STONE€¦ · · 2017-03-14strictly from th~persp~c:tiy;.(q(the:O;e,~liJJ.g evoked by it, and...

John Sallis

STONE

middot-+LUlQ University Press

and Indianapolis

Sallis John From Tower to Cathedral Stone Indiana University Press 1994 pp 32-79Reprinted with permission of Indiana University Press

gtmiddot I

middot

3

FROM TOWER TO CATHEDRAL

H EGEL SAID ALMOST the same of art that it is for US something _past

His declaration of tJle pastness of art is in play from the very outset of the lectures on fine art ( schone Kunst) that he presented several times during the r82os at th~ University of Berlin For these lectures Hegel usedthe tit~- 4-Csthetics as did his student H G Hotho who edited the lectures after Hegels death and published them for the first time in 1835 r Yet Hegel grants the title only as a concession to colJlmqrj -~pe7ch nqting at the very beginriing that it -i~QJY~QUY ~mt~ble silce aesthecs lleans more prcisely the sci-

ence pf ~centJ1seoffe~Jilg [Wissenscqaft des Sinnes des Bmftndens] (A rr3 Prop~rly sp~~ipg a~sthetics io~d regard the work of art strictly from th~persp~ctiy(q(theOe~liJJg evoked by it and Hegel refers iil fact toiHtschqo(ofvvltIff in which works were regarded in terilis of the feelings of pl~asrire~ admirationJ~JJ or pity that __ -~middot-middotmiddot middot middot middot middot middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot middot middotmiddot_middot_

r Hegel first)ectured on aesthetics in Heidelberg in 1818 In Berlin he preshysented his)ectures on ae~thetie$ four times in r82o-n 1823 1826 and 1828-29 using throughout the Berlifi period the same notebook adding to it numerous revisions and notes as he continued to rework and expand the lectures This noteboolclt ai()Jlgwitll~evernl setsof student notes provided the basis for the edishytion ofiheAesthetitSthaf~otho published in 1835 four years after Hegels death~ In Hothos edition no differentiation is made between versions of the lectures giveil ih dirierell1 years In 1842 Hotho published a slightly revised edishytion and thiS second edition has provided the textual basis for subsequent disshycussions ofthemiddotworkToday both Hegels notebook and most of the student notes used by IJoth() alelost the problems of preparing a critical edition are therefore immense and it is unlikely that such an edition will appear in the near future But there remains at least enough material to allow serious criticism of Hothos editorial work and there are some who have critici2ed it quite severely middot most notably Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert (see ~thetik oder Philosophic der

From Tower to Cathedral 33

they produced Such an aesthetic conception of art is what came subsequently to be grounded through Kants theory of aesthetic judgment Kant delimits aesthetic judgment as an interplay of unshyderstanding and imagination that comes into playin--sncti a way as to connect tJle aesthetic sensible apprehension of the work with the f~eling of pleasure that will then be said to have been evoked by the work By thinking this essential connection between the sensishyble affection and the production of the feeling of pleasure Kant grounds the aesthetic conception of art This grounding has two major consequences First it allows Kant to distinguish rigorously between aesthetic judgme11t and cognitive judgment in aesthetic judgment there is harmonious play between imagination and undershystanding whereas in cognitive judgment there is subsumption of the imaginatively synthesized manifold under the concepts of unshyderstanding2 More generally Kants grounding of aesthetics serves to introduce a-fllldamentlt~l differentiation between beauty or art on the one hand and knowledge or truth on the other The aes-

-- thetic judgment contributes nothipg toward-the-knowledge ofits -Objects 3 However the second consequence works against this dif-

Kunst Die Nachschriften und Zeugnisse zu Hegels Berliner Vorlesungen Hegel-Studien 26 [1991] 92-rro) I am grateful to Professor Gethmann-Siefert for allowing me to compare some of the notes covering Hegels discussion of architecture with the corresponding presentation in Hothos edition Such comshyparison makes it clear that the text published by Hotho is more extensive not only filling out the particular discussions but including for example specific disshycussions not found in the particular sets of nqtes examined Whether this disshycrepancy only reflects differences between the versions of the lectures given in different years remains to be decided probably only after considerably more mashyterial has been transcribed and critically examined Gethmann-Siefert points out also that Hegels conception of the cliaracter of art as past (Vergangenheitshyscharakters der Kunst) was considerably sharpened il) the 1828-29 version of the lectures corresponding to systematic changes that Hegel made in the relevant sections of the 1827 version of the Encyclopedilr she notes that this sharpening of the thesis of the end of art can be traced in the three remaining sets of stu-dent notes to the 1828-29 lectures middot

2 The determination of aesthetic judgment and the differentiation of it from cognitive judgment are most succinctly stated in sectVII of the Einleitung to the Kritik der Urteilskraft I have discussed the former in some detail in Spacshyings-of Reason and Imagination 87-99

3 Kritik der Urteilskraft Einleitung sectVIII

_ middot)

bull

34- Stone

ferentiation precisely because Kant makes judgment the grounding link in aesthetic comportment precisely because he makes judgment the ground linking the sensible-imaginative apprehension of someshything beautiful to the production of a feeling of pleasure he forges a connection between the testhetic and the cognitive For however rigorously he distinguishes aesthetic judgment from-cognitive judgshyment he continues to regard judg~ent as belonging to the powers of cognition (Brkenntnisvermiigen)4 Thus Kants differentiation of beauty from truth proves to prepare for a new connection in which beauty is allied Witha broader sphere of truth ultimately that of the supersensible practical subject one who can rise to the apshyprehension of beauty ltJS a symbol of morality S The result is then that Kants very groimdingmiddotof aes_th_ecs proves to be an und~~IJinshying of the conception of art as the object of mere sensibility In the end Kants grounding of aesthetics is also an undermining of aesshythetics an undermining that the Critique of Judgment effectively carries through middot

Little wonder then that at the outset of his lectures Hegel mar~cs a break with aesthetics insisting that the proper title would be-inshystead phllo~gphy of ltJrt or philosophy of fine art (Philosophic der schonen Kunst) In the concept of art that Hegel develops in his lectures it iia matternot ppJy ltgtf -~~pse and flteling but also of puth Indeed it is precisely this double boJcl that leads Hegel to declare the pastness of art __

Art is for us ~9mething psi More than a century later Heidegger will insist that a deosion has still not been reached regarding this declaration thai the pastness of art remains still undecidable A measure middotno cloub~ of the decisiveness of Hegels lectures wh~ch Heidegger will call the most comprehensive reflection on the esshysence of ait thatthe West possesses (UK 68)

Art is formiddot u~ middotsomething past Art says Hegel 11-o longer fulfills_ our highesin~eds Art no longer grantl ~ha~ satisfaction of spiri- tE-~1 -~eedsect that ltltLrlier ages and nations sought in it and found in-it

+middot See Kants Table of the Higher Powers of the Soul at the tnd of the Ein- Ieitung to the Kritik der Urteilskraft

s Ibid sect59


~l_()JCmiddot Thus he concludes In all these respects art considered in its highest determination [ Bestimmung ] is and remains [o_r us someshything pasiJ[ein vewangenes] (A rzrf) Hegel knew of course that the great -art of the past would lt70ntinue to speak to m~ind but its speech would have o~come forefgn no longer satisfying the highshyest needs of mankinltf -Such art would be past in a double sense

)

doubly an art of the past stemming from a past age aud suffitcentjit to the highest needs of past ages only Hegel also knew of course that works of art would contiime to be created in the future but he insisted that there would never be in the most decisiy~ s~JlSC an artwork of the uture but only artworks that even before bing

--created would already have become something past To all art past and- future Hegel would say and would have humanity say nicht mehr we bow our knees no longer (A rno) Art is something paSt Art is vorbei dead and gone as far as the highest needs of mankind are concerned Even if its ghosts return Even if they spring up from the soil of the future

Yet along with the ghosts of art there are other specters whose words do still speak to the highest needs of mankind now and into the future specters that do not merely return to haunt a world to which they no longer truly belong spectersjn whom on the conshytrary the spirit~middotof art is reborn in new shapes speaking new tongues Thes~-specters both banish art and replace it In them the spirit of art is-reborn and this resurrecti~n of what is otherwise dead and gone is the highest testimony that in Hegels words the life of spirit is not the life that shrinks from death and keeps itself untouched by devastation but rather the lif that endures it and maintains itself in it It wins its -truth only when in utter dismemshyberment it finds itself Such is the magic of spirit its magical power (Zauberkraft) that from the negativity of death it can bring itself back into being Spirit is this power only by looking the negative in the face and tarrying with it This tarrying is the magical power that turns it-around into being6 What that magic produces from ar__is religion_ ai1d J~()_SopJ_y These are the other shapeS of sprrit

6 Hegel Phitnomenologit des Geistes ed Wolfgang Bonsiepen and Reinhard feede vol 9 of Gesammtlte Werke (Hamburg Felix Meiner Verlag r98o ) 27

_rbull

Stone

that come to displace art sealing its consignment to the past while _________ themselves arising from its very dismemberment

All three figures belong to the same sphere But within the limits of the Aesthetics Hegel does not trace the turnings of these circles so as to delimit the figures in a rigorous way that is so as to display the magic by whichmiddot spirit returns from death to life m ever higher shapes Within the limits of the Aesthetics even_~he __ ltonfQt of art is merely_~~-Illl12-1eooroatically pot rigorously derived as such it is a~ositQQgjve~ ~)__t~~ system of philosophy (A r35) And so afthe outset Hegel delimits-themiddot sphere common to art religion middotmiddotmiddot and _philosophy in a way that forgoes reiterating the circlings of (~~ that presupposes the rigorous deduction outlined in the Enshycyclopedia The sphere common to the three figures he simply idenshytifies as that in which are expressed E_~e-~o~t ~QJprltb~Psive truths

middot of spir-it How is it that there is need for such expression What is the spirishy

tual need that art would formerly have satisfied but can no longer satisfy What is this need that now finds its satisfaction in religion and philosophy perhaps only in philosophy It is ~ universal need indeed an abs_olut~Jl_g_g one that can find its highest satlSfactfon only iQeE~e foQ~gf~pifit only il ~e expr~ssion of the most compreh(I1siY(JDlJQ~Q(sectRirit Here is Hegels account of this need The-U~iversal and absolute need from which art (on its formal side) springs has its origin in the fact that [findet seinen Ursprung darin dass] nitut Js iltbinkingconsciousness ie that man draws out of

himself ~d putsbefore himself[fili sich] what he is and whatever is -----------~--middotmiddotovmiddot~-~- ~bullbull-_bullbullbull~ - - - - 0

at all T~gs in 11atule are only im1J1Miate and single while man as spiritd~ublp~ himself [ verdoppek sich] irl that fust of all he is as thing~middot-ofnature are bui then he is just as much for himself [ ffu sich] he intuit~ himself represents hlmse1poundtfi1iiks and only through this alttive placing of himself before himself [dies tiitige Fursichsein] is lie spirit (A I+r) One could read this passage as Hegels account of the mjgin of the work of art That origin lies

-middot in the detern1ination of man a5 doubling iiimsdf as spiritual man is essentiaUy s~lf-doubling (so that hemiddot not oiilyTIlike things of nashyture but alsojs for himseff) and art-like religion and philosophyshyis a way in which-heactUally comes to double )limself to be present


to himself in his double Art-like religion and philosophy-origishynates in order that mans essential determination as self-doubling might be fully actualized

One could also read the passage as Hegels account apoundthesupe--~ r_~Q_Qty oLartistic ~-~a_y oy~Ll~tural_ J~auty because things in nashyture are only immediate and single their appearance cannot actualshyize the self-doubling of spirit However much one may speak of their beauty such things do not provide man with a _(~~~f_d~EhlinJ) rep-

