Romantik og kristendom hos den unge Grundtvig. C. I. Scharling: Grundtvig og romatikken belyst ved Grundtvigs forhold til Schelling

Abstract

Review of C. I. Scharling’s ”Grundtvig og Romantiken belyst ved

Grundtvigs Forhold til Schelling". By William Michelsen.

This book succeeds better than most in giving us a clear and unprejudiced picture of Grundtvig and of his place in the spiritual life of Denmark, and it makes a fuller use of unpublished sources than previous books have done.

The book has a twofold aim: to determine Grundtvig’s relation to the philosopher Schelling, and to answer the question as to whether or not he belonged to the German Romantic Movement, with which he came in contact through Steffens. Writers such as Vilhelm Andersen have claimed that he did; but if his ideas are merely a development of those of the Romantic philosophers they would have no more interest for us now than theirs. Is not the modern significance of Grundtvig and Kierkegaard largely due to the independent stand they took in their own generation?

E. Lehmann, P. V. Rubow and others have stressed Grundtvig’s interest in Schelling, and the parallels between their ideas; and in recent years this line of thought has been more fully developed by Poul Engberg (“ Romantikken og den danske Folkehojskole” , 1940), and J. Bukdahl. Their views have been opposed by Hal Koch and others, but Scharling’s book represents the first fullydocumented investigation of the problem.

Scharling shows how in “Verdens Kronike” , 1812, Grundtvig condemned the school of Schelling, Tieck, Schlegel and Steffens, but holds that while he broke with the Romantic philosophy he still held the Romantic view of poetry. This, however, is open to dispute and needs further investigation, though Grundtvig did accept the Romantic theory of the divine inspiration of poetry.

Scharling seeks to prove that Grundtvig was never a Romantic. He does prove that he was never a disciple of Schelling; but passages from the Langeland Diary (1809) show that Grundtvig then regarded himself as a follower of “ the newest poets and philosophers” , and so as belonging to the Romantic School. It was not till 1810 that he was clearly faced with a choice between Romanticism and Christianity, and chose the latter.

There are two excellent chapters on Schelling’s philosophy before and after Grundtvig’s final determination of his attitude to it, which throw fresh light on Schelling’s influence on Danish thought, e. g., on that of H. C. Orsted. Grundtvig made three main charges against Schelling: that he annulled the distinction between good and evil, denied a living, unchanging God, and did so because he wished to evade the doctrines of moral responsibility and judgment after death. Scharling defends Schelling against these charges, especially the third, though he treats Grundtvig’s criticisms sympathetically. In fact, however, Schelling’s philosophy originally ascribed complete freedom to the individual, as though he were subject to no God, though he modified this view later; and thus Grundtvig’s criticisms are largely justified from a Christian standpoint.

The three chief chapters of the book describe, first, the period before 1810, when Grundtvig admired Schelling, then Grundtvig’s break with Schelling (expressed in “Verdens Krønike” , 1812, and subsequent polemical writings), and lastly the position which he finally adopted towards Schelling in his philosophical essays in “ Danne-Virke” , 1816-18. Scharling’s examination of the development of Grundtvig’s thought during this period proves the falsity of the criticisms directed against Grundtvig as “ a poor thinker” and “ a dreamer” .

Scharling in discussing “ Om Religion og Liturgie” rightly suggests that for Grundtvig Schelling was the road from pure rationalism to Biblical Christianity, but perhaps over-emphasises Grundtvig’s divergence from Schelling with regard to the unity of poetry, philosophy and religion. He shows the influence of Schelling’s ideas on “Nordens Mytologi” , but the parallel drawn between Schelling’s philosophy of history and Grundtvig’s is not entirely convincing.

With regard to the break with Schelling, Scharling considers that the decisive break cannot be dated earlier than Grundtvig’s spiritual crisis in Dec., 1810. But it is clear from the autobiographical passage in Grundtvig’s 1815 Diary, which Scharling himself quotes, that the preparation of Grundtvig’s “ Dimisprædiken” (qualifying sermon) in March, 1810, was the first sign of the breach. Schelling had held that eternal bliss could be attained only by a few choice spirits; Grundtvig at first sought to modify this (as his 1806 Diary shows) by suggesting that “ the beautiful teaching of Jesus” might help the weaker spirits to attain it, though the stronger ones would not need this help. But when he was writing his “ Dimisprædiken” he was faced with the decisive question as to whether he could preach such a doctrine from a Christian pulpit. He made his decision, adopted the definitely Christian standpoint, and abandoned the view (common to both rationalism and Romanticism) that religion is a power in man himself to understand God without Divine aid.

The crisis of December, 1810, was of a personal rather than a philosophical nature. It arose from the clash between his father’s desire to have Grundtvig as his helper in the little country parish of Udby and Grundtvig’s own ambitions to remain among his friends in Copenhagen and win a name there as a poet, historian and reformer. His mother’s reproaches when he would not accede to his father’s wish, and the reproaches of his own conscience, led to the spiritual crisis which caused him to abandon his ambitions and go humbly to Udby in 1811 as his father’s chaplain. This marked the completion of his breach with Schelling.

In discussing the “ Danne-Virke” essays Scharling does not make clear enough the fundamental difference between Grundtvig and Schelling: history for Schelling was not the revelation of God, but only of man.

Already in 1810 Grundtvig was faced with the problem of distinguishing Christianity from mere general religiosity and yet not isolating the Church from the life of the people. He had already pondered on the possibility of bringing Christianity into a closer and more living relationship to national life during his Romantic period, 1805—10. From 1825 onwards he approached this task with new enthusiasm and success, but with the difference that he now clearly saw the distinction between Christianity and Romanticism.