Focus 2003.tif 10 FOCIiS on German Studin Empedokles and the Absence of Sacrifice Joseph Suglia A single thesis seems to cover the whole of the vast critical literature that surrounds Friedrich Holderlin's dramatic fragments, DerTod des E!Jpedokles: the tragic hero, it is claimed again and again, sacrifices himself in order to synthesize the previously incompatible spheres of an and narure, or heaven and earth. Commenrators of the fragments tirelessly display a kind of hermeneutic d esire [or closure and reconciliation in th eir remarks. However, in this fragmentary work-one of the titles of which announces the death o f its u'agic hero---dead1 takes place nowhere in the Space of its presemation. The absence of anything resembling a scene of self-immolation causes a certain interpretive distress. Empedokles' "suicide" is inevirably described as if it were a fait lUconlpli, despite its complete absence from the texts under consideration. Commentators continually refer to Hijlderlin's initial self-interpretive remarks in order to corroborate their well-worn thesis that Empedokles' death i55uI;:s in reconciliation, that the poet-philosoph er passes beyond death and emers imo anomer world that would surpass the world of the dead. Allhough the opening salvo of the Empedokles project does indeed end in a scene o f sdf­ sacrifice, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the succeeding texts slavishly imitate this basis. Interpretation-as Heidegger pOlmed out powerfully in d,e opening pages of SeiTl und Z~it--finds in a text what it places into it. Let us consider lh is opening moment, the effects of which still determine d,e scholarship of the fragments. In a letter to his brothet wriuen in [he summer of 1797, Friedrich H6lderlin al1uded to a project d,at sent him into transports: "Ich babe den ganz detaillienen Plan zu einem Traucrspiel gemacht, dessen Stoff mich hinreissr" (S\'(I6 247).' Tlus sketch would become known as the "Frankfurter Plan"- the original schema of H olderlin's only existing tragedy, Dtt" Tad du Enpedoklts. This original design of the "drama" will be discarded. Whereas the "Frankfurter Plan" elaborates what one might caU an "identificatory" tragic scheme, the successive modjfications of the 12 Foa/J on German SllidUs dramatic fragments undermine its grounding frame\\'Qrk. TIle reRective idealist parnos for reconciliation between the=: se lf and the world is particularly evident in H6lderlin's description of the fourth act: Seine Neider er£ahren von omgen seiner Schwer we hanen Reden, die er auf dem Aema vor diesen gegen mil aufzuhezen, das 3uch wirklich seine Statue umwirft und ihn aus def Stadt jagt. Nun reift scin Entschluss, clef Hingst schon in ihm diimmerte, dutch fceiwilligen Tad sich mit def unendlichen Natur zu vereinen. Er nimt in diesem Vorsaz den zweiten tieferen schmerzlicheren Abschied von Weib und Kindem und geht wieder auf den Aema. Seinem jungen Frcunde \veicht er :lUs, wei! er diesem zutraut, class er sich niclu werde tiiuschen lassen, mit den Trosrungen. mn denen er sein \'(Icib besinfrigt, und dass dJe5(:c scin eigenrlich Vorhaben ahnden mOchte. (SW4 148) The resolution to die would be the necessary consequence of Empedokles' theory that aU things Row together in relations of affiniry and divisivc:nes.s.l Empedokle::s would accordingly decide 10 sacrifice himself for the saltt of the idur; t'IIS suicide \1."Quld be a plu.losophical suicide. Empedokles' innermost drive, according to the "Frankfurter Plan:' is to "unify wim infinite naNre:' to b.:=come indissociably bound together with all-englobing hen kai pan, to coalesce with !.he infinite through his se1f·sacrifice. But the promise of coalescence, as announced in the originating plan of the drama, does nOt exactly result in coalescence, but rather in the self-erasing represcnratlon of coalescence. Unification will be replaced with the nmulan-u,,1 of union.' In the "rust version" (c. 1798) of DtrTod dts Enrpedoklll, however, Empedokles is continually identified with "the infinite." The infinite may be understood by what Holderlin terms in his theoretical and poetologlcal fragmentS "inteUecrual inruition" (intelkktulk AlIsrhalflm,g): an immediate relation between subject and object that eJfom the limit, suspending the distinction between them. Panthea's euphoric EHlftdokks and the Absence of Sacrifice 13 description of Empcdoklcs-that to be him is life Hsdf ("'E.r sc.lbst zu sein, das ist das Leben und