Translation Main Page
Schiller's Poems
About Friedrich Schiller
Education Page
Books and Videos
Schiller in America
Helga LaRouche on the Sublime
On the Sublime(Schiller)
Verdi and Schiller

Sublime we name an object, at whose conceptualization our sensuous nature feels its limits, but our rational nature its superiority, its freedom from limits; in the face of this we thus derive physically our brevity, which we surmount but morally, i.e. through ideas.

Only as sensuous beings are we dependent, as rational beings we are free.

The sublime subject matter gives us firstly, as beings of Nature, to feel our dependence, while secondly acquainting us with the independence, that we as rational beings maintain over Nature, within ourselves as well as without ourselves.

We are dependent, in so far as something outside us contains the reason, why something inside us becomes possible.

So long as Nature outside us conforms to the conditions, under which something within us becomes possible, we cannot feel our independence. If we are to become conscious of same, then must Nature be conceived of as conflicting with that, which to us is a requirement, and only through her cooperation possible, or, to say just as much, she must be found in contradiction to our impulses.

Hence, all impulses, that are efficient in us as sensuous beings, can be attributed to two basic impulses. Firstly we possess an impulse to change our circumstances, to give expression to our existence, to be efficient, which all amounts to gaining conceptions, and can thus be called conception-drive, cognition-drive. Secondly we possess an impulse to maintain our circumstances, to continue our existence, which impulse is named self-preservation.

The conception-drive goes with cognition, the self-preservation-drive with feelings, hence with inner perceptions of existence. We stand thus through these two kinds of drives in double dependence on Nature. The first becomes palpable to us, when Nature is found wanting in the conditions under which we attain cognition; the second becomes palpable to us, when it contradicts the conditions, under which it is possible for us to continue our existence. Precisely thus do we maintain through our Reason a twofold independence from Nature, firstly in that we ( in the theoretical sense ) transcend natural conditions, and can conceive of more, than we perceive; secondly in that we ( in the practical sense ) brush aside natural conditions, and can contradict our desires through our will. A subject matter, at whose perception we experience the first is great in theory, a sublimity of cognition. A subject matter, that allows us to internalize the independence of our will, is great in practice, a sublimity of consciousness.

In the case of the theoretical-sublime, Nature stands as the object of cognition in contradiction to the conception-drive. In the practical- sublime, it stands as the object of perception, in contradiction to the preservation-drive. In the one it were considered mainly as a subject matter, that ought to extend our cognition; in the other it is conceived of as a power, that can determine our own circumstances. Accordingly Kant names the practical-sublime the sublime of power, or the dynamic-sublime as opposed to the mathematical-sublime. Because the concepts dynamic and mathematical can shed no light on whether the sphere of the sublime is exhausted through these classifications, I have given preference to the classification into theoretical- and practical-sublime.

In what way we are dependent on natural conditions in cognition, and this dependence becomes conscious for us, shall be sufficiently elaborated with the development of the theoretical-sublime. That our existence as sensuous beings is made dependent on natural conditions outside ourselves, will hardly require its own proof. As soon as Nature outside us changes the determinate relationship to us, upon which our physical well-being is founded, then immediately our existence in the sensuous world, which is tied to this physical well-being, is challenged and placed in danger. Nature thus has the conditions in her power, under which we exist; and so that we should pay heed to this relationship to nature, so indispensable to our being, a vigilant guardian has been given our physical life by way of the self-preservation drive, and by way of pain is a sentry given to this drive. Hence, as soon as our physical circumstances suffer a change, that threatens to ordain those circumstances to their opposite, then pain reminds of the danger, and the impulse of self-preservation is summoned to resistance.

If the danger is of the kind, to which resistance were futile, then must fear ensue. Thus an object, whose existence conflicts with the requirements for ours, is, if we do not feel that our power measures up to it, an object of fear, fearsome.

But it is only fearsome for us as sensuous beings, for only as such are we dependent on Nature. That in us, which is not subject to Nature, to Nature's law, has no commerce with Nature outside us, considered as a power. Nature, conceived of as a power, that admittedly can determine our state, but holds no sway over our will, is dynamically or practically sublime.

