Athenaeum (1798): Aphorism 220
(Leibniz, logical chemistry, & combinatory thought)

220. If wit is the principle and organ of universal philosophy, and if philosophy is nothing but the spirit of universality, that is, the science of all perpetually mixing and separating sciences, a logical chemistry, as it were: then that absolute, enthusiastic, and completely material wit is of infinite value and dignity, in which Bacon was one of the first, and Leibniz one of the greatest virtuosos, both leaders in the art of scholastic prose. The most important scientific discoveries are bon mots in their genre. They are this by virtue of the astonishing accident of their origin, the combinatory character of thought, and the baroque quality of their casual expression. In their substance, however, they are indeed much more than the mere expectation of a purely poetic wit which resolves itself into nothing. The best are échappées de vue into infinity. Leibniz’s whole philosophy consists of some aphorisms and projects which are witty in this sense. Kant, the Copernicus of philosophy, has by his nature perhaps more of this syncretistic spirit and critical wit than Leibniz: his situation, however, as well as his education, is not so witty; his ideas have the same destiny as popular tunes: the Kantians sang them to death; thus, one is easily inclined to do him an injustice and to consider him less witty than he really is. To be sure, philosophy is in good condition only if it must no longer wait for and expect inspirations of genius, but can progress steadily with a sure method by enthusiastic strength and the art of genius. But shall we disregard the few still existing products of synthesizing genius only because the combinatory art and science does not yet exist? And how could it exist as long as we are still spelling most of the sciences as if we were sixth-grade boys flattering ourselves that we have achieved our goal if we can decline and conjugate in one of the numerous dialects of philosophy— without hitherto knowing anything about syntax, or how to construct even the smallest sentences?

SOURCE: Schlegel, Friedrich von. Dialogue on Poetry and Literary Aphorisms, translated, introduced, and annotated by Ernst Behler (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1966), pp. 143-144.

220. If wit in all its manifestations is the principle and the organ of universal philosophy, and if all philosophy is nothing but the spirit of universality, the science of all the eternally uniting and dividing sciences, a logical chemistry: then the value and importance of that absolute, enthusiastic, thoroughly material wit is infinite, that wit wherein Bacon and Leibniz, the chief representatives of scholastic prose, were masters, the former among the first, chronologically speaking, the latter among the greatest. The most important scientific discoveries are bon mots of this sort—are so because of the surprising contingency of their origin, the unifying force of their thought, and the baroqueness of their casual expression. But they are, of course, in respect to content, much more than the unsatisfied and evanescent expectation of purely poetical wit. The best ones are echappées de vue into the infinite. Leibniz's whole philosophy consists of a few fragments and projects that are witty in this sense. It may be that Kant—the Copernicus of philosophy—has even more natural syncretistic spirit and critical wit than Leibniz, but his situation and his education aren't as witty; and furthermore the same thing has happened to his ideas that happens to popular songs: the Kantians have sung them to death. Therefore it's quite easy to be unfair to him and think him less witty than he really is. Of course, philosophy will only be healthy when it no longer expects and counts on getting brilliant ideas, when it's able to make continuous progress, relying, naturally, on enthusiastic energy and brilliant art. but also on a sure method. But are we to despise the few still extant products of synthesizing genius because no unifying art and science exists as yet? And how could they exist as long as we still simply spell out most sciences like high schoolers and imagine that we've achieved our object when we can decline and conjugate one of the many dialects of philosophy but have no notion of syntax and can't construct even the shortest periodic sentence?

SOURCE: Schlegel, Friedrich von. Philosophical Fragments, translated by Peter Firchow, foreword by Rodolphe Gasché (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991), pp. 47-48, reprinted from Lucinde and the Fragments, translated with an introduction by Peter Firchow (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971), pp. 191-192.

Friedrich Schlegel on Philosophy in Music

“Theory of the Combinatorial Method” of Poetry [Excerpt]
by Michel Chaouli

Philosophy of Early German Romanticism,
the Oriental Renaissance, and the Historiography of Philosophy:
An Introductory Bibliography

English & German Romanticism & Philosophy: A Bibliography

Leibniz & Ideology: Selected Bibliography

Philosophical and Universal Languages, 1600-1800, and Related Themes:
Selected Bibliography

Ars Combinatoria Study Guide