Gesprek op den Drachenfels

[p. 72]

Summary

Jacob Geel (1789-1862), librarian at the University of Leyden and endowed with the honorary title of professor, was a scholar in the field of classical philology. He kept up a learned correspondence with colleagues in various countries.

His study of the classics did not prevent him from entertaining a vivid interest in the literature and the literary criticism of his age. In 1837 Geel published his fine Dutch translation of Sterne's A Sentimental Journey; in addition he wrote reviews of nineteenth-century literary works; and between his fortieth and fiftieth year he lectured on literary theory and literary history (for instance on style, on the characteristics of romantic literature, on simplicity in literature and so on). These lectures, published in 1838 in Onderzoek en Phantasie (Inquiry and Imagination), fascinated ‘la jeune Hollande’, the rising generation of literary romanticists who began to make themselves felt around 1830. Geel showed a very independent mind; he was sharp-witted and often ironic.

Geel had one thing in common with the younger contemporary authors who had just started their literary activity: curiosity with respect to the actual situation of European literature. As a consequence of the historical sense which was rising powerfully at that time and which involved historical criticism, Geel, as much as his younger contemporaries, was haunted by questions concerning the character of nineteenth-century literature. He held progressive and liberal views that were in accordance with the best traditions of the Enlightenment. It was his conviction that the increase of knowledge and social progress would result in a greater consciousness of the human situation and of reality, the development of which had to receive its adequate literary form. This meant first of all that literature should continue to free itself from classical formulae and that feeling and imagination as well as inner experience and reflection must be connected with knowledge of nature and society. The attitude of the writer should be characterized by open-mindedness and vividity. Language, the instrument at his disposal, should be adapted for expressing such

[p. 73]

an attitude. Prose was, according to Geel, the medium most suitable to express this modern outlook. Geel himself demonstrated this attitude by his highly personal style and his preference for the dialogue, which was the form most appropriate to his critical and sceptic mind.

Around 1830 criticism of various new aspects of European literature often took the form of a discussion on the difference between classicism and romanticism. Some opponents of romanticism maintained that such a discussion only meant repeating outworn arguments used in the time the early German romanticists made their appearance. They did not realize that, although these traditional terms were being used again, they now signified different literary phenomena. Others, like Stendhal for instance, boldly identified romanticism and nineteenth-century literature, since to them all literature that suited the modern reader was romantic. Finally, there were critics who advanced the opinion that this discussion clouded the real issues that were at stake in literature. Therefore, they were not concerned with the controversy and were chiefly interested in the future of nineteenth-century literature. One of them, the Frenchman Emile Deschamps, said there were no French romanticists. He only recognized a new school of young authors. To him, as to many an English critic, this (primarily French) discussion of romanticism and classicism was a fashion of the day which pronounced two literary currents to be at variance with one another, while in actual literary practice they were united everywhere.

Geel too considered the controversy to be such a fashion. But he firmly rejected certain so-called romantic tendencies which ran counter to his opinion, mentioned above, with respect to the relation between literature and reality. He expressed his feelings on this point in the dialogue Gesprek op den Drachenfels (Discussion on Mount Drachenfels), a paper he read in 1834 and which was published the next year. The text of this dialogue is published in this issue of the Utrechtse Publikaties voor Algemene Literatuurwetenschap and is annotated with regard to European criticism of that period. It is a worthy contribution to the international literary discussion during the turbulent years around 1830. Its fine structure, its functional and symbolic treatment of landscape and situations, the

[p. 74]

wit and the quick turns of mind it displays, make it one of the classics of Dutch literature.

The theme of the dialogue is the character of nineteenth-century literature, whereas the actual subject of the conversation is the idea of romanticism and the endeavour to circumscribe it. The dialogue is composed of two parts: the exchange of ideas between Geel and his two German colleagues while climbing the mountain and their discussions after having reached the top. The German named Diocles represents those who were of the opinion that romanticism meant nothing but old (classical) wine put in new wine-skins, and who held that it entailed a corruption of literature because of the description of reality in far too detailed a manner. His compatriot, named Charinus, becomes in Geel's hands an adherent of the romantic movement in both its German and French manifestations. Presented in this way, the figure of Charinus is not wholly convincing.

In the first part of the dialogue they deal with some of the literary phenomena traditionally called romantic. They discuss, among other things, psychological, ethical and aesthetic refinement; a feeling of nature that extends the emotions of the individual to all surrounding objects; the romantic ‘something’ of a landscape, and the growing power of imagination in literature. Their discussion culminates in a consideration of a phenomenon which is typical of German romanticism, namely the longing for going beyond the limits of reality and for the loss of personality in the infinite and in the unknown. This, then, is energetically opposed by Geel who maintains that the wealth of ideas and feelings to which empirical reality can give rise is by far not yet exhausted.

In the second part of the dialogue - running as it were along historical lines - the discussion shifts from German metaphysical romanticism to the new French romantic school noted for its realistic, grotesque and horrifying descriptions. The starting-point is the descriptive style of German poets and writers who found in the picturesque the true spirit of poetry; be it in the vague rendering of an imaginary reality (Wackenroder, Tieck), or in the descriptions used in historical and legendary romances. Next the romantic drama (which is one vast picture, according to A.W.

[p. 75]

Schlegel) is introduced and, subsequently, with an appeal to Shakespeare, attention is focused on the new French romantic drama as defended by Victor Hugo. As far as this topic is concerned the three men on the mountain top have in mind the Préface de Cromwell. Geel rejects any literature in which, in his opinion, description has become an end in itself. A literature ‘entangled in reality’ is, according to him, as defective as a literature exceeding the boundaries of reality.

In addition to his criticism of these romantic tendencies, Geel's position as a critic is characterized by his conviction, shared with many other critics in Europe, that prose would become the dominating literary form of the 19th century. Only prose, according to him, had developed in accordance with progressive thinking and the changes in society. Therefore, it was the appropriate medium for giving full expression to the totality of nineteenth-century life. This life was, in Geel's opinion, a continuous move toward full consciousness of reality. The man of letters had to further it by taking a stand on certain issues, by opposing certain trends and proposing others; in short, by showing the weight of his personality (that is the force of his style) in the spiritual struggle of the age. Geel could criticize very sharply when dealing with questions of literary style; to him style was the true mark of personality. He did not express ideas on the future state of literature. Geel was a man who acted according to the opinions of his own lifetime. Being a sceptic, he entertained no great expectations of the literature of the future. He liked to view life and literature as a play. He himself played his part with irony and scepticism, the true faculties which enabled this non-dogmatic essayist to catch an occasional glimpse of the truth. When it concerned literature he was fond of playing with forms, for Geel was not so much a philosopher as an original stylist and an author of clever literary compositions.