wir andern sind dec Traum davon'')­ suggests that the nagic hero is already indissociable from, and has achie:ved total union with being itSeI[~ Her very name, Pan-thea, is evocative of such an immediate union. TIle desire for the realization of the tOtality of being has already been accomplished. TIle IUlm that \\!Quld circumscribe the self from the "life" that would be posited outside the self is nansc:ended. Empedokles is funher qualified as illimitable in Delia's more sober remark of admoniUOll [0 her friend that she loves the unrestricted unrestrictedly ("Den unbegrimzten liebst du unbegranzt" (SW4 7)).5 Hermokrates, the: pl1esr who functions in the "first version" as his nemesis,6 similarly identifies Empedokles with the limitless. EmpedokJes was expelled by lhe gods, I lermokcHes c1auns, "wei.! er des UlHerschieds zu seh! "ergass/lm ltbergrossen GlUck, und sich allein/Nur fUhhe" (SW4 II). Empedokles, then, who does not attend to the difference, IS much ltke the sages of whIch I ioideriin wrOte in "Die \'\'eisen abeL .. " who onl), dlfferenu21e spiritually/intellectually and, fo r me fau lt of making a purely ideal disuncoon, are victimized by nawrd Die Weisen aber, (he nur mit clem GclSte, nU f aUgemein unterschdden, eilen schnell Wied er ins reine Seyn zuruk, und fallen in cine um so grosserc J ndiffccenz, wei! sie hinlanglich unterschiedcn Ztl haben glauben, und die:: Nichtentgegensezung, auf die:: sie zurukgekommen sind. fUr cine e~ige nehmen. SIC haben Ihre Natur mit dem unterstcn Grade dcr \VukJichkcit, mit de::m Schanen der Wirklichkcil. der idealen Entgegensetzung und Umerscheltlung getauscht, und sie riidn sich dadurch ... (th e text breaks off at this point). (SW4 237) Empedokles is simL.larly punished with boundless desrirucion ("'mit griinzenloser Ode:: nun ge::strafr" (S\,{'-l 11)) for rdi,I~lng 10 recQb>ni.ze the original difference. One means of Inteq>reting this passage from Elllptdo/elu would be to consider it th rough the speCUlum of "Urthcil /Scyn." According to the logic o f Lhat text, the "I" posits itself as idetllic:tl with itsdf 14 PontI on German Stlidill only by not regarding the separation that divides it from itself. (The self posits itself as Ihe same with Itself, "ungeachret diese.r Trennung." H61derlin wrirn) For Holdcrlin, self-consciousness proceeds from Out of Ihe oppo:mion of the "1" (0 itself. By forgetting the difference. the oppesnion from wruch self·consciousness issues, the self is able to re<:ognize itself as Ihe same as itself ("ich {erkenne michJ als dasselbe',). The paradox is that me sdf IS opposed to, and yet at the same ume me same as itself, since the self posits itself as itself in the opposed ("im emgegengesezten'?- The self recognm:s itself as its own other and yet exteriorizes itself as its own double at me same rime-a paradox that is markedly Fkhrean.' Let us rerurn to the passage from EIIJpedokkI that led us down ulls path of rcReeDon. Empedokles, according [0 Hermokrates' imerpretacion, "forgot tOO much the difference," "felt himself alone," and was therefore expelled by t.he gods. To which difference is Hermokrau:s referring? The context suggesLS d1at it is the diffCIence between gods and mortals, which is certainly one of the primary concerns of aU of I lo lderlin's writing. 9 Empedokles' rransgression was (0 have presented himself as a divine figure before th e Agrigemian people and [0 have relarivized the difference by his self-deification. And yet the succeeding phrase Ctr fohb lim 1IJir It/bi/) seems [0 suggest somedUng more. "Felt himself a1one"; Empedokles, according to Hermokrates' int~retarion. on!J felt himself, and this auto--affecrion was made possible by the &Ct that he "forgot the difference." Empedokles felt himself, and this ItnJilJltnl de JOj was the consciousness of being determined by nOlhing other than himself"oas he himself claim s he is by identifying himself as "the one who is born free": "die Freigeborne, die aus sich illein/Und keines andern ist" (SW4 15). Empedokles presents himself as the absoh,lte self1'-not merely as one who was purely conscious of himself, but as o ne who was intimately connected with the sources of the natural wodd: "[fin mir/ln mir, ihr Quellen des Lebens, suomtet ihr einst/ Aus Tiefen der Welt zusammen" (SW4 14). Empedokles' aut(}oaffection was an inner experience that led to the disclosure of the sources of the narura1 world: "Es sarruneln in der Tiefe sieh, Narur,lDie QueUen deiner