The practical-sublime differentiates itself thus from the theoretical-sublime, in that the one conflicts with the conditions for our existence, the other only with the conditions for cognition. The theoretical-sublime is a subject matter, in so far as it bears with itself the conception of infinity, whose representation the power of imagination feels itself unequal to. The practical-sublime is a subject matter, in so far as it bears with itself the conception of a danger, which our physical strength feels itself unable to overcome. We succumb to the temptation, to form for ourselves a conceptualization of the first. We succumb to the temptation, to oppose the power of the second. An example of the first is the ocean at rest, the ocean in storm an example of the second. A collossally tall tower or mountain can produce a sublimity of cognition. If it bends down to us, then it will be transformed into a sublimity of consciousness. Both have that again in common with one another, that directly through their contradiction to the conditions of our being and functioning do they expose that power in us, that feels bound to none of these conditions, hence a power that on the one hand can conceive of more than sense can grasp, and on the other fears no threat to its independence and in its manifestations suffers no violence, if its material carriage should fall victim to the frightful force of Nature.

If both kinds of sublime have an equal relationship to our power of reason, they stand none the less in a completely distinct relationship to our sensuousness, which establishes an important difference between them, of intensity as well as interest.

The theoretical- sublime contradicts the conception-drive, the practical-sublime the preservation-drive. With the first is but a single manifestation of the sensuous conceptual power challenged, but with the second is challenged the final basis of all possible manifestations of same, namely the existence.

Now, admittedly each abortive endeavor toward cognition is linked to aversion, since an active impulse is thereby contradicted. But this aversion can never intensify to the point of pain, so long as we know our existence to be independent of the success or failure of such a cognition, and our self-esteem does not thereby suffer.

A subject matter however, that conflicts with the requirements for our being, that through its immediate perception would give rise to pain, gives rise to terrors in the imagination; for nature had to make entirely different arrangements for the preservation of her strength, than she found necessary for the maintainence of her functioning. Our sensuousness is thus quite differently interested in the frightful subject matter as in the infinite; for the drive for self-preservation raises a much louder voice than the conception-drive. It is something entirely different, if we are concerned over the possession of a single conception, or over the basis for all possible conceptions, our existence in the sensuous world - if we have Being itself to fear for, or a single expression of same.

But precisely on this account, because the frightful subject matter acts upon our sensuous nature more forcefully than the infinite one, so the gap between the sensuous and the transcendental capability is also felt all the more ardently, so the superiority of Reason and the inner freedom of the heart become all the more prominent. That the entire essence of the sublime is founded upon the consciousness of this, our rational freedom, and all delight in the sublime is grounded directly on this consciousness alone, so it follows ( as experience also teaches ), that the frightful must needs touch the aesthetic imagination more ardently and pleasantly than the infinite, and that therefore the practical-sublime takes a very great priority over the theoretical in strength of feeling.

The theoretically-great expands in essence only our sphere, the practically-great, the dynamically-great our strength -- we experience our true and perfect independence from Nature only through the latter; for it is something entirely different, to feel oneself independent from natural conditions in the mere scenarios of the imagination and in one's entire inner being, than to feel oneself oblivious and elevated above fate, above all coincidence. Nothing is closer to home to man as sensuous being than the concern for his existence, and no dependency is more oppressive to him as this, to consider Nature as that power, that has command over his being. And he feels himself free of this dependency through contemplation of the practical-sublime. "The irresistible power of Nature," says Kant, "gives us, as sensuous beings, admittedly to recognize our impotence, but reveals in us simultaneously a capability to pass judgment as independent from her, and a superiority over Nature, upon which is based a self-preservation of an entirely different kind as that, which can be challenged and placed in danger by Nature outside us, whereby humanity in our person remains unbowed, although the man must needs be overcome by that force.

In such ways," he continues, "is the frightful power of Nature judged aesthetically by us as sublime, because it arouses in us our strength, that is not Nature, in order to view all that concerns us as sensuous beings, goods, health, and life, as small, and thereby to consider that power of Nature - to which we are surely subject to in view of these goods - as no force for ourselves and our personality, under which we should have bowed, were it a matter of our highest principles and their upholding or abandonment. Thus," he concludes, "is Nature called sublime, because it elevates the power of imagination to the depiction of those cases, in which the heart can make palpable its own sublimity of disposition." - This sublimity of our rational disposition - this our practical independence from Nature must well be differentiated from that superiority, that we know can hold its own in particular instances against Nature as a power either through our bodily strength or our understanding, and which admittedly has to it something of the Great, but in no way the Sublime.

