been the Rose.

1982

415. Gier, Albert, Review of Deutsch-franzosische Gesprache (1980), Zeit-schrift fiir romanische Philologie 98 (1982), 682--083.

Gier greets the publication of Curtius' correspondence with Gide, Du Bos and Larbaud, and emphasizes that these letters help contem­porary Romanists understand the original and now mostly forgotten context in which Curtius worked:

Ober die Situation des deutschen Romanisten in der Zeit nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg erfiihrt man aus diesem Buch manches, was wir heute (auch bei der Beurteilung von Publikationen aus dieser Zeit) meist vergessen: Der kulturelle Austausch zwischen Frankreich und Deutschland war offensichtlich v6Jlig zum Erliegen gekommen. ( ... ) Interessant ist auch, daB Curtius vom «Nebeneinan­der von Beruf und schriftstellerischer Arbeit» spricht [26]: Offensichtlich be­trachtete er sich eh er als homme de lettres denn als Fachwissenschaftler, denn fast alle seine Essays zur neueren franzOsischen Literatur erschienen in fiir ein breites Publikum bestimmten Zeitschriften wie der Neuen Rundschau des Fischer Verlages.

416. Uitti, Karl, Introduction, in: Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philo­logy, vol. 3: Language and Philology in Romance, eds. Rebecca Posner and John N. Green, (The Hague, 1982), 3-44.

162

In this examination of the various schools of thought in Romance scholarship, a term which Uitti employs in order to underscore the flexibility of the philosophical premises underlying Romance philo­logy, Uitti considers three representative works of late 19th-century Romanists: Grober's Grundrij3 (1888--1902); Gillieron's article on La claire fontaine, Romania 12 (1883), 307-331; and the first edition of Bedier's Les Fabliaux (1893). Uitti argues that «at its high-water mark Romance linguistics and literary study ought to be viewed really as having been a non-monolithic and resolutely open-ended set of related and constantly changing disciplinary activities», in which in­tellectual exchange occurred within a «system of loyalty/disagree­ment - an intensely liberal outlook» [18]. Given these premises Uitti

then discusses how Curtius' writings constitute a creative and innova­tive continuation of the preceding traditions of Romance philology. Curtius, according to Uitti, distrusted literary history («one is reminded of JauB» [27]) and therefore sought to replace it with a philologically-based literary phenomenology [28]. Uitti's inter­pretation of Curtius' application of the premises of earlier Romance scholarship should put to rest the old objection that Curtius aban­doned modernity in favor of the Middle Ages:

Given Curtius' affectionate memory and appreciation of what Grober and his collaborators stood for - his expression, even, of the moral dimension adhering to their work - no doubt may be entertained as to his life-long and enthusiastic loyalty to Romance philology. He certainly felt no need to undo, or overcome his training; on the contrary! Other examples from various fields, also come to mind: Spitzer, Auerbach, Malkiel, Damaso Alonso, Amado Alonso, Weinrich, Segre. [11]

1983

417. Corbineau-Hoffmann, Angelika, Marcel Proust, Ertriige der Forschung (Darmstadt, 1983), [in press, seen in manuscript].

In this important survery, Corbineau-Hoffmann notes that Curtius' Proust (1925, 31973) has historically exerted a decisive influence on subsequent studies of Proust. Corbineau-Hoffmann underlines parallels between Curtius' approach to Proust and Proust's own re­marks on the task of the literary critic, and reviews Curtius' emphasis on the significance of music in Proust's work. She concludes by observing, «Die Geschichte der Proustdeutung liiBt sich zu einem nicht geringen Tei! als Ausdifferenzierung <lessen verstehen, was Curtius aus seiner konzentrierten Lektiire an Erkenntnisse gewann».

418. Foucart, Claude, [Gide-Curtius (1921-1923)], Revue de litterature com-paree 57 (1983), [in press, not seen].

Foucart presents a detailed investigation of the relationship between Gide and Curtius from 1921 to 1923 preliminary to a more extensive analysis to appear later. This essay builds on Foucart's earlier articles on Gide: Andre Gide et Hermann Hesse ou !'independence de l' esprit au milieu des guerres, Bulletin des Amis d'Andre Gide no. 40 (Octo­ber, 1979), 7; and De Gide, de Hesse et surtout de Hans Prinzhorn, Bulletin des Amis d'Andre Gide no.50 (April, 1981), 195.

163

Supplement

1925

419. Randall, A. W. G., A German View: A German on Balzac [Review: Curtius, Balzac (1924)], The Saturday Review of Literature 1 (31 January 1925), 495.

Randall stresses the continuity between Curtius' treatment of Balzac and his earlier studies of the literarische Wegbereiter, of Maurice Barres, of Paul Valery and of Marcel Proust. Before reviewing Curtius' work in closer detail, Randall prefaces his remarks by not­ing, «Curtius' careful and searching study in the Balzacian philosophy deserves to stand beside Brunetiere's extended essay on the literary, historical and stylistic aspects of Balzac's novels».

1932

420. Denny, Harold N., Two Germans Assay the Value of French Civiliza­tion, Dr. Curtius and Herr Sieburg offer Unusual Insights into the Character of a Baffling Nation, The [Sunday] New York Times Book Re­view (17April 1932), 3, 24.

This comparison of the English translation of Sieburg's Gott in Frank­reich? with that of Curtius' Die franzosische Kultur devotes more space to Sieburg than to Curtius. Denny finds in both works kindred spirits: «The reactions of these German writers to France are very close to those of an American of similar culture, which is not surpris­ing, since there is a fundamental likeness between the German scheme of life and the American». Denny notes that Curtius' volume lacks «the color and richness of sentiment which distinguish Sie­burg's» but clearly sees Sieburg's indebtedness to the earlier study.

421. Guerard, Albert, Two Germans on France, The [Sunday] New York Herald Tribune Books (17 July 1932), 2.

164

Guerard welcomes Sieburg's and Curtius' volumes for their sympa­thetic presentation of France, adding, «there is not in either suspicion of disloyalty to their country; they serve Germany best who do not feed her with lies». Guerard however stresses that both writers «in their attempt to define nation and people, are compelled to pile up

endless contradictions», a fact which Guerard feels in no sense dis­qualifies their works:

Do these books end in failure, then? By no means. The value of such studies is in the quest itself, in the effort to understand. As long as the working hypo­thesis is not foolish, mean, hateful, but generous and sensible, the work in­creases knowledge, enhances sympathy, and must be called good.

422. Panunzio, Constantine, Plaisant pays de France [Review: Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (English translation, 1932)], The Saturday Review of Literature 9 (30July 1932), 15.

In this review of both Curtius' and Sieburg's works, Panunzio notes:

Curtius views the scene with the objectivity and the detachment of the scholar; draws from a variety of sources; presents an orderly and well rounded picture; and is always grave, occasionally profound.

1933

423. Haxo, Henry E., Review: Curtius, Die franzosische Kultur (English translation, 1932), The Quarterly Journal, University of North Dakota 23 (1933), 318-319.

Haxo considers Curtius' study to be «probably the most searching and the most original of all studies on the subject published in late years». He notes that it represents «a contribution that is remarkable for its fairness and impartiality, but - what is more worthy still in view of the present international outlook - it is also a most laudable and a most courageous action».

1950

424. Pagel, Walter, Review: Curtius, ELLMA (1948), Isis 41(1950)247-248. Pagel scrutinizes the utility of Curtius' magnum opus for the historian of science, and notes a significant omission on Curtius' part of the works of Marie Gothein treating the concept of 'Goddess Nature' in Das Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft, vols. 9 and 10.

1954

425. Fergusson, Francis, Two Perspectives on European Literature [Review: Curtius, ELLMA, (English translation, 1953)], Hudson Review 7 (Spring, 1954), 119-127.

In this joint review of ELLMA and Auerbach's Mimesis, Fergusson ex­plains how «the enquiring amateur» should read Curtius. Fergusson sees parallels between Curtius' application of rhetorical principles and «Kenneth Burke's fertile efforts to rethink some of the concepts of

165

ancient rhetoric for modern use» (120]. In his capacity as a dantista, Fergusson concentrates on Curtius' treatment of Dante's Latinity, noting:

Yet the question remains, about Dante and I suppose about Medieval Latinity in general, how adequate the cult of Humane Letters is for complete under­standing. ( ... ) What does it take to revive Humane Letters? Is a love and understanding of Humane Letters themselves enough, or would it require a faith beyond them to make them sprout once more, like the withered tree in Dante's Paradiso Terrestre, which put forth spring foilage when Christ's car touches it? [122]

426. Fischer, Max, Those 'Dark' Ages [Review: Curtius, ELLMA (English translation, 1953)], Commonweal 59 (26March 1954), 635.

Fischer's discussion of ELLMA is most important in retrospect for its opening anecdote: «When we celebrated Goethe's bicentenary in As­pen in 1949, Ernst Robert Curtius ( ... ) left his audience spellbound by the audacity with which he stressed the unity of Occidental literary tradition and revised many popular conceptions on medieval liter­ature».

427. Harth, Sydney Y., European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, Chicago Review 8 (Fall, 1954), 104-108.

Harth faults Curtius in ELLMA for having presumed tautologically the very unity of 'European literature' which he sought to prove, reproaching him for being «impervious to the trepidations of distin­guished specialists». Moreover, Harth finds Curtius' command of the respective literatures insufficient:

Even the most generous judgment of his book must indicate that the revolutionary work he intended to produce has not yet appeared. ( ... ) A more thorough and more disinterested scholarship, as well as a firmer logical basis of integration, must appear in the writer who will finally produce the book Dr. Curtius desired to write.

428. O[lson], C[harles], Review: Curtius, ELLMA (English translation, 1953), Black Mountain Review 1 (Summer, 1954), 57--60.

This prominent and influential American poet produces a cranky and disordered critique of Curtius' book here, stylistically rather re­miniscent of Ezra Pound, («We are in the hands of a huge Propaganda office. It isn't the contents of this book alone. It is also, that it is the 36th volume of the Bollingen Series»). In general Olson's aversion to Curtius' work stems from Olson's own 'post-modernist' antagonism toward universals.

429. Trotter, G. D., Review: Curtius, ELLMA (English translation, 1953), The Dublin Magazin N. S. 29 (April-June, 1954), 49-50.

This positive evaluation of Curtius' work (which, «though it follows

166

the best traditions of German scholarly thoroughness, provides a welcome corrective»), concludes by noting:

If the first hasty impression is that too much of the book is devoted to showing that a common-place remains a common-place for over twenty-five centuries, the final judgment must be one of conviction that our present method of study­ing European literature in terms of individual countries is inadequate.

1961

430. Adler, Alfred, Review: Curtius, Gesammelte Aufsiitze (1960), Books Abroad 35 (Autumn 1961), 338--339.

Adler welcomes the publication of Curtius' articles, particularly in order to remedy the neglect into which Curtius' studies on Old French epics had fallen (see Adler's article on this specific question, entry no. 326). Adler then takes this occasion to answer the criticisms raised by Damaso Alonso (see entry no. 329):

this writer ( ... ) feels the need to remind that Curtius developed his encyclope­dia of to poi during the years of Germany's most sinister, cultural isolation. The discovery of each single topos means salvation, evidence that there was such a thing as European tradition. As for the unique spontaneity of the individual poet, is it not true that such uniqueness can be recognized and joyfully acknowledged only by people rooted well enough in the tradition which keeps them alive to become individuals?

1964

431. Sargent, Barbara Nelson, Review: Curtius, Die franz6sische Kultur (English translation, 1932; reprinted, 1962), French Review 38 (Decem­ber 1964), 265-266.

