Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

M. M. Bakhtin and the German proto-Romantic tradition

  • Published:
Studies in East European Thought Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper seeks to explore the relationship between Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin’s theoretical apparatus and ideas of the immediate precursors of the Jena Romantik school of German Romanticism: Johann Georg Hamann (1730–1788) and Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803). In doing so, it examines the themes and treatments that are common to these two thinkers and Bakhtin, tracing the tradition of anti-systematic thought through Hamann, Nietzsche and Bakhtin, and the transmission of Herder’s philosophy of Bildung through the Russian cultural milieu and Goethe. Initially, the paper briefly outlines the early German Romantic ‘school’ of philosophy as a prelude to a more detailed examination of the ways in which Bakhtin assimilated German philosophy in general. The paper’s section on Hamann commences with a review of his background, using this as a basis for establishing connections between Hamann’s approach to communication and that of Bakhtin, based on a common epistemology focused on the self. The section on Herder is centred on his concept of Bildung and his historicist approach to literature, both of which interests Bakhtin shared. The paper then examines a number of conduits for Herder’s thought to Bakhtin, including Kant and Goethe. The paper concludes by examining Isaiah Berlin’s notion of the ‘Counter-Enlightenment’—in which movement he includes both Hamann and Herder—and the extent to which Bakhtin could be said to form part of this tradition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These included Johann Georg Hamann (1730–1788), Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803), August Wilhelm von Schlegel (1767–1845), Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835), Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768–1834), Karl Wilhelm Friedrich von Schlegel (1772–1829), Georg Philipp Friedrich Freiherr von Hardenberg [Novalis] (1772–1801), Johann Ludwig Tieck (1773–1853), Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling (1775–1854), and Georg Anton Friedrich Ast (1778–1841).

  2. General coverage can be seen in Berlin (1976, 1994, 1998, 2013b, c) but specific reference is contained in the essay ‘The Counter-Enlightenment’ in Berlin (2013a).

  3. Wittgenstein’s description of the principle of family resemblance is succinctly encapsulated in Section 67 of Philosophical Investigations (Wittgenstein 2009, §67, p. 36e).

  4. “German Sturm und Drang: used to designate the movement in German literature about 1770–82, due to a school of young writers characterized by extravagance in the representation of violent passion, and by energetic repudiation of the ‘rules’ of the French critics” (‘storm’ OED online, retrieved 8-Mar-2018).

  5. Edited by Diderot and d’Alembert, refer http://encyclopedie.uchicago.edu/ (accessed 8-Mar-2018).

  6. Apparently, a tutor to one of the merchant families in Odessa introduced Bakhtin to Buber’s work (Clark and Holquist 1984, p. 27).

  7. ‘Free students—a form of training in which everyone can attend lectures and seminars at a university or college. This is a good opportunity to get an education for those who, for some reason, were not enrolled in full-time or part-time studies, as well as for those for whom knowledge is more important than a diploma’ [«Vol'nye slushateli—forma obucheniia, pri kotoroi kazhdyi zhelaiushchii mozhet poseshchat' lektsii i seminary v vuze ili kolledzhe. Eto khoroshaia vozmozhnost' poluchit' obrazovanie dlia tekh, kto po kakim-to prichinam ne byl zachislen na ochnuiu ili zaochnuiu formu obucheniia, a takzhe dlia tekh, komu znaniia vazhnee diploma» (Moe obrazovanie: vol'nyi slushatel': http://moeobrazovanie.ru/volnyy_slushatel.html [Accessed on 16-Aug-2016]).

  8. Rosenthal (1998) [Nietzsche], §§1–3, Behler (1996, p. 291). “Unacknowledged Nietzschean ideas (ideas mediated by Nietzsche’s Russian popularizers) helped shape Soviet literature and culture, including political culture, in ways too numerous and complex to be detailed here” (Rosenthal 1998, §5).