Hohn UDd dcine Freuden'/Sie kamen all' in meiner Brust zu ruhn" (SW4 70). Empedokles, men, felt himself unconditionally and felt himself to be the source of naruce at [he same time; i.e. he IS an idealist in the rigorous sense. ' 1 Enpedolelu 2nd the Absence of Sacrifice 15 The absolute synthesis of subject and objecf had been obtained, and yet this synthesis belongs to an inaccessible past. Empedokles' "fault," according to Il ermokr.Hes' interpretation, would be the forgemng of the separauon lh21 lies at the onglll of selnuxxi. or to pur It more gener.lllly, the inability 10 sufficiently eng2ge wuh difference-the leitmotif of much of Iioideriin's writing.n The neglect of (the) difference (between the self as subject and as object) IS what produces (social) difference-the banishment of Empedokles from the pohJ.'~ The first version of the EmjNdokiei follows the "Frankfuncr Plan" in its presentauon of a complete Uilion berween se1fhood and me world. One could say with justification, howeve r, that the last versions of tbe dramatic fragments undermine their opening tendency. The grounding framework of the project-which announces a philosophical p rogram in w hich sacri fice would lead to reconciliation-will become complicated. On first appearance, the text entiued Gnmd '?Jim EnJpuiok/lJ (1799)-which o riginated, according 10 Bci~ner, roughly at the same time as the ulird vcrsion of Dtr Tod deJ EII'fNdokkr5- seems hke a uleory or program that would elabonHc the fundamemal principles of the "drama" {but of which vcrsion or versions?).'6 11 is, however, by no means certain that one IS justified in separaung this lext from what have become known as the three extant versions of E,nptdokles. \'(Ihat appears as the author's own mterpretive statements on what he thought he accomplished in Ule first twO versions may be also read as another Instantiation of EmpttiokkI, rather dlan as an explanatory ground that should be set alongside-and hence ourside-ule "drama." After having established dle fundamemal principles of U'agedy, I ioldcdin prescnts-tn the secrion of the ( tXt cntitled Gnmd tum E,nptdokk~dlc immediate ground of Empedokles' sacrificial decision. In "pure life," I-Iolderlin writes (without giving one a means of understanding this term), narure and an,po/lirand Itchl!i, are "opposed only harmoniously" (nHr hflmlollilch tlllll!l'l§i!J (SW4 152) insofar as they are bound together by a relanon of unification and separation.17 The division between art and narure affords a reciprocal rdation Qn a manner lh:H radicaUy transforms the IVt(hJtlbtJ/il!Jfllllng herwecn the I and the Non-! in richte):'8 an fashions narure and thereby makes o f itself its "blossom" (B/lithe) and "perfection" (Vo//ol(mIlD, whereas 16 Focus on German S fudie! naUlre only becomes "divine in con junction \"itn the diverse yet harmonious art" (erst gj.itlfich durch die Verbifidl/fig mit der verschiedenartigen aber harmomIchm EGnsl). \X'hereas art (as the "organic'') gives for m to po/sis and is imposing of measure, narnre belongs [0 the sphere o f the "aorgic"-that is to say, the formless, the inuneasurable. Both pre­ representational narure and human founded-insrinnions of art exist in a relation of imerdependency in "pure life"; each complements the other, "compensating for the shortcomings of the other, which that one must necessarily have in order ro be entirely that which it can be as a particular" (enezt tUn Man§1 des andem, den tI nOJhwentiig haben muj/, 11m ga"z das '{!' J9ft, was eJ als besont/em fryn kann) (SW4 152) . Art has a compensacory function, imposing measure upon d1e immeasurable, stabilizing and imroducing conStancy, while the aorgic offers a counter­ movement that undoes constancy and measure. Thus it would seem that an has a [edressive character that seeks to o ffset the deficiencies o f nature, while an requires nature's supplementary complementation. But "pure life," H61derlin reminds us, only exists as a feeling. 1 n order for intimacy to attain the level of intelligibility, the "organic" and the "aorgic" retreat from the o rner into their respective spheres. If it is to be known, nature (which exists, Holderlin suggests, prior to all comprehension) must separate itself into d1e extremity of its unruly freedom and assume its amorphous ("incomprehensible" [des Unbegn'ijlichen],."insensible" [de.r Unfiihlbarell] (non-sensuous») character, willie an must withdraw iruo the interior space of the "organic" (the constt\.lcted), until both reciprocally exchange their fundamental properties. In terms of this differential configuration, art and narure separate themselyes into the extremity o f their murual isolation, but this antithesis leads to a reciprocal determination (IVuhIebwrkunii in a manner that is Fichtean.19 The "organic" adopts the features of its counterpart, becoming limidess and chaotic, while the "aorgic" becomes measured, constant, and constructed. 