Though Sargent admits that some of Curtius' ideas have become out­dated, she observes that «the very foreignness of [Curtius'] point of view is in many respects an advantage. ( ... ) Curtius' view of France is inevitably tinged by his own nationality: he is no 'neutral' outsider. Numerous are the comparisons between French and German values and institutions. Yet this treatment can be illuminating not only to Germans but to all interested in French civilization».

1974

432. Anonymous, R<:view: Curtius, Kritische Essays (English translation, 1973), Journal of Modern Literature 4 (November 1974), 203.

This short notice emphasizes that Curtius' personal acquaintance with the subjects of his essays «seems to abet his uncommonly cogent critical insights». The Introduction by Michael Kowal is singled out

167

for its «excellent comparison of the critical approach of Curtius with those made by Edmund Wilson and T. S. Eliot».

433. Anonymous, Review: Curtius, Kritische Essays (English translation, 1973), Choice 11 (May 1974), 428--429.

This anonymous review emphasizes how Curtius' activity as a critic of modern literature complements his medievalist concerns:

While often thought of as a medievalist, widely known as an authority on Ro­mance languages and linguistics, a mediator between French and German cul­tures, Curtius in the 1920's astounded the often-arid world of scholarship with elegantly and perceptively written essays on such modem writers as Joyce and Eliot. One of the chief surprises of this book is the interest and understanding with which he analyzed Joyce in 1929, just five years after the publication of Ulysses. His first important essay on Eliot came out in 1927. With characteristic independence of mind, Curtius was able to extol the poetic virtues of the young Eliot in 1927 and be critical of that poet in a second essay written the year after Eliot received the Nobel Prize in literature.

434. Chamberlin, J.E., Radical Conservatism [Review: Curtius, Kritische Es­says (English translation, 1973)], The Hudson Review 27 (Spring 1974), 451-459.

Chamberlin discusses the implicit political orientation of Curtius' literary criticism in order to connect its affirmative nature to an un­derlying conservatism. This 'radical conservatism' consists, Chamber­lin argues, in Curtius' recurrent appeal to authority, and «to a certain though not benumbing extent» to tradition. Chamberlin detects in Curtius a fundamental irrationalism:

Curtius, too, refused to accept the priority of rational response, taking great care to emphasize the religious traditions within which so many of his subjects write, and which define their particular perspectives and sensibilities; and he in­sisted that «the fundamental act of criticism consists in irrational contact».

435. Davenport, Gary T., The Permanence of the West [Review: Curtius, Kri­tische Essays (English translation, 1973)], The Sewanee Review 82 (Spring 1974), xxxiii-xxxv.

168

Davenport is impressed by the «sweeping catholicity» of Curtius' literary critical interests, noting that Curtius was invariably attracted by the «comprehensive mentality» of his subjects. Davenport's re­marks on Curtius' classicism, all the more significant given the im­portance of The Sewanee Review as an organ of the 'New Criticism', bear repeating:

It is not Curtius' classicism that makes him a modern; nor should it be confused with antiquarianism. On the contrary he is a man of his age in every important way. His constant effort is not to erect barriers between a corrupt present and a golden past but to tear down those barriers and to synthesize the ancient and the modern into a dynamic and vital culture that serves the living.

Davenport's observations on Curtius' treatment of T. S. Eliot reflect the importance of Curtius' contribution: «Curtius emphasizes the continuity between Eliot's early and late work rather than taking the more familiar position that Eliot's career follows a movement from despair to salvation».

1982

436. Hinterhiiuser, Hans, Bild eines grof3en Gelehrten in seinen Briefen [Re­view: Deutsch-franz6sische Gespriiche (1980)], Archiv fiir das Studium der neueren Sprachen 219 (1982), [seen in galley].

Hinterhiiuser emphasizes the importance of Curtius' correspondence with Gide, Du Bos, and Valery Larbaud in providing a rare insight into the otherwise relatively inaccessible subjective aspect of Curtius' scholarship. In Curtius' friendship with Gide, Hinterhiiuser detects a str~ng utilitarian eleme.nt: Curtius championed Gide in Germany while Gide helped Curtms to establish close ties with contemporary French writers. A tone of high self-esteem permeates the Gide-Cur­tius exchanges, an attitude inseparable from their shared belief that the success of their notion of European cultural unity would be re­alized by an intellectual elite. Hinterhiiuser notes with sensitivity how Curtius adapted himself to his correspondents: with Gide Curtius em­phasized his own Protestant background whereas with Du Bos Cur­tius stressed his affinity to Catholicism, although this later attitude disappeared abruptly with Curtius' defense of Gide against Du Bos' criticisms in Dialogue avec Andre Gide. Curtius' isolation from his university colleagues is also a recurrent topic of this published corre­spondence.

169

Bibliography of Curtius' Writings

This bibliography presents a modified and up-dated version of Walter Boehlich's bibliography in the Freundesgabe.

I. Monographs

A.

1. Einleitung zu einer neuen Ausgabe der «Quatre livre des Reis», (Inaugu­ral-Dissertation, StraBburg 1910), Halle 1911, 89pp. (=Introduction, no. 2).

2. Li Quatre Livre des Reis, critical edition by Ernst Robert Curtius, Gesell­schaft fiir romanische Literatur, Bd. 26, Dresden 1911, xcv + 243 pp.

3. Ferdinand Brunetiere, Beitrag zur Geschichte der franzosischen Kritik, StraBburg 1914, 134 pp.

4. Die literarischen Wegbereiter des neuen Frankreich, Potsdam 1919, 276pp.; 2nd expanded edition, Potsdam 1920, 290pp.; 3rd expanded edition, Potsdam 1923, 342 pp. (includes nos. 49, 54, 61 and 70).

5. Der Syndikalismus der Geistesarbeiter in Frankreich, Bonn 1921, 38 pp. 6. Maurice Barres und die geistigen Grundlagen des franzosischen Nationa­

lismus, Bonn 1921, 255pp.; reprinted, Hildesheim 1962. - Swedish translation: Maurice Barres och den franska nationalismens

andliga grundvalar, translated by Carl-Gustav Thomasson, Lund 1926.

7. Balzac, Bonn 1923, 543pp.; reprinted, Berne 1951. - French translation: Balzac, translated by Henri Jourdan, Paris 1933.

8. Franzosischer Geist im neuen Europa, Stuttgart 1925, 371 pp. - Marcel Proust, Frankfurt 1955, 1973, 155 pp. (no. 8, chapter 1); also

reprinted in: Franzosische Literatur van Beaumarchais bis Camus, ed. D. Steland, (Interpretationen, 6; Fischer Biicherei, 963), Frankfurt 1969, pp. 206-269.

- French translation: Marcel Proust, translated by Henri Jourdan, in: La Nouvelle Revue Frarn;aise (1928).

- Spanish translation: Marcel Proust y Paul Valery, translated by Pedro Lecuona, Buenos Aires 1941, ( = no. 8, chapter 1 and 2).

9. L'idee de civilisation dans la conscience frani;aise, translated by Henri Jourdan, Paris 1929, 8 pp.

10. James Joyce und sein Ulysses, Zurich 1929, 78pp. (=no. 15, 2nd edition, chapter 17).

11. Die franzosische Kultur, Eine Einfuhrung, vol.1 of: Frankreich, by Ernst

170

Robert Curtius and Arnold Bergstriisser, Stuttgart 1930, vm + 195 pp.; 2nd printing with introduction by Fritz Schalk, Munich 1975.

- French translation: Essai sur la France, translated by J. Benoist­Mechin, Paris 1932.

- Swedish translation: Den franska kulturen, translated, with a foreword by Sven Stolpe, Stockholm 1932. ·

- English translation: The Civilization of France, translated by Olive Wyon, London 1932, reprinted New York 1962, 1971.

- Turkish translation: Fransiz medeniyeti, yazan, translated by S. Eyii­boglu, Istanbul 1938; 2nd Edition, Istanbul 1953.

12. Deutscher Geist in Gefahr, Stuttgart 1932, 130pp.; 2nd printing 1932; 3rd printing, 1933.

13. Europiiische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, Berne 1948, 601 pp.; 2nd edition, 1954, 608 pp. ·

- English translation: European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, translated by Willard R. Trask, New York/London 1953.

- Spanish translation: Literatura europea y Edad Media latina, transla­ted by Margit Frenk Alatorre and Antonio Alatorre, Buenos Aires 1955.

- French translation: La litterature europeenne et le moyen iige latin, translated by Jean Brejoux, Paris 1956.

- Portuguese translation: Literatura europeia e idade media latina, trans­lated by Teodoro Cabral, Rio de Janeiro 1957.

14. Literarische Kritik in Deutsch/and, Hamburg 1950, 26 pp. 15. Kritische Essays zur europiiischen Literatur, Berne 1950, 439 pp.; 2nd ex­

panded edition, 1954, 445 pp. (includes nos. 10; introduction to nos. 23, 297 and 299); 3rd edition, Berne 1963.

- French translation: Essais sur la litterature europeenne, translated by Claude David, Paris 1954.

- Spanish translation: Ensayos crfticos sabre la literatura europea, trans­lated by Eduardo Valenti, Barcelona 1959, 1972.

- Italian translation: Studi di letteratura europea, translated by Lea Rit­ter-Santini, Bologna 1962; 2nd revised edition, 1982.

- English translation: Essays on European Literature, translated by Mi­chael Kowal, Princeton 1973.

16. Franzosischer Geist im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert, Berne 1952, 527 pp. (includes nos. 4, pp. 5-273; 8, pp. 274-423; and 53, 97, 113, 121, 146, 152, 286).

17. Buchertagebuch, with a postscript by Max Rychner, Berne 1960, 119. - Spanish translation: Diario de lecturas, translated by Jorge Deike

Robles, Madrid 1969. 18. Gesammelte Aufsiitze zur romanischen Philologie, Berne 1960, 504 pp.

(includes nos. 213, 219, 220, 221, 242, 256, 257, 265, 266, 275, 276, 278, 282, 283, 293, 294, 295, 300, 302).

171

B. Translations

19. Andre Gide, Europiiische Betrachtungen, Stuttgart 1932. 20. Andre Gide, 6dipus, Stuttgart 1932. 21. Andre Gide, Theseus, Stuttgart 1949. 22. William Goyen, Haus aus Hauch, Zurich 1952. 23. Jorge Guillen, Lobgesang, Zurich 1952. 24. T. S. Eliot, Das wiiste Land, Wiesbaden 1957; Frankfurt 1975; see also

entry no. 309 below.

II. Articles and Reviews

A.

1907

25. Eine bemerkenswerte literarische Coincidenz, Frankfurter Zeitung (23December 1907).

1911

26. Gustav Grober, StraBburger Post (after 6 November 1911).

1912

27. Elsa/JI, in: Der elsassische Garten, ein Buch von unsres Landes Art und Kunst, ed. by Fr. Lienhardt et al., StraBburg 1912, 4ff.

28. Stunden im StrajJburger Munster, op. cit., 225 ff.

1913

29. Maurice Barres et Romain Rolland, Antwort auf eine Rundfrage, La Revue fran~aise politique et litteraire, 3 August 1913.

30. Albert Samain, Frankfurter Zeitung (12 August 1923). 31. Zu Guibert von Nogent, Miinchener Museum 2 (1913), 205ff.

1914

32. Franzosische Kirchennot, StraBburger Post, (21 March 1914). 33. Die Emporung der Engel, StraBburger Post, (2April 1914). 34. Ein pessimistisches Urteil iiber das heutige Frankreich, (Alphonse Seche),

Kolnische Zeitung (16April 1914).

172

35. An Ernst Stadlers Grab, StraBburger Post, (15 December 1914). 36. Das Schematismuskapital in der «Kritik der reinen Vernunft», Kant-Stu­

dien 19 (1914), 338ff.