~ resentation of himself as self-doubling-they-do not provide a scene for his active placffig ofliiiiiselfoefore himselpound This is why Hegel can declare nature necessarily imperfect in its beauty and insists that his proper topic-in the Aesiheticsis th~~-be~Uty~middotoLarLas_tle only ~~~g_cy_adequate to the idea ofPautr~ (A 1146) This is why he can decree evenmiddot before turning to the investigation of natural beauty that a painting of a landscape has a higher rank than the mere natural landscape For everything3iritual is better than any

prodlt ofpat~re (A 14o ) Not thatHegclwiligosoar-asSlinPiy~middot middot to deny genuine natural beauty especially in the living organism in the enduring and overcoming of the contradiction7 between the

middot body with its various members and the animating ideal unity there is an anticipation of the self-doubling that will be actuilized only through the transition from natUre to spirit fully so ogyluhe absolu~eforms ofsJ2irit middot middot middotmiddot middot middot middotmiddotmiddot- - middotmiddot -- middot middot

And yet there is no more than antiCipation the intuition of nashyture as beautiful goes no further th_an a foreshadowing (Ahnung) of thself-doubling that art will prove capilile oactuatly present-middot

__ ing Hegel allows even that in another sense we speak-fmt~eJ 9f the beauty of nature [even] when we have before us no orgJgic ~ living creature as for example when we look at a landscape In such an instance there is no organic articulation of parts but only on the one hand a variety of objects (the contours of mountains the windings of rivers groups of trees huts houses towns palaces

7 Yet whoever claims that nothing exists that =ies in itself a contradicshytion in the form of an identity of opposites is at the same time requiring that nothing living e~st For the force of life and still more the power of the spirit consists precisely in positing contradiction in itself enduring it and overcoming it (A r125) bull

1

imiddotmiddot I

Stone

roads shipssky and sea valleys and c)lasms) and on the other hand an external harmony that we find pleasing or impressive (A r136f) And yet the very reserve of such an account -cannot but make one wonder whether Hegel is really granting that a landscape can be genuinely beautiful or whether he is only poipting to the quite deficient beauty an improper-aimost sham -beauty that unshyderlies our loose talk about beautiful landscapes One might alsq wonder about such beauty of landscapes in view of Hegels citscusshysion in what though marked as a separate section may well be taken to continue what Hegel h~s just said of landscapes Jhls subsequent discussion focuses on tJie capaclty of the beauty of nature tO arOUle II19-s ( Stinimungen des Gemiits) and to exhibit a harmony with our moods His examples the stillness of a moonlit night the peace of a valley through which winds a brook the sublimity of the

immeasurable churning sea the restful immensity of the starry heaven Hegel concludes Here the significance [Bedeutung] nomiddotmiddot longer belongs to the objects as such but is to be sought in the mood

_ ~h~gt~lt-1~ ~(4 ~I~~ )-as if theif~lie~u~y-cou1~ accomp]jsh no m~re -middot than to ~~_29-ds as if it were a beatttylli_at__p~~~-~-r~e~ E~ng

of11le_truth _QfIhe objects whkh would be to say virtually _not b~l111Y at all The legitimacy of such beaucy becomes even more middot _questionable if one takes into account Hegels insistence on the inshyadequacy of plan_s to refl~ct ey~g_what apimtteHfe CaiJ p~esent (the plants activity is aiways dr~wn_out into externality) (A II40 ) to say nothing of the utter defectiveness that Hegel ascribes to what he calls d~ad inorganic nature (A rr24 )

For examplemiddotstorie__of ~hich Hegel says almost nothing in llls discussion of natural beauty q~epti_oningit_gpJy in a passagewhere ~e cont~ast~ tlJe particular parts of a house (the individual st~mes Windows et~ ) with the members of an organism whose unity gives them a reality not possessed lgty the stones of a buildirig (A 1126) At most Hegel could haveallowed stone in nature the kind of defective beauty that he accords t~ any sensible material that is pure in shape color or whatever other qualities might be relevant in view of its reception of possible forms (A 1144pound) Stone would merely belong to ~c~ad inorganic nature -even though in the most rigorous determination of the word stone- is not dead not

~


dead as are those whos~_gray_es it can mark What cannot have lived ---~ ___ -----~ ~ _____ _-___ ~- - cannot liave died cannot be dead -assuming that anything can be dead th~eath-iS-notthe utter gclusion__~iQg from being

Only if lifo ultimately as life of spirit life as the spiritual endurance of contradiction--only if life is made the measure will one then say without furthei ado thatt~ne belo~gs to dead nature But then stone in nature will have been in advance appropriated to what can still be called even if in an extended sense ~erienc~~

middot For example the stone of a glacier-covered mountiiinpeak middotmiddotmiddot-In July I796 while employed as a private tutor in Bern Hegel set

out with three other tutors on a walking tour in the Alps During the tour he kept a very detailed diary9 From this diary one learns a great deal about his response to the mountainous landscape in parshyticular that for the most part he was not so moved by it as-having once read Meiners Journeys in Switzerland-he had expected to be For example he tells of how the snow-covered peaks in the region of the Jungfrau failed to make the impression that had been ex-

i pected how t~~Y did not excite the feeling of immensity ~11 sub middot j bull limity B 384 ) He tells also of an occasion when he and his com

middot panions came within a half-hours walk of a glacier only to find that the sight offered nothing interesting One can only call it a new kind of sight which howiiiefgiVes tithe spirit no further occupation whatioiPer except to be struck at finding itself so close to masses of icemiddot during the extreme heat of the summer (B 385) He says of some other mountains seen during the tour (drawing his words from the Critique of Judgment almost as if to disconfirm what Kant says especially about the sublimity of shapeless masses of mounshytains piled in wild disorder upon one another with their pyramids of ice)middot Neither the eye nor the-imagination finds in these formshyl~s masses ~gYPlt~111ol- -~hich 1heToriE~E ~-~aJest-~fthmiddot~~tisectlacshytion or where the latter collldfud-occupation or play In the

thought of ilepermaneiice-of tliese mountains or in the kind of

8 See Phanomenolcgie des Geistes _6o Hegels word is of course Erfahrung rather thanErlebnis middot

9 B~richt uber eine Alpenwanderung in Fruhe Schriften I ed Friedheim Nicolin and Gisela Schiller vol r ofGesammelte Werke (Hamburg Felix Meiner I989 ) 38I -398 Hereafter B

I I

40 Stone

sublimity that one ascribes to them r~~n Ends J19thing-thatJmshypr~sfroP-itas1QQjsecthm~g_t_a~ won~~r The look of these eternally dead niasses gave me nothing but the monotonous and in the end boring representation it is so [ es ist so] (B 391f )shylittle more then than simply being pure being with little further determination hardly more or less than nothing

The one major exception seems to have been the sight of a washyterfall Through a narrow rock-cleft the water presses forth from above then it falls straight downward in spreading waves waves that draw the gaze of the spectator ever do~ward but which he still cannot fix or follow for their figure [Bitd] their shape dissolves at every moment is forced into a new one at every moment and in

this fall-onf_gs trfJ31lJYLthPJa1JJefigure and sees at the same time that middot-middot middot it is never tfJtsam_poundmiddot (B 388) Hegels celebration of this sight results

frorriitsbeing a natural image of life t~e eternallif~--~b~_pqy~_rful ltgbility-in--it (B 388) Here one recogn1zes_9fCourse the saDie schema operatirg as in the Aesthetics And yet in precisely this con-

text in the diary Hegel insists on thenadequacy of alY painting _to represent what at least in tl)e case oft1iewateiali one finds preshysented iri nature middotThe sensible pfesence of the painting does not allow the gpaginationto_lt~P-ill4th~middotx~pr~~-~ted object gt When-wemiddot hold the pairititig in our hands middotor find it hangihg on a wall then middotc

the senses cannot do othen0se than meastire it by our size by the size of the ~Urrounding obj~cts and find it small Furtherinore even the b~st paintipgs necessarily- lack what is most allurilg~ what is most essential in such a spectacle [ Schauspiel] the e1irnhllif~ the ---- - - -- powerful mqbility of it (B 388) At least With respect tOilii~ spec-- _ ___ tacle lt seems7ffiat nature _surpasSLart inlts __ p_r_~sentative power

that nature pres~nts s~m~thing essential and_does t~~ely foreshyshadow a presentation that only art will proper_ly accomplish it is as though there were a kind of na~~Lt~ltE_ye an e~sc~sectsect__~t art w_pulQ be unalgtl~lltp ~ut in the account of natural beauty given _ in the Aesthetics it is difficult to discern even the slightest trace _ofmiddotmiddot any such reserve

But now for now following Hegel let me put aside ~ature and its mere foreshadowing middotof that beautymiddot that comes properly into play in art which-along with religion and philosophy-can express the

~

From Tower to Cathedral 4I

most comprehensive truths of spirit And yet even in turningmiddotto art an(r marking its differentiation-from religion and philosophy one cannot put nature entirely aside For what distingusJ~-yenLfrQD the middotother two forms is its link with -natim even though with a naturc_ttaJI~formed no longer nature as such but nature in the form of the artwoik What distinguishes art from those qther forms is that it presents the truth of spirit in sensible form in a configuration palpable to sense bringing these most comprehensive truths nearer to sense and feeling But precisely for this reason art is not the 4iglshy-est shape in which to express such truth Because of its sensible middotform~ it is limited to a specific content ~_lt_~ preseft sPirit ~~ --middot~ down toa certain-level-not-in its depth The multidirectionality of-- middot Hegels discourse even the contrarety of its directionalities should not go unnoticed here the higher shapes of spirit are those that

express the deeper levels of the truth of spirit and the depth of spirit to which art cannot rc~~h is in turn the most interior the inwardshyness of spfdi-wbicli is thus opposed tOffie exterThiity in whic11 art

is at home For art is at ~ltgtmemiddot only at tPe_l~_yel a~ which spirit can go for~h tJJllyintojliisPh~r~9fsectlaquons~remaining adequate to itself

- 1 there subrpitting fully to enclosure within ~le_fQmt_mi$tiltl Hegel refers to themiddot Greek gods as constituting such a content in

distinction from what he identifies as the deeper comprehension of truth achieved through Christianity and the development of rea-

son a comprehension of spirit at a depth where as hemiddot says it is no lo~ger so akin to sense as to be middotappropriable to such material-as art has for configuring it (A 121) The absolute inwardness of spirit

proclaimed qy Christianity occilrs at that depth as does the modern detachment of the universal from the ~~l~ible the se_2ararlon 6y

middotwhldtbeuruversai cancomefogovern the middots~~ible as --ratio~al law ~r maxim outsid~itBe~auie art caOnot rea~i-middottq this_g~pJhJmshy

folded i~tpe spirit of-the modernwodd it is for llsectsectQID~thingpast - Nonetheless ait-dQ_fi~~eveil today even now that it is for us something past-present the truth of spirit It EESgtents spirit illtbe gpse of spirit notiiitnegmse-for example of n~e-itpsents spirit as spirit even if not in itsmiddot full depth This is why it belongs to the sphere of absolute spirit along with religion and philosophy Indeed at those jtinctutes in the Aesthetics where Hegel sets forth middot

