# 43. “Literary Education”

The former literary councillor in Leipzig, *Rudolf von Gottschall*, introduces a new biweekly publication called “Das litterarische Echo” with an essay bearing the above title. It is certainly not my intention to make life difficult for the new venture, despite the fact that the aforementioned speaker has quite tastefully concluded the article with an attack on the existing literary magazines. He probably considers the “Magazin für Literatur” to be one of those literary journals that he describes as “a hodgepodge of opinions and standards”, “a playground for a criticism that strays in all directions of the compass”.

It is not easy to discern from Mr. von Gottschall's article what he wants. He complains that general, humanistic education is on the decline. He even complains that “the Latin essay has been eliminated from the schoolwork of the higher grammar school classes”. I can only read one thing from Mr. von Gottschall's essay: He laments the extinction of literary orators of the type of the unctuous Moriz Carriere and of – Mr. von Gottschall himself, who have reached the pinnacle of wisdom by acquiring a few scraps of Hegelian philosophy and aesthetics, and who have not participated in the great revolution of the minds that has taken place through the scientific way of thinking in the second half of this century. It is quite characteristic of Mr. von Gottschall that he says: “On the whole, the main bearers of literary education are the women.” He is, of course, referring to the education of women, which has adopted the characterized aesthetic verbiage and from which women who understand the spirit of the present turn away.

If Mr. von Gottschall were to edit a literary magazine today, it would contain only opinions that could have been written quite well in 1832. Just as one finds only such opinions in the tedious four volumes of “German National Literature in the Nineteenth Century.”

The way of thinking and feeling that is possible on the basis of the century's scientific achievements is not there for Mr. von Gottschall. He has no sense of educating young people in this way of thinking; rather, he would like the Latin essay to be reintroduced into the schoolwork of the higher grammar school classes.

Mr. von Gottschall is one of those lucky people who know everything. They can tell exactly what is artistically valuable and what is not. They know how to classify. So they will edit a magazine as follows: I accept everything that meets my aesthetic judgment. Because I am right and everyone else is wrong. My magazine must have a uniform character.

We others are not as fortunate as Mr. von Gottschall. We have formed our views and perceptions under the influence of scientific progress. We have not remained untouched by the fact that Darwin has reshaped all the perceptions and ideas that have been cultivated over the centuries, as Mr. von Gottschall has. But at the same time, we know that the new worldview can take on different forms in different minds. We do not have any stereotyped views like Mr. von Gottschall. We also accept the views of others. We know that there is a struggle for the existence of opinions.

That is why we have to edit a magazine differently from the way Mr. von Gottschall wants. The editor represents his point of view with all the strength he is capable of. But he also allows other opinions to be heard. He is even proud to offer his readers a “playground for a critique that diverges in all directions of the compass”. He wants every opinion that is formed on sufficient premises to be represented. What Mr. Gottschall considers a disadvantage, I, for example, claim as an advantage.

I love freedom. I love it not only in the political sense, as I expressed it in my reply to J. H. Mackay's letter to me in issue 39, but also in the sense of the intellectual exchange that a magazine has to convey. And just as I am confident that people can thrive best in the sun of freedom in economic and ethical terms, I also believe that intellectual life fares best when opinions and views are allowed to battle it out in free development.

This is how I have done it since I have been editing the “Magazin [für Literatur]”, and this is how I will continue to do it, even if Mr. von Gottschall should contemptuously include this journal in the group of those that are a “playground” for “a criticism that strays in all directions of the compass”.