Home > Positioning > Persons > Goethe

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832)

Goethe was the central figure of German literature and, in the same life, a working natural scientist and a minister of state. The range is not a list of hobbies but a single cast of mind: across poetry, drama, the novel, botany, anatomy, and optics, he pursued one question — how living form arises and transforms — and answered it always by attending to the concrete particular until the universal showed through it, never by abstraction from above. Faust, written across sixty years, is his monument in literature; the Metamorphosis of Plants and the Theory of Colours are his attempt to found a science of living, perceived form against the mathematical physics of his age. He was not a systematic philosopher and built no system, but his idea of the archetypal phenomenon and his way of seeing the universal in the particular passed into German idealism and, a century later, into Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms.

Life

Born on 28 August 1749 in the Free Imperial City of Frankfurt am Main, into a prosperous patrician family. He studied law at Leipzig and Strasbourg, where his meeting with Herder awakened him to folk poetry, Shakespeare, and the gathering Sturm und Drang. Early fame came with the drama Götz von Berlichingen (1773) and, overwhelmingly, the novel The Sorrows of Young Werther (1774), which made him a European celebrity at twenty-five.

In 1775 the young Duke Carl August invited him to Weimar, the small ducal court that would be his home for the rest of his life. He entered its government, joining the privy council in 1776 and taking on real administrative burdens — the reopening of the Ilmenau silver mines, the war commission, mines and roads, and for a time the duchy’s finances. He was ennobled in 1782, which added the “von” to his name. The pressure of office and a longing for the south sent him on the transformative Italian journey of 1786–88. Back in Weimar he turned increasingly to science and to the great literary projects of his maturity, presiding for decades as the presiding genius of German letters until his death on 22 March 1832.

The literary work

Goethe’s writing spans and partly defines the epochs of German literature. The Sturm und Drang of Werther gave way, after Italy, to the restrained, classical ideal of Weimar Classicism, the movement he shaped together with Schiller. Their alliance, from 1794 until Schiller’s death in 1805, was the most productive friendship in German letters: Schiller edited the journal Die Horen, the two co-wrote the satirical Xenien, and each drove the other’s work. It began with a conversation that became famous in Goethe’s telling — Goethe described his idea of the archetypal plant, and Schiller objected, “that is not an experience, that is an idea,” to which Goethe replied that it pleased him greatly to have ideas without knowing it, and to see them with his own eyes. The exchange marks the difference between them: the idealist for whom the archetype is a construction of mind, and Goethe for whom it is something seen.

Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship (1795–96) founded the German Bildungsroman, the novel of formation. Elective Affinities (1809) took its title and its disquieting structure from chemistry. The late West-Eastern Divan (1819) answered Persian poetry. Above all there is Faust: Part One, the tragedy of Gretchen and the pact, published in 1808; Part Two, a vast symbolic panorama completed in his final year and published posthumously in 1832. The legend of the man who would know and experience everything was the natural vessel for a life that had tried to.

The science

Goethe insisted that his scientific work mattered as much as his poetry, and it proceeds from the same instinct: to grasp the living whole as it presents itself, not to resolve it into parts and forces. He coined and made current the term morphology, the study of form and its transformations. In The Metamorphosis of Plants (1790) he argued that the parts of a flowering plant — cotyledon, leaf, sepal, petal, stamen — are successive transformations of a single organ, the leaf, and behind them stands the Urpflanze, the archetypal plant, the form of which every actual plant is a variation. In comparative anatomy he argued (1784) that the human jaw possesses the intermaxillary bone found in other mammals — not the first to note it, but the first to make it an argument for the morphological continuity of human and animal form.

His most contested work was the Theory of Colours (1810). Against Newton, who had analysed white light into a spectrum of components, Goethe held that colour arises from the polarity of light and darkness and their meeting at boundaries, and he built his account from the phenomena of perception — coloured shadows, afterimages, the colours seen through a prism. As physics it was rejected, and rightly; as a phenomenology of perceived colour it was lasting, valued by Schopenhauer, Turner, Helmholtz, and later Wittgenstein. The episode is the whole of Goethe’s science in miniature: a qualitative, observer-involving study of appearances, set against the quantitative science that was winning. His name for his method was delicate empiricism (zarte Empirie) — a long, patient intimacy with the phenomena until the Urphänomen, the archetypal phenomenon, shows itself within them rather than as a hidden cause behind them; and he took polarity and intensification (Steigerung) to be the two formative movements running through all of nature.

Philosophy and its afterlife

Goethe wrote no philosophy, but he stood in close relation to the philosophy of his time. His lifelong reading of Spinoza grounded a pantheism — God and nature as one — that placed him near the centre of the Pantheismusstreit, the dispute over Spinozism that Jacobi ignited in the 1780s. In Kant’s Critique of Judgment he found his own thought reflected, especially the idea of an intuitive understanding that would grasp the whole and the part together; what Kant held to be merely conceivable for human minds, Goethe claimed to practise. He helped bring Schelling to Jena, and his concept of metamorphosis fed Schelling’s philosophy of nature. With Hegel relations were cordial but cooler — Goethe admired the man and distrusted the system. From his late self-reflection comes the idea of the daemonic, the contradictory, non-rational force that concentrates in certain lives and that he found neither divine nor diabolical but irreducibly its own.

The deepest philosophical afterlife came through Cassirer, who returned to Goethe throughout his career and took him as the exemplar of a non-mechanistic, morphological understanding of nature. Cassirer read Goethe’s Urphänomen as a kind of symbolic intuition — the universal grasped in and through the particular form — and folded it into the philosophy of symbolic forms.

Where Goethe stops

Goethe’s science was a science of perceived, qualitative form, and it set itself against the very approach that would carry the future. He distrusted mathematics in natural inquiry, kept the observer inside the observation, and sought the archetype in the appearances rather than a mechanism behind them — and the mathematical, quantitative science he opposed went on to explain, predict, and command nature in ways his morphology could not. What survives of his science survives largely as a phenomenology of perception and a morphology of form, not as physics; the Theory of Colours lost its battle with Newton, and the Urpflanze remained an organising vision rather than a research programme. His refusal of system was equally deliberate and equally limiting: he distrusted abstraction and built no doctrine, so that what was philosophical in his way of seeing had to be drawn out and systematised by others — by Schelling in the philosophy of nature, by Cassirer in the philosophy of symbolic forms. Goethe gave the modern world an alternative image of what a science of life might be; whether that image was a road not taken or a road that could not be built is a question his own work leaves open.

Key works

See also: Schiller · Cassirer · Symbolic forms · German idealism · Schelling