Stone

in full generality the vocation of art and the essence of art as deshytermined by that vocation (die Bestimmung der J(unst-in the doushyble- sense) he invariably refers to the-presentationalcharact~rOL~rt

middotmiddot to its character asDarstellung In one formulation it is the vocatkn of art to present the truth in the form of sensible artisticmiddotc~Dfigushyration [der sinnlichen Kunstgestaltung] (A r64) Or again frt hl~LlQQthei_vocation_ bu to middot bring--befcm~Sensible inttiition [sinnliche Anschauung] h~_Erqtf ~-~t_is ~spirit (A 2r6) Both formulations mark clearly the ~~~lt_g_f_~t on the one hand

middot 1is ~cL~Q_tQ~_flP- of~pirit which it is btgtlld to pr~st_nt on the middot other hand its bond tg_ the sensible in an artistic configuration of

middot which if is b6und to shape its presentation One of the most remark- middot -~- -------------_ ___

middot able accltinplishments of the Aesthetics is the way in which it goes middot aoov~ systematically determining_ the specificcharacter of the sensi- -~middot bleness (SinnTichkeftfto-wblCb art is bound Evenat the most gen- anevel where the gifferentiation between the various forms of ar(a_ryenlthat lgtetw~~ the individual arts has nofyet come into play Hegel rigor0~s1y-distinggishe~ the artistic bond to the sensible from middot other typ~s ~~ relatedn~ that s~~~~an assume to the sensible Among those middotorncrIionartistic ~types of relatedness he includes middot fust s~sible apprehension~ ~hich merely look~ ~n second de~tre which u~aiia-coi1su~es things gaining self-realization in them

_and third th~oreJiclliil~lJg~_uce~ which goes straight for the unishyversal detachifg it so thoroughly that the sensible loses all further middotrelevance By contrast the artistic configuration the artwoi~ is cherisled yet without becoming an object ofQ~ire It coUnts middotneishyther iri its ~~ediat(iiiatedaf existence nor in its pure universality but rather asshiningSchein)

With this Wlt)rd Hegd overturns a decisive character of art over- turnsintoa pps~tiy~ detetmination a character of art that has almost al~aysbeen tak~~ to discrecit it and to demonstrate its unworthishyness in elation to philosophy In part t)le overturning is just a matshyter of restoring tq Schein its range of senses and connections so

that instead of hearing iri_it only the sense conveyed by illusion or deception cine hears in it an affiliation with d~s Schone and extends itsmiddot smiddotenses to include shine lo~k appearance semblance as well as illusion and deception -at least these in a reconfiguration that can

middotFrom Tower to CathedraJ 43

perhaps be expressed somewhat by the translation shining But it is also a matter of according to shining a broader positive determinashytion The discrediting of art because of its character as shining would be legitimate if shining were something that 9lghtreg110 be (das Nichtseinsollende) Butsays Hegel reiterating a decisive deshyvelopment in the Logic of Essence10 Shining itself is ess~ntial to essence In less austere t~rms fruth would not be if it did notshyshine middotand appear if it were not for [some ]one [fiir Bines] for itselfmiddot as well as for spirit iri general too (A 119) Throqghjtsmiddotshining theworkof art can let truth be can l~t truth appear through its shining it can let appear a higher truth than any that could appear in mere nature however beautiful __

Near the beginning of the Aesthetics there is a remark~ble passage in which Hegel tells how the sensible middotent~rs into 4e artwork For in the sensible aspect of the artwork [im Sinnlichen des J(unstwerks] middot spirit seeks neither the concrete materialmiddot stuff the empiri~l inner com_pleteness and development of the organism which desire deshymin~ nor the llniversal and purely ide) t)lo~ght Rather what it wants is sen~ible presence [sinnliche G~enwart] which indeed should rem~ senSible~ b~t freed from the Spound~~~__gmiddot efits 111~n

middot m~~Iiality Therefore the seilslble In the ltliw~rk [ das SinI-liche im Kunstwerk ] in comparison with the immediate eXistence of things

middot in nature is el~vated to pure shining [zum blossen Schein] and the artwork stands in the middle between imm(diate sensiblenessariq ideal-thought (A 148) In the artwork the sensible is present in itS pure shining Hegel calls this pure shining the wltmd~J of ideality contrasting it with prosaic reality portraying it as a mockery middot and an irony toward what exists externally and in natue A iI64 ) Its dis~ance from nature is attested by the fact that the s~nsible~jSshypectmiddotof art is related only to what Hegel calls ~he two t1i_eoftic~L_ senses iight and hear1ngigt in d~stinction frsgtrn smell tasteaiidtciu~~ which have tomiddotaowiththe sheer materiality of immediate sensible presence Art replaces the solid materiality of nature with a mere middot

10 Wissenschaft der Logik Erster Banli Die ObjcktiveLogik ec_l Fri~drich

Hogemann and Walter Jaeschke vol n of Gesammelte Wiirke (Hamburg elix Meiner I97amp) 244-ff bull

Stone

i- s~face of the sensible a shadow-world of shapes sounds middotand si_yeni~ mere -schemata that have a power that nature cqn only foreshys~adow the power to evoke from _all the depth middotof consciousness a -concord and echo [Anklang und Wiederklang] in the spirit (A

middot r4-9 ) It is in this way that the sensibleness of art comes to be spirishytualized the sensible andmiddotthe spiritual being made as one through the activity of artistic phantasy

One could say that it is~he sensibl~ shining characfer of the artshywork tlat e~nes art to have become sqmething past And yet arts attachment t9 t e sensllileproduces such an effect only because the sensibleness of art is spiritualized oilly because art is middotalso bound to present the most compreh~nsive truths of spirit to present the idea in the most comprehensive and elevated sense (so that its beauty is determined as sensible shining of the idea [Arn7]) Because artmiddot

[cannot as sensible present the truth in its full depth art is destined Jby i~~~ry co~~~f1i~QiiQ_-become s_nJetllil1g_ past Once the full

0 depth of spitifhas unfolded art will have become something past Hegels philosophy the full circling of the Encyctopqlia-more preshycisely Wissenschaft-in its completion the Encyclopedia itself in disshytinction from the text that outlines it-would mark the completion of that unfolding Now-that the very depths of spirit have been brought forth into thelight of day the mere surfa~es and shad~

f ~-_2~~r~~~an no ~onger sa~isfy mankinds highestnemiddotea5The middot dynamics of arts double bond make it a double bind Caught in this bind art is consigned to the past For us-for the we that would recollect and complete spirits unfolding-art has become someshyth~d-forWevlio remain in the wake of that completion we who middotcontiriue the vigil the pastness of art cannot but loom darkly over us lilce a monstrous questionmark _ R~ollecting ihe entire history of art the Aesthetics marks the

lt--_p~~-~e~~of art in various connections For that becoming-past-the end of art as it were-is ~o simple evelt that could be located on a lin_iar time-scale at some pointfririme where art would have beshycome from then on something past Rather arts becoming-past is an end that is divided that is split and temporally deployed by the

middotvery lines that delimit what art is For in the art of poetry for inshy stance the passing that would consign art to the past is always al-

From TowermiddotmiddottO Cathedral 45

ready broached poetry is not tied down to sensible material in the middot decisive way that other arts are and as its sound dies away the passing enacts a self-transcendence of art Jetting art pmiddotass away and become middotsomething past (see A 194) In romantic art there is also operative a certain self-transcendence a passing that will have come into play with the end of classical an (see A r87) middot

The Hegelian recollection gathers art in its histormiddotymiddot in such a way as to distribute it along two axes tli11t bf its forms ( symbolic clisshysical rOIl_ltlP~ic) and that of the)I-dividual arts (architecture sculpture painting music poetry) Throughout this recollecdon the end is in play and there is perhaps no cornerOf the Aesthetics where one cannot at least catch a glimpse of the eventual pastness of ai-t For the discourseor~rhe~esthetief fottliediseoifrsetliat gathers and

distributes art in its history for the recollective we art has already passed away It is almost as if that discourse were an extended fushyneral oration It is almost as if the Aest~etics were an inscription

middot written for the gravestone that would memorialize art caWng it back now _that it is dead and gone - middot

Stone figures prominently in that inscziption especially in what it says of the beginning middot

Art recollected in its history displays its pastness Most remark-middot ably it displays that pastness everi in its beginning in the stone (that most ancient material) from which art in its beginning shapes much of its work For in the Hegelian middotrecollection of its history architec-

~~-----~~~------ture coJts as _the beginning of art Within th~ recollection the primary concern-in this iegar(Us to establish the-beginning of art

by deriving it from the very co~c~pt of art to show fom_ the thing ~ frself ( durch die Sache selbst) tl1~L3~~tecture co~~gin- 1

~ilg 0f-art-(A 217) This says Hegel is wliat w~the recollective we-have to do (A 224 ) Yet the initiatory characier of architecture pertains not only to the order of the concept Hegel insists equally that architecture be recogrtized as the art coming fust in existence

as ar1middottha began to be d~~l~p~d~~ll~r til~ s~clp~~i_~irit-ing and music (A 224) And yet in beginning his discussion of the individual arts with this beginning indeed with its beginning

46 Stone

with t~ begii1-Iing_QfJhfJ2~gillilillg Hegel is careful to interrupt alltendencies to valorize such beginnings he declares the simple begUEipg_( der einfache Anfang) somethigg _ _gujt_~jn~gpif~t and mocks those who harbor the dim notion that the beginning reveals the thing itself in its concept and origin (in ihrem Begrifft und Urshysprunge) as if one could explai~ the origin of painting for instance~ by telling stories of a girl whomiddot traced the outline of her sleeping lovers shadow (A 223) The beginningJ1dxnpoyerished in comparishyson with what is to come and architecture is the beginning of art because iiiafcliifictiiremiddot-at has not yet found for the presentation of its spiritual content either the adequate material or the corre- spending forms (A 217) in this beginning no more than an exshyternal relation between content and presentation can be athieved It ispound2 in the arch~ec~al beginning least of all in the beginning ofarohitecture that one 15middotmiddot fo seekthe origin of the artwork

But how does ardn1ectllre Ciispiay the pasbiess of att It does so by slJ()wjgg an-ess~Ii~LP~QJte~siY_~-~e approrriated to religicm which will finally in the form ofmiddot Christianity transceria arTiode- cisively as to consign it to being something past The connection is there from the beginning The beginning of art stands in the clos-est connection with religion (A 13II) This connection is indicative also of the origin of art even though it i~ imperative to maintain a r_ig_otous distinction between b~ginning (Anfang) a11d origin ( Urshysprung) artmiddotoegirisiiireiitiontomiddot~--~eitain origin ~dtiiough in the development into higher forms the beginning is left behind beshycomes past the origin remains operative and continues to deterJ11We arttllJregghou(itseiiiii~ course What tlien is the origin ofmiddotart Or rather what is atts first origin ( erster Ursprung) as Hegel calls it in order to focus on its operation at the beginning Can one say thaLartori~JEflt~iJPID I~igi91L1Pd that this is why it is destine_d eventually to middotbe overturned into religion Only within certain lim-its for the origin of art is something that occurs not only in relig-

ion even if it is inseparable from religion Ultimately this origin is nothing less than the essentially self-doubling character of spirit itshyself and what it originates first of all is the need to actualize this character the need for spirit actually to become for itselpound But in the beginning as the first origin the doubling of spirit is actualized

Frommiddot Tower to Cathedral 47

merely in mans coming to have_a certain sensilgtle apprehensionof -middot t)le divine the absolute At first whenmiddot art has not yet come upon middot the scene the absolute is beheld only in its most abstract and poor~st

determinations in~ merely intimates its presence in natural phe- nomena Art originates when this impoverished natural revelation

comes to be replaced and man no longer ~eholds the diyire JlCr(ly in the actually present thlngs of nature Art originates when man middot produces through his own-resources (aus sich selber hervorbringt a new object one capable of presenting a spiritual content that does

middot not appear in natural things Art begins as an interpreter that first gives shape to the content of religion And art remains the sensible presentation of that cont~nt even after the beginning has long since been left behind

What does art produce in the beginning How does it reconshyfigure natural reality so as to produce something capable of presentshying a spiritual content a meaning ( Bede~tung) that does not appear in natural things In the beginning artistic production is impovershyished severely limited both by the material~__hat it reshapes and by the form _appr9Piitlt to siicli materEiEth~ material is inherently n6nsp1rituai-namely heavy matter taken directly from nature and shapeable only according to the laws of gravity while thefqrw in-

valves no_~hiflg_lQl~ ~han shaping and binding together this matter in regular and symmetrical patterns The limitation that belqngs thus to architecture to its very concept submits it to a peccliar logic a logic that essentially determines the entire development of architecture