1l1ere is, then, a moment in which the violem opposition between art and narure is reconciled, and yet this reconciliation is excessive (it presents one \Vim an Ubmna.rs[-J der rnnigk£i~, insofar as me counterparts unify with each od1er so intimately that mey discard their originally differentiated form and invert d1eir relationship to the ocher: each of (he antipodes now converts i.ntO dle other, adopting its properties, and exchanges its position wid1 dle other. In the space EmpedokltJ and lhe Absence of Sacrifice 17 between the terms lies «the srruggle and the death of the individual" (der Kampf, lind der Tod des Einzelnen) (SW4 153), by which 1-16lderiin means the negation of the distinctive identity of the uagic hero. The death of the individual- siruated at the juncture be£\Veen art and namre-is the tragic medium that allows art and nature to substitute their proper ties with each orher.20 T he "aorgic" and cile "organic" enigmatically maintain their mutual exclusiviry, however: each finds itself in its coumerpart, and restores itself in d1e other. There is, then, not an absolute fusion or a simple restoration of the original intimacy. Bodl members are destroyed in their individual, self-subsistent pa(ticularity and unite not by way of a speculative, "idealistic" fusion, bm in a "real suprcme struggle" (rea/e[r] hOchIte[r] Mmpj) (SW4 153). Both rerum to their fixed determinations by passing into the othe!". The intensification of the conflict is the moment of [he "highest reconciliation" (die hiichite VersijhmmiJ in which barh members of the conflictual pair attain their individuality by way of [he division that sepawes them. Neither lose theu individual self-su fficiency alcogether; both are in relation co the difference from which they issue. The reconciliation bc£\Veen them is merely apparent, inasmuch as both interpenetrate only at the highest degree of their polarization. The umon of the pair d1l.ls proceeds out of "dle most intense enmiry" ([die] hochst[e] Fejl1dseelighj~. h would seem that H6lderlin's own description (or lIamuion) of dlC division be£\Vcen art and naUlre transforms lhe fundamental tenet of E mpedoklean philosophy that the emanations of nature are bound together by forces of affinity and dissociation. According to the logic of dlC Gmnd '.(}Jill E!IIpedokJl.'S, there is only an instantaneous and deceptive presemacion of ril e unification of opposites, however. The apparently all-unifyi.ng moment be[Ween lhe organic and the aorgic is nothing more than a TmgbilJ---a term (hat, in the eighteenth century, according to the Grimm If/dr/erbach, carried d1e connotation of a deceptive sense perception without a couesponding empirical object ("tduschende simdiche If/ahrnehmJl1{g'), and most likely served as the Herderian translation of phantom.21 Tl1e passage in question is worth citing directly: Aber die Individlla/itiit diem MO/nmfs jif lIur ein ErzeugniI 18 Focus on Gernlun Studies del hiKhiUn SlrtitI, tine AUgtnmnbtit nur on E'~p'gniI de! hOchIIlf/ Smits, so wie also die Versohnung da zu sem scheint, und das Organische nun wicderauf seine Art:, das Aorgische auf die seinige auf diesen Mom.:=nt 11m with so wild auf die Eindr\.icke des Organischen die , in clem Moment enthaltene aorgischentsprungene Allgemetnhei[ wieder besonderer, 10 tim! tltr tmlntntk Moment, U1e tin T rugbild, Iicb ImUltr mthr OUjhIt, sich dadurch, dass er aorgisch gegen das Orgarusche reagiert, immer mehe von diesem sieh elllfernr, dadurch abet und dlfrth Itinfn Tot! die kampfenden Extreme, aus denen er hervorging, Ichiinu tmOhll/lind vtninigtt, au in leinM! Ltben, indem die Veremigung nun nichl in emem Einzelnen und deswegen Zll innig ist, indem das Gonliche nicht melu sinnlich erscheint. inikm tkr gludelirht Be/rug tier Vtrtin~Jlng in tbtn dtm Grode Olffhiirt, als er zu innig und einzig war, so class die beiden EXlfeme, wovon das eine, das organische durch den vergehende.n Moment zuruckgeschreckt und dadurch in cine reincre Allgemeinheir erhoben, das aorgische, indem es zu diesem ubergeht, fur das organische ein Gegensrand der ruhigern Beuachrung werden muss, und die lnnigkett des \'ecgangene:n Mome:ms nun aUgemelOer gehalmer unter.;cheidender, klarer hervorgeht. (5\'(/4 154, emphasis mine) The slfuggle belWeen the: warring parmer.; results neimer in an indisringujshable coalescence, nor m a simple opposition. 