  9. «Kanta ia ochen' rano znal, ego “Kritiku chistogo razuma” ochen' rano nachal chitat'…. po-nemetski chital» (Duvakin and Bakhtin 2002, p. 41).

  10. «D: I Vy pozvoliali sebe roskosh'… v Leningrade 24-go goda vystupat' s filosofskimi lektsiiami kak kantianets? B: Kak kantianets» (Duvakin and Bakhtin 2002, p. 163).

  11. Hirschkop indicates that in 1924 Bakhtin gave nine lectures on Kant and Neo-Kantianism and one on the philosophy of religion (Hirschkop 1999, p. 160).

  12. Compare the tone of Towards a Philosophy of the Act (1919) with that of Problems of Dostoevsky’s Art (1929).

  13. For example, references in Bakhtin (1997) [KFOGN], pp. 8–9 (On the philosophical foundations of the human sciences).

  14. Poole has revealed that approximately ten pages of this title are included in Bakhtin’s Rabelais book without citation (Poole 1998, p. 572 note 26).

  15. Berlin also indicates that Hamann’s pietist background is very similar to that of the Brotherhood (Berlin 1994, pp. 5–6). Note also the common connection with the Swedish visionary Emmanuel Swedenborg (refer Laywine 1998; Jonsson 2006 for details of Swedenborg’s life and doctrines).

  16. For example, in ‘Philological ideas and doubts …’ (Hamann 2007, pp. 111, 130, 140) and ‘To the Solomon of Prussia’ (Hamann 2007, pp. 139, 143), both written in 1772.

  17. Only three explicit mentions of Hamann occur in Bakhtin’s Collected Works: two in K «romanu vospitaniia» (Bakhtin 2012 [Tom 3], pp. 237 and 257) and one in Formy vremeni i khronotopa v romane (Bakhtin 2012 [Tom 3], p. 393). All of these references are in conjunction with Herder.

  18. When asked by Bocharov and Kozhinov what philosophy to read, Bakhtin “did not mention any twentieth-century philosophers. He gave us only one name, that of a man who could be called a philosopher, but of a peculiar kind: ‘[MMB:] Read Rozanov’” (Bocharov and Liapunov 1994, p. 1019).

  19. ‘Authoritative discourse’ «avtoritarnoe slovo» is privileged, requires a response of allegiance, demands that it be internalised by the listener, and is embedded in a hierarchy at a point distant from that listener. In short, it is a monosemic monolith that admits of only one construal and, ‘[i]f completely deprived of its authority it becomes simply an object, a relic, a thing’ (Bakhtin 1981 [Dialogic], p. 344, author's emphasis). Authoritative discourse is ‘hard-edged’, ‘static’ and indivisible (Bakhtin 1981 [Dialogic], pp. 343–344), but most importantly, it is ‘a prior discourse’ (Bakhtin 1981 [Dialogic], p. 342, author's emphasis), and therefore completed and finite.

  20. ‘Internally persuasive discourse’ «vnutrenne ubeditel'noe slovo» is much that authoritative discourse is not: dependent on context, open to construal, and capable of entering into ‘interanimating relationships with new contexts’ (Bakhtin 1981 [Dialogic], p. 346), as opposed to the inert and calcified nature of authoritative discourse. This ‘semantic openness’ permits, reveals, and even encourages, ‘newer ways to mean’ (Bakhtin 1981 [Dialogic], p. 346, author's emphasis), thus engendering a dialogue that is neither finished nor finite.

  21. As well as «raznorechie» , which Emerson and Holquist render as heteroglossia in Bakhtin The Dialogic Imagination, other terms include «raznorechivost'» rendered as ‘diversity of speech’ (Bakhtin 2012 [SvR], p. 47; Bakhtin 1981 [Dialogic], p. 294), «raznoiazychie» rendered as ‘diversity of languages’ (Bakhtin 2012 [SvR], p. 47; Bakhtin 1981 [Dialogic], p. 294) or a ‘medley of languages’ (Piskunova 2014, p. 49) and «raznogolositsa» , ‘diversity of voices’ (Bakhtin 2012 [SvR], p. 52; Bakhtin 1981 [Dialogic], p. 300) or an ‘individual variglossia’ (Piskunova 2014, p. 49), but translated elsewhere as ‘hubbub’.