But into what does architecture reconfigure nature What does it produce by shaping and binding together themiddot masses of heavy matter found in nature It reconfigUres says H~gd the external environment of spirit (A 224-) reshapes it =into a surrounding more appropriate to spi)middotit But this precisely ismiddot its-limitation merely by shaping and binding together heavy matter it can never produce anything more than a surroundingmiddot for spirit Hencemiddot ifie pecUliar logtc of architecture because its product provides-and can only

provide-an enclosllJe for spirit that product is prohibited--frommiddot-middot Jtaving spiritwithin itselfBecause it (lmiy) encloses spirit within itself it excludes spirit from ~tself and remains irself excluded from

i

--- -------- --middot-middotmiddot-~---

middot Stone

bearing within itself its meaning the spiritual content that is pre~ sented in conjunction with it Hegel says that the vocation of archishytecture is tp fashion a beautiful enclosure ( Umschiessung) for the ~pirit as already present namely in the guise of man or the divine image he will set up in the enclosure But then the architectural product does not bear its meaning or purpose in itself but has it only in the men or images it will enclose Precisely when the archishytectural work accords fully with its concept (that of enclosing spirit) it has_its meaning--outsideitselpound Incapable of endowing the spiritual with an appropriate existence it can only reshape the external and spiritless-into a reflection [Widerschein] of the spiritual (A 25r)r The architectJp6duct cannot itself present spirit cannot present spirit in and through its 0Wn shining it can ollly enclose the spirishytual providing a shell (Hulle) for the statue of the god for another artwork that another art one outside architecture and unbound by its limitations will have shaped into an appropriate sensible presen-

tation of spirit in contrast to the sculptural work th~i~tural shell can at best only reflect the shining of ~he CTivine image it middothouses middot-----middot---- middot middot middot middot middot

Yet in the beginning-the architectural work cannot have had its meaning outside itself in this manner For the veryconcept of beshyginning prescribes that the begirming must be something imshymediate f-1]4 ~Tple (A 225) hence excluding that separation (i1LiP9sect~JJcent~-fl1eaningendosure) that the very concept of ar- diitecture necessitates Hencemiddot in the beginning architecture can have erected cmlyVorks with independent meaning works bearing their meaning within -themselves rather than having it outside in something they would enclose The first works of architecture must then have been ~ilnple and integralJU~e inorganic sculptures And yet in beaJii1g thc-irmiddotmeaning in themselves such works re- not at all superiqrj))tltoselater ~es in which the separation comes about On the contrary the first works are not yet ev~ltn adequate to the concept of arc1Jitecture rather than relating in a genuinely archi~ tectural way to a meaning outside themselves (enclosing and reflectshying it) they relate to their meaning only symbolically Even if carshyried within them their meaning is even more epernal to them than in ~~e archltectur~ in which the essential separation comes into play middot


Only when architecture comes to build an enclosurefor~spirit-will it bein ~accord with its concept This occurs with the transition from

middot symbolic to classical architecture But then the separation will have come into play and the architectural work will serve an aim a meanshying that it does not have in itself Precisely wh~n itmiddot becomes most adequate to its concept and produces its 1)9St perfect works-archishytedure itself will have been as Hegel says degraded (herabsetzt-intomiddot-~ providing the enclosure for spiritual meanings quite independent of architecture as such The perfection and the degradJtionopound~arcbishytecture are realized at the same time in the same works theGreek temple The temple is made to serve the purpose or enclosing the statue of the god bringing architecture to full realization at the very moment that it is submitted to a religiltms purpose external to it and thus itself put down degraded In this degradation and in

1 the coincidence of degradation and perfection the temple displays the pastness to which art is destined

The temple is also beautiful even thou$h it cannot itself endow middot the spiritual with an adequate existence and let spiritual meaning shine forth from itself in the shining of its stone Just as perfection and degridation coincide in the temple there is also in it a certain coinCidencemiddot or crossing of beauty and purposiveness Its beauty 1s it~- puposiveness-or more precisely its beauty lies in the way that its one purpose shines clearly through all its forms (Azso ) Inshymiddotcapabie of presenting spirit through its ow~ sbining the temple lets its shining present that purposiveness hy wlllch it serves another shining one that is capable of presenting spirit itself In lettmg its purposiveness shine forth the temple is beautiful indeed as beautishyful as an architectural work can be

The purpose is to provide enclosure for spirit for the statue in which the god shines forth in his presence But to provide-enclosure even open enclosure requires bearing weight providing support The distinctiveness of Greek architecture lies in its way of giving shape to this supporting as such namely by emplqying the column as the middotfundamental element it is preeminently in thls waY ii1tiie __ _ column middotthat the tempfe-les its purposiveness shine forth and this is why Hegel could declare of the Greek columnar orders Neither earlier nor later was anything discovered more architecturally beau-

middot

50 Stone

The Temple of Hera II so-called Basilica Pa~stum 6th-century BC

middot tift-1 or Rurposive (A 264f ) Not only the column itself but also its pedestal and capital let its purposiveness shine forth beginning and--endingaredltltterminations belonging to the very concept of a Sllpporting middotcolumrlltand these determmations are precisely what COlll~S middotro-slriniforth in the pedestal and the capitaL Whatever mashy

teijaf mayhave been usedmiddot in_ the earliest stages certainly the great classicaltemp~~s to which Hegel refers-he mentions the Ionic temshyple at Ephesus and the Doric temple at Corinth also the Doric temshyplemiddotat middotraestuin perhaps the same one that will command Heideg- gers attention a century later though one cannot be sure for there I

are in fact three temples at Paestum two in the Doric style the other a mixture of Doric and Ionic__certainly such temples are built of stone Especiallyjnthe shining~opoundth~~tone columns the beauty of such ~~lPl~~_i~ manifest In the very sarile-storie-shaped as it is futoa shell for the-spaCingmiddot of religion there is displayed the pastness

- of art middot

-

middot

middot

From Tower tomiddotCathedral 5I

In its very realization the archite1=tural work is reduced to a mere shellJQL~QmethiQg_cgt1ller thus put down degraded mad_ p~tt the very moment that it is present in its perfection The specific pastshyness of architectur~ is thus determined by its character as a shell for something other by the concept of the architectural work as proshyviding an enclosure for spirit The enclosure ( Umschliessung) closes around that other closes off (though perhaps not entirely) the space in which that other is set shapes that space But only if the enclosing merely serves in a completely ext~rnal fashion a purpose that is esshysentially other a meaning that is outside it precisely in being enshydosed in it-only in this case will classical architecture be degraded and in this way made past in middotits middotvery IIJQlle~t of pnsence It is a question then of whether the epiphany of th~-middotgoc(h1smiddot shining forth in th~ statue set in the temple is simply other than the shaping of the space of the temple Or whether that spacing belongs inteshygrally-and not just as an external means-to the epiphany It is a question of Yb~ther the temple mer~ly enclose~ a space (as a sp~ce _ might be enclosed even in nature) or whether it encloses in such a way that the closedness pf the-space makes it a space of epiphanya space in which the god imaged in the ltat_Ue can appear One could extend the question b_eyond classictl architectUre eve~ ~eyond the entire course of architecture as llegel traces it by diverting the conshycept of enclosure into that of she~ter and by then regarding the vocation of architecture as one of sheltering Even sheltering hushymans from the elements ismore than an external means in service to something essentially otlieFan(Indep~d~~~~-F~-hu~-iifri~ fundamentally determined by mans relation to the elements to the earth which gives support lnding it even to Jhe edifices that arshychitecture construc~s to the heights of ai8i)_p to the sky and the sun which mark the time of life its course frommiddot birth to death To -say nothing of the more obscirre sheltering of whit is elementil in ~ human life middot -

With such questions we might begin Within the compass of ar- middot - chitecture to address the monstrous _question that looms still as Hegels legacy that of the pastness of art liVe-no longer jUst the recollective we of Hegelstextmiddotnow another perhaps one_more vigi-lant - middot _

I 1 )middot

middotmiddotmiddot [middot

52 Stone

B~t what about the beginning For architectur~_poundoes not begin by~g-Glassicartefitples Jn the beginning it will have erec~ed edifices bearing their meaning in themselves though inmiddotanimpovshyerished external merely symbolic way edifices in which the separashytion between enclosure and meaning will not yet have come into play In the beginning ~chit~lt)Jlfpound~ill have been symboli~ its _=~~-lijs~9~ni~_sectQJlptIJ~S middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot -bull-middot-~- bull bullmiddot-middot middot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotobull -~

With what material would these first architelttural works lpve been constructed In the Introduction to his ac~ount of architecshyture before he begins to discuss the various types Hegel refers to an age-old dispute (he mentions Vitruvius) as to whether architecshyture began building with wood or with stone He grants the im- portance of the question conceding that the character of the mashyterial affects the fundamental architectural forms And yet he justifi~ putti~~qg~~lt1~8EI~~er deferring it-since it

is linked to~t~sectJifgtpoundgtbgt~rnalJm1lt~~~~- woo9- being used to buildhat-s-fodnen-cstltgtne being used for the temples in which im-ages of $9sectue-tomiddotmiddotbeplaGe~_To decide for wood or for stone would be tfintroduce_~RQsectY~l~ss (and the ~eparation between purpose and mea-ns)Tnto the beginnin~ Yyenf it cannot yet take place where it cannot yet take oveftnePface that wollicn)-eblliltdegrading ar-chitecture as such

Not then- at the beginning but only when that degradation comes to be recollected---the perfect degradation exemplified in the Greek temple--only then does Hegel really address -the age-old dis -~

pute as to whether huilding began with wood or with stone it is as though the disjunction building with wood or building ~th middot stone could be brought into the accoimt only at the point where t4e ~~Cltipnbet-~Gfl-pwposean~ms between meaning and enc)Qm~ comes into play providing tlleSChema througnwlliellffie significance of themiddot disjunction can be systematically formulated Thus introducing the disjunction Hegel can then ask about the be-

ginnipg of classical architecture can ask With which material were middot temples first built But then he will also ask retrospectively about the material with which the first architectural works will have been built Nowhere does one discern more clearly the recollective charshyacter of Hegels discourse in the Aesthetics than in this peculiar retshyrospection

bull

From Tower to Cathedralmiddot 53

When in the midst of hismiddot discussion of classical architecture Hegel finally takes up the disputed question he begins by according to wood a certain natural advantage an appropriateness for buildshyingmiddot it does not require extensive workmanship since it occurs by nature in regular linearmiddot pieces that can be directly put together whereas stone not occurring in such a firmly specific shape must be split and chiseled into shape before the individual pieces can be laid atop one another so as to construct an edifice Since a great deal of work is required before stone comes to have the shap~ and utility that by nature wood has from the be~~flg lgtiliPBg~ffilLPfrYe begun~9 i~~~s JY1W~Y9_Q9 Aiicfyet at the very point where Begel seems ready to settle the dispute once and for all iii favor of building in wood he turns abruptly away from the apparently natushyral solution to a certain distribution of the tWo building materials to archit~cture in each of its three forms symbolic classical and romantic Here is the point on which the tum is made since stone is relativelyformles~tthe-start~t can be shaped in any and every way and therefore it offers suitable materialbothfurmiddotsy~bolicas~ wclf as romantic architecture and the latters more phantastic forms (A255) Woods natural advantage turns out to pertain only to classical arthitecture in which its natu~ally_rectilinearfom proves directly more servi~~able IQLlb~a~~ EiEPQ~eness~~d reasonableness [ Verstandigkeit] that are the basis of classical archi-