1917

37. Review of L. Sire, L 'attitude religieuse de Brunetiere, Zeitschrift fiir fran­zosische Sprache und Literatur 44 (1917), 209 ff.

1918

38. Die Krisis des Humanismus, Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, (22 Jan­uary 1918).

39. «Johann Christo! am Ziel», Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, (11 June 1918).

1919

40. Colas Breugnon, Westdeutsche Wochenschrift, (3 October 1919). 41. Die geistige Bewegung in Deutschland und der franzosische Geist, West­

deutsche Wochenschrift, (31 October 1919). 42. Baudelaire, Westdeutsche Wochenschrift (21 November 1919). 43. Romain Rolland als Kriegsdichter, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung,

(29 December 1919). 44. Tragische Religiositiit, (Marie Luise Enckendorff, Uber das Religiose),

Hochland (1919), 139 ff.

1920

45. Max Weber iiber Wissenschaft als Beruf, Arbeitsgemeinschaft (January 1920), 197ff.

46. Die heutigen Probleme der franzosischen Intelligenz, Kolnische Volks-zeitung, (17March 1920).

47. Otto Braun, Westdeutsche Wochenschrift, (19March 1920). 48. Georges Duhamel, Westdeutsche Wochenschrift, (2April 1920). 49. «Clartb (Barbusse), Tagebuch, (8May 1920), 578ff. (=no. 4, 2nd edi­

tion, Appendix 4). 50. Deutsch-franzosische Kulturbeziehungen, Westdeutsche Wochenschrift,

(30 July 1920). 51. Das Problem der politischen Ideologie und Maurice Barres, Kolnische

Volkszeitung (8November 1920). 52. L'image de la France, L'<Euvre (December 1920), 9f. (= no.11, beginn­

ing of chapter 7).

173

53. Die Erneuerung des franzosischen Katholizismus im 17. Jahrhundert, Hochland (1920), lff. (= no.16, pp. 437ff.).

54. Eine Stimme aus Jung-Amerika (Lucien Price, Immortal Youth), Vivos Voco 1 (1920), 776ff.

55. Les influences asiatiques dans la vie intellectuelle de I' Allemagne, Revue de Geneve (1920), 890ff.

56. Franzosische Ku/turkiimpfe, Internationale Monatsschrift fiir Wissen­schaft, Kunst und Technik 14 (1920), 549ff.

1921

57. Neues von und ilber Romain Rolland, Tagebuch (2July 1921), (=no. 4, 2nd edition, Appendix 3).

58. Um Maurice Barres und den franzosischen Nationalismus, Frankfurter Zeitung, (18September 1921).

59. Neue franzosische Bucher, Tagebuch (lODecember 1921). 60. Flaubert, Hannoverscher Kurier (11 December 1921). 61. Bemerkungen zu Charles-Louis Philippe, Genius (1921), 150ff., (=

no. 4, 2nd edition, Appendix 1). 62. Deutsch-franzosische Kulturprobleme, Der Neue Merkur (1921), 145 ff.

( = no. 4, 2nd edition, Appendix 5). 63. Entstehung und Wandlungen des Dekadenzproblems in Frankreich, In­

ternationale Monatsschrift fiir Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technik 15 (1921), 35 ff.

1922

64. Moliere, Hannoverscher Kurier (14January 1922). 65. Alains Tagebuch, Frankfurter Zeitung, (lONovember 1922). 66. Marcel Proust, Der Neue Merkur (February 1922), 745ff. 67. Neuer Humanismus?, Arbeitsgemeinschaft (February 1922), 193ff. 68. Rheinische Schicksalsfragen, Die Tat (March 1922), 932 ff. 69. Balzac und die Leidenschaft, Neue Freie Presse (5April 1922), (=no. 7,

chapter 4). 70. Uber Andre Gide, Die Neue Rundschau (May 1922), 528 ff. ( = no. 4,

2nd edition, Appendix 2). 71. Das franzosische Universitiitsleben, Frankfurter Zeitung (18 May 1922). 72. Balzac und die Religion, Hochland (June 1922), 268ff., and (July 1922),

450ff. (=no. 7, chapter 10). 73. Zur Psychologie des deutschen Geistes, Luxemburger Zeitung (7 Octo­

ber 1922). 74. Briefe aus Deutsch/and, Deutscher Literaturbrief, Luxemburger Zeitung

(26November 1922). 75. Pontigny, Der Neue Merkur (November 1922), 421 ff. (= no. 8).

174

76. Das Energieproblem bei Balzac, Wissenschaft und Leben (1 December 1922), 178ff. and (15December 1922), 209ff. (=no. 7, chapter 3).

77. Fran,ais et Allemands peuvent-ils se comprendre?, Revue de Geneve (December 1922), 714ff.

1923

78. Briefe aus Deutsch/and, Thomas Mann und die Republik, Luxemburger Zeitung (3 January 1923).

79. Philosophie der Technik (R. N. Coudenhove-Kalergi, Apologie der Tech­nik), Luxemburger Zeitung (9 February 1923).

80. Henri Lichtenberger, L'Allemagne d'aujourd'hui, Revue de Geneve (May 1923), 665 ff.

81. Gundolfs «Goethe», Luxemburger Zeitung (21-24 May 1923). 82. Deutsch-romanische Classen, Luxemburger Zeitung (11 July 1923). 83. Hermann Bahr, Luxemburger Zeitung (3August 1923). 84. Der Sommer und die Dichter, Luxemburger Zeitung (9 August 1923). 85. Deutscher Literaturbrief (H. v. Hofmannsthal, Deutsches Lesebuch),

Luxemburger Zeitung (25 August 1923). 86. Eine franzosische Literaturgeschichte der Gegenwart (Rene Lalou), Die

Neue Rundschau (November 1923), 1055f. 87. Aus franzosischen Zeitschriften, Der Neue Merkur (November 1923),

160ff. 88. Eine Deutung der deutschen Romantik (J. Nadler, Die Berliner Roman­

tik), Luxemburger Zeitung (15-16December 1923).

1924

89. ltalienische Eindriicke, Luxemburger Zeitung (5January, 25April, 22May 1924).

90. Holder/in, Luxemburger Zeitung (17-18January 1924). 91. Cosas de Espana, Der Neue Merkur (January 1924), 343f. 92. Redaktionspraktiken der Revue Rht!nane, Kolnische Zeitung (16 March

1924). 93. Vom europiiischen Geiste in der modernen franzosischen Literatur, Wis-

senschaft und Leben (20March 1924), 580ff. (= no. 8, chapter 5). 94. Marcel Proust, Neue Ziiricher Zeitung (30March, 13April 1924). 95. Anatole France, Hannoverscher Kurier (16April 1924). 96. Die Asthetik Marcel Prousts, Die Neue Rundschau (April 1924), 352ff. 97. Die franzosische Mystik des 17. Jahrhunderts, Hochland (May 1924),

120ff. (= no.16, pp. 455ff.). 98. Der Dichter Paul Valt!ry, Der Neue Merkur (May 1924), 641 ff.,

( = no. 8, chapter 3). 99. Ronsard, Hannoverscher Kurier (9September 1924).

100. Pontigny 1924, Frankfurter Zeitung (19 September 1924).

175

101. Pariser Eindrucke, Luxemburger Zeitung (27 September, 19 October 1924).

102. Uber die Kunst Marcel Prousts, Die Literatur (October 1924), 8ff. 103. Eindrucke aus Pontigny, Neue Ziiricher Zeitung (12 October 1924)

(=no. 8, pp. 339ff.). 104. Anatole France, Kolnische Zeitung (13 October 1924). 105. Anatole France, Miinchener Allgemeine Zeitung (14 October 1924). 106. Spanische Perspektiven (Ortega y Gasset), Die Neue Rundschau (De­

cember 1924), 1229ff. (= no.15, chapter 12, i). - (excerpts): Einfuhrung in: Ortega y Gasset, Die Aufgabe unserer Zeit,

Stuttgart 1924, 9 ff. 107. Italienischer Herbst, Luxemburger Zeitung (30December 1924). 108. Review of L. J. Arrigon, Les debuts litteraires d' Honore de Balzac, Die

Neueren Sprachen 32 (1924), 210ff. 109. Emerson, in: Die Akademie, Eine Sammlung von Aufsiitzen aus dem

Arbeitskreis der Philosophischen Akademie auf dem Burgberg in Er­langen, ed. Rolf Hoffman, 1924, 1 ff. ( = no. 15, chapter 6).

1925

110. L'influence litteraire de la France a /'etranger, Les Nouvelles Litteraires (3 January 1925).

111. Thomas Manns «Zauberberg», Luxemburger Zeitung (9January 1925). 112. Zivilisation und Germanismus, Der Neue Merkur (January 1925), 283 ff.

( = no. 8, chapter 4). - French translation: Civilisation et Germanisme, Revue de Geneve

(September 1926), 273 ff., (October 1926), 439 ff. 113. Port-Royal und Pascal, Hochland (February 1925), 497ff. (= no.16,

pp. 472 ff.). 114. Presentazione di Stefan George, Baretti (5 March 1925). 115. Der Perspectivismus Marcel Prousts, Wissenschaft und Leben (15 March

1925), 278ff. 116. Die Spiritualitiit Marcel Prousts, Europiiische Revue (April 1925), 55 ff. 117. Valery Larbaud, La Revue Nouvelle (15May 1925), lff. 118. Barres apprecie par un allemand, Quelques Voix d'Outre-Rhin (May

1925), 5 ff. ( = no. 6, chapter 12). 119. Deutsch/and und Frankreich, Germania (20 June 1925). 120. Robert Siegfried, Neue Ziiricher Zeitung (30 September 1925). 121. Charles Du Bos, Die Literatur (October 1925), !Off.;

- French translation: La Revue Nouvelle, (15July 1926), 29ff.; and in: Cahiers Charles Du Bos 2 (December 1957), 5 ff.

122. Unamuno oder die Philosophie des Tragischen, Hannoverscher Kurier (4 October 1925).

176

123. Eine Kaiserbiographie (Emil Ludwig), Luxemburger Zeitung (9 October 1925).

124. Mystische Hochflut im 17. Jahrhundert, Hochland (October 1925), 61 ff. (= no.16, pp. 496ff.).

125. Das verbotene Buch: James Joyces «Ulysses», Die Literarische Welt (16November 1925).

126. Louis Aragon, Die Literarische Welt, (13 November 1925). - French translation: La Revue Nouvelle, (15 January 1926), 7 ff.

127. Verstiindigung? Offener Brief an einen Franzosen, Frankfurter Zeitung (14November 1925).

128. Die franzosischen Akademiewahlen, Die Literarische Welt ( 4 December 1925).

129. Franzosische Bucher, Tagebuch (5 December 1925), 1824 f. 130. Marcel Proust, Frankfurter Zeitung (6December 1925). 131. Literarische Kultur, Die Literarische Welt (25 December 1925). 132. Probleme der franzosischen Kulturkunde, Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Wissen­

schaft und Jugendbildung (1925), 649ff.

1926

133. Die deutsche Marcel-Proust-Ausgabe, Die Literarische Welt (8 January 1926).

134. Romain Rolland, Hannoverscher Kurier (19 January 1926). 135. Uber Unamuno, Die Neue Rundschau (February 1926), 163 ff.

