Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to New German Critique.
http://www.jstor.org
GeorgLukticsand IrmaSeidler
75
writes Kassner -
76
Heller
GeorgLukdcsandIrmaSeidler
77
realissimum";the individual/personal
by the
possibilitiesare circumscribed
The
conduct
of
the
individual
philosophical possibilities.
becomes-willingly or unwillingly- the expressionof the finite, symbolicforms of
conduct.Lukacscreatedhisrelationshipto IrmaSeidlerwithhisphilosophical
"I"; he alignedhis life withthe truthof philosophy.
Every philosophermustlive out his philosophy;the un-livedphilosophy
is no longerphilosophy.But thisphilosophy- the philosophyof contradiction between life and "createdwork"- couldnot be lived out withoutthe
consequenceof life beingship-wreckedin the process.Life avengeditselfon
form by conformingto the principlesof thisform.In the essayon Philippeof
1910, the hero stridespast that stage of his fate in whichwoman- life still could play a role, in the followingmanner:"Desirehadmadehimhard,
strong. He, who had permittedthe woman to departsobbingwordlessly,
annihilated, trembling in pain, now gained luminous strength for the
renunciation. ... For he haddestroyedthe woman'slife, hadhe not?"Life
avenged itself on philosophyby hideouslyrealizingit.
And LukAcsknew that life's revenge was more than revenge: it was
judgement.In his dialogue On Povertyin Sprit,he identifiedsin with the
interminglingof castes.The manof formsmustnotattachhimselfto life. But
the un-livedphilosophyis no longerphilosophy.And in The Theoryof the
Novel a motifemergeswhichhadalreadybeenimplicitin allthe questionshe
had posed to the world- the motifof the creationof a new, genuine,interpersonallife. A life whichovercomesthe dualismof the "empirical"andthe
"metaphysical,"a life which- as ThomasMannsaid - will againprovide
an existentialbasis for art.
The dreamsof TheSoul andtheFormswere addressedto Irma,butIrma
was not presentin these dreams.The authorof the essaysborewitnessto his
own possibilities,to the possibilitiesof his own "metaphysicalI." But Irma
Seidlerwas not Regine Olsen, who livedhappilyuntilshe died. Kierkegaard
could create his relationshipto RegineOlsen;andhe couldcreateit in a way
that posteritycouldonly seek - andfind - the possibilitiesof the philosopher's "I" in this philosophicalcreation.Regine Olsen is trulyonly a nonobjectified object, a being transformedinto symbol,who does not intrude
into the story which is not her story,but thatof the manwho had given her
symbolicform. But IrmaSeidlerwas not Regine Olsen, who lived happily
until she died. She was not the heroineof philosophicalparables.She putan
end to the philosophicalparablesonce and for all with the final gestureof
suicide. It was she, and not the philosopherhimself,who threwinto doubt
and made the philosophyof TheSoulandtheFormsequivocalwiththisfinal
gesture. And with herdeath-leapshe earnedherrighttosharethisstory.Not
merely as its object, but as its subjectas well.
78
Heller
2
ACT ONE
ACT TWO
Trans. note
79
January, 1911, G.'s letter to I., in which he asked her to accept the
dedication from him. "You know...why these writingswere written,
because I cannot write poems, and you know againwho these 'poems'are
addressedto, and who awakenedthemin me." "WhatI wishto accomplish,
only an unattachedman can accomplish."
I.'s answer: "Thankyou for retainingso much warmthfor me. I am
proud that I had somethingto do with the productionof sucha book - or
that you believe that I had. I am also glad that, as it turnsout, I read the
Hungarianedition correctly."
March, 1911. G. and I. meet for the firsttime in almostthreeyears.G.'s
letters to his friend, L.: "Irma is here and we've met a few times, and so far it
*
Gyuri - affectionatetermfor Georg in Hungarian.After Irma'smarriage,theircorresuse
pondencetakes on an appropriateformality,whichis not reflectedin the undifferentiated
of "you" in English. - Trans.note
80
Heller
GeorgLukacsand IrmaSeidler
81
82
Heller
Lukracstries and triesagain,and triesincessantlyto makehimselfunderstood by Irma Seidler, to make her understand the being that is specifically
. .
understand and do not live, and there are others who live and do not understand. The first kind can never really reach the second even though they
understand them, and the second can never understand anything, but then,
that cannot be important for them in any case because they love or hate,
tolerate or will tolerate, and the category of understanding does not exist for
83
84
Heller
85
87
88
Heller
GeorgLukdcsandIrmaSeidler 89
The sound of trumpetswill cause the walls of Jerichoto fall, and lifegiving mannawill fall fromheavenbefore a man, who fears, ceases to fear.
"Scruples (marriage would be impossible)...I was prepared for
malaise:fear, the mellowingeffectof happiness,fearthatI mightnot be able
to orient myselfin a morebroadly-basedlife"(Lukic'snote, July1-3, 1908).
GeorgLukaicswasafraidof IrmaSeidler,buthe didnotfearforlife,rather
for his work. "What I wish to accomplishonly an unattachedman can
accomplish.""I feel moreandmorestronglythatthe reallyimportantthings
happenin solitude.... I experiencesolitudeas a great'redeeming'joy, not
as a resignationto being excludedfromlife, but as the discoveryof life, my
life, the life in which everythingis adequate." (Letters of G.L. to I.S.
Januaryand April, 1911)
"LastnightI felt againthatIrmais life" - but GeorgLukAcswas afraid
of this life. "Great love is alwaysascetic. There is no differencebetween
elevating the beloved to the height of heights and so alienatingher from
oneself as well as herself,andusinghersimplyas a steppingstone"(Lukacs'
essay on Philippe).
In theorythere maybe no "difference"betweenthese two attitudes,but
Lukics was a refinedandhonorableman.He knewthereis a difference.And
he chose the firstcourse. The figureof Irmabecamesymbolicfor him, and
he chose this symbolic transformation:"Strange how little I felt the
necessity, in Leo and Irma'scase, of their being-with-meand being-forme. .... Their being-here was sufficient" (diary, November 30, 1911).
Lukics transformed Irma Seidler into a mythical figure, into the
unobjectifiedobject of his eternaldesire.He hadfaithin Irma,(as Irmadid
not have faithin him), andhe couldhavefaithbecausewhatwasessentialfor
him, work, was not being-with-her,but her existencein itself.
Georg Lukacswas afraidof IrmaSeidler.He fearedfor his work,andhe
feared her as he was a refinedand honorableman. Of the two attitudes,he
chose the first.HefearedIrmabecausehefearedforIrma;he didnot wantto
transformher into an instrument."WhateverKierkegaarddid, he did it in
order to rescueRegine Olsen for life." RegineOlsenwas a childof conventions, and she marriedandlivedhappilyuntilshe died. But IrmaSeidlerwas
not a childof conventions,and at the sametime, she wasunableto havefaith
in miracles. She tried to provoke a miracle,and simultaneouslyprovoked
fate againstherself.
GeorgLukics wasafraidof IrmaSeidler,buthe didnotfearforlife,rather
feared for Irma.This fearwas of his essence;andyet Irmawantedhimnot to
fear butstill be himselfand remainhimself.Irmaexpecteda miracle,but the
miraclenever came. Irmatriedto provokea miraclebut miracleswillnot be
provoked. All our lives we can have faithin miracles;faithknowsno time.
But miracles can only be provoked in time, and only with the gestureof
finality. And Irma Seidler -
90
Heller
91
92
Heller
they have been reduced to their separate elements. . .the fact that
somethingcan be pickedapartdoes not provethatit hadto be pickedapart,
but only that the experimentcould be performed"(August 30). "No, I
cannot bear to analyzethings, nor do I want to becauseit is cruelto place
one's own and another'ssoul on the dissectiontable"(October1).
We do not have the letters Lukics wrote to NagybBnya;yet, we can
imaginewhat this analysismighthave been like. Lukaicswas contemptuous
of psychoanalysisas an explanatorytheory.For him psychologicalanalysis
was the analysisof motives and moods. And since motivesand moods are
ephemeral, constantlychanging,the dissectionof motivesand moods will
never reveal to us the ultimate, the truly essential, the unconditional.