  22. It appears that both Blake and Hamann had a strong focus on the particular: “To Generalize is to be an Idiot. To Particularize is the Alone Distinction of Merit. General Knowledges are those Knowledges that Idiots possess.” (Blake 1965, p. 630 [from ‘Annotations to Sir Joshua Reynolds's Discourses’, c. 1808]).

  23. ‘Menippean satire and its significance in the history of the novel’. Compare this work with his ‘Satira’, written for publication in the form of a general historical review, polished and consequently more accessible than ‘Menippova satira’ which alternates coherent passages of writing with more cryptic sections in highly condensed note form, with the emphasis on speculation rather than polished scholarship.

  24. «Ono bylo parodiino i polemicheski zaostreno protiv ofitsial'nykh iazykov sovremennosti» (Bakhtin 2012 [SvR], pp. 26–27).

  25. Kenneth Haynes in his introduction to Hamann’s Writings on Philosophy and Language describes the ‘metacritique’ as seeking “to isolate what [Hamann] considers to be the proton pseudos, the initial and fundamental error, of a philosopher” (Hamann 2007 [Introduction], pp. xvii–xviii).

  26. In the senses of cabbalist: “One skilled in mystic arts or learning” and rhapsodist: “A collector of miscellaneous literary pieces. Now hist. and rare.” [OED online, retrieved 4-Apr-2018].

  27. «ono stanovitsia vyrazheniem pozitsii individual'nogo govoriashchego v konkretnoi situatsii rechevogo obshcheniia» (Bakhtin 1997 [PRZh], p. 187).

  28. «vsegda nosit individual'no-kontekstual'nyi kharakter» (Bakhtin 1997 [PRZh], p. 192).

  29. «opredeliaemuiu nepovtorimo-individual'nym kontekstom vyskazyvaniia» (Bakhtin 1997 [PRZh], p. 192).

  30. «Kazhdoe vyskazyvanie polno otzvukov i otgoloskov drugikh vyskazyvanii, s kotorymi ono sviazano obshchnost'iu sfery rechevogo obshcheniia» (Bakhtin 1997 [PRZh], p. 195).

  31. «Kazhdoe vyskazyvanie—eto zveno v ochen' slozhno organizovannoi tsepi drugikh vyskazyvanii» (Bakhtin 1997 [PRZh], p. 170).

  32. «ono ikh oprovergaet, podtverzhdaet, dopolniaet, opiraetsia na nikh, predpolagaet ikh izvestnymi, kak-to schitaetsia s nimi» (Bakhtin 1997 [PRZh], p. 196).

  33. «osnovnye konkretnye momenty ego postroeniia i ikh vzaimnoe raspolozhenie …» Bakhtin (2003 [KFP], p. 49).

  34. This is also entirely consistent with Bakhtin’s exhortation to Bocharov and Kozhinov to ‘read Rozanov’ as, for that philosopher, “sexual life breathes of the fragrance of religion, and shines as brightly as the sun” (Gollerbach 1927, p. 20).

  35. For Bakhtin’s analysis of Lucian’s Menippean satire, refer Cook (2018).

  36. “Criticism of criticism; that is, the examination of the principles, methods, and terms of criticism either in general (as in critical theory) or in the study of particular critics or critical debates. The term usually implies a consideration of the principles underlying critical interpretation and judgement” [The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms (https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780198715443.001.0001); retrieved 31-Mar-2019].

  37. «Roman vospitaniia» in Russian, most often translated as the novel of education or novel of development.