A man, for example, who struggles with a wild animal and overcomes it through the strength of his arm or also through cunning; a torrential stream like the Nile, whose power is broken by dams, and that human intellect transforms from a harmful thing into a useful one, in that its overflow is collected in canals and arid fields are irrigated therewith; a ship upon the sea, that through its man-made rigging is in shape to defy all the violence of the wild elements: in short, all of those instances, where man, through his ingenious intellect, has compelled Nature, where she is superior to him as a power and is armed to his demise, to obey him and serve his purposes - all of these instances, I say, arouse no feeling of the sublime, even if they do have something analogous and are pleasing to the aesthetic judgment. But why are they not sublime, when they none the less make the superiority of Man over Nature conceivable?

Here we must return to the concept of the sublime, wherein the reason may easily be discovered. In view of this concept only that subject matter is sublime, against which we succumb as beings of Nature, but from which we as beings of Reason, as beings not belonging to Nature, feel absolutely independent. Thus all natural materials, that man employs, in order to withstand Nature's might, are excluded from this concept of the sublime; for this concept demands by all means, that we ought not to be a match for the subject matter as natural beings, but that through that, which in us is not Nature ( and this is nothing other than pure Reason ), we should feel independent from it. But now all those aforementioned means, through which man becomes superior to Nature ( skill, cunning, and physical strength ), are taken out of Nature, and befit him therefore as a natural being; he withstands these things not as intelligence, but rather as a sensuous being, not morally through his inner freedom, but rather physically through the employment of natural strength. Therefore he is also not overcome by these things, but rather he is already superior to them as a sensuous being. But where he suffices with his physical powers, there is nothing there, which could oblige him to take refuge in his intelligent self, in the inner self-reliance of his power of Reason.

To experience the sublime it is thus absolutely required, that we see ourselves fully isolated from every physical means of resistance, and seek succor in our non-physical self. Such a subject matter must therefore be frightful to our sensuousness, and it is that no more, as soon as we feel we are a match for it through natural strengths.

This is also confirmed by experience. The mighty power of Nature is less sublime just to that degree, that it appears tamed by men, and it becomes quickly sublime again, as soon as it shames the artifice of men. A horse, that still runs about free and untamed in the woods, is frightful to us as a natural power superior to us, and can provide subject matter for a sublime portrayal. Yet this horse, tamed, at the yoke or teamed before a wagon, loses his frightfulness, and with it also everything sublime. But tear the bridle from this tamed horse, it rears furiously under its rider, it gives itself violently its freedom once more, thus is its frightfulness there again, and it becomes sublime anew.

The physical superiority of men over the power of Nature is thus so little ground for the sublime, that almost everywhere it is encountered, it weakens or entirely destroys the sublimity of the subject matter. We can admittedly dwell with considerable pleasure upon the contemplation of human adroitness, that has known how to overcome the wildest powers of Nature, but the source of this pleasure is logical and not aesthetic; it is a result of reflection and is not infused through the immediate imagination.

Nature is thus nowhere sublime, but where she is frightful. But now the question arises: is this also so in reverse? Is it everywhere, where it is frightful, also practically sublime?

Here we must return again to the concept of the sublime. To this end it is such an essential requirement, that we feel ourselves dependent upon the subject matter as sensuous beings, while on the other hand it is essential, that as rational beings we feel independent of same. Where the first is not present, where the subject matter has nothing whatsoever frightful for our sensuousness, there no sublimity is possible. Where the second is lacking, where it is merely frightful, where we do not feel superior to it as rational beings, there is sublimity just as little possible.

Inner freedom of the heart belongs by all means thereto, in order to find the frightful sublime and take delight in it; for it can indeed be sublime, merely by giving us to experience our independence, our freedom of the heart. But at this point real and serious fear nullifies all freedom of the heart.

