Schiller and Our Times
GA 51
4 February 1905, Berlin
III. Schiller and Goethe
We come today to one of the most important chapters in German cultural and intellectual history, the relationship between Goethe and Schiller. The attitude of the two of them is unique in the history of the world.
They approached each other from different sides. Goethe came from the side of Herder and all that could be associated with the unity of spirit and nature, while Schiller came from the Kantian philosophy and dualism. Besides that, Goethe's and Schiller's natures were fundamentally different.
If we take Goethe's Faust, we see how he tries to penetrate into nature, finding himself unsatisfied when he grasps something spiritual in abstractions and striving to create it immediately out of nature. To Schiller nature was at first something low; the ideal was something peculiar, born from the spirit and in opposition to the real. Both men were deep in quality and could only find themselves with difficulty. And thus, at the beginning of their personal meetings these two great geniuses were quite incapable of understanding each other. In fact, when Schiller came to Weimar, he felt himself repelled by what he heard about Goethe, and even a personal meeting could not alter things.
In 1788 Schiller could still write an unfavourable criticism of Egmont, that fruit of a mature artistic thought. He could not understand how Goethe could represent Egmont, not as a heroic enthusiast as Schiller himself would have done, but as a weakling who could be guided by given circumstances.
The Iphigenie too was beyond Schiller's comprehension.
At one point, Goethe and Schiller did almost touch. In an essay on Bürger's poems Schiller had said that Bürger's lack of idealism did not appeal to him; and Goethe was so much in agreement with the essay that he remarked that he would like to have written the essay himself. But there is still evidence how different the two courses ran, in Schiller's essay on Charm and Dignity. This essay shows us Schiller's whole striving after freedom. In what is necessary he can find nothing of charm; a work of nature cannot give any impression of charm. It is only in the work of art which is a symbol, a concrete picture of freedom, that we can speak of charm. And dignity is a word which we can only apply to the higher spiritual realm. Everywhere we see the old tendency to grasp the ideal as something opposed to the natural.
Even the professorship which Goethe got for Schiller at Jena is not to be taken as a service of friendship. This step was of great importance for Schiller. The study of historical character gave him a deep insight into the evolution of the spirit. Moreover, it made it possible for him to marry Charlotte von Lengefeld and start a household. History was just the subject which could help Schiller to reach maturity, as in his inaugural lecture “How should we study history in a universal sense?” In this way Schiller grew more and more into reality.
From 1790 onwards, after a visit to Körner who acted as intermediary between them, Goethe must have got a quite different idea of Schiller. But their friendship was not to mature by the ways in which average people come to feel sympathy with each other. This joint relation was destined never to come into being on the basis of personal interests. Nor, considering the difference of their personalities would their friendship have ever been of such a world-wide importance, if it had been based on that.
It was after a meeting of the Society for Scientific Research in 1794—probably in July—that Goethe and Schiller began to discuss the lecture they had just heard, on the way home. Schiller said that he had only a mass of isolated and unrelated impressions; whereupon Goethe remarked that for himself he could imagine another form of natural observation. He then developed his views about the relation of all living things—how the whole plant kingdom was to be regarded as in continual development. With a few characteristic strokes Goethe drew the archetypal plant, as it appeared to him, on a piece of paper. “But that is not reality,” objected Schiller, “that is only an idea.” “Well, if that is an idea,” replied Goethe, “I see ideas with my eyes.” In this meeting the nature of both their thought can be seen. Goethe saw the spirit in nature. For him that which the spirit grasps intuitively was as real as what is sensible; for him nature embraces the spirit.
Schiller's true greatness as a man shows itself in the way in which he tried to discover the foundation on which Goethe's spirit was based. He wished to find the right standpoint. In unenvious recognition of all that thus came towards him, Schiller began the friendship which was to unite the two. The letter which Schiller wrote to Goethe after he had sunk himself in Goethe's method of creation, the letter of 24th August 1794, is one of the finest of human documents.