  38. «Pozdnee nemetskoe prosveshchenie i Gerder. Dvoistvennost' v mirovozzrenii i tvorchestve Gerdera; progressivnye i reaktsionnye elementy v nikh. Istoricheskaia kontseptsiia Gerdera. Gerderovskoe ponimanie istoricheskoi tvorcheskoi individual'nosti. Otnoshenie etoi individual'nosti k narodu (k narodnym massam). Problema narodnogo tvorchestva. Gerderovskaia traktovka problemy svobody i neobkhodimosti v tvorcheskom soznanii khudozhnika. Problema genial'nosti. Genii i deistvitel'nost'. Prava geniia. Izuchenie tvorcheskogo rosta, stanovleniia genial'nogo individa. Primenenie Gerderom svoei kontseptsii k istorii nemetskoi literatury. Znachenie tvorchestva Gerdera dlia razvitiia romana vospitaniia (Gippelia, Zhan-Polia, Gete)» (Bakhtin 2012 [Prospectus], p. 202).

  39. Further defined by Speck: “the result of a historical process during which human beings increasingly learn to master nature through the cooperative development of their inherent faculties” (Speck 2014: 43). and explicated by Horlacher as a “non-political concept that focuses on the individual’s process of inner self-development, unfolding, self-cultivation—in accordance with an organic concept of nature and natural development” (Horlacher 2004: 421).

  40. Goethe specifies location (and thus climate) as well as national identity in the passages analyzed by Bakhtin. The historical perspectives are developed by Bakhtin himself when he analyses the Chronotope of the Castle. For detailed coverage of these issues, see Cook (2014).

  41. Forster suggests that Herder’s theory can be categorized as ‘narrow expressivism’ according to the language used by Charles Taylor (Forster 2018, pp. 50–51).

  42. “Herder speaks of corpses—forms of linguistic petrifaction” (Berlin 2013c, p. 240). Compare this with Bakhtin’s description of linguistic markers as “the sclerotic deposits of an intentional process, signs left behind on the path of the real living project of an intention” (Bakhtin 1981 [Dialogic], p. 292; Bakhtin 2012 [SvR], p. 45).

  43. “Genre is the term used to characterize groups of similar texts that share certain recognizable conventions and that belong in the same literary tradition.” (Türkkan, p. 216).

  44. Whilst the concept of heteroglossia is an umbrella term which covers a nexus of nuanced words, Bakhtin makes his own position quite clear: «Roman—eto khudozhestvenno-organizovannoe sotsial'noe raznorechie, inogda raznoiazychie, i individual'naia raznogolositsa» (Bakhtin 2012 [SvR], p. 15). “The novel can be defined as a diversity of social speech types (sometimes even diversity of languages) and a diversity of individual voices, artistically organized.” (Bakhtin 1981 [Dialogic], p. 262; translation amended to reflect author’s emphasis).

  45. «zony kontakta» (Bakhtin 2012 [SvR], p. 100).

  46. Zones of contact also represent a link to Hamann in view of the latter’s use of religious typology as an implicit link between Old and New Testament figures.

  47. «Preuvelichenie, giperbolizm, chrezmernost', izbytok iavliaiutsia, po obshchemu priznaniiu, odnim iz samykh osnovnykh priznakov grotesknogo stilia» (Bakhtin 2010, p. 327). “Exaggeration, hyperbolism, excessiveness are generally considered fundamental attributes of the grotesque style” (Bakhtin 1984 [Rabelais], p. 303; translation amended to reflect author’s emphasis). See also the balance of Chapter 5 in this work.

  48. Nonetheless, a complete translation of Herder’s Ideen into Russian did not materialize until 1977.

  49. The authors note that there are “… also explicit references to Herder’s reception during the Slavic Renaissance and by the Russian Narodniks”.