The sublime object must therefore indeed be frightful, but it may not arouse genuine fear. Fear is a circumstance of suffering and force; the sublime can please in free contemplation and through the feeling of inner activity alone. Either the frightful object may not therefore direct its might against us at all, or if this comes to pass, then our spirit must remain free, while our sensuousness is overwhelmed. But this latter case occurs exceedingly seldom and requires an elevation of human nature, that can hardly be thought possible in a subject. For there, where we find ourselves really in danger, where we ourselves are the object of a hostile power of Nature, then it is all over for the aesthetic judgment. As sublime as a tempest may be, considered from the shore, those who find themselves upon the ship, that is demolished by same, may be to the same degree little disposed to pronounce this aesthetic judgment over it.

We have thus to do merely with the first case, where the frightful object lets us indeed see its might, but it is not directed against us, where we know ourselves to be secure from same. We put ourselves therefore merely in our imagination in the case, where this might could strike ourselves and all resistance were futile. The terrifying is thus merely in the imagining, but already the mere imagining of danger, when it is in some measure fervent, brings the preservation-drive as well into action, and there ensues something analogous to what the real experience would generate. A shudder grips us, a feeling of uneasiness is aroused, our sensuousness is jolted. And without this beginning of real suffering, without this serious attack upon our existence we would merely play with the subject matter; and it must be serious, at least in the perception, if Reason is to take refuge in the idea of its freedom. The consciousness of our inner freedom can also only be valid and have some worth, in so far as it is therewith serious; but it cannot therewith be serious, if we merely play with imagining of danger.

I have said, that we must find ourselves in security, if the frightful is to please us. But now there are accidents and dangers, from which one can never know oneself to be safe, and that can yet be sublime in the imagination and are also actually so. The concept of security can thus not be restricted to that, whereby one knows oneself to be physically removed from the danger, like for example when one looks down from a high a well-fastened balustrade into a great depth, or from a height upon the stormy sea. Here to be sure the fearlessness is based upon the conviction of the impossibility that one can be affected. But upon what would one base his security from fate, from the omnipresent might of the Divinity, from painful illnesses, from acute bereavements, from death? Here there is no physical basis whatsoever for reassurance at hand; and when we contemplate fate in its frightfulness, then we must at the same time say to ourselves, that from this we are anything but removed.

There is thus a twofold basis for security. From such evils, from which it stands within our physical capability to flee, we can have outer physical security; but from such evils, that we are not in shape to withstand in a natural way, nor evade, we can have merely inner or moral security. This difference is especially important in relation to the sublime.

Physical security is an immediate basis for reassurance to our sensuousness, without any relation to our inner or moral circumstances. There is hence absolutely nothing required thereto, to contemplate without fear an object, before which one finds oneself in this physical security. Hence one observes among men a far greater unanimity of judgment on the sublimity of such objects, whose viewing is linked to this physical security, than on those, from which one has only moral security. The cause is before our eyes. Physical security does well for each of us in the same way; moral security, on the other hand, presupposes a disposition, that is not found in all subjects. But because this physical security applies only to sensuousness, it possesses nothing that could please Reason, and its influence is merely negative, in that it merely prevents, that the self-preservation-drive be startled and the freedom of the heart nullified.

It is entirely different with the inner or moral security. This is admittedly also a basis for reassurance to sensuousness (otherwise it were itself sublime), but is can only be mediated through ideas of Reason. We view the frightful without fear, because we feel ourselves beyond its power over us, either through the consciousness of our innocence, or through the thought of the indestructibility of our essence. This moral security thus postulates, as we see, ideas of religion, for only religion, but not morality, lays a basis for the reassurance of our sensuousness. Morality follows the presciption of Reason inexorably and without any regard for the interests of our sensuousness; but it is religion, that seeks to establish a reconciliation, a compromise between the demands of Reason and the concerns of sensuousness. Thus for moral security it in no way suffices, that we possess a moral consciousness, but rather it is still required that we conceptualize Nature as in accord with moral law, or what is here one and the same, that we conceptualize her as under the influence of a being of pure Reason. Death, for example, is one such subject matter, before which we have only moral security. The lively imagining of all the terrors of death, combined with the certainty that we cannot flee it, would make for most men, since the majority are far more sensuous- than rational-beings, thoroughly impossible to combine with this imagining as much calm as is required for an aesthetic judgment -- were the faith of Reason in immortality, even for sensuousness itself as well, not adequately informed otherwise.

