MLR, 104.1, 2009 237 Friedrich Schiller undder Weg indie Moderne. Ed. by WALTER HINDERER.(Stiftung fur Romantikforschung, 40)Wiirzburg:Konigshausen & Neumann. 2007. 615 pp. E49.80. ISBN 978-3-8260-3559-3. Thisvolumeisthefruit ofan international conference heldfrom 12 to16October 2005 atPrinceton University, one ofmany suchgatherings ina yearthat will be regarded as a vintageone forresearch on Schiller. The bicentennial biographies, most notably RiidigerSafranski's best-selling Friedrich Schiller oderdieErfindung desdeutschen Idealismus (Munich: Hanser,2004),and theexcitement surrounding Londonproductions of Maria StuartandDon Carlosdemonstrate thatinterest in Schiller was confined neithertotheacademy nor to Germanophonelands. The in terdisciplinary scope isimpressive: twenty-eight contributions encompass Schiller's relationship toclassicalantiquity, genderissues,thecritique ofpoliticalpower in thedramas, Schillerinpostmodern discourse, Freud'sandNietzsche'sreception of Schiller, ethicsand aesthetics, Schillerandmusic,Thomas Mann and Schiller,to namebut several of the more striking topics. Summarizing sucha diverse bodyof scholarship isa dauntingtask, and WalterHinderer wiselyletstheessaysspeakfor themselves, confining himselfintheprologuetothebroadest possibleoverview of Schiller'ssignificance for modernity, and reminding us that,in the Germannine teenth century, it was Schillerrather than Goethewhowas theprimary'kulturelle undpolitische Bezugsfigur' (p.9). Christine Lubkollshowsthat Schiller's conceptof the'sch6ne Seele' reflects the aporiasof thecontemporary discourse on thesubject. Schiller gradually chipsaway at the model of the 'schone Seele' inUberAnmutundWuirde(1793) as an ideal ofharmony betweenthe mentalandphysicalfaculties, ultimately supplementing it withtheagonistic ideaof 'Wuirde'. ForLubkoll, Schiller's useofthe'schone Seele'as anexploratory figure ina dialectalthought-process that refuses anysynthesis while maintaining'den Verweisins Utopische'(p.95)marks that conceptas a 'Figur der beginnenden asthetischen Moderne'. Peter-Andre Alt takesus through thephasesofSchiller'sevolving conception ofclassicalantiquity, from wholehearted affirmation motivatedbydisillusionment withthe present, toamore soberviewinformed byhistorical study. Afterthe French Revolution antiquity serves Schilleras a 'Denkmodell' (p.340) ofaworld in which aesthetic praxisisnotyetsundered from everyday life. Inhisanalysis ofthe modern phenomenon of specialization whichgivesriseto thisdivisionSchilleris,inAlt's estimation, 'klarsichtiger als jederandere AutorderEpoche' (p.345). Giinter Oesterle helps us to get a sense of Schiller's proximity to theRomantics, arguingthatthe WeimarClassicistsand theRomanticstogether soughttoassert theprimacy ofhigh literature in thefaceof thejournalistic valuesofmainstream late Enlightenment discourse. Yet the Romantics distancedthemselves from Schiller precisely byquestioning hiscommitment toliterary autonomy. Friedrich Schlegel's dismissal ofSchiller as 'ein poetischer Philosoph, aberkeinphilosophischer Dichter' (p.409) ischaracteristic of thisstrategy, sincethisremark turns on the German conceptof the'Dichter' who as guardianof a disinterested art isdeemedsuperior 238 Reviews to theinterested 'Schriftsteller' or 'Rhetor'. Schiller was a rhetorician, and he did use language with theintention ofachieving effects inthe'real world',although his programme was perhapsonlypoliticaltotheextentthatitaimedat thecultivation ofhumanfeeling. ThequestionofSchiller'srhetorical style becamea fraught one for Nietzsche,too. In a longessay,Jacques Le Rider showshow,in the 'Wendejahr' 1876-77,Nietz sche'searlyidentification withSchiller becamea casualty ofthe break with Wagner. Nietzsche'srepudiation ofSchiller comesacrossas anactofself-finding, the killing off notonlyofa sometimeidol, butofhis former self. Later, Nietzsche would seize on BenjaminConstant'sdescription of Schilleras a Romantic to (mis)represent hispredecessor as anunworldly idealist. An 'anxiety of influence' ofa similar kind seemsalso tohaveovershadowed Freud'sreception ofSchiller(discussed byLiliane Weissberg).Indeed, Weissberg'sfine contribution lacksonlya reference toHarold Bloom's essayon Freud'scovertinterest in thesublime, ofwhichSchiller was the foremost German thinker. To judgeby thefrequency withwhichhiswork iscited, WolfgangRiedel'sessay mustbe regarded as thesalientone.There was nothing unworldly aboutSchiller's idealism, Riedel argues;this was baked in thecrucibleof the materialistanthro pologyof theday.Riedel rightly identifies Schiller'stheory of thesublime(a sort ofhidden leitmotif in thisbook) as 'den Kern-undAnsatzpunktjedweder Rede vonSchillersIdealismus'(p. 16o). In thelight of thistheory Schiller'sidealism be comesan assertion ofhumanfreedom informed by theknowledge of thedifficulty ofobtainingit. As Riedel explains, Safranski's'Sartre des spaten18.Jahrhunderts' isaptbecauseSchilleranticipatestheexistentialists by thinking ofhuman lifeas a Sisyphean task in order to rescue it from the 'scandal' of radical materialism. Schiller's productive senseof modernman as 'conflicted', touse thedemoticterm, is,surely, his lasting bequestto modernity. TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN ANDREW CUSACK A National Repertoire: Schiller, Iffland and theGerman Stage. By LESLEY SHARPE. (British and Irish Studiesin GermanLanguageandLiterature, 42)Oxfordand Bern:PeterLang. 2007. 306pp. ?37;C56.9o. ISBN978-3-03910-714-8. Bothstudents andscholars of Germantheatre willbenefit from LesleySharpe's most recent study ofeighteenthandearly nineteenth-century Germanliterary culture, as they enjoyreadingit. Forstudents, thereisawealthofwell-organized and imagina tively presented historicalinformation coveringtheyearsofSchiller'sand Iffland's acquaintanceand collaboration. And forscholars, whomay findsomeof thisin formation familiar, Sharpe inspires and illuminates with her exemplary work on combining and interpreting archival documents, as she writesanoriginal accountof theatrical practice and its dependence on...