  50. Vvedenskii was the leading neo-Kantian of his time, and also a professor at St Petersburg University from 1890 until his death in 1925 (Lossky 1952, pp. 163–166; Losskii also discusses Vvedenskii’s colleague I. I. Lapshin as a major contributor to neo-Kantianism in Russia in Lossky 1952, pp. 166–170). Despite Bakhtin’s inclusion of Vvedenskii in his enumeration of influential people in his intellectual development (Duvakin and Bakhtin 2002, pp. 63; 327 note 9), his influence is even harder to trace than that of Zelinskii. This is firstly because Neo-Kantianism, of which Vvedenskii was the most prominent proponent, was already a vital influence in Russian philosophical circles, and secondly due to the presence in Nevel' of Matvei Kagan, Bakhtin’s “close friend and intellectual colleague” (Hirschkop 1999, p. 142), who “did most to fill the intellectual and personal gap left by the departure of Nikolai” (Clark and Holquist 1984, p. 41). There is such a short interval between Bakhtin’s removal from Vvedenskii’s influence in Petrograd and his meeting with Kagan, who studied with the Marburg School, that the influences of both are very hard to disentangle.

  51. Bakhtin mentions Cassirer warmly in his conversations with Duvakin (Duvakin and Bakhtin 2002, pp. 48, 261, 312; see also notes 31 [p. 325] and 10 [p. 364]).

  52. See his references to Kant in his earlier years (Volumes 1 and 2 of Bakhtin’s Collected Works) followed by his mentions of Herder later on (in Volumes 3, 4-1, 4-2 and 5).

  53. See also Forster (2018, pp. 303–304) and see Chapters 5 and 8 passim for a more detailed discussion of the Herder-Nietzsche relationship.

  54. Largely communicated through the Russian symbolists. A more detailed treatment is contained in Cook, ‘The philosopher masked as literary theorist: cunning intelligence (metis) instantiated in Bakhtin’s rhetorical style’ (unpublished thesis).

  55. Nietzsche is mentioned 4 times in the text of Volume 1 and 12 times in Volume 2. However, the Commentary in both volumes is saturated with references to him.

  56. For mentions of Gegen–Aufklärung, see Friedrich Nietzsche's Nachgelassene Fragmente (Posthumous Fragments) of Spring and Summer 1877 (referred to in Wokler 2003, pp. 13, 26 note 4).

  57. For example, the ‘excessively severe’ polemic between Aarsleff and Berlin in the London Review of Books (see Aarsleff 1981; Berlin 1981; Aarsleff 1982; for a commentary on the argument, see Wokler 2003, p. 20).

  58. This is heavily qualified by Lestition 2007, who believes that Norton’s position is an over-simplification that does not invalidate Berlin’s thesis.

  59. «Kogda my vybiraem slova v protsesse postroeniia vyskazyvaniia, my daleko ne vsegda berem ikh iz sistemy iazyka, v ikh neitral'noi, slovarnoi forme. My berem ikh obychno iz drugikh vyskazyvanii, i prezhde vsego iz vyskazyvanii, rodstvennykh nashemu po zhanru, to est' po teme, po kompozitsii, po stiliu; my, sledovatel'no, otbiraem slova po ikh zhanrovoi spetsifikatsii» (Bakhtin 1997 [PRZh], p. 191; emphasis added in both original and translation).

  60. «Ideia vospitaniia chelovecheskogo roda. Ideia omolozheniia chelovecheskogo roda u Gerdera. Sviaz' s problemami iazyka.» (Bakhtin 2012 [KRv], p. 249). I believe that the link with language identified here is significant.

References

  • Aarsleff, H. (1981). Vico and Berlin. London Review of Books,3(20), 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aarsleff, H. (1982). ‘Vico and Berlin’ [Letters]. London Review of Books,4, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, G., Kloocke, K., & Menze, E. A. (2009). Herder’s reception and influence. In H. Adler & W. Koepke (Eds.), A companion to the works of Johann Gottfried Herder. Boydell and Brewer: Rochester, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachtin, N. (1963). Lectures and essays. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington, IL: Indiana University Press.