“For a long time I have, even though from a distance, observed the course of your spirit and with ever new wonder noted the path you have traced out for yourself. You seek for the necessary in nature, but you seek it along the harder path from which all weaker forces would shrink. You take all nature as a whole in order to illuminate a part; and in the totality of their appearances you seek the basis of explanation for the individual.”
In this way Schiller did Goethe honour, as soon as he had recognised him. There is no deeper psychological characterisation of Goethe. And so it remained till Schiller's death. Their friendship was impregnable, though envy and ill-will used the lowest means to separate them. They worked together in such a way that the advice of the one always had a fruitful influence on the other. Schiller, with a magnificence which has not been surpassed by any other aesthetic writer, by asking how this or that idea harmonises with Goethe's spirit, came to a realisation of the various forms of artistic creation, which he put down in his essay on “Naive and sentimental art.” An artist who still stands in relation to nature, who is himself still nature within nature, creates naively. That is how the Greeks created. An artist who longs for a return to nature, after being torn from her, creates sentimentally. That is the quality of modern art. There is something grand in the way in which these two conceived of art. An old doctrine which still lives in eastern wisdom, of the transitoriness of all appearance, of the veil of Maya, finds expression here. Only he lives in reality who rises above illusion to the region of the spirit. The highest reality is not external.
In every way these two men were forced to inner activity. Goethe, it is true, made his Faust say that “in the beginning was the deed.” But in Germany at that time things were not so far advanced as in France where they could produce external effects; there was only the longing for freedom. And so these two sought their deeds in the sphere of the beautiful, of the work of art. They aimed at a reflection of higher reality, of nature within nature, in life by means of beautiful appearance. Goethe's Wilhelm Meister is of this type. Wilhelm Meister is to take us beyond what is illusion in our everyday life, to the fulfilment of personality. Thus it becomes the finest novel of education, to which Schiller's motto might be applied: “Only through the dawn of the beautiful can you penetrate to the land of knowledge.” The spirit out of which we act is the highest. In that period, it was not possible to show that the world of the spirit is born from within. Thus in Wilhelm Meister the liberation of the world had still to be expressed in the form of artistic beauty.
The continual collaboration and advice of Schiller helped to eradicate the personal element in Wilhelm Meister. On the one side we see what must be regarded as the deeper “cause” in man, what a newer spiritual science calls the “causal body”; on the other side we have the external influences. Nothing can be developed that is not there in the seed; but it needs the influence from without. This collaboration is seen also in Schiller's creative activity. His ballads and his Wallenstein would have been impossible but for Goethe's fertilising influence.
There was a sort of modesty, but combined with a real greatness, in the relation in which they stood to each other. They only became a whole by the completion of their separate natures, and as a result something of new greatness came into being. The depth and strength of their friendship drove all philistinism into opposition against them. They were pursued with envy and hatred, for the small has never been able to understand the great. It is hardly credible today what attacks were launched by pettiness against them. The Annals of Philosophy, for instance, spoke disparagingly of them, and someone, called Manso, described them as the “sluts of Weimar and Jena.”
They had to defend themselves against all these attacks and the “Xenien” of 1796 form a fine memorial to their friendship. In the Distichs, which were a sort of historic prosecution of all those who had offended against them or against good taste, we cannot always distinguish those that are by Goethe and those by Schiller. Their friendship was to make them appear as one person. Schiller and Goethe provide us with an example how greatness can defend itself against the everyday, and show us what should be the true attitude and bearing of a friendship which rests on the spiritual. And both were searchers after truth; Schiller in the heart of men, Goethe in the whole of nature.