--~~middot-raquomiddot-- ~_~ tecture (A 255) Hegel declares then contrary to what one would have expected that building in stone is especially predominant in ihdependent ie symbolic architecture In the beginning architecshyture will have built predominantly in stone-as it will also hardly less so when in romantic form it comes to erect Gothic cathedrals

middot And even if at some undeveloped stage classical architecture built templesmiddot of wood Hegel insists that it does not stop at all at buildshying fu wood but proceeds on the contrary where it develops into

middot beauty to build in stone (A 255) Hegel grants thatmiddot in the archishytectural forms of the temple the original principle of building in wood is still recognizable Mentioning the temples at Corinth and Paestllin noting that the columns of such Doric temples are comshypared with lhe other orders the broadest and lowest Hegel says that the distinctive character of the Doric style isJbtjtisstill nearer the oifgl~IsfinpliOtyi)fbUilrung~In~~aamp(A 266 ) middotThe

-middot----------~ - -~-middot- ~ ~middot-middotmiddot

I I 1

1V1PUPD~--IW-IIttt mgt i _ IIW-9-~----o====middot --~~----

- -

5+ Stone

Ionic temple is different in it says Hegel there is ~ger ~X indicpti_~Igt~4~riY~~gnJE2~-~~~~~P-WQ9d (A z67)n With the development of the column in which the beauty of the temple

is concentrated there is effaced every trace that would betray thatmiddot middot temples were once built of wood Except in this effaced-and sd

finally ineffective inconsequential-beginning of classicaimiddotarchitec- ture it will always have been principally with stone that architecture will have built Whatever the architectural edifice will have been able to reflect of spirit will have beenbullttltflec~gjJbtheshiningopounditsstene=

But especially in the beginning in the works of symbolic archimiddot tecture In these works the meanings expressed ~ymgolicaily bythe edifices are vague ang_g~g~r~q--~s~~tatlo~rious c~fUsecf~bshysffictioriSdawi f~om th~-1i1e-or~~~~~-middot and intermingled with thoughts of the actual life of spirit The dispersion and manifoldnessmiddot of such content is such that it resists being treated exhaustively or systematically and Hegel explicitly restricts himself to bringing toshy

gether in as rational an articulation as possible only the most imshyportant of these contents He proposes to focus on the purely unishyversal views that provide a unifying point fdr a people In this connection the architectural edifice Itself serves as a unifying point of a nation as a place around which the nation assembles at the same time it expresses symbolically that which primarily unifies men their religious representations

The exampltlt that Hegel places first__as if it marked the b(g- middot ning of architectpre indeed the beginning of art as sucl1-is the -

IL These points are corroborated by a present-day specialist The beginshynings of the major stone orders of architecture in Greece can be traced back to the seventh century In mainland Greece the Doric order was evolved with simshyple columns reminiscent of both Mycenaean and Egyptian types having cushshyion capitals fluted shafts and no bases The upper works were divided rhythmically into a frieze of triglyphs (the vertical bands) middotand metopes (often sculptured) which were a free adaptation of the woodwork in these parts of earshylier buildings This was the style popular in the western Greek colonies also In east Greece and the islands the other major ordCr of stone architecture the Ionic borrowed its decorative forms from the repertory of Orientalizing art

~th volutes and florals which in the Near East had never graced anything larger than wooden or bronze furniture or-like the volute capitals of Phoeniciashyhad never formed an element of any true architectural order (John Boardman Greek Art (New York and Toronto Oxford UniverSity Press 1973] 6o-62 )

------~---middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot


middot To~tE ltgtf EabeJ Its aim and its content Hegel identifies as the comshymunity ( Gemeinsamkeit) of those who built it together in common (gemeinsam) Corning together in a unificati~n that superseded mere familial unity all the people are to be linked together by this bond by the excavated site and ground the assembled blocks of stone [die zusammengefugte Steinmasse] andthe architectural culti-

middot vation as it were of the country (A 231) The Tower cgtf Babel both is the bond and expresses the bond indicating though only syrnbolicaily only in an external way that which ultimately unifies men th~ holy In its assembled stones the Tower bears its meaning not because those stones adequately express the meaningmiddot but beshycause at this stage the distinction has not yet been discerned be-

tween~t~ m~w-~g-~Il~=he edifice that expresses it the Toweu)f - - - ---middotmiddotmiddot -- ~- middot Babel is both indistinguishably middot middot

The first move that Hegel traces beyond this beginning is one in which architecturemiddot adopts as its content meanings more concrete than that of an abstract unification of all peoples To express these more concrete meanings recourse is had to more concrete forms It is especially at this stage that symbolic architecture becomes like inshyorganiC scUlpture even though its works remain fundamentally arshychitectural and not sculptural Hence when the focusmiddot of attention and worship becomes the universal life-force of nature and more concretely the productive energy ( Gewalt) of procreation this conshytent comes to be represented in the shapt of animal generative orshygans Thus were built especially in India (Hegel drawsmiddot here from

middotmiddotHerodotus) monstrous column-like structures of stone (A 234-) giant phallic columns expressing the procreative force symbolically One can saymiddotof such a column as of the Tower of Babel that it both is the meaning and expresses the meaning The distinction reshymains undrawn and this is why in the beginning the phallic colshyumns were solid when at a later period openings and hollows were made in theth and images of gods placed in these so that the sepashyration between an inner kernel and an outer shell was introduced then symbolic architecture was degraded into an architecture with its meaning outside itself an architecture well on its way to becomshying merely a means serving a nonarchitectural purpose As withJlJe classical temple bull middot

The quasi-sculptural character of such symbolic architecture~ its

56 Stone

character as like inorganic sculpture is more evident in the Egyptiap middot middot obelisk which has a prir~YJ~g~ar shape_gtherthan a form derived

~- from organic nat1ireJfegel identifies the meaning of such edifices~middot middot ihe content that they express symbolically as the rays of the siii middot He refers to Pliny as having already ascribed such meaning to ob~-

lisks and he quotes Creuzers description of them as sunrays in stQne [Sonnenstrahlen in Stein] (A 235) But t)le meaning is not something other than the obelisk itself for its stone both represents the sun-gods rays and catches those raiSShTillngWiili~)lidi_Jiilshylian~e in ~ucli amiddotway~ the-obelisk beco~e the s~

rliys The shining of its s~9ne-beth~ftliesunraysand middot- ~~~g_tM_t shim~- S~ays in stone middot middot ~-

But such quasi-sculptural edifices do not for the most part stand alone th~y are multiplied and assembled into such compounds as

middot the Egyptian temple-precincts Hegel takes over and extends (on the basis of contemporaneous research) Strabos account of these colossal structures which remain independent open constructions not yet serving to enclose a religious community or even in the full sense a god Hegel describes the layout of these enormous archishytecturally ordered collections of quasi-sculptures summing up his description in these words After these sphinx-avenues rows of colshyumns partitions with a surfeit of hieroglyphics after a portko with wings in front of which obelisks and couching lions have been erected or again only after forecourts or surrounded by narrow passhysages the whole thing ends with the temple proper the shrine ( uqK6c) of massive proportions according to Strabo which has in

it either an image of the god or only an animal statue (A 237) middotSuch a construction remains architectJJraLandsyiD_b_olic indeed reshyriiiipsmiddot-~~hitectnral pri~arily bee~ remils s~bolic the indi-

---~middot middotgtli)liOI~lSlt$) middot1~-vidualrofms and sliapes the quasi-sculptures are not expressive through their own symmetry rhythm and bemty but express their meanings only symbQlically

And yet in the Egyptian temple-precinct there are two modishyfications that serve to distinguish it from the previous works One of these modifications lies in the fact that the whole clfiiig ends with the temple proper that the entire way through the precinct leads to a shrine enclosing an image of the god or at least an anixriat statue Here one finds a first trace of the separati~n that will become

)middot ~

middot

From Tower to Cathedral

The Alexandrian Obelisk (Cleopatras Needle) (Moved tp NewYork in r88r)

S7

bull I

complete when in classical architecture _the entire archi~tlt~EJ work merely serves to provide an enclosme for the statue_opoundthe god

-middotand to an extent for the community of worshippgil AY-t inmiddot the present case Hegel is careful to mark the lim~tation taking excep~ tion to what Strabo says he insists m effect that in the Egyptianmiddot

middot temple one finds only a trace of the teinple prope~ But in ge~ral middot

(

58 Stone

middot ~

The OQCltlisks at Karnak Egypt

the shrines ~e so small that there is no place in them for a commushynity but acemmunitymiddotbelengs-to a temple_ otherwise it is only a r -~----box a treasury a receptacle for keeping sacred images etc (A 237)

Though Hegel describes vividly the other modification found in the Egyptian temple-precinct he does not underline its import as much as one might have expected The modification consists in

~middot


Temple of Amun Karnak Egypt 19th Dynasty (r3o6-n86 BC)

59

nothing less than the introduction of writing in the temple-precinct a number of the individual forms may be called even substishytutes for books since they announce the meanings not by their mode of configuration but by writings hieroglyphics engraved on their surface (A 236) In the Egyptian temple-precinct one firlqs according to Hegel galleries in which the walls are completely cov-

- middot

6o Stone

ered with hieroglyphics They can be regarded like the pages of a book that by this spatial delimitation arouse in the mind and spirit as do the sounds of a bell astonishment meditation and thought (A 237) The difference thus constituted is decisive In the case of the Tower of Babei of the Indian phallic columns and of the Egypshytian obelisks the assembled or shaped stone of the work is itself the middot meaning that the~~ImiddotpersesBut~~nce there is writing on the-middotmiddot --- _~-JOoo Nmiddot~ ~-- lt 0 bull

stonewalls of the galleries within the Egyptian temple-precinct the stone will no longer express the meaning oy being that meaning by actually embodying it by virtue of the architectural form given to the stone when it is shaped like a phallus or made to catch the gods sunrays Now it will be not the architecturally or quasi-sculpturally formed stone as such that will express the rueaning but rather what is written QDJQ~-~Qg~Jh~ hier-oglyphics Even if there is not yet ~tia~~middot~f differentiation between s~ch writing and the meaning it expresses the linguistic-pictorial mode in which the hieroglyphics

signify is fundamentally different from the way in which l1lil1- middot middot scribed stone signifies through its shape and form alone Once wri~ ~-g-~~~~-1-middotcover the stone a mode ofexpression uen to architecture has come to invade the interior of the architectural work middot

Writing remains but with the pyramids there are new developshyments that serve to broach decisively the transition to classical arshychitecture One is the appearance 9f the straight line and in general of geo~ctrical form But more decisive is the link that such edifices middot middot have With a realm of the dead Hegel maintains that it is only with middot the Egyptians that the opposition between the living and the dead is empg~ized1p~that correlatively the spiritual begins to be sepashyrated frorri the non~piritual In honoring and preserving the remains of the dead treasuring and respecting the body of the deceaseJ they pr~~ye_ spiritualindivicluality againlt ab~ltJPtiori into n~ture

_ and dissolution into the middotuniversalflux)Vhat emerges architecturally middotis tlie~gt~~~QItPfJhe spiritual)pner meaning in the guise of themiddotmiddot respected andpreserved bodyof the_ deaci from the middotmiddotshell (Hil-le) that is placed around it as a purely architectural enclosure the pyra~ mid itselpound The stones that were once shaped and assembled into edishyfices that were what they meant are now made into surfaces on which

to write_ or into geometrical shapes suitable for enclosing-that is

From Tower ~o Cathedral 6I

The Giza pyramids 4th Dyn~ty (2723-2563 Bc)

for marking a place for-the dead who preserved in their absence will always have escaped the very presence that encloses them Just as graves and tombs says Hegel become sacred places for those who live on And indeed hardly anything essential changes when inshystead of a pyramid enclosing the body of a dead king there is a _simple gravestone marking the place where an unknown person long since dead and gone lies buried