( = no. 15, chapter 11). 136. Saint-Evremond, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (March 1926), 288ff. 137. Jose Ortega y Gasset, Europiiische Revue (!April 1926), 22ff. 138. Erwin Rieger, Frankreich und wir, Europiiische Revue (1 April 1926),

67f. 139. Indezente und laszive Bucher, Die Literarische Welt (16April, 23April

1926). 140. Sancho Panza und die Pilger, Die Literarische Welt (21 May 1926). 141. Review of: Marcel Proust, Tage der Freuden, translated into German by

Ernst WeiB, Die Literatur (May 1926), 494. 142. Der Uberrealismus (L. Aragon), Die Neue Rundschau (August 1926),

156ff. 143. Paul Valery, Rhumbs, Europiiische Revue (September 1926), 404f. 144. Charles ?eguy, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (September 1926), 884ff. 145. Spanische Kulturprobleme der Gegenwart, Hochland (September 1926),

678 ff. 146. Jacques Maritain, Die Literatur (October 1926), 1 ff. ( = no. 16,

pp. 424ff.). 147. Paul Valery, Frankfurter General-Anzeiger (230ctober 1926).

177

148. Literarische Unsterblichkeit, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (November 1926), 1065ff.

149. Les Faux-Monnayeurs, Die Neue Rundschau (December 1926), 646ff. 150. Henri Frank (1888-1912), Der Morgen (1926), 141 ff. 151. Das Buch als Symbol in der Divina Commedia, in: Festschrift Paul

Clemen, Diisseldorf 1926, 44 ff. 152. An Romain Rolland, in: Liber Amicorum Romain Rolland, Zurich

1926, 75f. (= no.16, 514ff.). 153. Introduction to: Balzac, Vater Goriot, Berlin 1926, 5 ff.

1927

154. Une opinion allemande sur le rapprochement intellectuel franco-alle­mand, Les Nouvelles Litteraires (26 March 1927).

155. T. S. Eliot, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (April 1927), 348ff. (= no.15, chapter 14, i).

156. Civilisation et Germanisme, Reponse ii M. Vermeil, Revue de Geneve (April 1927), 441 ff.

157. Aufgaben der franzosischen Literaturwissenschaft, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (12June 1927).

158. Jean Cocteaus Gedichte, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (July 1927), 696 ff. (= no.15, chapter 17).

159. Fragmente zur franzosischen Literatur, Die Neue Rundschau (August 1927), B8ff. (= no.11, chapter 4).

160. Pariser Rezept fur das Abend/and (Henri Massis), Hannoverscher Kurier (18 September 1927).

161. Restauration der Vernunft, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (September 1927), 856ff.

- Spanish translation: Restauraci6n de la raz6n, Revista de Occidente (September 1927), 257ff.

- English translation: Restoration of the Reason, Criterion (November 1927), 389 ff.

162. Vom franzosischen Geistesleben, Miinchener Neueste Nachrichten (25 October 1927).

163. Die naturlichen Grundlagen der franzosischen Kultur, Nord und Siid (October 1927), 512ff. (= no.11, chapter 2).

164. Herr Teste, Die Literatur (October 1927), 8 f.

1928

165. Zur Psychologie der deutsch-franzosischen Verstiindigung, Die Neue Rundschau (January 1928), 65 ff.

166. Frankreichkunde, Deutsch-franzosische Rundschau (January 1928), 25ff.

178

167. Marcel Proust, Les Nouvelles Litteraires (=March 1928). 168. Was wir an Frankreich lieben, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (March

1928), 179ff. 169. Sur Marcel Proust, Les Cahiers du Sud (March 1928), 169ff. 170. Hippolyte Taine, Konigsberger Allgemeine Zeitung (27 April 1928). 171. Wandlungen des franzosischen Kulturbewuj3tseins, Deutsch-franzosische

Rundschau (September 1928), 723ff. (= no.11, chapter 1). 172. Die franzosische Kulturidee, Deutsch-franzosische Rundschau (October

1928), 827ff. (= no.11, chapter 1). 173. Die geistige Internationale, Die BottcherstraBe (October 1928). 174. James Joyce, Die Literatur (December 1928), 1 ff. 175. Paul Morand: «Der lebende Buddha», in: Inselschiff (1928), 42f.

1929

176. Technik und Thematik van James Joyce, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (January 1929), 1 ff.

- English translation: Technique and thematic development of James Joyce, Transition (June 1929), 310ff.

177. Zeitung und Literaturkritik, in: Festausgabe des «Zeitungs-Verlags» (1 June 1929).

178. Charles Du Bos, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (June 1929), 430 ff. 179. Die geschichtlichen Grundlagen der franzosischen Kultur, Deutsch-fran­

zosische Rundschau (July 1929), 532ff. (= no.11, chapter 3). 180. Zur Methodik der deutsch-franzosischen Verstiindigung, Neue Ziircher

Zeitung (18August 1929). 181. Hofmannsthals deutsche Sendung, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (August

1929), 583 ff. ( = no. 15, chapter 8a). 182. T. S. Eliot als Kritiker, Die Literatur (October 1929), 1 ff. 183. Sozio/ogie - und ihre Grenzen (gegen K. Mannheim), Neue Schweizer

Ruridschau (October 1929), 3 ff. ( = no. 12, chapter 4). 184. Hofmannsthal und die Romanitiit, Die Neue Rundschau (November

1929), 654ff. (= no.15, chapter 8b). 185. Die Religion im Aufbau der franzosischen Kultur, Deutsch-franzosische

Rundschau (November 1929), 919ff. (= no.11, chapter 5). 186. Zur Geschichte der Zivilisationsidee in Frankreich, in: Philologisch-Phi­

losophischen Studien, Festschrift fiir Eduard WechB!er, Leipzig/Jena 1929, 20ff.

1930

187. Frankreich (Das franzosische Universitiitswesen), in: Deutsche Universi­tiiten (1930), 64ff.

179

188. Zweitausend Jahre Vergil, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (October 1930), 730ff. (= no.15, chapter 1).

189. Zur Problematik der franzosischen See/e, Die Literatur (December 1930), 127ff.

1931

190. L'esthetique de Nietzsche, Formes (January 1931), 5ff. 191. Gides «Oedipus>>, Die Literarische Welt (13 March 1931). 192. Wissenschaftspflege in Frankreich, Deutsche Notgemeinschaft (April

1931), 1 ff. 193. Frankreich, Deutsch/and und die Tradition, Die Literarische Welt

(28August 1931). 194. Abbau der Bi/dung, Die Neue Rundschau (September 1931), 54 ff.

- French translation: Abandon de la culture, La Nouvelle Revue Fram;aise (December 1931), 54 ff.

195. Geistiger Guteraustausch, 8 Uhr Abendblatt (3 October 1931). 196. Ein Franzose uber die deutsche Krise (Pierre Vienot, Incertitudes alle­

mandes), Kiilnische Zeitung (17 October 1931). 197. Friedrich Gundolf, Nya Dagligt Allehanda (18 October 1931). 198. Ramon Perez de Ayala, Die Literatur (October 1931), lff. (= no.15,

chapter 13). 199. Freie Menschen!, Kiinigsberger Hartungsche Zeitung (25 December

1931). 200. Nationalismus und Kultur, Die Neue Rundschau (December 1931),

736ff. (= no.12, chapter 2). 201. Vom spanischen Geistesleben der Gegenwart, in: Bericht der 14. Haupt­

versammlung der Gesellschaft von Freunden und Fiirderern der Rhei­nischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitiit zu Bonn (1931), 1 ff.

202. Geistige Anniiherung zwischen Deutsch/and und Frankreich, Inter Na­tiones (1931), lOff.

1932

203. Bekenntnis zum Humanismus, Kiilnische Zeitung (19 January 1932). 204. Vertrauliche Mitteilung an die Mitglieder der historischen und der philo­

logischen Sektion der Philosophischen Fakultiit zu Bonn a. Rh., (20January 1932) [printed privately].

205. Humanismus als Initiative, Berliner Tageblatt (10 February 1932). 206. La litterature et la vie intellectuelle en France, Revue de Paris (February

1932), 72lff. (= no.11, chapter 4). 207. Die Universitiit als /dee und Erfahrung, Die Neue Rundschau (February

1932), 145 ff. ( = no. 12, chapter 3). 208. Goethe und die Revolution, Stuttgarter Tageblatt (19 March 1932).

180

209. Ewald Dulberg, Kiilnische Volkszeitung (23 March 1932). 210. Goethe oder der deutsche K/assiker, Deutsch-franziisische Rundschau

(March 1932), 169ff. - French translation: Goethe ou le c/assique allemand, La Nouvelle

Revue Fran<;aise (March 1932), 321 ff. - Spanish translation: El Goethe publico y el Goethe secreto, Anales de

la Universidad de Madrid 1 (1932), 137ff. 211. L'humanisme comme initiative, Revue de Paris (November 1932), 36ff.

( = no. 12, chapter 5). - Spanish translation: El humanismo come iniciativa, Revista de Occi­

dente (July 1932), lff. 212. Friedrich Schlegel und Frankreich, Zeitschrift fiir fr~nziisischen und eng­

lischen Unterricht 31 (1932), 1 ff. ( = no. 15, chapter 4). 213. Jorge Manrique und der Kaisergedanke, Zeitschrift fiir romanische Phi­

lologie 52 (1932), 129ff. (included in no.18). 214. Helenismo y educacion moderna, Anales de la Universidad de Madrid 1

(1932), 15 ff.

1933

215. Das Romanische Seminar, in: Geschichte der Rheinischen Friedrich­Wilhelms-Universitiit zu Bonn am Rhein, Bonn 1933, II. 243ff.

1934

216. Venceslao Ivanov, II Convegno (January 1934), 270f. 217. «Alkaloid Spaniens» (Unamuno), Berliner Tageblatt, (30September

1934).

1936

218. Albert Thibaudet, La Nouvelle Revue Fran9aise (July 1936), 61 ff. 219. Zur Interpretation des Alexiusliedes, Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philolo­

gie 56 (1936), 113ff. (included in no.18). 220. Der Kreuzzugsgedanke und das altfranzosische Epos (C. Erdmann, Die ·

Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens), Archiv fiir <las Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 169 (1936), 48 ff. (included in no.18).

221. Calderon und die Malerei, Romanische Forschungen 50 (1936), 89 ff. (in­cluded in no. 18).

1937

222. Review of: Warner F. Patterson, Three Centuries of French Poetic

181

Theory, Literaturblatt fiir germanische und romanische Philologie (1937), 186ff.

223. Hofmannsthal und Calderon, in: Corolla, Festschrift fiir Ludwig Curtius, Stuttgart 1937, 20 ff.

1938

224. Zur Literaturiisthetik des Mittelalters (I), Zeitschrift fiir romanische Phi­lologie 58 (1938), 1-50 ( = Mittelalter-Studien I).

225. Zur Literariisthetik des Mittelalters (II), Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philo­logie 58 (1938), 129--232 ( = Mittelalter-Studien II).

226. Zur Literariisthetik des Mittelalters (III), Zeitschrift fiir romanische Phi­lologie 58 (1938), 433-479 ( = Mittelalter-Studien III).

227. Dichtung und Rhetorik im Mittelalter, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fiir Literaturwissenschaft 16 (1938), 435-475 (= Mittelalter-Studien IV).

1939

228. Scherz und Ernst in mittelalterlicher Dichtung, Romanische Forschungen 53 (1939), 1-26 ( = Mittelalter-Studien V).

229. Die Musen im Mittelalter, Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie 59 (1939), 129--188 ( = Mittelalter-Studien VI).

230. Theologische Kunsttheorie im spanischen Barock, Romanische For­schungen 53 (1939), 145-184 ( = Mittelalter-Studien VII).

1940

231. Theologische Poetik im italienischen Trecento, Zeitschrift fiir romanische Forschungen 60 (1940), 1-15 ( = Mittelalter-Studien VIII).

232. Der Archipoeta und der Stil mittelalterlicher Dichtung, Romanische For­schungen 54 (1940), 105-164 (= Mittelalter-Studien IX).