11le Struggle: ends in a simulacrum. 11le [L-aprocal determination of each by dIe other is "like" tile: T rugbild of unification, and yet this simulacion itself dissolves and gives way to a "more pure generality." How is one to understand dUs "dissolurion"? The intimacy berwee:n the organic and the aorgic is, once more, o.Wsll't; the moment of unification C2nnOt sustain this excess and d~ not persist: the opposites are suspended and the synthesis is dissolved. TIle synthesis must become disengaged for tWO reasons. First, me intimate reconciliation of lhe spli( must undo itself, as we have seen, in order lO he known. The synthesis Emt?tdoJeIe! and the Absence: of Sacrifice: 19 must gene:ralize itsdf, If it is to attain to the level of mtelligihlhty. Secondly, the mome:nt of unification is ill!JtJlllflllll)ll! because Il may not be restricted to any finltc insmnriacion. "n,e "union" of art and nature, I ioiderlin remarks, is not reducible to a "single individual" ami is "therefore not tOO intimate, in that the dIvine no longer appears physiC2.1ly ... " Were the: synthesis to be perpetuated In the tragtc hero., the general would lose us universal character in the panicular (the "unique," the "individual',). Because the re:soluuon is of the strictest generali£}', it cannOt be resLJ;cted to the particular, It mUSt unravel itself, causing the tragic hero to perish.u Absolute unificauon, then, occur.; "like" a T no:gbiJd played ali t on the stage of the tragic dr-una through the dealh of thc mgic hero. But what is the role of the tragic figure Empedokles in relacion to lhe conflict between of the organic and me aorgic? Empe:dokles-as the "son" who "arose OUt of the: deepest oppositions" belWCen an and nature-interiorizes the IVtth$tlbesJimoJling between lhe aOrgic and the organic. Empedokles' time, f 161derlin remarks, demanded an Opftl' la vicnm, an offe:nng. a. sacrifice]. For l-Io1dedin, the: death of the tragic hero is nOt a personal sacrifice, but is effected by an epochal transformation: "So individu~ l isirt sich seine Zeil in EmpedokJes, und jemehr sie sich in ihm individualisiert, je gliinzender und wirklicher unci sichtbarer in ihm das Rathsel aufgclost erschclIlt, um so nOlhwenruger wird stin Untergang" (SW4 158). TIle tcagic hero mJividuales the simulated synthesis of 2£1 and namre, wluch inescapably results III the de:struction of the symhesis. By becoming the externa I representation, indeed, the embodiment of this synthesis, he must go under. Tn CrtI"d tUOI Empedoklts, the spaces of nature and art, dIvorced into theincommensurableness of the.ir respective spheres and umfied by lhe diffe rence that separates lhem, are phantasmally represented by lhe trngk hero through his self-annihilation. Inasmuch as uni ty is rep laced with its Trogbild, the Grund ~II!J Empedoklu counters the initial strategy of the "Frankfurter Plan," whIch presented a tragic sche.ma in which there would be an identification between subject and object through the vehicle of sacrifice. The "lhied version" of the dramatic fragments follows the inexornble logIC of this counter- movement. It is significant that the third version of the Empedoklu was written roughly comemporaneously with Der Cnmd tum EmptdoJelu, 20 FotU$ on GtrnuJn Studiu since it similarly undermines (he Fron/ifllrltr Plan's expression of a desire for an unmewated unity berween subject and object. One could say with justification mat the latest versions of the dramatic fragments undermine its opening tendency. The fundamemal per.