Architecture will have built principally with stone not only in its symbolic beginning but hardly less at the end in the finalmiddot f~rm middot romantic architecture In the supreme achievement of romantic ar-

chitecture the Gothic cathedral classical purposiveness is united with the independence of symbolic architecture Here there is both

the separation of means and purpose and the-fteedom of existing for itselpound As always in Hegels text the opposiremiddotmiddots-are -subiiit~cno-middotmiddot -

gt middotthe logic of Aufhebungcanceled as mere opposites yet held toget~er middot middot middot as opposed moments within a supervenient unity But in this ~Memiddotmiddot middot

the logic is engraved not only in Hegels text but also in the~t9ft~ middot of the lt~the drat in its lines spaces and configurations IJi middott~~

~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I

Gothic catheciralthe Aufhebung is displayed there before ones very middot eyes~tssensemagifest to a sensitive vision of the qtthedral

More _thoroughly than the Greek temple the cathedral forms an ~ enclosure a space of tranquility closed-off fmm n~JPJ~igQ~~2fpoundpoundIll~

middot_middotmiddot __eyeryt4ingmundane Its ~nclosedness corresponds to the inward- middot ness of the Christian religion Just as the Christian spirit draws

From Tower tltgt Cathedral

itself together into its inwardness so the building becomes the place middot bo~ded on all sides for the assembly of the middotChristian community and its inward gathering (A 272) The endosedness of the catheshydral beth expresses the inwardness of Christi~ spirituality and proshyvides a place for worship for all the activities prescribed by that spirituality Thus in the cathedral there are no longer open entrance halls and colonnades left open to the world outside rather the colshyumns are now moved inside the walls set within a space closed off from nature and the outside world From the interior of the catheshydral the light of the sun is excluded or allowed only to glimmer dimly through the stained-glass windows For here it is aday othermiddot than the day of external nature that is to give light (A 277) And yet Christian worship is not only tninquil enclosedness but also ele-vation -ab~iflfu~mdbullthlselevationmiddoti~ ~rt~-middotfy~ild an pur-middot-lt pOslveneSS determines the independent architectural character of the cathedral which is built so as to express elevation toward the infinite its spires soaring into the heavens These are then the two moments that are brought together within the structure of the Gothit cathedral The impression therefore that art now hal to produce is on the one hand in distinction from the cheerthl open~middot middot middot ness of the Greek temple the impression of this tranquility of mind [Stille des Gemuts] which middotreleased from external nature and from~ the mundane in general closes upon itself [ sich in sich zusamm_en-_ schliesst] and on the other hand the impression of majestic sub- middot limity that aspires and soars beyond the limitations set by intellect [das verstiindig Begrenzte] (A 273) Thus situating the architecshytural sublime within a moment of_tP~ ~lte11Y of W~~-tb~dtlti) Hegel

draws the c~ntrastwith classical architecture whereas the Greek temple is primarily set horizontally on the ground the cathedral towers up from the ground rising into the sky Furthermore it is no longer as in the Greek temple the supporting as such that proshyvides -the basic form of the building for in the cathedral thlt walls have the appearance of striving upward and the very differeUCcentJgte~

middot tween load and support c~mtes to be canceled The colunins pow become middotplilars But because the way the buildingmiddot strives upward

middotprecisely transforms load-bearing into the appearance -[Schein] of free ascending columnsmiddotcanri~tmiddotoccur here in the sense

1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)


Interior of St Elizabeth Church Marburg

66 Stone l

( _)

cl~sicalarclllt~cture (A z75f) As they ascend the pillarsmiddot fually branch outmiddot anci)neet each other and so though the vault 1n fact rests on the pillars their purpose of supporting the vault is not emshyphasized and is not as such presented in the architectural form It is

middotmiddot-middot ) as though they were not supports at all If one enters the interior r bull ~ I

of a l)ledieval cathedral one is reminded less of the firmne~)ma~~--middotmiddot -~--~ ~----


mechanicalmiddot purposiveness of the supporting plllars and of a vault resting on them than of the vaultings of a forestwherein lines-oL trees the branches incline to one another and _ _grQ_W __ tQ$~tlf~- (A 275) In contrast to the column and the beam which are clearly

distinguished and which meet to form a right angle the pillar rises gradually into the vault and they app~~~-~~-Qgs~wfi th~-~em~ pound2poundshystruction Tlie way hi which the -eye-is thus led up the pillar to the vault the architectural form designed thus to lead the worshippers vision corresponds to an aspect of Christian spirituality no less than does the enclosedness of the cathedral The pillars become thih and slender and rise so high th~t the eye cannot take in the whole form at a single glance but is driven to wander over it and to iise until it begins to find rest in the gently inclined vaulting of the arches that meet-just as the mind [Gemut] in-its worship restless and troubled at first rises above the soul of-finitude and finds rest i~ God alone (A 276)

In the Gothic cathedral the exterior is primarily determined from within made to appear only as an enclosing oLthelnterior The cruciforrilshape for instance makes discernible fi-om without middotthe similar construction within the distinction between transepts nave and chancel Buttresses too mark from without the rows of pillars within though in this regard the exterior begins to acquire a degree of independence since the buttresses do not simply copy the form of the pillars within This independence of the exterior is consummated in the way iii which the interiors character as an en-

closure 1~-sectaiiyJ()~i9ii middotik~~~rterkrandg~~-~~Yl~r~1ot~~~har-- _ ac~er of rising upward Everything is given the appearance o~

middot ascent the middothigh-mounting triangles that rise above the portals and windows the slenderly pointed roof the small peaked towers atop the buttresses and especially the main tower~ themselves (the most sublime summits) And so just as in the interior the rows of pilshylars form a forest of trunks branches anU vaults so here on the exterior a forest ofpinnacles extends into the heights (A 28r) Everywhere the stone isTormeaarid decorated s~-~i~ltampYt th~ ~r pearance of rising into ~Jte sky Little wonder_ considering its heavishyness that the romantic ar~hitect comes as Hegel says to refuse

-validity to the material the massiye in its materiality ~ltto inter~ middot ~middot -middot-middotmiddot_ ~

68 Stone


rupt it everywh~re break it up and deprive it of its appearance [Schein] of immediate coherence and independence (A 282)-for instance by way of elaborate decoratons Hegel says of Gothic arshy

chitecture There is no other architecture that with such enormous and heayymiddot masses of stone preserved nonytheless so con~pletely

the character of lightvessarid~graceA(if-2Sz fst()~~pi-iv~cr of gtmiddotmiddot-middot=raquobull~~~--~middotmiddotmiddot ~

its natural shining is made to shine differently to shine as if re-n~uncing its ancient heaviness it now soared middotinto the heave[S It is made so as to present spirit as best it can in an architectural work even though by the time of Gothic architecture art will have been overtaken by its pastness And the most perfect presentation possible in stone-or rather with stone-will long since havemiddot-been accomshyplished in classical sctyenpture

Yet within the Hegelian middotrecolle~tion sculpture representing a middothigher form follows architecture succeeds it What makes possishyble-indeed necessitates-the transition is the externality that proves inherent in architecture when an architectural edificemiddot acshycordant with the very concept of such an edifice comes to enclose a spiritual meaping that meaning remains distinctly other precise~y in being enclosed the meaning remains external to theexternal en- ~losure that architecture pr-ovides remains outside the me~e outside

that architecture is limited to providing The recollectiy~ transition to sculpture only makes explicit that spirit has proven to be outside the outside it simply lets take shape the withdrawal from architecshytures massive material the withdrawal that the very logic of archishytecture will already have produced Hegel says It is on the way of spirits ~(turn into itself out of the massive and material that we encounter sculpturemiddot (A 287) that we make the transition from arshychitecture to sculpture-we the recollective we capable of grasping the negativity of one stage ~s the taking shape middotaranothermiddota-we cogn1zant that negationis deterqunate

Everything turns on the negativity which drives the recollection on from architecture to sculpture consigning architecture and evenshytuilly art as a whole to the past In the case of architecture the negatiYity consists in the middotexternality that makes the architectqral

70 Stone

edifice something distinctly other than the spiritual meaning that it middot encloses and serve~_~_=ht $pound~Ves by enclosing The end of architecture (in~e-middotdoul5lesense of end1Jies in tgpoundlQ~~llK~EltmingthatJirs ~2R~poundlielessoutsi~~jt~Ttsnd is to enclose as its meaning a meaning that does not belong to it one that it can only enclose but not emshybody Its end the negativity that wilf drive it beyond itself is to enclose as its meaning a meaning that not belonging to it is not its meaning-a meaning therefore that both is and is not its meanshying The negativity of this contradiction is what brings architecture to an end while still letting its spirit live on in and as sculpture

Is tllis negativity assured Does the externality that would sepashyrate architectural means from spiritual purpose remain intact once the Hegelian recollection is submitted to critical scrutiny Does the purity the utter distinctness of the separation between the outside that encloses and the inside that lies outside the outside remain unshycontaminated even when the Hegelian recollection is from a disshytance repeated itself re-collected across that distance -Qrjs~th~s a p~~sbilgr_gf_bringing-arclritect~ back of callin~g~~lUo~life even though the Hegelian recollectiOnnasaecraied it long since dead and gone Is there a possibility of bringing it back in its bearshying on the living not as a mere epigone but as something before which to modify Hegels own phrase we bow our knee~ again Could the very possibility of calling architecture back to life derive from the way in which the Hegelian recollection has declared it dead

and through this declaration produced something like a semblance ~middot-of its death middot middot

Almqst as in the theatre where everything including death is a semblanc~ a shining produced through speech andmiddot the enactment that accompanies it The semblance may eve~ be cltgtmpounded so that within the usual theatrical semblance there is enacted represhysented another semblance for example a semblanlte of death of middotthe absolutely nonpresentable as such As in the play-Shakespeares Much Ado about Nothing-that as its title says unmistakably is alshymost nothing_but a series of plays within the play semblances enshyacted within the semblance a heroine named Hero wooed by one pretending to be another wooed for that other ( ciaudio ) while at

middot the same masquerade party another couple Beatrice and Benedick

middot---middot----middotmiddotmiddotmiddot----middotmiddotmiddotmiddot

Froni Tower tp Cathedral 7I

speak from behind their masks as if they did not recogriize one anshyother hence speaking about one another as if to an other scenes are staged for each of them by others whosefeigned conversations serve in both cases to present semblances that evoke in each Jove for the other hence a love between Beatrice a~d Benedick that evok~ltl by semblance remains itself _arriousl)i se~blant until the finalmiddot scene of the play But there is also semblance of semblance when in the wedding scene after Hero disgraced by the words of Cla~dio has fallen into a swoon that looks like death after Claudio and his companions have left the scene and Hero has awakened from her semblance of death the Friar who was to have m_arded Claudio and Hero and will in fact marry them the following day says

So will if fare with Claudio When he shall hear she died upon his words Th idea of her life shall sweetly creep Into his study of imagination And every lovely organ of her life Shall come appareled in more precious habit More moving delicate and full of life Into the eye and prospect of his soul Than when she lived indeed 12

Such power of semblance is attested not only by drama the very -element of which is Schein but equally by the theoretical-recollecshytive discourse of the Aesthetics echoing logic itself Shining itself is essential to essence (A rI9 ) To say nothing of the power of imshyagination (Einbildungskraft) which Hegel once called nothing but reason itselfraquogt3

middot )yenllg~ltf_living~tectureLWhatoLruchitectmpounds-beaplusmn-ing-on ~heJhing What of its bearing when for example by building a

12 Much Ado about Nothing act 4 sc r lines 221-229 13 Glau_ben und Wissen in Jenaer Kritiscbe Schriften ed Hartmut Buchner

and Otto Poggeler vol 4 of Gesammelte Werke (Hamburg Felix Meiner 1968) 329 GtaJben und Wissen first appeared in r8o2 in the J(ritisches Journader Phishylosophi~ edited by Hegel and Schelling Hegels identification of imagination with reason echoes what Schelling had written two years earlier in his System des transzendentalen Idealismus (Hamburg Felix Meiner 1957) 227 Hegel does not make the identication without qualifications most notabJy the one that follows