1941

233. Mittelalterlicher und barocker Dichtungsstil, Modern Philology 38 (1941), 325-333 ( = Mittelalter-Studien X).

234. Beitriige zur Topik der mittellateinischen Literatur, in: Corona Quernea, Festgabe Karl Strecker, Leipzig 1941, 1-14 (Mittelalter-Studien XI).

235. Topica, Romanische Forschungen 55 (1941), 165-183 ( = Mittelalter­Studien XII).

1942

236. Zur Danteforschung, Romanische Forschungen 56 (1942), 3--22 ( = Mit­telalter-Studien XIII).

182

237. Diderots «Neveu de Rameau», Romanische Forschungen 56 (1942), 128ff. (=no. 13, Excursus 25).

238. Mallarmes «Nuit d'Idumee», Romanische Forschungen 56 (1942), 178f. 239. Rhetorische Naturschilderung im Mittelalter, Romanische Forschungen

56 (1942), 219--256 ( = Mittelalter-Studien XIV). 240. Schrift- und Buchmetaphorik in der Weltliteratur, Deutsche Vierteljahrs­

schrift fiir Literaturwissenschaft 20 (1942), 359-411 ( = Mittelalter­Studien XV); reprinted in: Neue Beitriige deutscher Forschung (Fest­schrift Wilhelm Worringer), Konigsberg 1943, 61 ff.

241. Mittelalterliche Literaturtheorien, Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie 62 (1942), 417-491 ( = Mittelalter-Studien XVI).

242. Das Carmen de prodicione Guenonis, Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philolo­gie 62 (1942), 492-509 ( = Mittelalter-Studien XVII) (included in no. 18).

1943

243. Mittelalter-Studien XVIII, Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie 63 (1943), 225-274.

244. Das ritterliche Tugendsystem, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fiir Literatur­wissenschaft 21 (1943), 343--368 ( = Mittelalter-Studien XIX).

245. Dante und das lateinische Mittelalter, Romanische Forschungen 57 (1943), 153--185 ( = Mittelalter-Studien XX).

246. Zur Geschichte des Wortes Philosophie im Mittelalter, Romanische For­schungen 57 (1943), 290--309 ( = Mittelalter-Studien XXI).

1944

247. Uber die altfranz6sische Epik, Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie 64 (1944), 233--320 ( = Mittelalter-Studien XXII) (included in no. 18).

248. Montesquieu und Ovid, Romanische Forschungen 58 (1944), 155ff. ( = no. 13, Excursus 24).

1946

249. Vorwort zu einem Buche uber das lateinische Mittelalter und die europiii­schen Literaturen, Die Wandlung (1945-46), 969ff. (= no.15, pp. 429ff.).

1947

250. George, Hofmannsthal und Calderon, Die Wandlung (1947), 401 ff. ( = no. 15, chapter 9).

251. Hermann Hesse, Merkur (1947), 170ff. (= no.15, chapter 10).

183

252. Europiiische Literatur und lateinisches Mittela/ter, Merkur (1947), 481 ff. (= no.13, chapter 1).

253. Harold Nicolson, Merkur (1947), 788. 254. R. A. Schroder, Merkur (1947), 863 f. 255. Das mittelalterliche Bildungswesen und die Grammatik, Romanische

Forschungen 60 (1947), 1 ff. 256. Neue Dante-Studien, Romanische Forschungen 60 (1947), 237ff. (includ­

ed in no. 18). 257. Bonner Gedenkworte auf Friedrich Diez, Romanische Forschungen 60

(1947), 237 ff. (included in no. 18). 258. Review of: A. Jeanroy, Histoire sommaire de la poesie occitaine des ori­

gines a la fin du 18' siecle, Romanische Forschungen 60 (1947), 597 f. 259. Review of: Robert Briffault, Les Troubadours et le sentiment ro­

manesque, Romanische Forschungen 60 (1947), 598. 260. Review of: Franz Walter Miiller, Der Rosenroman und der /ateinische

Averroismus des 13. Jahrhunderts, Romanische Forschungen 60 (1947), 598 f.

261. Eine neue Geschichte der mittellateinischen Literatur (J. de Ghe//inck), Romanische Forschungen 60 (1947), 617 ff.

1948

262. Goethe als Kritiker, Merkur (1948), 333ff. (= no.15, chapter 2). 263. Toynbees Geschichtslehre, Merkur (1948), 498ff. (= no.15, chapter 15). 264. T. S. Eliot and Germany, in: T. S. Eliot, A Symposion, London 1948,

120ff. - German version: T. S. Eliot und Deutsch/and, Der Monat (December

1948), 72ff. 265. Uber die altfranz6sische Epik II, Romanische Forschungen 61 (1948),

421 ff. (included in no. 18). 266. Neuere Arbeiten iiber den italienischen Humanismus, Bibliotheque

d'Humanisme et Renaissance 10 (1948), 185ff. (included in no. 18).

1949

267. Goethe oder Jaspers?, Die Tat (Zurich) (2April 1949). 268. Darf man Jaspers angreifen?, Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung (17 May 1949). 269. Goethe, Jaspers, Curtius, Ein Schluj3wort in eigener Sache, Die Zeit

(2June 1949). 270. Goethe - Grundziige seiner Welt, Die Tat (Ziirich) (28 August 1949),

(= no.15, chapter 3). 271. T. S. Eliot, Merkur (1949), lff. ( = no. 15, chapter 14 ii). 272. Ortega, Merkur (1949), 417ff. (= no.15, chapter 12 ii).

- English translation: Ortega, Partisan Review (March 1950), 259f.

184

273. Bemerkungen iiber den franz6sischen Roman, Merkur (1949), 658ff. ( = no. 15, chapter 16).

274. Der achtzigjiihrige Gide, Die Neue Rundschau (1949), 592 f. 275. Sicco Polen/on, Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 11 (1949),

219 ff. (included in no. 18). 276. Antike Rhetorik und vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft, Comparative

Literature 1 (1949), 24 ff.

1950

277. Argo, Romanische Forschungen 62 (1950), 1 ff. (=no. 15, chapter 18). 278. Dante und A/anus ab Insu/is, Romanische Forschungen 62 (1950), 28 ff.,

(included in no. 18). 279. Uber die altfranz6sische Epik III, Romanische Forschungen 62 (1950),

125 ff. (included in no. 18). 280. Uber die a/tfranz6sische Epik IV, Romanische Forschungen 62 (1950),

294ff. (included in no. 18). 281. Antike Pathosformeln in der Literatur des Mitte/alter, in: Estudios dedi­

cados a Menendez Pidal, Madrid 1950, I, 257 ff. (included in no. 18). 282. Lesefriichte, in: Liber Floridus, Mittellateinische Studien, Festschrift

Paul Lehmann, St. Ottilien 1950, 27ff. (included in no.18). 283. Medieval Bases of Western Thought, in: Goethe and the Modern Age,

The International Convocation at Aspen, Colorado, 1949, Chicago 1950, 234ff., (reprinted in no. 13, English translation; included in no. 18). - Spanish translation: Las bases medievales def pensamiento occiden­tal, in no. 13, Spanish translation, pp. 811 ff. - Italian translation published separately, see no. 305 below.

1951

284. Ferienlektiire, Die Weltwoche (20July 1951). 285. Eine neue Zeitschrift: «Fragmente», Die Tat (Zurich) (25 July 1951). 286. Gruj3 an Valery Larbaud, Die Tat (Zurich) (25 August 1951). 287. Goethes Aktenfiihrung, Die Neue Rundschau (August 1951), 1 ff.

( = no. 15, 2nd expanded edition, chapter 4); reprinted in: Varia Vari­orum, Festgabe Karl Reinhardt, Miinster 1952, 214ff.

288. Gongora, Die Neue Rundschau (November 1951), lff. 289. Amitie de Gide, in: Hommage ii Andre Gide 1869-1951, La Nouvelle

Revue Fran9aise (1951), 13 ff. 290. Review of: Erich Freiherr von Richthofen, Studien zur romanischen Hel­

densage des Mitte/a/ters, Deutsche Literaturzeitung 72 (1951), 164. 291. Review of: Jessie Crossland, The Old French Epic, Bibliotheque

d'Humanisme et Renaissance 13 (1951), 205.

185

292. Review of: Rene Louis, Girart, comte de Vienne et ses fondations mo­nastiques - Girart, comte de Vienne dans /es chansons de geste, Biblio­theque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 13 (1951), 205 f.

293. Review of: Gilbert Highet, The Classical Tradition, Gnomon 23 (1951), 121 ff. (included in no.18).

294. Review of: Roberto Weiss, II primo secolo dell'umanesimo, Biblio­theque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 13 (1951), 374ff. (included in no. 18).

295. Nomina Christi, in: Melanges Joseph de Ghellinck, Gembloux 1951, 1029ff. (included in no. 18).

296. Review of: Mario A. Pei, French Precursors of the Chanson de Roland, Comparative Literature 3 (1948), 378.

1952

297. Virgil und die deutsche Tradition, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (February 1952), 594ff. (= no.15, 2nd expanded edition, chapter 2).

298. Zurn Erstlingswerk eines jungen Amerikaners (W. Goyen, Haus aus Hauch), Neue Schweizer Rundschau (March 1952), 669ff. (= Intro­duction to no. 22, and no. 15, 2nd expanded edition, chapter 23).

299. Charles Du Bos, Die Neue Rundschau (1952), 1 ff. ( = no. 15, 2nd ex­panded edition, chapter 14).

300. Gustav Grober und die romanische Philologie, Zeitschrift fiir romani­sche Philologie 67 (1951), 257ff. (appeared in 1952, included in no. 18).

301. Die Lehre von den drei Stilen im Altertum und Mittelalter, Romanische Forschungen 64 (1952), 57ff.

302. Uber die altfranz6sische Epik V, Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie 68 (1952), 177ff. (included in no.18).

303. Review of: La Chanson de Guillaume, ed. Duncan McMillan, Zeitschrift fiir romanische Philologie 68 (1952), 454 ff.

1954

304. G/osse zu Hofmannsthal, Die Neue Rundschau (1954), 1 ff.

1956

305. Tradizione medievale e cultura moderna, Convivium 24 (1956), 1 ff. (Italian translation of The Medieval Bases of Western Thought, no. 283).

I 186

B. Translations

306. Paul Valery, Die Schlange, Der Neue Merkur (May 1924), 668f. (no. 8, pp. 345f.).

307. Gedichte von Paul Valery, Europiiische Revue (November 1925), 90ff. (=no. 8, pp. 357ff.).

308. Jules Renard, Gewissenserforschung des Schriftstellers, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (January 1927), 78f.

309. T. S. Eliot, Das wiiste Land, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (April 1927), 362 ff. (reprinted in no. 24; in: T. S. Eliot, Ausgewiihlte Gedichte, Frankfurt 1951, 19ff.; and in Die Neue Rundschau [1950], 327ff.).

310. Logan Pearsall Smith, Die Zukunftsaussichten der Literatur, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (June 1928), 404ff.

311. Stephen Spender, Gedichte, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (August 1930), 595f.

312. Andre Gide, Betrachtungen uber die griechische Mythologie, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (December 1930), 909ff.

313. Andre Gide, Odipus, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (June and July, 1931), 434ff., 505 ff. (= no. 20).

314. Cyril Scott, Erinnerungen an Stefan George, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (December 1931), 904ff.

