This article examines Jacobi's two novels, Allwill and Woldemar indirectly showing how much Allwill prefigures Kierkegaard's Seduce in Either/Or and the plot of Woldemar Hegel's final scene of Section VI of his Phenomenology of Spirit.

This paper is as much about a particular depiction of the tribune P. Sulpicius Rufus as it is about Cicero's De Oratore, a dialogue regularly called upon by historians to give evidence on the 90s b.c. and the characters who take part in the conversation it depicts. My main focus is literary: I will argue that, given what we know about the historical Sulpicius, Cicero's choice of Sulpicius for a prominent minor role in De Oratore drives the tragic historical framework (...) that undercuts the optimism expressed within the dialogue by the main protagonist L. Licinius Crassus for the civic value of oratory. The Rhetorica ad Herennium illustrates a certain type of allegory with the statement ‘as if one should call Drusus a “faded reflection of the Gracchi”’. In De Oratore, Drusus’ friend and successor Sulpicius functions as a reflection of the Gracchi and his eloquence reinforces the problem posed by such orators as the notoriously eloquent Gaius Gracchus for any such grand claims about the civic value of oratory. By examining Cicero's use of relatively recent history, we therefore discover that De Oratore is significantly more pessimistic than it may at first seem. This pessimism, however, has important implications for historians, since expanding our understanding of De Oratore as a literary construct should encourage historians to be significantly more cautious about using the text as a historical source. As Görler points out with regard to Crassus’ swansong at De or. 3.4–5, although ‘a naive reader of Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta could be left with the impression that some sentences are quite well attested’, most of the fragments of Crassus’ speech can actually be traced back to De Oratore. Likewise, a significant proportion of the standard elements in Sulpicius’ backstory go back to De Oratore and become a great deal less convincing once we accept De Oratore as a sustained fictional account featuring people who were neither as politically ‘safe’ nor as intellectually united as Cicero would have them be. My secondary focus in this paper is therefore on the broader lessons to be drawn from Sulpicius’ role in De Oratore. I will begin by outlining the historical context of the dialogue, which was written in the mid 50s but is set in 91, a few weeks before the natural death of Crassus, one of its two protagonists. Next, I will discuss the dialogue's literary context, specifically the Platonic allusions Cicero embeds within the text. These allusions encourage us to treat De Oratore’s historical framework carefully, if not sceptically, and I will outline the ‘off notes’ struck by references to the Gracchi and by the presentation of Crassus and Antonius before examining the problem Sulpicius poses for a straightforwardly optimistic reading of De Oratore. I will conclude by considering first the literary implications for De Oratore of accepting that Sulpicius is a deliberately problematic character and then the historical implications of taking a sceptical approach towards De Oratore as an historical source for our picture of Sulpicius. (shrink)

In the first decades of the nineteenth century the French mechanicians—Cauchy and Poisson amongst them—developed a theory of linear elasticity according to which matter is composed of material points. They believed that these points interact by means of opposite central forces, whose magnitude depends on the length of the segment joining the particles. This theory suggested that homogeneous isotropic materials were characterized by a unique elastic constant. Later experiments, however, showed that two elastic constants were necessary. These results undermined the (...) corpuscular model of matter as well as the interpretation of elasticity in terms of central intermolecular actions. The continuous theory of Green, based on the postulate that a potential function exists, gained fresh consensus in light of these experiments. These opposite views continued throughout the nineteenth century until Woldemar Voigt proposed a molecular model confirmed by experiments. This article presents the theories of each of these scientists and describes the contrasting views of nineteenth-century mechanicians. (shrink)

Aufgrund ihrer allesbedingenden Struktur erzwingt die moderne Rationalität unweigerlich, was schon Jacobi 'Nihilismus' nannte. Gegen die 'negative Philosophie' das Positive zu rechtfertigen und dennoch nichts an rationaler Klarheit einzubüßen ist das Ziel von Jacobis Philosophie des Unbedingten, die in ihrer architektonischen Komplexität und spezifischen Argumentationspraxis hier erstmals durchdrungen wird. Dem neuerdings wieder aufgeflammten Interesse an Jacobi - von seinen Zeitgenossen einhellig neben, teilweise sogar über Kant gestellt - sind bis jetzt die entscheidenden Merkmale von Jacobis eigener philosophischer Konzeption entgangen. Nur (...) einem integralen Deutungsansatz, der Stellenwert und Arbeitsteilung aller Jacobischen Schriften berücksichtigt, erschließt sich der komplexe Stufenbau mehrerer relativ Unbedingter (positives Wissen, Freiheit usw.), deren Zugänglichkeit stets an ein Zusammenspiel verschiedener Vollzugsarten gebunden ist. Das krönende absolut Unbedingte, die 'uneigennützige Liebe', will Jacobi in seinen philosophischen Romanen 'Allwill' und 'Woldemar' durch Darstellung mißlingender und gelingender Intersubjektivität rechtfertigen. Eine kritische Erörterung der Grundbegriffe des bedingten und unbedingten Bedingens schützt Jacobis historisch so bedeutsame Philosophie vor überzogenen Aktualisierungsversuchen. (shrink)