72 Stone

house ahuman habitation_a kind of edifice repeatedly marginalshyized in Hegels account-it provides shelter for the living For shelshytering is not a mere means external to those whom the house shelters but rather bears on the very constitution of ~heiJ Sltrm9rJ_ffimUP what surrounds themmiddot to the eieUerits aS ddimfting the very space oiiatuialeristence Those who are sheltered are not encaPsillated

P~fpound~ses in which there would be only meaningtuici~inromiddotmiddot meaning rather they are extended into the space bounded and

shaped by th~ elements comporting themselves always to this space in a way essentially linked to sheltering and its possibilities Thus the architecture that builds for example a simple stone house as shelter from mountain storms will not have provided a mere means extetnal to a purpose quite distinct from the enclosure it will not riie~~ly have provided an e~closure for living huinaif bdngs as if th~ir basic comportment could remain essentially independent of the sheXtering brought by the enclosure-Howe~~~ ~~ple-such~tcbitecshymiddotture may seem in contrast to that which builds temples or catheshydrals or today skyscrapers what it builds does not fall away from the living into an externality that would have the effect of inscribing within the building a negativity one that would consign it irrecovshyeaJllir bull JQ ~th~R~st like death itself saVingorThtcuiirre--Giruyitsect resurrected spit middot

I have suggested that from such distance much _the same might be said of the temple If the spacing belongs essentially to the epiphshyany of the god then the revelation cannot be simply somethingmiddot other for which still another art sculpture would have to provide it cannot be a meaning simply and distinctly outside the very temple that enc~oses it There can be no such pure externality and thus no

immediately in his text only reason as appearing in the sphere of empirical conshysciousnessmiddot The entire discussion has an explicit orientation to Kants discusshysions -of the productive imagination and of its relation to thought and tQ ~tuition By the time of the Encyclopedia Hegel has integrated the concept of imaginatiouinto a systematic context that has the effect of limiting its scope and power as comparedmiddot with that accorded it in Gauben und Wissen See Bnzykshylopiidie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundriss (1827) ed Wolfgang Bonsiepen and Hans-Christian Lucas vol I9 of Gesammelte Werke (Hamburg Felix ~einer 1989 ) 333-339 (sectsect4-55-4-60 ) I have discussed these sections in

Spacings-of Reason and Imagination chap 5

From Tower to Cathedial 73

consignment of classical architecture-and hence-of architecture middot as suctlTo-theVery-concept~of-hich classical architect11re correshysponds-to the past Even if from this distance OIfe will want to say in another sense that the Greek temple is decisively past not because its spirit has been released from its heavy matter freed for the future butpound~S~~~~Js~~iE~~~~ vanished and there is no long~r an epip~any of the god Now theltpas1nesswoUlcCiio-iongermiddotmiddot6middote meielflnemiddotatlieQ_isectsect0t~ ~PJQRriatiP_I1~tQ~igi~E~

The temple could indeed provide an example in reference to middot which one might reopen the question of the concept of architecture as such putting into question the bond of this concept to that of enclosure first of all by rethinking-~n=JQ~M~~~amGdecoLspacing of shaping the space within which something like the epiphany of amiddot god could occur but then also by considering whether it is only a matter of the enclosing shape into which the stone is configured or whether the essential character of the open interior of the temple is perhaps also determined by other features of the stone indepenshydently of their relevance to the capacity of the stone to enclose such features (here one would need eventually to undermine such lanshyguage of quality) a~l~_ll~gge~~Jhetexture ofits smface-its he~yjshyness middot

--In the case of the Gothic cathedral the pure externality of means and purpose of enclosure and meaning is compromised by the peshyculiarly mimetic character of the cathedral Hegels own descripshytions avoid explicit reference to mimesis no doubt because of the severe critique that near the beginningmiddot of the Aesthetics Hegel brings against a very narrowly conceived sense of mimesis (see A r5I-55)-even though one could indeed read the entire Aesthetics a~ an attempt over against this inferior kind of mimesis (as mere copying) to reestablish a genuine sense of mimesismiddot (ultimately as Darstellung) In any case Hegels own descriptions of the Gothic cathedral outline the mimetic character without calling it by name The purposiveness of the cathedral lies in its providing a_ place for worship which essentially determined byt~einwardne~~-~pound2bIsmiddot---~ fian-splJituality issuclranomiddottequife-middotthatits middotp-lacemiddot beftillYeiiclosed in contrast to the open enclosure of the Greek temple The distincshytive enclosedness of the cathedral thus expresse$ as its meaning the

74 Stone

inwardness at the heart of Christian worship and Christian spiritushyality as such In this respect the cathedral expresses a meaning serves a purpose that it cannot itself embody that it cannot sensibly present as such in its masses of heavy matter shaped and bound toshygether according to the laws of gravity And yet in its enclosedness the cathedral does not express Christian inwardness merely by sigshynifying it across a distance that would effect a pure separation beshytween signifier and signified between expression and expressed Rather the~endesednessmiddot-ofthe_J~amph~poundJLexpr~~~~h~jnwarctrie-ss of Christian spirituality by mfitJeJiJ by iro-J~ing-inls various (ea-

-middot---middot-middotmiddotmiddot- bull middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot--middot~middot~middot~ bullmiddotbullmiddotmiddotmiddot bullbull middot - t-tures~(wliich Hegel discusses in detail) spirits turn inward away __-1lt~

from everything natural and mundane But in mimesis there is no pure extemalityb~t~~-expesioilmiddot~~d meaning It is the same on both sides not only in the cathedrals independ~pt character in its elevation toward the illfinite which it both means and middotimitates meaning it by imitating it but also in its purposiveness its providshying an enclosure for worship On both sides the cathedral resists the negativity that would free its spirit from the heaviness of stone reshysists it precisely by imitating spirit in stone What the cathedral proshyvides is not just an enclosure but an enclosure shaped to formed in the image of what it encloses an enclosure also shaped into blendshying into the expression-equally mimetic-of the other meaning displayed by the Gothic cathedral elevation into the infinite ascent

And yet in the way that the Gothic cathedral resists submitting to the sheer negativity that Hegel finds invading classical architecshyture one might see taking shape precisely the Aufhebung that will lead to sculpture For with the transition to sculpture spirit will be fr~~g __ as it were fpound0~-~J1g~~ass~hlgg9~I~lqn~-tliatencl~~rii without being ableit seems to embody it Spirit -wl1C6e-releas from t~e enclosures like a bird freed from its cage and allowedmiddot again to soar into the sky To be sure even sculpture will still encase spirit iri matter lmt now-at least in its classical perfection where it beshycomes the very perfection of the classical as such _it will set spirit only into pure white marble which it will shape without the slightshyest regard for weight or natural conditions giving to spirit as Hegel says a corporeal shape appropriate to the very concept of spirit and its individuality (A 288) It will be as if the stone-pure white


marble-had comple~ely lost its heaviness as if it had been given wings

J]Ist as the stone of the Gothic cathedral is relieved of its heavi~ ness its materiality and made as if to ascend In the transition it would be only a matter of a shell falling away the architectural shell that would have enclosed sculpture as the temple enclosed the statue of the god but that would finally fall away so as to let the living kernel itself come to the light of day In the Gothic cathedral in the aging slilell we will already have caught a glimpse of the shape of what lies within In the Gothic cathedral we will already h~ve seen the Aufhebung taking shape before our v~ry eyes in those lines spaces and configurations that relieve the stone of its ancient heaviness and make it soar freely in its ascent YVe-a recollective we who can still as Hegel in fact did4 visit a Gothic cathedral and behold it in its sublime beauty

Or today in its strangeness its uncanny beauty its Unheimlichshykeit middotIn this case w~-no longer the we of Hegels text-would be ~~~-~~~~~~ _ for_oheu~ebeheld_aJogk strang~~~tlllJLlltt oL Aufhebung The primary schema would no longer involve reli~YK stQJe of its heavj_~~jg_pf~2-fation for its reception (jlsmiddot purehlte

----middot~-~middotbull bull bull-bullbull bullbull ~middot middot--middot~-~ ~middotmiddot-bullbull bull bull ~n-

J4- During the Berlin period Hegel took three extensive trips on which he visited numerous cathedrals The first trip to Belgium and the Netherlands in r8noffered him especially rich possibilities InmiddotMarburg he saw St Elizabeth Church in pure Gothic style (BrieftPon und an Hegel ed J Hoffmeister [Hamshyburg Felix Meiner Verlag 1953] 234-8 [ 4-34 ]) ~n Cologne he visited the catheshydral (and eve11 attended mass there) and w-ote to his wife I searched out the cathedral right away The majesty and gracefulness of it ie of what exists of it middotthe slender proportions the attenuation in them which is not so much a rising as an upward flight [Hinauffiegen] are worth seeing and are fully worthy of admiration as the conception of a single man and the enterprise of a city In the cathedral one vividly beholds in every sense a different conditibn a different hu-

man world as well as a-different time It is not a matter here of utility enjoyshyment pleasure or satisfied need but of a spacious wandering about in high independent halls [fUr sich bestehenden Haen] which are as it were indifferent whether men use them for whatever purpose [It] stands there for itself and is there regardless of whether men creep around down below or not It does not

middot matter to it at all What it is it is for itselpound All this-standing and walking around in it-simply disappears in it (Briefe 2353 [4-36] cf 2355 [437]) Hegel continued thnmgh Aachen visiting the cathedral there then went on to Ghent where he ~aw the beautiful cathedral (Briife 23S8 [ 4-38]) and then to

76 Stone

l

marble) of the shape cgtf spirit Rather the schema would now be one of repression of something repressed that recursrs It would be a matter of repression and return not as isolated events in some psyche but middotas constitutig a schema that like Hegels categories bdongs to a logic even if a strange one According to this schema

middot something familiarmiddot returns as something uncanny one and the same th~ng now licimisch (native homelike~ and so familiar) now un-middot

hcimlich opposites assembled across the interval constitutedby the operation of repression and return I~ is the weight of stone that will havtltJ~~en repressed along with the supporting and permanence that go with it They will have returned on the wings of spirit in the uncanny ascent by which ~tone comes to imitate elev~ti~n into the infinite which promises amiddotweight support permanence that arc not r9JJs fuiE-d on earth

Only the slighte~t phantasy would be needed in ordermiddotto evoke the semblanc~ of anotherretum in order to see the Gothic catheshydral as a return of the Tower ofBabel as a return to the Tower of Babel arc_hitectuie thus enclosing itself in an uncanny circle a repshyre~entati6n of recurrent life oramiddot rebirth that would not be only of spirit A semblance no doubt for the Tower of Babel is not some-

Antwerp whose world-famous cathedral he described again in a letter to his wife in this way In its nave as in the unfinished cathedral in Cologne are three rows of pillars on each side How spaciously and freely one wanders about in it (Brieft 2359 middot[4-38]) Two days later he wrote froni ThemiddotHague Thus in the end it was a matter of cliurches The churches in Ghent an4 Antwerp as I said must be seen if one wants to _sectee sublime rich Catholic churches-large broad Gothilt majestic Stained-glass windows-the most splendid ones I have ever seen are inBrussels (Brieft 2359 [4-38]) Hegels second ttip to Viennamiddotmiddotmiddot in r8z+ was more fruitful musically than architecturally though in a letter to his wife he ltdoes inention being in St Stephens church (Brieft 355 [4-79 ]) His third trip to Paris in I827 gave him the opportunity to visit churches in Trier (including the basilica of Constantine) the cathedral in Metz and the famous cathedrals (includh1g Notre Dame) in Paris (this capital of the civilized world) (Briifemiddotpampz [ 557] 3r83 [ ssamp] 3r83 [ 559 ] p86 [ 56o ]) On his return voyage

from Paris tO Berlin he agiin saw the cathedral in Aachen and paid another visit to the sub~e cathedral in Cologne (Briife 32oz [ 566])

fs Sigmund Freud Das Unheimliche in Gesammelte Rerke (Frankfurt aM S Fischer Verl~g 947) I2z54 This is a logic that to Freud could only

seem to violate logic however much its strange operation may have been conshy middotfirmed by psychoanalysis


thing that will ever have been familjar (even if then repressed) that will have been indigenous belonging to the home s~roundings unlike the Gothic cathedral which one can visit and behold the Tower of B~bel will be know11 of only from reading the biblical 3ccount and perhaps from seeing some highly imaginative represhysentations And yet precisely because it is so indefinite middotdefined by little more thanmiddot the few verses that Genesis devotes to it it can serve as an example in which to gather what one w~uld say of the beginshyning of architecture say on the basis of a certain elemental familishyarity Is it not indeed largely~ such a gathering point that the Tower of Babel functions in Hegels text~to such an extent eye- that he oinitsmiddot some major elements of the biblical account