315. Jorge Manrique, Strophen auf den Tod seines Vaters, Romanische For­schungen 58 (1944), 1 ff.

316. Stephen Spender, Spiritual Exercises, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (January 1946), 548 ff.

317. Andre Gide, Theseus, Merkur (1947), 829ff., (1948), 415 ff.(= no. 21). 318. Die Nachtfeier der Venus [Pervigilium Veneris], Merkur (1948), 69ff. 319. Robert Browning, Entwicklung, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (May

1951), 25 ff. 320. Jorge Guillen, Aus dem Cantico, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (Septem­

ber 1951), 315 ff. (included in no. 23). 321. Gongora, Angelica und Medora, Die Neue Rundschau (November

1951), 3ff.

C. Correspondence

322. Friedrich Gundolf, Briefwechsel mil Herbert Steiner und Ernst Robert Curtius, ed. Lothar Helbing, Amsterdam 1963.

323. E. R. Curtius, Ein Briefwechsel mit Jose Ortega y Gasset 1923-1949, ed. Karl August Horst, Merkur 18 (1964), 903--914.

324. Claudia Mertz-Rychner (ed.), Ernst Robert Curtius f14. IV.1886-19. IV. 1956), Max Rychner (8. JV. 1887-10. IV. 1965), Ein Briefwechsel, Merkur 23 (1969), 371-382.

187

325. Herbert and Jane M. Dieckmann (eds.), Deutsch-franzosische Gesprii­che, 1920-1950, La Correspondance de Ernst Robert Curtius avec Andre Gide, Charles Du Bos et Valery Larbaud, Frankfurt 1980.

326. Peter Dronke, Curtius as medievalist and modernist, Times Literary Supplement 79 (30ctober 1980), 1103-1106 [Excerpts from corres­pondence with Gertrud Bing].

327. Rolf Nagel, Briefe von Ernst Robert Curtius an Carl Schmitt, (1921122), Archiv fiir das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 218 (1981), 1-15.

188

N.B.: The Curtius/Schalk correspondence is now in the Manuscript Department of the Bonn University Library and is classified until 1990.

Index of Proper Names

Numbers printed in bold-faced type refer to the entries written by the various reviewers contained in the annotated bibliography section; numbers in Roman type refer to page numbers, and those in parentheses and italics to entries in Curtius' own bibliography itself.

Abelard, Pierre, 141 Adams, Henry, 107 Adler, Alfred, 326, 430; 118-119, 167 Alain (i.e., Emile Chartier), 174; (65) Alanus ab Insulis, 162, 185; (278) Alatorre, Margit Frenk, 171 (13) Alatorre, Antonio, 171; (13) Alfonso de la Torre, 95 Allison, John M. S., 125; 53-54 Alonso, Amado, 163 Alonso, Damaso, 234, 329; 92, 119-120,

163, 167 Ambrose, Saint, 97 Amoretti, Giovanni Vittorio, 51; 33 Aneschi, Luciano, 126; 54 Angemeyer, Fred Antoine, 55, 64; 34, 37 Appel, Carl, 56, 71; 34, 38 Aragon, Louis, 177; (126, 142) Aristotle, 129, 134-135 Arns, Karl, 101; 46 Aron, Jean-Paul, 278, xi; 106 Arrigon, L.J., 176; (108) Auden, W.H., 74 Auerbach, Erich, 215, 216, 251, 258; 14,

16,86-87,98,99-100, 102, 118, 119, 135, 163, 165

Augustine, Saint, 14, 98 Ausonius, Decimus Magnus, 26

Babilas, Wolfgang, VII Baumer, Gertrud, 60 Baeumer, Max L., 390; 15, 148 Bahr, Hermann, 9; 7, 21-22, 175, (83) Baldenoperger, Fernand, 19; 8, 24 Baldinger, Kurt, VII Balzac, Honore de, 3, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38,

39,40,41,62,71,93,125,157,164,170, 174, 175; (7, 69, 72, 76)

Barbusse, Henri, 173; (49) Barra! des Baux, 94

Barres, Maurice, 3, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34-35,40,57, 150, 161, 170, 172, 173, 174, 176; (6, 29, 51, 58, ll8)

Bascour, H., 184, 188; 75, 78 Battistessa, Angel J., 235; 92 Baudelaire, Charles, 108, 173, (42) Beach, Sylvia, 77 Beau, Albin Eduard, 236,279; 17, 93, 106 Beaumann, Helmut, 237; 93 Becker, Carl, 6; 4, 21 Beckerath, Herbert von, 127; 54 Bedier, Joseph, 162 Beguin, Albert, 278 v; 17, 105 Beller, Manfred, 376; 139-140 Bellessort, Andre, 128; 37, 54 Benario, Leo, 92; 44 Benjamin, Walter, 146 Benn, Gottfried, 217; 87 Benoist-Mechin, J., 171 (11) Bentmann, Friedrich, 280; 106-107 Berard, Armand, 278, vii; 105-106 Bergmann, Wolf, 278, ix, 304; 106, 113 Bergson, Henri, 23, 27, 44 Bergstriisser, Arnold, 281; 3, 9, 46, 47, 48,

49,50,54,62--03,69, 107, 171; (11) Bernard of Clairvaux, 87 Bertaux, Felix, 102; 46-47, 51, 52 Bertram, Ernst, 38, 43 Bezzola, Reto, R., 218; 15, 16, 87-88 Bing, Gertrud, 4, 12, 158, 188; (326) Blair, Eric, 129; 55 Blonde!, Georges, 130; 54 Blonde!, Maurice, 45 Blumenberg, Hans, 361; 134 Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Renate, VII Boccaccio, Giovanni, 118 Boehlich, Walter, 170 Boethius, 60, 134 Boleo, Manuel de Paiva, 305; 113 Bondi, Georg, 3, 126, 143

189

Bonnard, J., 1; 20 Borchardt, Rudolf, 132, 154 Bornscheuer, Lothar, 395; 15a-151 Bosisio, Alfred, 131; 55 Bourdet, Claude, 142-143 Braubach,Max,370; 137 Braun, Otto, 173; (47) Brecht, F.J., 166; 67 Brejoux, Jean, 171; (13) Bremond, Henri, 104 Briand, Aristide, 61 Briffault, Robert, 184; (259) Brill, Ernst Heinrich, 75n. Brion, Marcel, 175; 71 Browning, Robert, 187; (319) Briigelmann, H., 103; 47 Brun, Louis, 84; 42, 153 Brunetiere, Ferdinand, 2, 6, 21, 72, 149,

160, 164, 170, 173; (3, 37) Buenzod, Emmanuel, 85; 42 Buist, Walter, 259; 100 Bumke, Joachim, 306; 113-114, 131 Burckhard!, Jacob, 40, 103, 131 Burdach, Konrad, 88 Burke, Kenneth, 165 Burkhardt, Rosemarie, 177; 71-72 Butter, Gerhard, 411; 160-161

Cabral, Teodoro, 171; (13) Calder6n de la Barca, Pedro, 181, 182, 183;

(221, 223, 250) Cappuyns, M., 189; 78 Carducci, Giosue, 40 Carr, Godfrey R., 385, 400; 144, 153 Cases, Cesare, 342; 125 Cassiodorus, Flavius Magnus Aurelius, 129 Castiglione, Baldassare, 108 Castro, America, 150 Catesson, Jean, 176; 71 Cavelti, Leo, 239; 93 Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de, 138 Chamberlin, J.E., 434; 168 Charlemagne, 118 Charles-Louis Philippe, 174; (64) Chiitillon, F., 252; 14, 98 Chevalley, Abel, 104; 47 Chretien de Troyes, 3, 115 Church, Richard, 132; 55 Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 26, 80, 84, 86, 97,

134 Cilento, Vincenzo, 362; 134, 137 Claude!, Paul, 25, 41, 106 ClauB, Max, 65; 37

190

Clemen, Paul, 178; (151) Cocteau, Jean, 278, ii; 105, 178; (158) Cohen, Gustave, 2n. Conze, Werner, 151 Corbineau-Hoffmann, Angelika, 417; 163 Corneille, Pierre, 72 Coudenhove-Kalergi, R.N., 175; (79) Croce, Benedetto, 219; 40, 88, 93, 109,

117, 127, 131, 148 Cronheim, Fritz, 133; 56 Crossland, Jessie, 185; (291) Curtius, Ernst (grandfather), 2 Curtius, Ernst Robert, passim Curtius, Friedrich (father), 2, 158 Curtius, Ilse, nee Gsottschneider, VII, IX,

3, 12n., 142, 143 Curtius, Louise, nee v. Erlach-Hindel­

bank, 2

Dabe!, Gerhard, 220; 88 Dante Alighieri, 3, 4, 18, 40, 78, 86, 97,

102-103, 106, 12a-121, 138,142, 157, 162, 166, 182, 183, 184, 185; (236, 245, 256, 278)

Davenport, Gary T., 435; 168-169 David, Claude, 278, vi; 105, 171; (15) de Boor, Helmut, 260; 100, 128 Delhaye, Philippe, 195; 80, 131 Della Terza, Dante, 367; 136-137 Dembowski, Peter, VII Denny, Harold, N., 420; 164 Derche, Roland, 93; 44 Descartes, Rene, 29, 68 Desjardins, Paul, 8 Diderot, Denis, 183; (237) Dieckmann, Herbert, 407; 156, 188; (325) Dieckmann, Jane M., 407; 156, 188; (325) Diesel, Eugen, 56 Dietz, Jean, 134; 56 Diez, Friedrich, 4, 5, 107, 184; (257) Diez Mateo, Felix, 240; 94 Dilthey, Wilhelm, 88 Dingrave, Leopold, 65 Dirlmeier, Franz, 196; 80 Drayton, Michael, 123 Dreyer, Ernst Adolf, 105; 47 Driesch, Hans, 127 Dronke, Peter, 377, 408; 12, 140, 147,

158-159, 188; (326) Dubois, Claude-Gilbert, 404; 155 Du Bos, Charles, 94; 2, 18, 44, 105, 115,

153, 158, 161, 169, 176, 179, 186, 188; (121, 178, 299, 325)

Duclaux, Mary, 26 DUiberg, Ewald, 181; (209) Dufrenne, Mikel, 307; 114 Duhamel, Georges, 173; (48) Dumezil, Georges, 114 Dupeyron, Georges, 135; 56 Durand, Bruno, 94 Dyserinck, Hugo, 159

Ehrismann, Gustav, 14, 78, 79, 80, 83, 86, 89,90,97,99, 100, 117

Eifler, Gunter, 378; 141 Einhard, 93 Eliot, T.S., 136; 11, 56, 82, 93, 107, 113,

143, 168, 172, 178, 179, 184, 187; (24, 155, 182, 264, 271, 309)

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 107, 121, 176; (109)

Ernie, Louis, 167; 68 Emrich, Berthold, 363; 134, 144 Enckendorff, Marie Luise, 173; (44) Erasmus, Desiderius, 135 Erdmann, C., 181; (220) Eschmann, Ernst Wilhelm, 106; 1 ln., 47 Escolier, Raymond, 61 Evans, Arthur R., 379; 2n., 129, 141 Eyiiboglu, S., 171; (II)

Fara!, Edmond, 241; 15, 91, 94 FaBbinder, Klara M., 32, 88, 107; 28, 42,

48 Favez, Charles, 282; 107 Fehr, Bernhard, 46 Feig!, Hans, 168; 68 Fergusson, Francis, 425; 165-166 Fernandez, Dominique, 308; 114 Fernandez, Ramon, 86, 89, 137; 42, 43, 57,

153 Fischer, Hanns, 156 Fischer, Ludwig, 386; 15, 144-145 Fischer, Max, 426; 166 Flake, Otto, 21, 33, 42, 52; 7, 25, 28, 30, 33 Flaubert, Gustave, 34, 174; (60) Forst de Battaglia, Otto, 95; 44 Foucart, Claude, 418; 163 France, Anatole, 175, 176; (95, 104, 105) Franco, Francisco, 148 Frank, Grace, 318; 116 Frank, Henri, 178; (150) Frappier, Jean, 309; 114-115 Freemann, Michelle, 115 Frenzel, Elisabeth, 343; 125-126