이 논문은 야코비의 소설 알빌을 중심으로 인격성을 개인성으로 규명하려고 한다. 『알빌』의 편지글은 개인의 위상과 고유성을 강조한다. 『알빌』의 인물들에게 중요한 것은 이성의 추상성보다 생생한 삶이다. 개인의 고유한 시선과 목소리는 경향성을 짓누르는 의무와 도덕보다 중요하다는 것이 야코비 철학의 핵심이다. 칸트는 감성을 따르는 경향성을 배제하고 보편적 인격성을 주장한다면 야코비는 자연적 인간성을 배제하는 칸트의 보편적 인격성을 비판한다. 야코비는 감정을 정신으로 간주하면서 개인성으로서의 인격성 개념을 천착한다. 개인성이 드러내는 생명은 각자에게 다른 모습으로 나타난다. 인격성은 비록 유한하나 고유성, 구체성, 특수성을 갖는 실존적 의식으로 규정된다. 야코비의 도덕은 이성의 (...) 정언명령을 따른다기보다 감성에 싸인 정신의 지도를 받는다. 중요한 것은 초인간적 이성이 아니라 자연적 인간성과 개인성이다. 인격성의 철학은 칸트와 스피노자의 체계에 맞서서 합리성과 보편성 대신 믿음과 구체성을 강조한다. 인격성은 개별화의 과정에만 머무르지 않고 개인과 개인 간의 실질적인 관계를 요구하며 사회적 상호관계와 반향을 통해 진정한 소통과 교섭을 가능하게 한다. 인격성의 이러한 특성은 개인을 파편적 개체로 보는 탈근대적 개인 개념과 구별된다. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Werke, and: Vol. 1, Schriften zum Spinozastreit (1998), and: Vol. 2, Schriften zum transzendentalen Idealismus (2004), and: Vol. 3, Schriften zum Streit um die göttlichen Dinge und ihre Offenbarung (2000)Rolf AhlersFriedrich Heinrich Jacobi. Werke. Edited by Klaus Hammacher and Walter Jaeschke. Vol. 1, Schriften zum Spinozastreit ( 1998). Vol. 2, Schriften zum transzendentalen Idealismus ( 2004). Vol. 3, Schriften zum Streit um die göttlichen Dinge und ihre Offenbarung (...) ( 2000). Pp. x + 640. Cloth, € 168,00 (Vol. 1). Pp. vii + 823. Cloth, € 264,00 (Vol. 2). Pp. vi + 262. Cloth, € 78,00 (Vol. 3). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1998, 2000, 2004.The new critical Jacobi Werke Ausgabe (JWA), accompanied by four volumes of the still incomplete Briefwechsel (in progress at Frommann-Holzboog Publishers since 1981), is a masterpiece of research on Jacobi, early German Idealism and early Romanticism. Now [End Page 491] available are Volumes I, II and III. Volume I (1998) carries the title Schriften zum Spinozastreit and contains Jacobi's Spinozabriefe in the three editions of 1785, 1789, and 1819, Wider Mendelssohns Beschuldigungen of 1786, and the Vorbericht (Preface) of the third edition of the Spinozabriefe of 1819. The running text of all writings contains all editions, variant readings clearly identifiable with page references in the margins, subscripted to identify the various editions. This method enables the identification of various disputes which Jacobi provoked and in which his writings played a role. The Anhang, appendix, to all texts contains a) a list of abbreviations, and b) the editorial principles used and also a description of the circumstances leading to the writing of the texts. But the bulk of the Anhang of each volume is c) the "Kommentar," the commentary. It provides the key to the highly nuanced and, without guidance, the often cryptic allusions and references of Jacobi's texts. This commentary (separately bound in Volumes I and II) really brings Jacobi's work to life. The end of the Anhang contains d) a bibliography of all works mentioned not only by Jacobi himself but also emerging in the literary debate unlocked by the commentary, as well as e) an extensive index of names. Volume II (2004) is Schriften zur Transzendentalphilosophie, and contains David Hume of 1787, the Sendschreiben an Fichte, Ueberflüssiges Taschenbuch, both of 1799, and other essays such as Three Letters to Köppen of 1803. Volume III (2000) is Schriften zum Streit um die Göttlichen Dinge and contains mainly the famous essay Von den Göttlichen Dingen of 1811 plus three other writings. This book deals with the controversy between Schelling and Jacobi while both were at Munich. Other major works of Jacobi, such as the novel Allwill, are to follow in later volumes.This critical edition of Fr. H. Jacobi (1743–1819) definitively revises the standard interpretation of the man and his work. The standard interpretation (advocated by such figures as Fr. Schlegel, Moses Mendelssohn, and H. Heine) views his thought as promoting irrationalism, specifically a religious irrationalism of faith, taking form in "personalism." Heine spoke of Jacobi as a "whiney old biddy." Fr. Schlegel characterized Jacobi's salto mortale as the "leap into the arms of divine mercy," promoting an irrational "philosophical non-philosophy" (KFSA XVIII 13, Nr. 101). Schlegel criticized Jacobi at the very end of in his Woldemar Review of 1796 thus: "So (Jacobi's) Woldemar is really an invitation to meet God..., and (his) theological masterpiece ends, as do all moral excesses, with a salto mortale... into the abyss of divine mercy" (Früher Idealismus und Frühromantik PlS I.1, ed. W. Jaeschke [Hbg: Meiner, 1995], 270). Carl Philipp Moritz credited Jacobi with "fanaticism and superstition."In contrast, Jacobi himself was quite critical of this characterization of his thought, especially in the Sendschreiben of 1799, and earlier in his Briefe. Jacobi already in 1786 thought it was "outrageous" for Mendelssohn to suggest he surrenders a philosophy of reason in favor of the Christian faith, or worse. He addresses this problem, which is still today the dominant view of the "irrationality" of his "leap," with admirable clarity in his letter to Neeb of May 30, 1817: "I do not at all advocate a head-first... (shrink)