>pecrivc: of the drama is modified in its final version with the appearance of Manes, an Egyptian who is described as a "seer" (Sthrr') and "the one who is all-experienced" (dtr Al1e1ahrne) in the "Entwurf zur Forts(:rzung dec dnnen Fassung" (S\'\I4 168). As onc whose consciousness embraces aU modes of temporality, Manes effectively undermines Ihe foundation of Empedokles' sacrificial project.2l In the strange colloquy that ensues berwecn tbnes and Empedokles, questions that pertain ro identity are answered only equivocaUy. \'('hen Empedokles asks after the identity of the Egyptian Stranger (,'Was? woher? Wer bist du, l\[annl" (SW4 133», 'Manes identifies himself with Empedoklcs' race (the mortals) and thus designates Empedokles as mortal-that is, as one who is capable of dying: "Dec Armeo Einer auch/Von diesem Stamm, em Sterblicher, wie du" (Ibid.). Empedokles responds by declaring that he is dead to the living. and that the d~d rise to meet him. He thus refers to Manes as a phantasm, the appantion of one who has died: "Kein Wunder ists! Seit ich den Lebenden/ Geslorben bin, erstehen mir die Toelten" (SW4 134). Manes' response suggestS mat EmpedokJes is absent from the pla ce of the dead C'Die Toelten reden niChl, wo du sie fngst" (Ibid.». By declaring mat the world of me dead is not dle space of his questioning, Empedokles' role as a sacrificial figure is anulled in Manes' speech. And by referring to his voluntary assumption of d~th as a "black sin" (schwal".(! Sunde), Manes calls into question the basis of EmpedokJes' sacrifical decision. Empedokles appears in the dialogue as a "false priest" ifalscher Plies/ery (SW2 120}-lO refer to the langue of "\'(fie wenn am Feienage ... "-but sin is perhaps not reducible to moral negacivity, and falsehood is perhaps nat reducible 10 error.2' T h roughout the dialogue, Empedokles' decision to immolate himself is rendered problemar:ic.:!5 h remains profoundly ambiguous, for instance, wherner EmpedokJcs' decision to sacrifice himself is an exercise of freedom. To what extent is Empedokles' decision to sacrifice himself a "right" mal IS expressive of the freedom of me Em/>ldokks and lhe Absence of Sacrifice 21 will? Manes asks if Empedok1es is the only one who has the "right" {R«h~ - and in this term resonates Empedokles' earlier declaration of me right to deadl ("Denn sterben will ja ich. Mdn Recht ist diG" (SW4 122». 11lere is a ccnam ruscontinuity in 'he dialogue between me represe:ntation of sacrifice as the result of voluntarism lmd as act mat will have been motivated by a thoroughgOUlg causal determinism. Manes' description elides lbe voluntary character of his self-sacnfice and suggestS an aLmost mechanistic determinacion: "Der Tod, der jihe, er ist ja von Anbeginn,/Oas weisst du wohl, den Unversl:i.ndigen/ Die deinesgleichen sind, zuvorbeschiedell" (SW4 135». According to Manes, at least, Empedokles is following a supt:rvcnient appeal that is pre-determined and that does not permit the intervention of subjectivity. Hence EmpedokJes follows allQll/u In a manner similar to Ajax in the first and second versions of "Mnemosyne": "Mil eigencr Hand/Vicl U'aurige, wilden r-.·Iuts, doch gottlich/Gczwungcll ... " (SW2 194 and 196). Suicide is an act mat is submissive to the laws of divine necessity, and yet the remark that succeeds (hiS description suggest:> that Empcdokles' death has been voluntarily appropriated: "Ou willst es llnd so seis!" (SW4 135). According ro Manes' lnteprl!tation, men, Empedok1es willfully assumes a death that is prescnbed to hun and that is his right in a manner that InVlteS compallson widl Ihe tenth of Schelling's Philo!Ophurbe Bntft. I t becomes dIfficult at uns point 10 assen wiut any degree of cen3.1nty Ulat EmpedokJes IS one whose death is either utilJed or 'Onemem and impossibility of dying. The fr.tgmenrs concern the failure of sacrifice, the failu re (0 make of sacrifice a project, to make of death a possibility over which the will could dispose. Empedokles' suicide-which never arrives, is never presenlcd-ncver quite serves the function of communicating the union of subject and object, which in "Urtheil/Seyn" is named "being as such;" "absolute being," and "inlellecrual imuirion." In lieu of a suicide, a void. Norlhwtstlrn UtIIL'tf1lfy NOI:es I All references in parentheses are to Holderlin, Siimtli(bt IVtr.u (5\'(1). The \"Olume number IS given first, then the page number. Z On Holderlin's appropnation of the hlstoric:al Empedoklcs' theory of dements. sec ll6lsehcr. J For inrcrpretlltions that concern Lhemselves WIth thc alleged speculauve and dialectical dimension, of Empcdokles' deSire to conurut suicide, see Lacoue-Labarthe and SOnng. • For a diSCUSSion of the Cluesrion of H6ldedin's aUeged pantheism, see Holscher, passim. ~ For a rCVlSion of {hiS vcrse III a dllliogue beN'een Empc:doklc:s and Empttioklu and the Absence of Sacrifice 2S Holderlin himself, see Saeger, 430. Holderlin is made to say lO hiS creanon: "Unbegrenzt hebt ich dlch/Unbcgren:tten." 