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays by M. M. Bakhtin (V. Liapunov, Trans., First ed., University of Texas Press Slavic Series). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1993). Towards a philosophy of the act. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1997). Sobranie sochinenii v semi tomakh. Tom 5. «Izdatel’stvo russkie slovari iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury» : Moskva, RF.

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (2000). Sobranie sochinenii v semi tomakh. Tom 2. «Russkie slovari» : Moskva, RF.

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (2003). Sobranie sochinenii v semi tomakh. Tom 1. «Izdatel’stvo russkie slovari iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury» : Moskva, RF.

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (2008). Sobranie sochinenii v semi tomakh. Tom 4-1. «Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur» : Moskva, RF.

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). Sobranie sochinenii v semi tomakh. Tom 4-2. «Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur» : Moskva, RF.

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (2012). Sobranie sochinenii v semi tomakh. Tom 3. «Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur» : Moskva, RF.

  • Behler, E. (1996). Nietzsche in the twentieth century. In B. Magnus & K. M. Higgins (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Nietzsche (pp. 281–322). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beiser, F. (1998a). Hamann, Johann Georg (1730–88). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved April 9 2018.

  • Beiser, F. (1998b). Herder, Johann Gottfried (1744–1803). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved April 9 2018.

  • Berlin, I. (1976). Vico and Herder: Two studies in the history of ideas. London: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, I. (1981). Isaiah Berlin responds to the foregoing criticisms of his work. London Review of Books,3(20), 7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, I. (1994). The Magus of the North: J. G. Hamann and the origins of modern Irrationalism. London: HarperCollins [Fontana].

  • Berlin, I. (1998). The proper study of mankind: An anthology of essays. London: Pimlico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, I. (2013a). Against the current: Essays in the history of ideas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, I. (2013b). Alleged relativism in Eighteenth-Century European thought. In H. Hardy (Ed.), The crooked timber of humanity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, I. (2013c). Herder and the enlightenment. In H. Hardy (Ed.), Three critics of the enlightenment (Revised, 2nd ed., pp. 208–300, Vico, Hamann, Herder): Princeton University Press.

  • Blake, W. (1965). The poetry and prose of William Blake. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocharov, S. G., & Liapunov, V. (1994). Conversations with Bakhtin. PMLA,109(5), 1009–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K., & Holquist, M. (1984). Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Confino, M. (2003). Isaiah Berlin, Alexander Herzen, and Russia’s Elusive Counter-Enlightenment. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,93, 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, J. (2014). Events set in amber: Bakhtin’s ‘Chronotope of the Castle’ as solidified space–time. Australian Slavonic and East European Studies,28, 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, J. (2018). Lucian of Samosata’s Menippean satire: Its place in Bakhtin’s theoretical frameworks. Critical Theory,2, 62–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duvakin, V. D., & Bakhtin, M. M. (2002). Besedy V.D. Duvakina s M.M. Bakhtinym. «Soglasie» : Moskva.

  • Erlich, V. (1980). Russian Formalism: History-doctrine (Vol. 4). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Forster, M. N. (2017). Johann Gottfried von Herder. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (pp. 1–111). Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forster, M. N. (2018). Herder’s philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved October 5 2019, from https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780199588367.001.0001/oso-9780199588367.

  • Gollerbach, E. (1927). V. V. Rozanov. A Critico-Biographical Study. [Rozanov, Vasily. Solitaria. With an abridged Account of the Author’s Life, by E. Gollerbach. Other biographical material and matter from The Apocalypse of Our Times. Translated by S. S. Koteliansky. London: Wishart and Co.

  • Gray, J. (2012). Hamann, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein on the language of philosophers. In L. M. Anderson (Ed.), Hamann and the tradition. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith-Dickson, G. (2017). Johann Georg Hamann. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (pp. 1–35). Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groys, B. (1991). Nitssheanskie temy i motivy v sovietskoi kul’ture 30-kh godov.