However, it was through analysis that Lukaicswanted to arrive at the
unconditional, ultimate essences. Lukacs was contemptuousof psychoanalysis as an explanatorytheory. The "soul," just as it is, in its own
essentialnature,hasno priorhistory.To probethispriorhistorywouldagain
mean getting lost in the chaos of contingencies.This "prior history"
introduceselements into the analysiswhichare externalto the "soul".And
these externalelements are contingentelements.We must arbitrarilypick
and choose from among an infinityof contingentelements, and what we
want to graspmost, whatwe wantto knowmost andcomprehendin its own
unconditionalessence, in its "being-just-so,"in its uniqueness,the pure
individuality,the "intelligibleI" will againslip throughour fingers.It was
this "intelligibleI" that Lukics wished to revealin his analysis,and it was
through analysis that he wanted to arriveat this ultimate, unconditional
essence. "The newlyself-conscioussoul marvelsat its entirepriorexistence
like a stranger.. . . These are the dialoguesof nakedsoul withtheirnaked
fates."
This is existentialanalysis.The object of the analysisis not the living
individual, for the "soul" of even the noblest individualcarriesits own
prehistory.He, too, has motives, even motivesthatare contingentand not
decisive in terms of his individuality.The object of the analysis is the
individualconceivedand formalizedas symbol.Everyindividual- thatis,
every significantindividual,for only the significantindividualis worthyof
existentialanalysis- becomesthesymbolof an attitude,andthedialogueof
two individuals is the meeting of two symbolic attitudes. And every
symbolicallyconceivedattitudeis afate andthe meetingof two nakedsouls,
two fates seekingone another.And so, IrmaSeidleris not IrmaSeidlerbut
"life," "goodness," "the redeemer".And Georg Lukacsno longer in his
actual, empiricalpresence, but the "manof the createdwork,""solitude,"
"unviability"."I was honest and conscientiousin always revealingwhat
there was still between us, althoughI did it becauseI believed that these
things were but the strugglesof the past, and the futurewas alreadyon its
way, that its firstsignswere alreadyvisible,andthatyou hadsavedme andI
would perhapsbe able to reciprocateyoursavingme" (G.L.'s unsentgoodbye letter, November-December,1908). But Irma Seidler was not "the
93
94
Heller
GeorgLukdcsandIrmaSeidler 95
But if individualsneverthelesswantto makethemselvesobjectsof their
consciousness, they can only do so throughtheory.And no immediacycan
remain in the "soul" because this immediacyonly mediates the "lifeless
life"; and the spontaneityof the senses must be renouncedbecause this
spontaneitycanonly be the vehicleof "absoluteculpability".The individual
of culture can only develop within a culturebecause only in a culturecan
spontaneity and sensuality itself become cultured. Only in a culture can
individuals make themselves objects of their consciousness without
sacrificingtheirsensesto theory,onlyin a culturedworldcanthe harmonyof
sensual and intellectualbeauty develop. Habitableinstitutions.Habitable
world. "Hic Rhodus, hic salta. Hier ist die Rose, hier Tanze."
Individualsof culturecan only developwithina culture;whoevermakes
himself or herself the object of consciousnessin the "eraof absoluteculpability" is over-refined. Theory absorbs the senses. "Poverty in spirit is
nothing less than liberationfrom our own psychologicaldeterminantsin
order to deliver ourselves to those metaphysicaland metapsychological
necessitieswhicharemoreproperlyfromourown."But is it liberationto be
liberatedfrom our psychologicaldeterminants?
In the world of conventionspsychologyis also conventional.We understand one another. But is it one anotherthat we understand?We comprehend the "signs". But are we comprehending the signs of human
uniqueness? We remain strangersto one another, perhapswithout even
knowingit, becausewe neverarriveat the question:whatarewe really?We
know "whatit meansthat I love you," but the other, deeperquestionnever
even dawnson us: "whatdoes it mean that I love you?