'The name " Ilermokr.ues" is derived from a rather minor char:actcr in the Pbtonic TimtU.It'sand en/ias. For the theSIS [hat Hcrmokr.Hes is Identifiable WIth Hegel, see Poggeler, 108. 1 For a diSCUSSion of "Ole Weisen t.ber ... " m relation to dlC Empttlok1u fragments, see Laplanchc, 109. • For a very lucid exposHlon of lhlS paradox, sec Neuhouser, 114-15 , For a discussion of [his matter, see Corssen. In ThiS is no doubt a refen:nee to the Fifth Promenade of Rousseau (a refercnee (hat would require a separ.ue study to elaborate upon), which, as Paul dc Man has argued, IS of some moment for the Holderhn of "Ocr Rhem." Cf. De Man, 38. For a discussion of the ostensible 'Rousseauean' charactensties of the EmfXMkkl fragments, see Link. 11 C( Bmder, 67-8. 11 On lhe quesuon of auto-t.ffecuon til Holde[lin, see VblkeL lJ Aecordmg to Laplanche, there are twO eCluaUy lcgitim:nc and nonetheless contradictory loterpre1ll00nS of Empedokles' fault; onc can either m:l.1Imun, WIth philological Justific:nion, thai Empedokles' Sin w:as to have "forgotlen the difference" (:as Hermoknnes claims) by haVing desired 10 mtegrate himself \\.'Ith the totality of being, and, with equal justificanon, that he "severed the sacred aUi:lIlce" by "[hinkmg of himself alone" (as Empc:dokles says III his soliloquy). Cf. Laplanehe, 107-8. .. It should be emphasized that Empedoklcs' expropriaLion and expulsion from the city by Hermokrates and the Agngenoan people is rdated secondanly to his sclf-prcsemation lIS one who "forgOlthe difference." cr Constanune, 141. 15 Bel£lner claims that the "Grund :tum Empedokles" orib'ln:atcd at the earhest III August or Septcmber 1799 (SW4 371), and dlat the tlmd vcrsion was composed at the earliCSl1ll September of the same year (5\'(/4 362). 10 Indispensable to my 11lterprct:mon of the "Grund "lum Empcdokles" is Lawrence Ryan's magistenal sl1.ldy I-loldtrlins uhrt IJ()NJ Wed}sd dt, Tone. 11 According to Corssen, dle [elaoon of separation and unificauon between art and nature conforms to I ioiderhn's descripuon of the tragic prolect in the "remarks" that ..... ere appended to his comrovc:rsml OUJipllf uanslarion. C( Corsscn, 142. II For a useful discussion of IFubselbtJfll1lm'lIlg ("'reciprocal determination'') III Flchte, see Waibel. 19 '117«hsdDirkM",!,' is, of coursc, a Fichtean term. For an account of tlus procedure in Fichtc, see Koch. )Q Gerhard Kurt Identifies thc desc[ipuon of Empedokles' suicKie III this passage WIth the tr2gic figu[e that "= 0" III "Ole lkdeumng derTragOdicn." 26 FO(JU 011 German SIJldiu cr. Kurt, 200. 21 For me etymology o f rhe term ''Trugbild,'' see Grimm, 1257. Xl For a discussion of me sacrifice of me uagic hero in relation LO the disjunctive synthesis beNlceo an and nature, see Szondi, 18. 2J Cf. Cornelissen, 109. 14 Cf. Ibid., lOS. n This point made very forcefi.,Uy by Kacherina Gcatz in her Otr 1 17~ ZlIm Lmtexl: EditiOllJk.rilik. lIr1d NeNdition WII Friedrkb Ha!tkrliIlJ 'D!r Tod dts Empedok1u. 'Cf. p. 21. 26 Cf. Cornelissen, 108. n Compare the original draft of the text: "Geh! fi.ircllte niehts! es kehrct alles wlcder/Und was geschehcn soU, ist schon geschehen" (SW4 671). 21 Wilhelm Ot!rhey was probably the fim to identify the "miracle" in this passage with Empedokles' sacrifice. C f. Dihhey, 414. 2'J Klaus Rudiger Wohrmann addresses the temporal discrepancy berween both draftS. Cf. Wohrmann, 54. JO Cf. Cornelissen, 10-1-5. J I 1 derive the phrase "absolute right to interrogation" from Foucault, 83. 11 See me text entitled by BeiRner "Obcr Werden Un Velgehen" (SW4 282- 87). Works Cited Binder, Wolfgang. " Hal&::r1ins Diehtung im Zeitalrer des Idealismus." Hdkkdin jahrbll(h (1965/1966): 57-72. COnStantine, David. HOidtrUn. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Cornelissen, M. "Ole Manes-Szene in Holderlins TrauerspieJ Dtr Tod du Emptdok.ks." Holdtrilll jahrbuch (1965/ 1966): 97-109, Corssen, Meta. "Di~ Tragodie als Bcgegnung zwischen Gon und Mensch: Hblderlins Sophokles-Deutung." Haldu/in Jahrbuch (1948/ 1949); 139-87. de Man, Paul. "Tht: Im3ge of ROllsseau in Holdcrlin." Tht Rhetoric oj &manliciJm. Nt:w York: Columbia U P, 1984. 19-46. Dilthey, Wilhelm. DIJI Eruhnis IIlId dj~ Dichfllllg: Lm illg, Gotthr, Nova/iI, Holder/in. leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1905. Foucault, t.,{ichel. ' 'The Father's 'No.'" La"guage, COlOllttr-lI-lunory. Practice: Stucud EsU!]I alld lnfm·ieWI. Ed. Do nald E Bouchard. Trans. Bouchard and Sherry Simon. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977. 