ABSTRACT
Over fifty years ago�� Walther �ehm and Josef �unz stated that a detailed study of Kierkegaard’s reception of German Romanticism was “urgent” and “long overdue.” Kunz claimed that Kierkegaard’s thought had not only been anticipated by late Romanticism but had developed out of it, and asserted that, in any study of this topic, Eichendorff would occupy an important place.1 Two decades later Franz Heiduk, in a review of Gerhard vom Hofe’s work on Kierkegaard’s critique of Romanticism,2 wrote that a thorough investigation of �ichendorff’s in��uence on �ierkegaard would contribute to our knowledge both of Eichendorff’s reception and of the sources of Kierkegaard’s critique of early Romanticism.3 These two studies remain desiderata. An adequate examination of Kierkegaard’s overall debt to Romanticism would need to take into account not only his largely negative comments on early �omanticismwhich must be seen in the context of the in��uence of �omanticism as a whole on the structure as well as the content of his writings-but also his more positive response to late Romanticism and in particular to Eichendorff.4 This chapter will provide essential groundwork for the study advocated by �ehm and �unz. More specifically�� it will attempt to meet the need identified by Heiduk and �unz for an account of �ierkegaard’s response to �ichendorff. This response is all the more significant for
My investigation of the reception of Eichendorff has been supported by the Leverhulme Trust. 1 See Walther Rehm, Kierkegaard und der Verführer, Hildesheim: Georg Olms 2003 [Munich: Hermann Rinn 1949], p. 527: “Eine wirklich eingehende und umfassende Behandlung des sehr schwierigen Themas: K. und die Romantik, fehlt noch und wäre dringend nötig”; Josef Kunz, Eichendorff; Höhepunkt und Krise der Spätromantik, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1967 [Oberursel: Altkönig-Verlag 1951], p. 221: “Es ist längst eine eindringliche Untersuchung fällig, die … zeigte, wie Kierkegaards Anliegen bereits allseits in der Spätromantik in Philosophie und Dichtung spürbar ist und sich daraus entwickelt hat. In dieser Untersuchung würde Eichendorff eine wichtige Stelle beanspruchen.” (My italics.) 2 Gerhard vom Hofe, Die Romantikkritik Sören Kierkegaards, Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum 1972 (Goethezeit, vol. 6). 3 Aurora�� no. 33�� 1973�� pp. 126f. (p. 127): ��ine gründliche Untersuchung der �in��üsse der Dichtung Eichendorffs auf Kierkegaard steht noch aus. Sie ergäbe einen anregenden Beitrag zur Wirkungsgeschichte des Dichters sowie eine weitere Quelle der Kritik der
being hidden: Kierkegaard names Eichendorff and his works in private contexts, but, with one exception, not in works intended for publication.