On the other hand, the fate of the over-refinedindividualwho leaves
behind the conventionallife to rise above it. The fate of the "nakedsoul"is
poverty in spirit.The senses are absorbedby theory,and thereare no more
psychologicaldeterminants,no past. Immediacyis lost, spontaneityis lost,
and only wordsremainfor self-revelation,wordsandwordsalone. And the
articulatedwords cause pain, and the unarticulatedwordscause pain, and
every gesture becomes ambiguous, and every understandingbecomes
misunderstandinguntil at last faith is silenced and the souls are alienated
from one another with the finalityof fate. "Thereis no marriagebed for
the union of souls."
"And as long as communicationis not all there is and all there is is not
equally communication,nothingexists."
Over-refinement is desire --desire for culture. The over-refined
individualis the individualdesirousof culture-ina worlddevoidof culture.
"In life, desire can only be love."
"Irmais life." Habitableinstitutions.Habitableworld."HicRhodus,hic
salta. Hier ist die Rose, hier Tanze."
96
Heller
8
"Don'tbe angryif, thoughI haveceasedto meansomethingin yourlife if ever I was anything?- don'tbe angryif you neverthelessremainthe only
content in my life" (G.'s unsentgood-byeletterto I.). "Backthenshe might
have felt thatI couldsaveherfromhertroubles,thoughshedidnot love me"
(G.'s diary,May24, 1911). "I was neverfor herwhatshe was for me" (G.'s
diary, October27, 1911).
Irma did not love me. -
GeorgLukdcsand IrmaSeidler
97
98
Heller
99
100
Heller
individual lives grow through our relationship, and vice versa" (July 5). "I
101
The confrontationof her own creativeego with that of the Other, the
voices of judgement, the gestures of the woman-person-creator's
worldview: "Only those people are good people - and by good I mean somethingrathergrand- whose love of men andrangeof sentimentsin all sorts
of humanrelationshipsis as spiritualandas 'prophetic'as the attitudeof the
artist to his work. And those trulydevoted to creationand work are those
who can relate to their work as to an organic,living entity which can be
warmlyloved, which can be killed or saved, but whichlives."
A womanwantedto breakwiththe worldof conventions,butshewanted
to break with it as a humanbeing, as an artist.There was no otherway for
her. And at the same time she wantedto remaina woman,too, but the men
who could have been her companionsin solitudewere proud,and for them
"a woman was only a woman."
Still, didn'tshe commita tragicoffense by lovingthe one she happened
to love?
Love can never be an offense. And yet, didn't she commit a tragic
offense by promisingsomethingin the ecstaticmomentof love, something
she could not deliverin termsof her own individuality?
I.'s first letter to G.: "I would like to be able to measureup to the
standardsyou have set for me" (December30, 1907). I.'s letter to G. on
August 30, 1908:"I feel that, if I leave myworknow, I shallleave it on other
occasionsas well. And I also feel that, if I cannotsooneror laterarrangemy
life so thatI shallneveragainbe unableto workfullforceforthe greaterpart
of the year, I would leave art behindforever. Withgoals such as mineone
cannot get anywhere at this rate. . . . And still, I might come. Dear God,
102
Heller
GeorgLukdcsand IrmaSeidler
103
104
Heller
105
106
Heller
ANNOUNCEMENTS
WOMENIN GERMAN
Session at the 1980MLA
Call for Paperson WomenWritersPriorto 1800
Please submitabstractsfor papers(2-3 pages)by April 1, 1980.Sendproposalsto:
Gabriele Strauch
Julie Prandi
and
266 HillcrestRd.
407 WisconsinAve., 5
Madison, WI 53703
Berkeley, CA 94705
FORTHCOMINGCONFERENCE
The Fifth Annual EuropeanStudiesConferencewill be held on October9, 10,
and 11, 1980in Omaha,Nebraska.This conference,sponsoredby the Universityof
Nebraskaat Omaha,is an interdisciplinary
meetingwithsessionsdevotedto current
research, researchtechniques,and teachingmethodologies,as well as traditional
topics. The Conference stresses the interdisciplinarytheme focusingon Europe
from the Atlantic to the Urals.
Abstractsof papersand/orsuggestionsforpanelsshouldbe submittedbyMay 1,
1980 to Dr. Patricia Kolasa, Department of EducationalFoundations,or Dr.
Bernard Kolasa, Department of Political Science, University of Nebraska at
Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska68182.