But one must not so understand this, as if the imagining of death, when it is linked to sublimity, had secured this sublimity through the idea of immortality. -- Nothing could be farther from the truth. -- The idea of immortality, as I take it here, is a basis for reassurance for our impulse toward continuance, hence for our sensuousness, and I must observe once and for all, that for everything, that should make a sublime impression, sensuousness with its demands would have to have been absolutely dismissed, and all grounds for reassurance sought only in Reason. Hence this idea of immortality, with which security still finds accommodation to a certain extent ( as it is established in all positive religions ), can in no way contribute toward making the imagining of death into a sublime subject matter. More so must this idea only stand, so to speak, in the background, in order to merely come to the aid of sensuousness, whenever this should feel disconsolately and defenselessly placed before all terrors of annihilation, and should threaten to succumb to this furious attack. If this idea of immortality becomes the dominant one in the heart, then death loses its frightfulness, and the sublime vanishes.

Divinity, conceptualized in its omniscience, that illuminates every nook and cranny of the human heart, in its holiness, that tolerates no impure emotion, and in its might, that has our physical fate in its power, is a frightful conception, and can thereby become a sublime conception. We can have no physical security from the effects of this might, since it is equally impossible for us to evade it or resist it. Thus there remains to us only moral security, that we base upon the righteousness of this being and on our innocence. We view the terrible visions, through which it gives us to recognize its might, without terror, because the consciousness of our guiltlessness keeps us safe from them. This moral security makes it possible for us, at the imagining of this boundless, irresistible and omnipresent power, not to fully lose our freedom of heart, for when this is lost, then the heart is disposed to no aesthetic judgment. But it cannot be the cause of the sublime, because this feeling of security, if it does rest similarly upon moral bases, ultimately provides none the less only a basis of reassurance for sensuousness and gratifies the impulse of self-preservation; but the sublime never bases itself on the gratification of our impulses.

If the conceptualization of divinity is to become practically ( dynamically ) sublime, then we may relate the feeling of our security not to our being, but rather to our principles. It must be indifferent to us, how we fare as beings of Nature, if we feel ourselves independent of the effects of its power only as intelligences. But we feel ourselves as beings of Reason independent of the Almighty itself, in so far as the Almighty itself cannot nullify our autonomy, cannot direct our will against our principles. Hence only in so far as we deny the Deity all natural influence over the disposition of our will, is the conceptualization of its power dynamically sublime. To feel oneself independent from the Deity in one's disposition of will, means nothing other than to be self-conscious, that the Deity could never work upon our will as one power. But because the pure will must at all times coincide with the will of the Deity, the case can thus never arise, that we direct ourselves out of pure Reason against the will of the Deity. We deny it therefore merely the influence over our will, in so far as we are self-conscious, that through nothing other than its unanimity with the pure law of Reason within us, hence not through authority, not through reward or punishment, not through regard for its might could it bear upon the disposition of our will. Our Reason venerates nothing in the Deity but its holiness, and fears also nothing from it but its disapproval - and this too only in so far as it recognizes in godly Reason its own laws. But it does not lie within the divine discretion, to approve or disapprove of our persuasions, but rather that is determined by our own reckoning. Hence in that sole case, where the Deity could become frightful for us, namely in its disapproval, we do not depend upon it. Thus the Deity, conceived of as a power, that can admittedly cancel our existence, but as long as we still have this existence, can have no influence over the actions of our Reason, is dynamically sublime - and also only that religion, which gives us this conception of the Deity, bears in itself the seal of sublimity.*