Frenzel, Herbert, 197, 264, 283; 80, 101, 107

Friedmann, Wilhelm, 34, 78; 7, 24, 27, 28, 41

Friedrich, Hugo, 198, 284, 352, 387; 14, 16, 81-82,107-108, 125, 130, 145

Friedrich, Paul, 10; 22 Fritzsche, Klaus, lln.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg, 66; 37 Galilei, Galileo, 40 Gallas, K. R., 7; 21 Gamillscheg, Ernst, 17 GaB, Karl, Eugen, 337; 122 Gautier de Chiitillon, 114 Geiger, Theodor, 81 Gelley, Alexander, 364; 135 Gelzer, Heinrich, 72; 38 Gershenzon, Mikhail, 135 George, Stefan, 2, 3, 18, 23, 31, 38-39,

106, 126, 150, 154, 176, 183, 187; (114, 250, 314)

Ghellinck, Joseph de, 87, 184, 186; (261, 295)

Gide, Andre, 191; 2, 4, 5, 17, 18, 24, 25, 27,45, 75, 79, 106, 115, 127, 157, 161, 162, 169, 172, 174, 180, 185, 187, 188; (19, 20, 21, 70, 191, 274, 289, 312, 313, 317, 325)

Gier, Albert, 415; 162 Giese, Wilhelm, 108; 48 Gillet, Louis, 57, 109, 138; 34-35, 48, 57,

153 Gillie, D.R., 265; 102 Gillieron, Jules, 162 Gilson, Etienne, 98, 115 Giovanni del Virgilio, 75 Giovannino da Mantova, 75 Glaser, Kurt, 79, 110; 41, 48 Glunz, H. H., 14 Gossmann, Elisabeth, 151-152 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 18, 33, 40,

70, 74,81,82,84,85,86,94,97, 103, 107, 119, 121, 124, 125, 131, 144, 153, 166, 180, 184, 185; (208, 210, 262, 267, 269, 270, 283, 287)

Goldring, Douglas, 139; 57 Gollwitzer, Heinz, 102 G6ngoray Argote, Luis de, 185, 187; (288,

321) Gothein, Marie, 165 Gottfried von StraBburg, 122, 199 Goyen, William, 5, 172, 186; (22, 298)

191

Grabmann, Martin, 98 Gracian, Baltasar, 92, 108 Grautoff, Otto, 11, 12; 22, 23 Gregory of Tours, 87 Grimm, Jacob, 119 Grimm, Melchior, 61 Grober, Gustav, 2, 6, 18, 99, 116, 127, 137,

162-163, 172, 186; (26, 300) Gross, Stefan, 409; 10, 13, 159 Grosse, Ernst Ulrich 371; 137 Groult, P., 310; 115 Gruenter, Rainer, 338; 119, 122 Gsteiger, Manfred, 344; 126 Guerard, Albert, 421; 164-165 Guibert of Nogent, 172; (31) Guillen, Jorge, 5, 172, 187; (23, 320) Guittone d'Arezzo, 118 Guizot, Frarn;ois Pierre Guillaume, 150 Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich, 397; 15, 151 Gundolf, Friedrich, 2, 3, 18, 43, 66, 70,

126, 141, 175, 180, 187; (81, 197, 322)

Haas, Helmuth de, 285; 108 Hallett, John, 169; 68 Hammerle, Karl, 266; 102 Harth, Sydney Y., 427; 166 Hartig, Paul, 9-10, 49 Hartmann von Aue, 83, 84 Haskins, Charles Homer, 87 Hatzfeld, Helmut, 90, 111; 10, 43, 49 Hauser, Arnold, 353; 119, 130, 155 Havers, Wilhelm, 17 Haxo, Henry, E., 423; 165 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 33, 94 Heilborn, Ernst, 140; 57 Heine, Anselma, 22; 25 Heinzle, Joachim, 405; 15, 155-156 Heiss, Hanns, 23, 58, 73, 80; 7, 25, 27, 34,

35,39,41 Helbing, Lothar, 345; 60, 126 Helmolt, Hans, 43; 31 Hennecke, Hans, 319; 117 Hermes, Hans-Joachim, VII Herzog, Wilhelm, 25 Hess, Gerhard, 286; 108 Hesse, Hermann, 13; 5, 7, 22, 127, 183;

(251) Heurgon,Jacques,278,vili; 106, 116 Heurgon-Desjardins, Anne, 8n. Highet, Gilbert, 186; (293) Hildegard of Bingen, 141 Hinterhiiuser, Hans, 436; 169 Hintze, Hedwig, 44; 31

192

Hippe!, Ernst v., 112; 49 Hippolyte, Jean, 278, x; 106 Hitler, Adolf, 11, 74, 77, 154 Hocke, Gustav Rene, 199, 287, 288, 327,

365;78,82, 108-109, 119, 130, 134, 135, 155

Hoeges, Dirk, 410; 159-160 Holderlin, Friedrich, 74, 175; (90) Hoeppfner, Ernest, 2n. Hoffmann, A., 74; 39 Hofmannsthal, Hugo von, 73, 82, 93, 135,

154, 175, 179, 182, 183, 186; (85, 181, 184, 223, 250, 304)

Hohoff, Curt, 200; 82 Hollander, Robert, VII, 121 Holmes, U.T., Jr., 318; 116 Homer, 157 Horst, Karl August, 201, 289, 330, 354; 82,

109, 120, 131, 148 Hourlier, J., 320; 117 Howard, Ernst, 103 Howe, Quincy, 141; 58 Hroswitha of Gandersheim, 83, 128 Hugh of Saint Victor, 132 Hugo von Trimberg, 86 Humboldt, Alexander von, 100 Hutchins, Robert Maynard, 107

Imai, Michiru, 368; 13 7 Imbs, Paul, 2n. Jordan, lorgu,8,25 Isherwood, Christopher, 74 Isidore of Seville, 85 Ivanov, Vyacheslav, 135, 181; (216)

Jackson, W.T.H.,321; 117 Jaeger, Werner,56,88 Jan, Eduard von, 81, 242, 275; 17, 41, 94,

102, 104 Jaserich, Hellmut, 290; 110 Jaspers, Karl, 13, 82, 84, 85, 122, 124, 144,

184; (267, 268, 269) JauB, Hans-Robert, 372; 15, 137-138, 143,

156, 163 Jeanroy, Alfred, 184; (258) Jehn,Peter,388,398; 13, 15,27,66,

145-146, 148, 152, 154 Jerome, Saint, 82, 87 John of Salisbury, 83, 96 Jones, Charles, W., 267; 102 Jongkees,A.G.,369; 137 Josephus, Flavius, 95

Jourdan, Henri, 142, 278, iv; 9, 58, 105, 153, 170; (7, 8, 9)

Joyce,James,46,67, 113, 158, 168, 170, 177, 179; (10, 125, 174, 176)

Julius Caesar, 49 Julius Victor, Gaius, 129 Jung, C. G., 82, 88, 114, 139

Karg-Gasterstiidt, Elisabeth, 79 Karo, Georg, 82; 41 Katsura, Yoshiki, 391; 15, 148 Kayser, Rudolf, 143, 193; 58-59, 79, 128 Keats, John, 116 Keller, Adolf, 14; 7, 22-23 Kempf, Roger, 278, xii; 106 Kern, Fritz, 4, 127 Kimpel, Ben, 268; 102 Klemperer, Victor, 15, 24, 45, 75, 170,

339;6, 7,9, 10, 13, 17,23,25-26,31, 32 39,68-69, 123, 138, 146, 148, 153, 159, 161

Kohler, Erich, 243; 94-95 Konrad, Gustav, 269; 14, 102-103 Kowal, Michael, 392; 148-149, 167, 171;

(15) Krieck, Ernst, 69-70 Kristeller, Paul Oskar, 221; 88-89 Krog, F., 253; 98 Kuchler, Walther, 113; 10, 49 Kuhn, Hugo, 222; 89 Kuhn, Joachim, 31 Kuhn, Thomas S., 138 Kuntz, Edwin, 412; 161

Laistner, M. L. W., 202; 83 Lalou, Rene, 175; (86) Lamprecht, Karl, 23 Lange, Wolf-Dieter, VII Larbaud, Valery-Nicolas, 105, 161, 169,

176, 185, 188; (117, 286, 325) Laurel, Rene, 91; 43 Lausberg, Heinrich, 276, 311, 312, 322,

380; VII; 3, 4, 12, 14, 17, 104, 115, 117 136, 141, 153, 160

Lavergne, Magdaleine, 144; 59, 153 Lavisse, Ernest, 48 Leder, Joseph, 313; 115 Lecuona, Pedro, 170; (8) Lederer, Emil, 46; 32 Le Fevre, Pierre, 160-161 Lehmann, Paul, 254; 16, 17, 98-99; 185; (282) Leleu, Michelle, 314; 115

Lenz-Medoc, Paulus, 270; 103 Lepsius, Reinhold, 2 Lerch, Eugen, 35, 47, 59, 114; 6, 7, 8, 10,

12n.,13,14,17,21,25,26,28-29,30,32, 36,37,49,52, 53, 138, 148, 161

Le Sidaner, Louis, 145; 59 Lichtenberger, Henri, 175; (80) Lida de Malkiel, Marfa Rosa, 244; 14, 15,

79, 95-96, 140, 145 Lobstein, Jacques, 96; 44-45 Louis, Rene, 186; (292) Ludwig, Emil, 177, (123) Lukacs, Gyorgy, 81

Maack, Rudolf, 146; 59 Machiavelli, NiccolO, 40 Madariaga, Salvador de, 150 Malkiel, Yakov, VII, 163 Mallarme, Stephane, 183; (238) Mann, Klaus, 97, 185; 45, 75 Mann, Thomas,346,406;5, 127, 156, 157,

175, 176, (78, 111) Mannheim, Karl, 11, 154, 179; (183) Manrique, Jorge, 71, 158, 181, 187; (213,

315) Manzoni, Alessandro, 97 Marianelli, Marianello, 357; 132, 147 Marino, Giambattista, 90 Maritain, Jacques, 104, 177; (146) Maro!, Clement, 72 Marouzeau, J., 203; 83 Martersteig, Max, 60, 76; 36, 39-40 Massis, Henri, 178; (160) Maurer, Friedrich, 204, 223, 245; 83, 89,

90,96 Mayrisch, Emile, 8, 107 Mayrisch, Mme. Emile, (i.e., Aline de

Saint-Hubert, alias Alain Desportes), 20;3, 7,8,24

McMillan, Duncan, 186; (303) Melanchthon, 135 Menedez Pidal, Ramon, 181, 271; 15, 73,

79, 103, 140, 185; (281) Mertner, Edgar, 291; 15, 110, 144 Mertz-Rychner, Claudia, 373; 138, 187;

(324) Meyer-Liibke, Wilhelm, 3, 4, 8, 110, 141 Michelangelo Buonarotti, 40, 108 Michelet, Jules, 54 Michels, Robert, 171; 69 Milch, Werner, 205; 83--84 Milton, John, 95 Minder, Robert, 206, 278, i; 84, 105

193

Mohrhenn, \Verner, 115;50 Moldenhauer, Gerhard, 12, 112 Moliere, 174; (64) Montaigne, Michel de, 44 Montesquie, Charles de, 183; (248) Maraud, Paul, 179; (175) Morsier, E. de, 116; 50 Muller, Franz \\'alter, 184; (260) Mueller, Gustav, 147; 59--60 Munteano, B., 292; 110-111 Mure!, Maurice, 16, 3<i; 8, 23, 29, 153 Murray, Kathleen, 162 Mussato, Albertina, 75