  • Hamann, J. G. (1949–1957). Sämtliche Werke. In J. Nadler (Ed.), vol 6. Vienna, AT: Verlag Herder.

  • Hamann, J. G. (2007). Hamann: Writings on philosophy and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschkop, K. (1999). Mikhail Bakhtin: An aesthetic for democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Horlacher, R. (2004). Bildung—A construction of a history of philosophy of education. Studies in Philosophy and Education,23(5–6), 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivanov, V. (2000). Heteroglossia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology,9, 100–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson, I. (2006). Swedenborg, Emanuel (1688–1772). In Donald M. Borchert (ed.), Encyclopedia of philosophy (Macmillan Reference USA: Detroit). Retrieved April 9 2018.

  • Kanaev, I. I. (1926). «Sovremennyi vitalizm» , Chelovek i priroda [Humankind and Nature], 1926, 1 and 2: 33–42 and 9–23.

  • Koch, F. I. (1927). Herder und die Mystik. Junker & Dünnhaupt.

  • Kujundzic, D. (1997). The returns of history: Russian Nietzscheans after modernity (the margins of literature). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laywine, A. (1998). Swedenborg, Emanuel (1688–1772). In Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved April 9 2018.

  • Lestition, S. (2007). Countering, transposing, or negating the enlightenment? A Response to Robert Norton. Journal of the History of Ideas,68, 659–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lossky, N. O. (1952). History of Russian philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medvedev, P. N. (1978). The formal method in literary scholarship: A critical introduction to sociological poetics (A. J. Wehrle, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Nietzsche, F. (1968). Twilight of the Idols, The Anti-Christ (R. J. Hollingdale, Trans., Penguin Classics). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietzsche, F. (1999). The birth of tragedy and other writings (Cambridge texts in the history of philosophy). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, R. E. (2007). The myth of the Counter-Enlightenment. Journal of the History of Ideas,68, 635–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piskunova, S. (2014). Aerial ways: The historical poetics of the novel in the works of Mikhail Bakhtin. Russian Studies in Literature,50(4), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.2753/RSL1061-1975500405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, B. (1998). Bakhtin and Cassirer: The philosophical origins of Bakhtin’s Carnival Messianism. The South Atlantic Quarterly,97, 537–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regier, A. (2016). Anglo-German Connections in William Blake, Johann Georg Hamann, and the Moravians. SEL [Studies in English Literature 1500–1900],56, 757–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, B. G. (1998). Nietzsche: impact on Russian thought. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved March 13 2016.

  • Shklovsky, V. B. (1990). Theory of Prose (B. Sher, Trans.). Elmwood Park, IL: Dalkey Archive Press.

  • Schultz, E. A. (1990). Dialogue at the Margins: Whorf, Bakhtin, and Linguistic Relativity. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speck, R. (2014). Johann Gottfried Herder and enlightenment political thought: From the reform of Russia to the anthropology of Bildung. Modern Intellectual History,11(1), 31–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479244313000322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volosinov, V. N. (1986). Marxism and the philosophy of language.In (L. Matejka, & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • von Herder, J. G. (1877–1913). Herder’s sämmtliche Werke. Berlin, DE: Bernhard Suphan.

  • Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical investigations [Philosophische Untersuchungen] (G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans., 4th ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Wokler, R. (2003). Isaiah Berlin’s Enlightenment and Counter-Enlightenment. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,93, 13–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zammito, J. H., Menges, K., & Menze, E. A. (2010). Johann Gottfried Herder Revisited: The revolution in scholarship in the last quarter century. Journal of the History of Ideas,71, 661–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Dr. Jonathan Clarke for reading and commenting on this paper, particularly on some nuances of translation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Arts, University of Melbourne, Babel (Building 139), University of Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia

    John Cook

Authors
  1. John Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Cook.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cook, J. M. M. Bakhtin and the German proto-Romantic tradition. Stud East Eur Thought 72, 59–81 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-019-09347-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-019-09347-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation