Literary schools. Saxon school. Gott- SCllC(l. Swiss School. PERIOD OF ]lEVIV.L.] truly national literature a place of honour belongs to I laller (1708-77), who, although chiefly famous as a man of science, revealed imagination and poetic sympathies in his descriptive and didactic poem Die .1/pen. (“The Alps"). l[age.lorn (1708-54) was for a time the 111ost popular poet of his day in virtue of his songs, odes, fables, and narra- tives in verse. He was of a genial and happy temper; and no author who preceded him was master of so clear, bright, and animated a style. One of the chief character- istics of the time was the tendency of writers to group them- selves in schools. If two or three writers who lived in the same place happened to become friends, they forthwith called themselves a school; and the result was that they usually developed some 111arked common characteristics. These coteries inevitably became more or less narrow and exclusive; but they also stimulated each other to fresh effort, and the clash of their ideals sometimes helped the outside world to new points of view. The Saxon school, whose headquarters were in Leipsic, was for some years more prominent than any of its rivals. It was founded by Gottsched (1700-66), who, although he made himself ridiculous by pedantry and vanity, became the ruling liter- ary man of Germany. He was appointed a professor in Leipsic in 1724, and founded there “ The German Society,” which soon became the centre of a number of similar bodies for the cultivation of literature. Gottsched aimed at nothing short of the complete reformation of German poetry. He had the sense to see that if he wished to reach the people he must begin with the drama, and he was fortunate enough to find in Frau Neuber, who had formed a company in Leipsic, a11 intelligent actress capable of giving effect to his ideas. With her help he banished Hanswurst from the stage; and she was forthwith supplied with plays by him- self, by his clever wife Louisa Victoria, and by several dis- ciples. He gave his attention chiefly to tragedy, and un- fortunately he had but one idea in regard to it—that it had reached the utmost possible excellence in the classic drama of France. The English drama, he admitted, had some merit, but only in so far as it had modelled itself on the work of Corneille and Racine. Hence, in his chief tragedy Der Sterbemle Cato (“ The Dying Cato”) he availed himself freely of Addison’s Cale; the Elizabethan dramatists, of whom his direct knowledge was slight, he believed to be more barbarians. His taste gave the law in nearly every theatre in which iermau plays were acted; and it was certainly a good consequence that Lohenstein fell into permanent disrepute, while even the groundlings began to feel that the uncouth works which actors them- selves had hitherto produced were, to say the least, far from perfection. On the other hand, the Ger1na11 genius was forced to submit to arbitrary laws antagonistic to its true nature; and so long as its submission lasted, a genuinely native drama was impossible. It was not only in regard to drama that Gottsched insisted on absolute subservience to France. In regard to all species of verse his sympathies were with the court poets, and botl1 by example and by critical precept he insisted that in poetry as in everything else the understandingmust be supreme, and that clearness of statement, correctness in the management of figures, and logical arrangement are the highest literary virtues. Re- garding the function of imagination and feeling in poetry he had no suggestion to offer. There were writers who instinctively felt that this could not be a complete theory; and of these the chief were Bodmer and Breitinger, the leaders of the Swiss school, which was formed in Ziirich. These writers, although destitute of creative genius, had nourished their imagination on English poetry, especially on I’m-mlise Lost, and it was incredible to them that a critical doc- trine could be correct which left out of account or con- GERMANY 533 demned their favourite writers. At first they were on friendly terms with Gottschcd, but when the latter harshly criticized a translation of Milton’s epic issued by Bodmer, his Swiss rivals prepared to defend themselves ; and thus broke out a literary controversy which made much noise at the time, and in which the angry critics, to the edifi- cation of onlookers, pelted each other umnercifully with abusive epithets. Neither party was fully conscious of the significance of its attack, and sometimes the warriors seemed almost to change sides. But the general tendency of the dispute was that the Swiss school, amid much exaggeration, defended the claims of free poetic impulse, while the Saxon school, in a narrow and pedantic spirit, maintained those of conscious art. It is hard werk now to follow their arguments, but at the time they interested a considerable public in literature, and opened fresh lines of investigation. One of the results was that Baumgarten, a disciple of Wolf, published a book which Germans regard as the beginning of modern aesthetics,——a branch of mental science to which their philosophers l1ave ever since devoted thought and labour. While this warfare of critics was going on, there were in Leipsic a number of young writers who more or less attached themselves to Gottsched, but who gradually shook off his authority. They founded a periodical, the Jfrcmer L‘citr¢'i_r/e (the “Bremen Contributions”), which Bremer had considerable influence in forming their own style, and in keeping alive the popular interest excited by the central controversy. After a while many of them were scattered over different parts of Germany, but they retained their original impulse, and continued to be known as members of the Saxon school. Gellert (1715- 69) was by far the 1nost famous of the circle. It is im- possible to mention without respect this amiable writer. His plays are unimportant, but his fables and tales reveal so gentle and pure a spirit that we cannot wonder at his great popularity. He was a favourite among all classes, even Frederick the Great himself, who rarely condescended to notice a German author, declaring after a long interview that he was “the most reasonable of German scholars.” His supreme defect was a tendency to weak sentimental- ism and pious commonplace. Rabener (171-1-71) acquired fame as a good-humoured satirist. His prose is fresh and clear, but he has not suflicient grasp of any important principle to entitle him to very high rank among moralists. Christian Felix Weisse (1726-1804), the friend of Lessing’s youth, failed as a writer of tragedy, but was a favourite author of comic operettas. He was also the first successful German writer for children, a11d edited for many years a periodical (the Bibliothel; cler sc/«men Wissezcsc/zaften) which had a favourable influence on popular culture. Johann Elias Schlegel (1718-49), uncle of the two Schlegels who became long afterwards leaders of the Romantic school, gave evidence of high dramatic talent, but died when he was beginning to be conscious of his power. Arnold Ebert distinguished himself by good translations from English ; a11d Zachariii wrote with so111e success mock heroics in the style of T /ce I.’upe of the Lock Kiistner, whose disputations at the Leipsic univer- sity were diligently attended by young Lessing, made him- self feared as a biting epigrammatist. Cramer became one of the 1nost eloquent preachers of the day, wrote popular religious odes, and edited The Northern Gurmlicuz, a well- meaning but rather commonplace imitation of the G"u((7'dian of Steele. These writers, who from being Gottsched’s friends all became more or less hostile to him, have a clear- 11ess and grace of style which were unknown in the previous century. Another author who was from the beginning Gottsched's enemy, but who had no relation with this par-
ticular school, may be here mentioued,—-Liscow (1701-60).