III. Schiller und Goethe
Wir kommen heute zu einem der wichtigsten Kapitel der deutschen Geistesgeschichte, zu dem Verhältnis zwischen Goethe und Schiller. Das Verhalten der beiden ist einzigartig in der Welt. Von verschiedenen Seiten her waren sie gekommen. Von Herder und allem, was anknüpfte an die Einheitlichkeit des Geistes und der Natur, kam Goethe, von der Kantischen Philosophie, vom Dualismus, kam Schiller. Außerdem waren Goethes und Schillers Naturen grundverschieden. Nehmen wir Goethes «Faust», wie er sucht in die Natur einzudringen, wie er sich unbefriedigt fühlt, etwas Geistiges in Abstraktionen zu begreifen und sich bemüht, es unmittelbar aus der Natur zu schöpfen. Für Schiller war zunächst die Natur etwas Niedriges, das Ideal war ihm etwas besonderes, was dem Geiste entsprungen war, im Widerspruch mit dem Realen. Beide waren außerordentlich tiefe Naturen, die sich deshalb nur schwer finden konnten. So sehen wir, daß sich diese beiden großen Genien in der ersten Zeit ihres persönlichen Begegnens durchaus nicht verstehen können.
Als Schiller nach Weimar kam, fühlte er sich von dem, was er von Goethe zu hören bekam, eher abgestoßen als angezogen, auch ein persönliches Zusammentreffen konnte daran nichts ändern. So konnte Schiller im Jahre 1788 über «Egmont», diese Frucht reifen Kunststudiums, eine abfällige Kritik schreiben. Er kann nicht begreifen, wie Goethe Egmont hingestellt habe nicht als heroischen Schwärmer, wie es damals in Schillers Sinne gelegen hätte, sondern, nach seiner Meinung, als eine Art Schwächling, der sich von den gegebenen Verhältnissen bestimmen läßt. Auch «Iphigenie» konnte Schiller damals nicht verstehen.
In einem Punkte begegneten sich Schiller und Goethe. Schiller hatte in einem Aufsatz über Bürgers Gedichte sich dahin ausgesprochen, daß der Mangel an Idealismus bei Bürger ihn nicht befriedige. Goethe war mit diesem Aufsatz so einverstanden, daß er sagte, er möchte gern den Aufsatz selbst geschrieben haben. Aber es zeigt sich noch, wie verschieden der Lauf der beiden Geister ist in dem Aufsatz Schillers über «Anmut und Würde». Es tritt uns in diesem Aufsatz Schillers ganzes Streben nach Freiheit entgegen. In dem Notwendigen kann er nicht Anmut finden, ein Naturwerk kann als anmutig nicht erscheinen; erst beim Kunstwerk, das ein Symbol, ein Sinnbild der Freiheit ist, können wir von «Anmut» sprechen. Als «Würde» kann man nur vom höheren Geistigen sprechen. In allem zeigte sich Schillers alte Anlage, den Begriff des Idealen als etwas Entgegengesetztes dem Natürlichen zu fassen.
Auch die Professur in Jena, die Goethe für Schiller erwirkte, ist nicht als ein Freundschaftsdienst aufzufassen. Dieses Ereignis war für Schiller von weitgehender Bedeutung. An dem Studium geschichtlicher Charaktere konnte er einen tiefen Blick in den Entwickelungsgang des Geistes tun. Auch war ihm die Möglichkeit gegeben, sich einen Hausstand zu gründen und sich mit Charlotte von Lengefeld zu verheiraten. Gerade an der Geschichte konnte Schiller so heranreifen, wie es sein Antrittsthema: «Was heißt und zu welchem Ende studiert man Universalgeschichte?» bedeutungsvoll ausspricht. So war Schiller immer mehr in die Wirklichkeit hineingekommen.
Vom Jahre 1790 ab, nach einem Besuche bei Körner, der sich zum Vermittler zwischen den beiden machte, hat wohl Goethe eine ganz andere Ansicht über Schiller bekommen. Doch ihre Freundschaft sollte nicht bestimmt werden durch die Punkte, in denen sich Sympathien von Alltagsnaturen finden. Nicht aus persönlichen Interessen sollte dies Bündnis hervorgehen. Nie wäre auf diese Art bei der Verschiedenheit ihrer Persönlichkeiten ihre Freundschaft so weltbedeutend geworden.