Nadler, J., 175; (88) Nagel, Rolf, 413; 161 Nanteuil, Jacques, 72 Naumann, Hans, 148, 207; 60, 84, 90,

127, 146 Naumann, \\'alter, 272; 103 Nerlich, Michael,389; 12, 13, 14, 66, 75n.,

146-148, 154, 159 Neumann, Eduard, 246, 247, 261; 17,

%-97, 100 Neuschiiffer, Hans-JOrg, 156 Nicolson, Harold, 184; (253) Nietzsche, Friedrich, 40, 125, 180; (190) Nobel, Alfons, 48; 33 Norden, Eduard, 91 Nostitz, Oswalt von 262; 101 Notker, 96 Notz, Marie-Fran~ise, 401; 153-154

Obermayer, August, 374; 15, 138 Ohly, Friedrich, 104 Ohms, Erma, 149; 60 Olschki, Leonardo, 150 Olson, Charles, 428; 166 Orr, John, 208; 8, 25, 84-85 Ortega y Gasset, Jose, 110, 130, 176, 177,

184, 187; (106, 137, 272, 323) Ott, Karl August, VII Ott, Ludwig, 98 Overmans, Jakob, 150; 60 Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso), 183; (248)

Pabst, \\'alter, 248, 273; 17, 97, 103-104 Pagel, \\'alter, 424; 165 Panunzio, Constantine, 422; 165 Panzer, Friedrich, 244; 89--90 Pascal, Blaise, 176; (113) Pater, \\'alter, 116 Patterson, \Varner F., 181; (222)

194

Peguy, Charles, 25, 177; (144) Pei, Mario A., 186; (296) Perez de Ayala, Ram6n, 180; (198) Perrin, Charles-Edmon!, 2n. Perrin, Olivier, 383; 13, 142-143 Petrarch, Francesco, 92 Petriconi, Hellmuth, 17 Petronio, Guiseppe, 323; 117-118, 127 Philip II Augustus, 118 Philo Judaeus, 95 Picard, Roger, 151; 61 Pickering, F. P., 324, 366; 118, 135-136 Pisani, V., 225; 14, 90 Pitrou, Robert, 117, 178; 6, 50, 72, 153 Plato, 158 Platz, Hermann, 26; 26 Poggeler, Otto, 331, 381; 15, 120, 128,

141 Polenton, Sicco, 185; (275) Politzer, R. L., 263; 14, 101 Pollmann, Leo, 384; 143 Porqueras May, A., 293; 111 Pound, Ezra, 166 Pozzi, Catherine, 98; 45, 142, 153 Praz,Mario,27,37;7,26,29, 127 Preaux, J. G., 226; 90 Prezzolini, Giuseppe, 40 Price, Lucien, 174; (54) Priscian, 134 Prittwitz-Gaffron, E. v., 38; 29 Proust, Marcel, 17, 41, 42, 44, 47, 101,

106,126, 157, 163,164, 170, 174,175, 176, 177, 179; (8, 66, 94, 96, 102, 116, 130, 133, 141, 167, 169)

Putnam, Samuel, 172; 69

Quevedo y Villegas, Francisco G6mez de, 102

Quintilian, 15, 104, 128, 129, 133, 134

Raab, Rudolf, 28, 118; 27, 50 Rabelais, Frangis, 62 Raby, F. J.E., 87, 91 Racine, Jean, 72 Randall, A. \V. G., 419; 164 Ranke, Leopold von, 103, 131 Reichwein, Adolf, 49; 33 Reinhardt, Karl, 185; (287) Renard, Jules, 187; (308) Richards, Earl Jeffrey, 414; 161-162 Richthofen, Erich v., 185; (290) Rieger, Erwin, 53; 33-34 Rimbaud, Arthur, 62, 80

Ritter-Santini, Lea, 347, 396; 127, 145, 151, 171; (15)

Rizzo, Gino, 332; 120-121 Robles, Jorge Deike, 171; (17) Rocher, Daniel, 355; 131 Rohlfs, Gerhard, 227, 294; 90, 111 Rolland, Romain, 25, 28, 101, 146, 156, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178; (29, 43, 57, 134,

152) Ronsard, Pierre de, 175; (99) Roncaglia, Aurelio, 295; 18, 111 Rosenberg, Artur, 152; 61 Ross, \Verner,296; 12, 111-112 Rostagni, A., 209; 14, 85 Rostovsky, Fritz, 83; 42 Rothacker, Erich, 348; 4, 127 Ruther, Eugen, 173; 69--70 Ruggieri, Ruggero Maria, 183, 210; 75, 85 Rutten, M., 297; 112 Rychner,Max, 153,255,315,333;5, 18,

61--62, 99, 113, 116, 121, 171, 187; (17, 324)

Saint-Evremond, Charles de, 177; (136) Saint-Hubert, Aline de, see: Mme. Emile

Mayrisch Saint-Jean, Robert de, 154; 62, 153 Samain, Albert, 172; (30) Sanchez-Albornoz, C., 150 Sanden, Gerhard, 199; 82 Santoli, Vittorio, 77; 40 Sargent[-Baur], Barbara Nelson, 431; 167 Sauter, Hermann, 174; 11, 70-71, 146, 147 Schalk, Fritz, 155, 186, 298, 316, 394; 10,

11,17,62;63,76,112,116,125,149--150, 171, 188; (JI)

Scheler, Max, 58, 110, 150 Schellberg, \Vilhelm, 10, 49 Schiller, Friedrich von, 74, 125 Schirokauer, Arno, 228; 90 Schlegel, Friedrich, 101, 106, 149, 181;

(212) Schlumberger, Jean, 156, 299, 300, 341;

64, 112, 124, 153 Schmitt, Carl,2, 3, 7, 8, 93, 157, 188; (327) Schon, Eduard, 157; 64 Schotthofer, Fritz, 17, 39; 7, 23-24, 20-30 Schramm, Percy, Ernst, 150 Schroder, Rudolf Alexander, 278, ii, 301;

105, 112, 184; (254) Schroder, \\'alter Johannes, 256; 99 Schuchardt, Hugo, 1,6, 18 Schultz-Gora, Oskar, 40; 6, 30

Schumpeter, Joseph, 4, 127 Schwab, Klaus, 399; 153 Schwamborn, Heinrich, 99; 45 Schwank-Telfan, F. H., 158; 64 Schwartz, Berta, 12 Schweitzer, Albert, 121; 2, 53 Schwiedland, E., 67; 37 Schwietering, Julius, 274; 104 Scott, Cyril, 187; (314) See, Henri, 159; 64--65, 153 Segre, Cesare, 163 Seneca,26 Senechal, Christian, 119, 120; 10, 13, 14,

50-52, 147, 153 Shakespeare, \Villiam, 95, 102, 138 Sieburg, Friedrich, 302; 9, 47, 49, 53, 58,

61, 113, 164, 165 Siegfried, Robert, 176; (120) Sire, L., 173; (37) Smith, Logan Pearsall, 187; (310) Sobry, Paul, 211; 85 Sontheimer, Kurt, lln. Souday, Paul, 29; 27 Spender, Stephen, 182,187;5, 11, 13, 14,

74-75, 76-78, 142, 147, 187; (311, 316) Spengler, Oswald, 50, 94 Spenser, Edmund, 102 Spitzer, Leo, 68, 87, 160, 212, 213, 317;

ln.,9,16,37,39,42,65,85,86,116,125, 163

Stadler, Ernst, 173; (35) Steinecke, Ludwig, 100, 161; 45-46, 65 Steiner-Jullien, J., 50; 33 Stempel. \Volf-Dieter, VII Stern, Fritz, 13 Stimmig, Albert, 2; 20 Stolpe, Sven 277; 105, 171; (11) Strauss, \Valther, 162; 12, 66, 146, 147 Strecker, Karl, 182; (234) Suares, Andre, 25, 28, 34, 101, 129 Suetonius Tranquillus, Gaius, 85 Sulger, Kurt, 229; 90 Sullivan, Edward, 16n.

Taine, Hippolyte, 150, 179; (170) Tasso, Torquato, 90, 95 Thalmann, Marianne, 349; 127, 134 Thibaudet, Alfred, 69; 37, 38, 181; (218) Thiebaut, Marcel, 163; 66-67, 153 Thoma, Richard, 127 Thomasin von Zerclaere, 86, 114 Thomasson, Carl-Gustav, 170; (6) Thucydides, 94

195

Tijeras, Eduardo, 334; 121 Toynbee, Arnold, J., 88, 94, 110, 114, 184;

(263) Trask, Willard, R., 171; (13) Troeltsch, Ernst, 81, 103, 127 Tronchon, Henri, 179; 72 Trotter, G.D., 429; 166-167 Tubach, Friedrich, 328; 119, 122 Turek, Leszek, 375; 139 Tuve, Rosemund, 340; 123-124

Uhlig, Claus, 393; 15, 149 Vitti, Karl, D., 416; 73, 162-163 Unamuno, Miguel de, 176, 177, 181; (122,

135, 217) Ungern-Sternberg, Roderich v., 122; 53 Uriel, Hermann, 61; 36 Usinger, Fritz, 303; 113

Valenti, Eduardo, 171; (15) Valery, Paul, 41, 164, 170, 175, 177, 187;

(8, 98, 143, 147, 306, 307) Van Tieghem, Philippe, 325; 118 Varanini, Giorgio, 382; 142 Vasari, Giorgio, 108 Veit, Walter, 350, 358; 15, 128-129,

132-133, 137, 139 Vergil, 18, 94, 121, 157, 180, 186; (188,

297) Vermeil, Edmond, 178; (156) Vernet, A., 230; 91 Verhaeren, Emile, 25 Veselovski, Alexander, 139 Vico, Giovanni Battista, 40, 129 Vienot, Pierre, 107, 180; (196) Vinay, Gustavo, 335; 121 Vising, J., 3; 20 VoBler, Karl, 62; 8,9, 36, 37, 39, 93, 109,

125, 127, 143, 148, 161

196

Wagner, Richard, 33, 125 WalthervonderVogelweide,83, 19, 131,

132 Warburg,Aby, 18, 70, 103, 158-159 Wartburg, Walter v., 4 Wattendorf, Ludwig, 18; 24 Weber,Max, 173; (45) WechBler, Eduard,30, 164; 7, 9, 10, 23, 27,

62--03,65,67,68,69, 123,147, 179;(186) Wehrli, Max, 231; 9 Weinrich, Harald, 402; 15, 154, 163 WeiB, Ernst, 177; (141) Weiss, Roberto, 186; (294) Weidler, Norbert, 54; 34 Wellek, Rene, 351, 403; 10, 13, 129, 152,

154-155 Wentzlaff-Eggebert, Friedrich-Wilhelm,

214,336;86, 121-122 Wernher von Elmendorf, 96, 100, 113 Weydt, Giinther, VII, 12n. Wilder, Thornton, 107 Wilhelm, James, J., 359; 133 Willson, H. Bernard, 356; 131-132 Wilkins, E. H., 318; 116 Wilson, Edmund, 168 Winkler, Emil, 180; 14, 73 Wirsing, Giselher, lln. Wolfram von Eschenbach, 83, 99 Wolfram, Georg, 41; 30 Worringer, Wilhelm, 183; (240) Wyon, Olive, 171; (11) Wyzewa, Theodore de, 4; 20-21

Yuill, W. E., 360; 119, 134

Zehrer, Hans, lln. Zimmermann, Ferdinand Friedrich, lln. Zitzmann, Rudolf, 250; 97-98, 132 Zorn, Walther, 165; 67 Zumthor, Paul, 232, 233; 91, 92