SCHLEGEL, FRIEDRICH VON

SCHLEGEL, FRIEDRICH von. — Philosopher, born at Hanover on 10 March 1772, died at Dresden on 12 January 1829. He studied philosophy at the universities of Leipzig and Göttingen; he was a scholar of ancient languages (Sanskrit, Persian), an avid reader of Greek classics and the works of Winckelmann. After spending several years in Dresden (1794), Jena (1796), and Berlin (1797), from 1800 to 1806 he taught philosophy at Jena, where he became the herald of the new Romantic movement. In 1803 he went to Paris; then, returning to Germany, in 1808 he was in Vienna as secretary to the imperial chancellery.

In his first work, which inaugurated his scientific activity, *Über das Studium der griechischen Poesie* (1796), he contrasted ancient poetry with modern poetry; subsequently, under the influence of Fichte’s *Doctrine of Science*, he discovered the essence of modern philosophy in spiritual becoming and hoped for the advent of Romantic poetry, which was to be a universal, progressive poetry. Later, thanks to Schleiermacher, he turned his attention to the religious problem (his conversion to Catholicism occurred in 1808 through the efforts of St. Clement Hofbauer). A fertile but disorganized mind, a tormented soul, highly sensitive to environmental changes, Schlegel effectively expressed the three moments of Romantic evolution—the aesthetic, the philosophical, and the religious—and contributed in various fields, especially to the clarification and deepening of the spirit of Romanticism.

Religion, without dogmas and without the Church, is neither knowledge nor action; it is feeling, that is, the immediate consciousness of the dependence of the finite upon the infinite, of man upon God, and it resides in affectivity (*Gemüt*). In the *Monologen* of 1800, Schlegel vigorously defended freedom of conscience. In his more mature *Dialektik*, feeling seems to assume an even more transcendental function: it is the “carrier” (*Träger*) of all other functions, beyond ordinary knowing and feeling, inasmuch as it is the original identity of both. Hence, feeling is not subjective but actualizes individual self-consciousness as universal: “it is the universal form of having-being” (*Dialektik*, complete ed. by R. Oldebracht, Leipzig 1942, § 215, pp. 286 ff.). Revelation is not an extraordinary communication from above but consists in becoming aware of one’s own inner life and of a new intuition that arises in it from the Infinite. The most perfect religion is Christianity, and Christ is the highest religious personality to appear in history: in His soul, divinity unfolded with full clarity, showing that every finite being needs a higher communication in order to adhere to God. It is therefore useless to debate the historicity of Christ’s life and His miracles. Revelation continues always in every discovery of the human spirit, and prophecy is nothing but an anticipation that this spirit makes of its own development. His principal work, *Der christliche Glaube* (1823), systematically develops the principle of the “feeling of dependence,” showing how the various dogmas are the “modification” (*Modification*) of that feeling; thus, for every dogmatic truth concerning the attributes of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, Redemption, sin, and grace, etc., the content valid for Christian consciousness is determined by what the “feeling of dependence” expresses in the consciousness of individuals at a given moment (*Der christliche Glaube*, part 1, chap. 2, § 30). This feeling therefore takes the place of miracles, prophecies, official teaching, and any kind of proofs: it is the sole interpreter of “sola fides,” understood here as the feeling that arises from the encounter of self-consciousness with freedom in the face of nature and history (op. cit., § 32). These principles were later taken up by Modernism (v.) and by the advocates of “theology of feeling” (*Gefühlstheologie*); they inspired the development of modern trends in the philosophy of religion and the history of religions, which reduce the demand of religion to “religious experience” (R. Otto, A. Ritschl, W. Herrmann, G. Wobbermin). Radical critics of Schlegel have been Hegel, B. Baur, Strauss, Feuerbach, and the entire Left Hegelian school.

BIBL.: Works: complete ed. in 3 parts (theology 13 vols.; sermons 10 vols.; philosophy 8 vols.), Berlin 1835–64; *Briefe*, 4 vols., 2nd ed., Berlin 1860; Studies: F. Lichtenberger, *Histoire des idées religieuses en Allemagne depuis le XVIIIe siècle jusqu’à nos jours*, II, Paris 1888, pp. 65–238; M. O. Stammer, *S.’s Atheismus in Theorie u. Praxis während der Jahre 1796–1823*, Leipzig 1913; W. Dilthey, *Leben Schleiermachers*, Berlin 1870; 2nd ed., Berlin–Leipzig 1920; P. Schutz, *Das künstlerische Element in der Metaphysik Schleiermachers*, Bremen 1914; I. Wendland, *Die religiöse Entwicklung Schleiermachers*, Tübingen 1915; Th. Siegfried, *Des romantischen Prinzips in Schleiermachers Reden über die Religion*, Berlin 1916; R. Haym, *Die romantische Schule. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des deutschen Geistes*, 4th ed., Berlin 1920, chap. 3, pp. 447 ff.; F. Neubauer, *Die Begriffe der Individualität u. Gemeinschaft im Denken des jungen Schleiermachers*, Stuttgart–Gotha 1923; E. Brunner, *Die Mystik u. das Wort. Der Gegenstand zwischen moderner Religionsauffassung u. christlichem Glauben, das Teil an der Theologie Schleiermachers*, Tübingen 1924; L. Stamer, *Das Übernatürliche bei Schleiermacher*, Würzburg 1925; W. Schultz, *Die Grundprinzipien der Religionsphilosophie Hegels u. der Theologie Schleiermachers. Ein Vergleich*, Berlin 1937; I. J. Rouge, *Discours sur la religion. Traduction, introduction et notes*, Paris 1944; F. W. Wentzlaff, *Epochen deutscher Mystik zwischen Mittelalter u. Neuzeit*, Tübingen 1947, pp. 226–30 and 337 ff. (bibl.); K. Barth, *Die protestantische Theologie im 19. Jahrh.*, Zurich 1947, pp. 370–424; F. Flückinger, *Philosophie u. Theologie bei Schleiermacher*, ibid. 1947 (bibl.; complete pp. 186–90); W. Ziegenfuss–G. Jung, *Schleiermacher v.* in *Philosophie-Lexikon*, II, Berlin 1950, pp. 456–62 (with bibl.); H. Schlo-ternann, *Vom göttlichen Urgrund*, Hamburg 1950, pp. 121–51.