68-86. Gritz, Kamerina. Dtr 1t7t,g ZIIm Un/txt: EditiollJkrilik und Nellditioll vo" EmbulukleJ and th e Absence of Sacrifice 27 Friedrich Hbldlr/i,,:S Vtr Tod des EI1Iptdolelu.' T libingen: t.hx N iemeyer Verlag, 1995. Grimm,Jacob and Wilhelm. DellJifhtJ lt7orurbllch. Volume XJ, Part J, Section I. Leipzig: Hirzel. 1952. I ialdcrlin, Friedrich. Samtbche Welke: Grolk Smngancr Ausgabe. Ed. Friedrich Bellner. Stung:m: Cotta-Verbg, 19-16-1985. Holscher, Uvo. Empcdokles und H6lderhn. Frankfun/I\fatn: lnse!, 1965. Koch, Reinhard Friedrich. Ficlues Theorie des Scl bstbewu!1tseins: lIue Entwieklun g von den "Ei!,>nen !\(eJltationcn (iber ElememarPhi!oso phie." 179} bis wr "Neucn Bcarbeitung der Wissenschaftslehre" 1800. Wiirtburg: Konighausen and Neumann, 1989. Kurt, Gerhard. Minelbarkeit und Vereinigung: Zum Vcrhaltnis von Poesic, Reflexion und Revolution bei Holdcrlin. Stuugart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuehhandlung, 1975. Lacoue-Labarthe, Phillippe. "The CaeslIr:l of [he Speculative." Trans. Raben Eisenhauer (modified). Typography: t. lllllesis, Philosophy, Politics. Ed. Christopher Fynsk. Cambndgc: Harvard U P, 1989. 208-35. Laplanche,Jean. H61der)jn Ct Ie question du pere. Pans: Presses universitaires de France, 1961. Link, J urgen_ "Schillers Don Carlos und Holderlins EmpedolJes: Dialckrik der Aufkiarung und heroiseh-politische TngOdie." Elementare Literatur und generauve Diskursanalyse. Miinehen: \X1ilhelin Fink Verlag, 1983.87-125. Neuhouser, Frederick. Fiehu:'s Theory of Subjeeovll)'. Cambndge: Cambridge U P, 1990. Paggeler, Ono. Hegels Idee einer Phanomeno[ogte des GCiSlCS. Freiburg: Aber, 1973. Ryan, Lawrence. Holderlins Lchre vom Wechsel der Tone. S{lJ\lgan, W. Kohlhammer, 1960. Saeger, Uwe. Empedokles. T heatertexle 2. Ed. Peter ReIChel. Berlin: Henschel, 1990.351-452. Soring, Jurgen. Die Dialektik der Reehtfertigl.lng: Obcrlegungen 2U Holderlins Empedoklcs-Projekt. Frankfurt/Main: Athenaum, 1973. Szondi, Peter. Vmllch iiberdaJ "frugudJt. Frankfurt/f"llain: Insel, 196 \. Volkcl, Frank. "1m Weeh.sel des Uneils und Seins: Zu (,ich te lind Holderlin." Srin-Rrjkxioll--Frtihtil: ASptlUI dtr Phi/oJophil joballll GOltli,h Fichlti.. Ed. Christoph Asmuth. Amsterdam: Gruner, 1997. 95-111. Waibel, Violetta. "Wechsclbesommung: Zum Verhaltnis von Holdedm, 28 FotU! 011 German Sludiu Schiller. und Fichte in Jena." Fkhfe-S/lldim 12 (1997): 43-69. \'(lohrmann, Klaus Riichger. Holtkrlins IPillt zur Tra§idit. Munchcn: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1967. Revolutionare Frauen - T herese H ubers Sara Selclorf und Marie von Ebner-Eschenbachs~ [arie Roland! Sabine Sievem Bctr'.Ichtet man die Darstellungder Franzosischen Revoluuon und ihrer Folgen in der deutschen Liccratuc, so 1st cine auffallende Zentrierung der Handlung um cineo manntichen Protagonisten zu crkennen. Dies uiffr umer andercm auf Georg Biichners DankmI Tot! (1835) und Christian Dietrich Grabbes Napoleon oder die HIII/dm Toge (183 1) zu. Allcrdiogs lib!c die Franzosische Revoluuon auch auf Autorinnen, dercn Werke sich auf cine weibliche J-Iaupdigur konzentriercn, ihrcn Reiz aus. Nicht nm stelll Therese Huber mit de r fikriven Sara Seldorf eine Frau in den Miltelpunkt ihres Romans Die FaHlilieStldoif (1795·96). dervor clem Himergrund der Franzosisehen Revolution den Untcrgang der Familie Seldorf bestlueibl. sondern ,meb Marie von Ebner·Eschenbach sazt sich in ihrem Dram:1 Marie Roland (1867) mit einer weiblichen, auf historischen Tatsachen basierendcn Haup[figur auseinander, namlich der Fuhrerin der gironclislischen Fraktion, Marie Roland.! In diescm Beitrag soil dementsprcehend die Da rstellung der Franzosisehen Revolut.ion und das revoluuona re Verhallen de c Pwtagonisnnncn von dec weiblichen \'(Iartc aus Ulltcrsudll werden. \'(Iiihrend bc[eles zahlre.iehe Untersuchungen zu Hubers Roman ex.iscieren, die Die Fa71li/ie SeldfJrj auch im Zusammenhang mil andcrcn \\lerkcl1 ve rgleicbend analysieren, wurde bisher nur wenig zu Marie J?olalld publizien und cin Vcrgleich dec heiden Werke blslang nicht in Betracbt gezogcn. Es stellr sich die Frage, ob durch diese Schildcrung der Fram:osischen Revoluuon, ungeacht(:[ der umersehiedlichen Genres und des zeitlichen Ahstands zwischen den heiden Wcrken, ein (: einheiwche DarsteUung dec R(:volunon elHsteht. Ode[ fiihe( ein Vccgieich der beiden Frauengestalten und illIes r(;voluuonaren Verhaltens trotZ des gemcinsamen Themas der Franzosischen Revolution Zll