Es war nach einer Versammlung der Gesellschaft für naturwissenschaftliche Forschung im Jahre 1794 — vermutlich im Juli —, als Goethe und Schiller beim Nachhauseweg in ein Gespräch über den eben gehörten Vortrag kamen. Schiller sagte, es sei ihm alles so zerstückelt vorgekommen, wie lauter Einzelheiten, worauf Goethe meinte, er könne sich wohl eine andere Art der Naturbetrachtung vorstellen. Er entwickelte ihm seine Anschauungen über den Zusammenhang aller Lebewesen, wie man das ganze Pflanzenreich, als in fortwährender Entwickelung zu betrachten habe. Mit einigen charakteristischen Strichen zeichnete Goethe die Urpflanze, die er gefunden, auf ein Blatt Papier. Aber das ist keine Wirklichkeit, das ist eine Idee —, wendete Schiller ein. «Nun, wenn das eine Idee ist», sagte Goethe, «so sehe ich meine Ideen mit Augen.» So zeigte sich in diesem Zusammenstoß beider Denken. Goethe sah den Geist in der Natur. Das, was der Geist intuitiv erfaßt, war für ihn ebenso wirklich, wie das Sinnliche; die Natur umschließt für ihn den Geist. Die wahre Größe im Menschen zeigte sich nun bei Schiller in der Art, wie er sich bemühte zu ergründen, worauf Goethes Geist fußte. Er wollte den rechten Standpunkt finden. In neidloser Anerkennung dessen, was ihm so entgegentritt, begründet Schiller die tiefe Freundschaft, die nun die beiden verbinden sollte. Es ist eines der schönsten menschlichen Dokumente der Brief vom 23. August 1794, den Schiller an Goethe schreibt, nachdem er sich in Goethes Schaffen vertieft hat. «Lange schon habe ich, obgleich aus ziemlicher Ferne, dem Gang Ihres Geistes zugesehen, und den Weg, den Sie sich vorgezeichnet haben, mit immer erneuter Bewunderung bemerkt. Sie suchen das Notwendige der Natur, aber Sie suchen es auf dem schwersten Wege, vor welchem jede schwächere Kraft sich wohl hüten wird. Sie nehmen die ganze Natur zusammen, um über das einzelne Licht zu bekommen: in der Allheit ihrer Erscheinungsarten suchen Sie den Erklärungsgrund für das Individuum auf.»
Auf diese Weise hat Schiller, nachdem er ihn erkannt hatte, Goethe gewürdigt. Es gibt keine tiefere psychologische Schilderung Goethes. So ist es bis zu dem Tode Schillers geblieben: unanfechtbar war diese Freundschaft, obwohl Neid und Mißgunst die beiden mit den niedrigsten Mitteln zu trennen versuchten. Jetzt arbeiteten sie so zusammen, daß der Rat des einen auf den anderen stets befruchtend wirkte. Schiller findet in einer Größe, die heute noch nicht übertroffen ist von andern Ästhetikern, indem er sich fragt: «Wie verträgt sich dieser oder jener Begriff mit dem Geiste Goethes?», eine Darstellung der verschiedenen Arten des künstlerischen Schaffens, die er in seiner Abhandlung über «Naive und sentimentale Kunst» niederlegt. Naiv schafft der Künstler, der noch im Zusammenhange steht mit der Natur, der selbst noch Natur in der Natur ist. So schufen die Griechen. Sentimental schafft derjenige, der sich wieder zurücksehnt zur Natur, nachdem er aus ihr herausgerissen war. Es ist dies das Wesen der modernen Kunst.