Even before phantasy intervenes to project that point and prepare the return the massive correspltndenc~s are e~gent Bo_th edifices lay claim to a certain universality a commonality) the cathedral in husiiigth~ ~iversai religion and in symbofizng the infinite the Tower of Babel in symbolizing the commregity the UilfitionQf peoples Most remarkably Hegel forgoes mentioning something in this r~gard that is quite proniinent in the biblical account that the community of peoples that would be _symbolized by the Tower is linked to a coJlmunity of language that at that time the whole eartn1iaacine-Iiiiiguager6

and that the peoples forsaking the Tower and then being dispersed resul_ted from Y~wehs mixing up their language introducing lingriistic diversity so that they no longer shared a ~ommon understandii)g All of this Hegel leaves unsaid as if the eraimto universalitymiddotwere not~always exposed~to the_tlg_ee_tpound~~~thylilggigi~ diversity as if it were not for the most part accompanied by an institutional legitimation of the_universalshyity-oLa ianguage whether it be that unnameable tongq~ spokenmiddotby the ancient Babylonillls or medieval Latin Or German Or English

But even granted this omission in Hegels account theremiddot is still no denying the cor~espondences between the Gothic cathedral and thefpwer of Babel not only do both lay claim to nniver~~~-~Ut

___--middot

r6 Gen nI In ~iting from the Genesis account I ~e the tranSlation given with notes and commentary by Gordon J Wenhem Word Biblical Commentary (Waco Texas Word Books I987) r23zfpound middot

bull

l

78 Stone

also in the very way their heavy matter is shaped assembled perhaps even marked both are essentially ascensional both Q(th~l1 tower up into the heavens and have their Universal meaning precis~lyliJ so middot ascending middotmiddot middot middot middotmiddot middot middot middotmiddot~ middotmiddotmiddot

middot There is one other elemenf in the biblical account that is lacking middot in what Hegel says of the Tower of Babel indeed not just lacking but replaced by something else (that it itself replaced) a misrepreshysentation then an error as it wereP Whereas Hegel refers to the assemblecfblocks of stone the masses of stone put together (die zushysammengefugte Stein~asse) to construct the Tower th~ biblical acshycount reads They said to each other come let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly So theymiddot had bricks for stone and asphalt for mortar 18 Lacking stone in the Tigris-Euphrates vaiiey (the biblical plain of Shinar) the Babylonian architects substituted bricks that they themselves had made constructing the Tower from these rather than from masses of storie taken directlyfrom nature If in the Gothic cathedral stone is reIi~vecfeJeii-(aiid especiallyrof its native heaviness if it is deprived of its very appearance of immediate

17 In his Lemt-res on the Philosophy ojWortd History which stems from the same period as the Aesthaics Hegellllso mentions the Tower of Babel But here he recognizes that accoiding to the biblical account it was made of bricks Recountshybig the description given by a C()ntemporaneous observer who had found what he thought w~re reninantS of the Tower Hegel writes On an elevation he beshylieved he bad discovered ihi remains of the old Tower of Babel he supposed that he had found traces of the numerous roads that wound around the Tower ~ Furthermore there are many hills with remains of old structures The bricks [Backsteine] correspond to the description in fhe biblical account of the building of the Tower a YSt plain)scovered by an innumerable multitude of such bricks ( Vorlesungen uber die Philosophic der Weltgeschichte vol 2 Die orientalische Welt ed Georg Lasson [Hambilrg Felix Meiner Verlag I968] +34 ) One should not overlook the fact that the construction of the German word Backstein could leshygitimate Clkini brick to be a kind of stone so that the ~isrepresentation found in the AesthetiCS vVoll4 have consisted only in the substitution of the genus for the species~that is Hegel would simply have spoken metaphorically according

middot to the most classical concept of metaphor (see AriStotle Poeticsi+57b7-9 ) Nevshyertheless the crucial difference would remain (or would have been covered up by the metaphor) bricks are man-made whereas stone is taken directly from nashyture

middotmiddot middotIS Gen II3 See The Interpreters Bible (New YorkNashville Abingdonc Cokes bury Press 1952 ) I56+ and Wenham Ward Biblical Commentary 1239

- bull I

From To~er to Cathedral 79

co)1erence and independence covered _with decorations that mask its character as stone that rnilf~it ~PEear as-if it weremiddotnot stone but ~oruethingmiddotmlltZJZh~~~r~bit~~ts ~)le~~~Iv~smiddotmiddotffiemiddotresillewillnot be Unlike that produced when the Babylonians had recourse to mari-

made bricks inplace-of natural stone Another correspondence linking the beginning anq t4e end of architecttire -

I middot It would not be cliffiqlit then to imagine the- stone expanding middot so as to fill in the empty enclosures the cath~dral metamorphizing into a solid tower like those built-in the beginning ofarchiJecture middot So then tlle slightest- phantasy will ~pffi~~ tQ~~~architecture

turned into this circle the return of the Tower of B_aQel intervening llt just that point where spirit would otherwis~ have been prepared to_ abandqnmiddotarchitecture to its pastness leaving it _behind as if for dead Whilt is more difficul~ since it pertains middotto the earth itself is tomiddotpicture to oneself any such commUnication between the respecshytive sites one of them north of the Alps themiddot other in the TigrisshyEuphrates valle~ quite outside the European homeland- to which spirit is to return Yet both the cathedral and the Tower soar freely above the __earth

Imagine then a theatre of stone ~rnagine architecture its course fmtn symbolic- through classical to romantic turned into a circle On on~ sid~ of the ci1cle stands the Tower of Babel in which natural stone is replaced by ~an~mademiddot-bricks On the other side stands the Gothic cathedra) middotll~s~ t9 -~PPeiJI--asifJtwere -notof

stone As stone thus disappears at the periphery of the circle it Will be as if_ the curtain were opened revealing on stage at the center middot the sok ltyork in which stone decisively remains the Greek templ(

gtmiddot I

middot

3

FROM TOWER TO CATHEDRAL

H EGEL SAID ALMOST the same of art that it is for US something _past

His declaration of tJle pastness of art is in play from the very outset of the lectures on fine art ( schone Kunst) that he presented several times during the r82os at th~ University of Berlin For these lectures Hegel usedthe tit~- 4-Csthetics as did his student H G Hotho who edited the lectures after Hegels death and published them for the first time in 1835 r Yet Hegel grants the title only as a concession to colJlmqrj -~pe7ch nqting at the very beginriing that it -i~QJY~QUY ~mt~ble silce aesthecs lleans more prcisely the sci-

ence pf ~centJ1seoffe~Jilg [Wissenscqaft des Sinnes des Bmftndens] (A rr3 Prop~rly sp~~ipg a~sthetics io~d regard the work of art strictly from th~persp~ctiy(q(theOe~liJJg evoked by it and Hegel refers iil fact toiHtschqo(ofvvltIff in which works were regarded in terilis of the feelings of pl~asrire~ admirationJ~JJ or pity that __ -~middot-middotmiddot middot middot middot middot middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot middot middotmiddot_middot_

r Hegel first)ectured on aesthetics in Heidelberg in 1818 In Berlin he preshysented his)ectures on ae~thetie$ four times in r82o-n 1823 1826 and 1828-29 using throughout the Berlifi period the same notebook adding to it numerous revisions and notes as he continued to rework and expand the lectures This noteboolclt ai()Jlgwitll~evernl setsof student notes provided the basis for the edishytion ofiheAesthetitSthaf~otho published in 1835 four years after Hegels death~ In Hothos edition no differentiation is made between versions of the lectures giveil ih dirierell1 years In 1842 Hotho published a slightly revised edishytion and thiS second edition has provided the textual basis for subsequent disshycussions ofthemiddotworkToday both Hegels notebook and most of the student notes used by IJoth() alelost the problems of preparing a critical edition are therefore immense and it is unlikely that such an edition will appear in the near future But there remains at least enough material to allow serious criticism of Hothos editorial work and there are some who have critici2ed it quite severely middot most notably Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert (see ~thetik oder Philosophic der







_ middot)

bull

34- Stone






s Ibid sect59



)





_rbull

Stone

















1

imiddotmiddot I

Stone






~











I I

40 Stone









~











Stone
















Stone




















46 Stone













i


middot Stone










middot

50 Stone





- of art middot

-

middot

middot




I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I














_ middot)

bull

34- Stone






s Ibid sect59



)





_rbull

Stone

















1

imiddotmiddot I

Stone






~











I I

40 Stone









~











Stone
















Stone




















46 Stone













i


middot Stone










middot

50 Stone





- of art middot

-

middot

middot




I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I










)





_rbull

Stone

















1

imiddotmiddot I

Stone






~











I I

40 Stone









~











Stone
















Stone




















46 Stone













i


middot Stone










middot

50 Stone





- of art middot

-

middot

middot




I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I








_rbull

Stone

















1

imiddotmiddot I

Stone






~











I I

40 Stone









~











Stone
















Stone




















46 Stone













i


middot Stone










middot

50 Stone





- of art middot

-

middot

middot




I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I

















1

imiddotmiddot I

Stone






~











I I

40 Stone









~











Stone
















Stone




















46 Stone













i


middot Stone










middot

50 Stone





- of art middot

-

middot

middot




I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I


















I I

40 Stone









~











Stone
















Stone




















46 Stone













i


middot Stone










middot

50 Stone





- of art middot

-

middot

middot




I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I








40 Stone









~











Stone
















Stone




















46 Stone













i


middot Stone










middot

50 Stone





- of art middot

-

middot

middot




I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I


















Stone
















Stone




















46 Stone













i


middot Stone










middot

50 Stone





- of art middot

-

middot

middot




I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I















Stone




















46 Stone













i


middot Stone










middot

50 Stone





- of art middot

-

middot

middot




I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I



















46 Stone













i


middot Stone










middot

50 Stone





- of art middot

-

middot

middot




I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I

















i


middot Stone










middot

50 Stone





- of art middot

-

middot

middot




I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I














middot

50 Stone





- of art middot

-

middot

middot




I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I








middot




I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I








I 1 )middot


52 Stone







bull







I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I














I I 1


- -

5+ Stone

















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I
















56 Stone










)middot ~

middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I








middot



S7

bull I




(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I








(

58 Stone

middot ~




~middot



59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I










59


- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I








- middot

6o Stone















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I
















~-

i

q

-62 Stone

-

- 1 --

--- ~

Cologne Cathedral

I









1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I













1theY Jtavc in

bull

Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I








Stone

I

)



66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I










66 Stone l

( _)











68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I















68 Stone









70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I
















70 Stone














72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I
















72 Stone











74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I












74 Stone













76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I
















76 Stone

l














___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I













___--middot


bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I








bull

l

78 Stone






- bull I








STONE€¦ · · 2017-03-14strictly from th~persp~c:tiy;.(q(the:O;e,~liJJ.g evoked by it, and...

Documents

Transcript of STONE€¦ · · 2017-03-14strictly from th~persp~c:tiy;.(q(the:O;e,~liJJ.g evoked by it, and...