• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
Can Geneva Have a Theatre and Keep its Republic?
The Latent Debate Between Rousseau andSchiller on Public Art and Political FreedomIan McMurtrie
April 2008
 
1
Abstract
What is the relation between public art and political freedom? Jean-Jacques Rousseaucontends that civil freedom emerges from the careful constriction of public arts in his
Letter to D’Alembert
 , whereas Friedrich Schiller argues in his
Letters on the AestheticEducation of Man
that true freedom can emerge only from an aesthetic education based on“the science of beauty.” The two authors argue for their understanding of the proper roleof theatrical art in the 18
th
century, but this debate merits examination anew because thetheatrical tradition has come to dominate public artistry in modern democratic states. Assuch, the questions raised in the debate have not faded: should Geneva have its theatre atthe risk losing its republican virtues? Ought a polity to circumscribe public artists toconform to existing political values? Should we cultivate aesthetic taste in an effort toeliminate political depravity? Based on the author’s answers to these questions I concludethat to maintain liberty in a polity of citizens Rousseau’s criticism deserve careful study.But those rare individuals who can see beyond the prejudice of their time must beencouraged to complete Schiller’s aesthetic education.
 
2
The first edition of Friedrich Schiller’s
Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man
1
begins by quoting Jean-Jacques Rousseau on the relation of reason to passion.
2
That this opening quotation wasnot included in subsequent editions is emblematic of a latent tension between the two authors.Despite this disharmony, the two men held much in common: Schiller a playwright, Rousseau acomposer of opera; both claimed freedom as the central tenet of their educational theories; andthey shared a common interest in the relation of the arts to politics. These similarities also formthe core of their disagreements: while Rousseau’s education sought freedom through civil duty,Schiller’s freedom emerged from a rational understanding of timeless beauty; Rousseau’s artistsare censured or removed from the political community, while Schiller contends that a liberatedpolity is dependent upon cultivating artistic freedom and aesthetic taste. The main point ofcontention to be examined here is the role of public art, in the form of the theatre, and itsrelation to political freedom. Should we follow Rousseau and favor Geneva as a republicprecisely because it lacks a theatre? Or should we follow Schiller and choose to cultivateaesthetic taste so that one can know liberty in art that will make way for freedom in politicallife? I wish to argue that for a community of citizens we ought to follow Rousseau. Schillercannot be ignored, however, for he speaks to that much smaller community of geniuses whoalone truly benefit from his formidable aesthetic education.Between these two prominent eighteenth century figures there exists a middle term –Immanuel Kant. Kant’s systematic critique of taste refined Schiller’s thinking, and provided him
1
Friedrich Schiller, “Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man” In Essays edited by Walter Hinderer and Daniel O.Dahlstrom, translated by Elizabeth M. Wilkinson and L. A. Willoughby (New York: Continuum, 2001), pp. 86 – 178.
2
Frederick Beiser, Schiller as Philosopher: A Re-Examination (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005), p. 158 note 65. Thequote from Rousseau, “Si c’est la raison, qui fait l’homme, c’est le sentiment, qui le conduit,” is taken from
 Julie, ou laNouvelle Heloise
.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...