Es liegt etwas Großes in der Art, wie die Kunst von den Freunden aufgefaßt wurde. Eine uralte Lehre, die in der orientalischen Weisheit fortlebt, von dem Vergänglichen aller Erscheinung, von dem Schleier der Maja, spricht sich hier aus. Nur derjenige Mensch lebt in der Wirklichkeit, der sich über die Illusion erhebt in die Region des Geistes. Die höchste Wirklichkeit ist nichts Äußerliches. Alles drängte die beiden auf eine innerliche Wirkung. Zwar hatte Goethe seinen Faust sagen lassen: «Im Anfang war die Tat.» Doch in Deutschland waren damals die Verhältnisse noch nicht so weit, um, wie in Frankreich, äußere Wirkungen zu schaffen; nur die Sehnsucht nach Freiheit gab es. So suchten diese Geister ihre Taten im Gebiete des Schönen, im Kunstwerk. Hineingestellt sollte werden ein Abglanz der höheren Wirklichkeit, der Natur in der Natur, in das Leben, durch den schönen Schein.
Goethes «Wilhelm Meister» steht in diesem Zeichen. Im «Wilhelm Meister» soll hinausgeführt werden über das Illusionäre in der Alltäglichkeit zu der Vollendung der Persönlichkeit. So wird «Wilhelm Meister» zum schönsten Erziehungsroman, dem Schillers Worte als Motto gelten könnten: «Nur durch das Morgenrot des Schönen dringst du in der Erkenntnis Land.» Der Geist, aus dem wir handeln, ist das Höchste. Es war nicht möglich, in jener Zeit zu zeigen, daß aus dem Innern heraus die spirituelle Welt des Geistes geboren wird. So wurde im «Wilhelm Meister» zunächst die Befreiung der Welt durch künstlerische Schönheit geschildert.
Die fortdauernde Mitarbeit, die Ratschläge Schillers, halfen das persönliche Moment im «Wilhelm Meister» herausschälen. Wir sehen hier auf der einen Seite dasjenige, was man als die tiefere Ursache des Menschen zu betrachten hat, was eine neuere Geisteswissenschaft den Ursachenleib nennt; auf der anderen Seite die äußeren Einwirkungen. Nichts entwickelt sich, was nicht im Keime vorhanden wäre, aber es wird durch die äußeren Einwirkungen beeinflußt. Dieses Zusammenwirken zeigt sich in Schillers schöpferischer Tätigkeit. Seine Balladen, sein Wallenstein, wären nicht möglich gewesen, hätte Goethes Einfluß nicht befruchtend gewirkt. Es war eine Art von Bescheidenheit, mit der sich die beiden gegenüberstanden, in der eine ungeheure Größe liegt. Sie wurden eigentlich erst ein Ganzes durch die Ergänzung ihrer beiden Naturen, durch die aber auch ungeheuer Großes zustande kommen konnte.
Die tiefe und starke Freundschaft machte es, daß alles Philiströse sich gegen sie aufbäumte. Die beiden wurden von Neid und Mißgunst verfolgt, denn noch niemals hat das Kleine die Größe verstehen können. Heute glaubt man kaum mehr, welche Angriffe von der Kleinheit auf diese Großen losgelassen wurden. Die «Annalen für Philosophie» zum Beispiel sprachen wegwerfend von ihnen; ein gewisser Manso bezeichnete sie als «Sudelköche von Weimar und Jena...» Wehren mußten sie sich gegen all diese Angriffe, und es ist ein schönes Denkmal ihrer Freundschaft, was sie in den «Xenien» im Jahre 1796 gaben. Bei diesen Distichen, in denen sie an all denen, die sich an ihnen und dem guten Geschmack vergingen, ein weltgeschichtliches Strafgericht vollzogen, ist nicht immer zu unterscheiden, welche von Goethe und welche von Schiller herrühren. Ihre Freundschaft sollte sie als eine Person erscheinen lassen. An dem Beispiel Schillers und Goethes können wir wahrnehmen, wie Größe sich des Alltags zu erwehren weiß, und wie Freundschaft, die im Geistigen ruht, sich wahrhaft trägt und erhebt.