* [ "With this analysis of the concept of dynamic sublime," says Kant, "it appears to conflict, that we tend to conceive of God in thunderstorms, earthquakes, etc. as a raging power and none the less sublime, at which it would be from our side folly as well as blasphemy, to imagine a superiority of the heart over the effects of such a power. Here there appears to be no feeling of the sublimity of our own nature, but rather much more despondency and subjugation of our spirits, that is fitting frame of mind for the appearance of such a subject matter. In religion overall it appears to be prostration, adoration with contrite, fearful gestures that are the only proper conduct in the presence of the Deity, which consequently most peoples have adopted. But," he continues, "this frame of mind is by far not so necessarily linked to the idea of the sublimity of a religion. A man, who is conscious of his guilt and thus has cause to fear, is in no way in the frame of mind for marvelling at the divine greatness - only then, when his conscience is pure, do those effects of godly power serve to give him a sublime idea of the Deity, while on the other hand superstition feels mere fear and dread of the Deity, without esteeming it highly, out of which only propitiation and fawning can arise, never a religion of good transformation. KANT'S CRITIQUE OF THE AESTHETIC POWER OF JUDGEMENT. ANALYSIS OF THE SUBLIME. ]

The subject matter of the practical-sublime must be frightful for sensuousness; an evil must threaten our physical circumstances, and the conceptualization of the danger must set our self-preservation-drive in motion.

Our intelligible self, that in us, which is not Nature, must at that affection of the preservation-drive differentiate itself from the sensuous part of our being, and its autonomy, its independence from all, that physical Nature can affect, in short, its freedom, must become self-conscious.

But this freedom is absolutely only moral, not physical. Not through our natural strengths, not through our understanding, not as sensuous beings, may we feel ourselves superior to the frightful subject matter; for then our security would be determined always only through physical causes, hence empirical, and thus remain always still a dependency on Nature. Rather it must be entirely indifferent to us, how we fare as sensuous beings, and our freedom must consist merely in that we reckon our physical circumstances, that can be determined through Nature, in no way as our selves, but rather consider them as something external and foreign, that has no influence upon our moral person.

Great is he, who conquers the frightful. Sublime is he, who, while succumbing to it, fears it not.

Hannibal was theoretically great, for he pioneered a passage to Italy over the impassable Alps; practically great or sublime was he only in misfortune.

Great was Hercules, for he undertook and completed his twelve tasks. Sublime was Prometheus, for he, chained to Caucausus, did not rue his deed, and did not admit his wrong.

One can appear great in fortune, but sublime only in misfortune.

Practically sublime is thus every subject matter, that gives us admittedly to mark our impotence as beings of Nature -- but at the same time reveals in us a capability for resistance of an entirely different kind, which admittedly does not remove the danger from our physical existence, but ( which is infinitely more ) detaches our physical existence itself from our personality. It is thus no material security concerning merely one single case, but rather an ideal one encompassing all possible cases, of which we become conscious at the conception of the sublime. This is grounded hence in no way whatsoever in the conquest or cancellation of a danger threatening us, but rather upon the clearing away of the last conditions, under which alone there can be a danger for us, in that it teaches us to consider the sensuous part of our being, that alone is subject to the danger, as an external thing of Nature, that has nothing to do with our true person, our moral self.

After establishing the concept of the practical-sublime we are in position, after the diversity of subjects, through which it is called forth, and after the diversity of relationships, in which we stand to these subjects, to categorize it.

In the conceptualization of the sublime we differentiate three ways. Firstly a subject matter of Nature as power. Secondly a bearing of this power on our physical capacity for resistance. Thirdly a bearing of same on our moral person. The sublime is thus the effect of three consecutive conceptualizations: 1) an objective physical power, 2) our subjective physical impotence, 3) our subjective moral predominance. But if immediately at each conceptualization of the sublime these three components must essentially and necessarily unite, then it is nonetheless coincidental, how we arrive at the conception of same, and thereupon a twofold major distinction of the sublime of power is now founded.

I. Either a subject matter as power, the objective cause of suffering, but not suffering itself, is given as an illustration, and it is the judging subject, who produces the conception of suffering in himself, and transforms the given subject matter through reference to the preservation-drive into an object of fear, and through reference to his moral person into a sublime one.

II. Or outside of the subject matter as power, suffering itself is objectively conceptualized at the same time as its frightfulness for humans, and nothing remains to the critical subject, but to make application thereof on his moral circumstances, and to produce the sublime out of the frightful. An object of the first class is contemplative-, of the second class pathetic-sublime.