Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1919 Excerpt: ...Hebbel was no developmentalist» I think it is unfair to force this dilemma on Hebbel. And we can save Hebbel even from this al7 too sharpminded logician by calling attention to the indefiniteness of his expressed intentions. Whet Hebbel does, is to show the legends and prophecies circulating among the people as a preparation for the actual coming of religion, and then he shows the first breaking out into expression of the religious rttitude in Teut. It is easy to understand why Hebbel was not able to sympathize with the newer theory of group production. He was too firm a believer in the great individual, and in this he stood firm with the great past. The Briader Grimm l however believed in a "Volksdichtung", and the Schlegels too believed that the "Mythos" was not the arbitrary invention of the individual, although both later 2 changed their minds in this regard. Wieland, Lessing, and Herder had already held the opinion defended later by Strauss, that religion and its forms are the 3 common production of a whol e people or circle It is remarkable that in the 2nd act Hebbel intended to show the common life of the people as the source of production. It seems that here is a conflict between the great maa-and the group theory of production, or else both are adopted and used at different times. This hypothesis of Teut's being a religious genius is not only compatible with Hebbel's general viewpoint on humanity, but it seems to me that it is the only one which so far explains the anomalies of the situatitT, for the child analogy broke down and Petsch's interpretation would not hold. There may be a still better solution which has not occurred to me or come to my notice. The difficu1ty raised before as to how it was possible for a people to...
"synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title.