Und Wahrheit suchten sie beide: Schiller zunächst im Herzen des Menschen, Goethe in der ganzen Natur.
III. Schiller and Goethe
Today we come to one of the most important chapters in German intellectual history, the relationship between Goethe and Schiller. The behavior of these two men is unique in the world. They came from different sides. Goethe came from Herder and everything connected with the unity of spirit and nature, while Schiller came from Kantian philosophy and dualism. In addition, Goethe and Schiller had fundamentally different natures. Take Goethe's “Faust,” for example, how he seeks to penetrate nature, how he feels unsatisfied with understanding something spiritual in abstractions and strives to draw it directly from nature. For Schiller, nature was initially something lowly; for him, the ideal was something special that sprang from the spirit, in contradiction to reality. Both were extraordinarily profound natures, which made it difficult for them to find common ground. Thus, we see that these two great geniuses were unable to understand each other at all in the early days of their personal encounters.
When Schiller came to Weimar, he felt repelled rather than attracted by what he heard from Goethe, and even a personal meeting could not change that. Thus, in 1788, Schiller wrote a disparaging review of “Egmont,” the fruit of mature artistic study. He could not understand how Goethe had portrayed Egmont not as a heroic enthusiast, as Schiller would have liked, but, in his opinion, as a kind of weakling who allows himself to be determined by circumstances. Schiller also could not understand “Iphigenia” at that time.
Schiller and Goethe agreed on one point. In an essay on Bürger's poems, Schiller had expressed his dissatisfaction with Bürger's lack of idealism. Goethe agreed with this essay so much that he said he would have liked to have written it himself. But Schiller's essay on “Grace and Dignity” shows how different the two minds are. In this essay, we see Schiller's entire striving for freedom. He cannot find grace in the necessary; a work of nature cannot appear graceful; only in a work of art that is a symbol, an emblem of freedom, can we speak of “grace.” One can only speak of “dignity” in relation to the higher spiritual realm. In everything, Schiller's old tendency to conceive of the ideal as something opposed to the natural was evident.
Even the professorship in Jena, which Goethe obtained for Schiller, should not be regarded as a favor done for a friend. This event was of far-reaching significance for Schiller. By studying historical figures, he was able to gain a deep insight into the development of the spirit. It also gave him the opportunity to set up a household and marry Charlotte von Lengefeld. It was precisely through history that Schiller was able to mature, as his inaugural lecture, “What is the meaning and purpose of studying universal history?”, meaningfully expresses. In this way, Schiller became more and more grounded in reality.
From 1790 onwards, after a visit to Körner, who acted as a mediator between the two, Goethe probably gained a completely different view of Schiller. However, their friendship was not to be determined by the points on which everyday natures find sympathy. This alliance was not to arise from personal interests. Given the differences in their personalities, their friendship would never have become so significant to the world in this way.
It was after a meeting of the Society for Scientific Research in 1794—probably in July—that Goethe and Schiller, on their way home, got into a conversation about the lecture they had just heard. Schiller said that it all seemed so fragmented to him, like a bunch of details, to which Goethe replied that he could well imagine a different way of looking at nature. He shared his views on the connection between all living things, how the entire plant kingdom should be seen as constantly evolving. With a few characteristic strokes, Goethe sketched the primordial plant he had found on a piece of paper. But that is not reality, that is an idea, Schiller objected. “Well, if that is an idea,” said Goethe, “then I see my ideas with my eyes.” Thus, the clash between the two minds became apparent. Goethe saw the spirit in nature. What the spirit intuitively grasps was just as real to him as the sensual; for him, nature encompasses the spirit. Schiller's true greatness was now revealed in the way he endeavored to fathom the basis of Goethe's spirit. He wanted to find the right point of view. In his ungrudging recognition of what he encountered, Schiller established the deep friendship that was now to bind the two men together. One of the most beautiful human documents is the letter of August 23, 1794, which Schiller wrote to Goethe after immersing himself in Goethe's work. "For a long time now, although from a considerable distance, I have watched the course of your mind and noted the path you have charted for yourself with ever-renewed admiration. You seek the essence of nature, but you seek it by the most difficult path, which any weaker force would be wary of. You take nature as a whole in order to gain insight into the individual: in the totality of its manifestations, you seek the explanation for the individual."
This is how Schiller honored Goethe after recognizing him. There is no deeper psychological description of Goethe. It remained so until Schiller's death: this friendship was unassailable, although envy and resentment tried to separate the two with the lowest means. Now they worked together in such a way that the advice of one always had a fruitful effect on the other. Schiller finds a greatness that has not yet been surpassed by other aestheticians today when he asks himself: “How does this or that concept fit in with Goethe's spirit?” He presents a description of the different types of artistic creation in his treatise on “Naive and Sentimental Art.” The artist who is still connected to nature, who is himself still nature in nature, creates naively. This is how the Greeks created. Those who long to return to nature after being torn away from it create sentimentally. This is the essence of modern art.
An ancient teaching that lives on in Oriental wisdom, about the transience of all appearances, about the veil of maya, is expressed here. Only those who rise above illusion into the realm of the spirit live in reality. The highest reality is not something external. Everything urged the two toward an inner effect. Goethe had his Faust say: “In the beginning was the deed.” But in Germany at that time, conditions were not yet ripe for creating external effects, as they were in France; there was only a longing for freedom. So these spirits sought their deeds in the realm of beauty, in works of art. A reflection of higher reality, of nature in nature, in life, was to be inserted through beautiful appearance.
Goethe's “Wilhelm Meister” stands in this sign. In “Wilhelm Meister,” the aim is to move beyond the illusory in everyday life to the perfection of personality. Thus, “Wilhelm Meister” becomes the most beautiful educational novel, to which Schiller's words could serve as a motto: “Only through the dawn of beauty do you penetrate the land of knowledge.” The spirit from which we act is the highest. At that time, it was not possible to show that the spiritual world of the spirit is born from within. Thus, in “Wilhelm Meister,” the liberation of the world through artistic beauty was initially depicted.
Schiller's ongoing collaboration and advice helped to bring out the personal element in Wilhelm Meister. Here we see, on the one hand, what must be regarded as the deeper cause of the human being, what a newer spiritual science calls the causal body; on the other hand, the external influences. Nothing develops that is not already present in embryo, but it is influenced by external influences. This interaction is evident in Schiller's creative work. His ballads, his Wallenstein, would not have been possible without Goethe's fruitful influence. It was a kind of modesty with which the two faced each other, in which lies an enormous greatness. They actually only became a whole through the complementarity of their two natures, but through which something enormously great could also come about.
Their deep and strong friendship meant that everything philistine rebelled against them. The two were persecuted by envy and resentment, for the small have never been able to understand greatness. Today, it is hard to believe what attacks were unleashed on these great men by the small. The “Annalen für Philosophie” (Annals of Philosophy), for example, spoke disparagingly of them; a certain Manso described them as “scribblers from Weimar and Jena...” They had to defend themselves against all these attacks, and what they gave in the “Xenien” in 1796 is a beautiful monument to their friendship. In these couplets, in which they carried out a world-historical judgment on all those who sinned against them and good taste, it is not always possible to distinguish which ones come from Goethe and which ones from Schiller. Their friendship was intended to make them appear as one person. In the example of Schiller and Goethe, we can see how greatness knows how to defend itself against everyday life, and how friendship, which rests in the spiritual realm, truly sustains and elevates itself.
And both sought truth: Schiller first in the heart of man, Goethe in all of nature.