Cover not available
Part of
Literature as Dialogue: Invitations offered and negotiated
Edited by Roger D. Sell
[Dialogue Studies 22] 2014
► pp. 251–270

Early Romantic hopes of dialogue

Friedrich Schlegel’s fragments

Published online: 7 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.22.13lej
References (42)
References
Aristotle. 1983. Physics: Books III and IV. E. Hussey (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beiser, Frederick. 2003. The Romantic Imperative. The Concept of Early German Romanticism. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Walter. 1996. The Concept of Criticism in German Romanticism. In Selected Writings, vol. 1 (1913-1926). M.P. Bullock, ‎M.W. Jennings (eds.). Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Blanchot, Maurice. 1969. “L’Athenaeum”. In L’Entretien infini. M. Blanchot (ed.), 515-527. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bubner, Rüdiger. 1995. “Von Fichte zu Schlegel.” In Innovationen des Idealismus. R. Bubner (ed.), 140-152. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Dali, Salvador. 1971. Oui, vol 2. Paris: Denoël/Gonthier.Google Scholar
Frank, Manfred. 1996. “Wechselgrundsatz. Friedrich Schlegels philosophischer Ausgangspunkt.” In Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 26-50.Google Scholar
Granger, Gilles Gaston. 1988. Essais d’une philosophie du style. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
Hegel, GWF. 1971. Phänomenologie des Geistes,Werke 3. E. Moldenhauer, K.M. Markus (eds.). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
. 1971a. Berliner Schriften, Solgers nachgelassene Schriften und Briefwechsel, Werke 11. E. Moldenhauer, K.M. Markus (eds.). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
. 1971b. Hegel, Vorlesungen über Ästhetik , Werke 13. E. Moldenhauer, K.M. Markus (eds.). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
. 1971c. Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie , Werke 20. E. Moldenhauer, K.M. Markus (eds.). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hüsch, Sebastian. 2013. “When Phiosophy must become literature: Søren Kierkegaard’s Concept of Indirect Communication.” In Sell, Borch and Lindgren 2013: 213-228.Google Scholar
Lejeune, Guillaume. 2012. “Towards a pragmatic semantics: Dialogue and Representation in Friedrich Schlegel and Schleiermacher.” In Dialogue and Representation. A. Létourneau, F. Cooren (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2013. Sens et Usage du langage chez Hegel. Du problème de la communication de la philosophie à celui des philosophies de la communication. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Leventhal, Robert. 2007. “Transcendental or Material Oscillation: An Alternate Reading of Friedrich Schlegel’s Wechselerweis 1795-1797”. In Athenäum: Jahrbuch für Romantik (2007), J. Hörisch, M. Frank, G. Oesterle (eds.), 93-134.Google Scholar
Novalis [ = Georg Philipp Friedrich Freiherr von Hardenberg]. 1997. Philosophical Writings. Margaret Stoljar (ed.). New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
Plato. 1973. Phaedrus and Letters VII and VIII. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Schanze, Helmut. 1999. “Das romantische Fragment zwischen Chamfort und Nietzsche: über einige historische Widersprüche im Fragmentbegriff bei F. Schlegel und Novalis.” In Über das Fragment. A. Camion, W. Drost et aliquid (eds.), 30-37, Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
Schelling, F.W.J. 1856 [1800]. “System der transzendentalen Idealismus.” In Sämmtliche Werke. K.F.A. Schelling (ed.). Stuttgart, Augsburg: Cotta.Google Scholar
Schlegel, Friedrich. 1958. “Wissenschaft der europäischen Literatur”. In Kritische Ausgabe. Vol. XI. Ernst Behler (ed.). Paderborn: Schöningh Verlag.Google Scholar
. 1963. “Philosophische Lehrjahre (1796-1806).” In Kritische Ausgabe. Vol. XVIII. Ernst Behler (ed.). Paderborn: Schöningh Verlag.Google Scholar
. 1964. “Philosophische Vorlesungen (1800-1807).” In Kritische Ausgabe. Vol. XII. Ernst Behler (ed.). Paderborn: Schöningh Verlag.Google Scholar
. 1964b. “Philosophische Vorlesungen (1800-1807).” In Kritische Ausgabe. Vol. XIII. Ernst Behler (ed.). Paderborn: Schöningh Verlag.Google Scholar
. 1966. “Studien zur Geschichte und Politik.” In Kritische Ausgabe. Vol. VII. Ernst Behler (ed.). Paderborn: Schöningh Verlag.Google Scholar
. 1971. Lucinde and the Fragments. Peter Firchow (trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
. 1974. “Charakteristiken und Kritiken I (1796-1801).” In Kritische Ausgabe. Vol. II. Hans Eichner (ed.). Paderborn: Schöningh Verlag.Google Scholar
. 1985. “Briefe von und an Friedrich und Dorothea Schlegel. Die Periode des Athenäums (1797-1799).” In Kritische Ausgabe, Vol. XXIV. R. Immerwahr (ed.). Paderborn: Schöningh Verlag.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst. 1998. “Vorlesungen über die Lehre vom Staat.” Kritische Gesamtausgabe , vol II-8. Walter Jaeschke (ed.). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Vorlesungen über die Dialektik.” Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol II-10,1. Andreas Arndt (ed.). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sell, Roger D. 2011. Communicational Criticism: Studies in Literature as Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sell, Roger D., Borch, Adam and Lindgren, Inna (eds). 2013. The Ethics of Literary Communication: Genuineness, Directness, Indirectness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siebers, Johan. 2013. “The Utopian Horizon of Communication: Ernst Bloch’s Traces and Johann-Peter Hebel’s Treasure Chest .” In Sell, Borch and Lindgren 2013: 189-212.
Taylor, Charles. 1979. Hegel and Modern Society. New York, Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Todorov, Tzvetan. 1977. “La crise romantique”. In Théories du symbole. Todorov (ed.), Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Vigus, James. 2009. “Transzendentalpoesie bei Friedrich Schlegel im Vergleich zum Begriff ‘philosophic poem’ bei Coleridge.” In Friedrich Schlegel und Friedrich Nietzsche: Transzendentalpoesie oder Dichtkunst mit Begriffen. Klaus Vieweg (ed.), 133-143. Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
. 2011. “The Romantic Fragment and the Legitimation of Philosophy: Platonic Poems of Reason.” Leopardi Centre website, University of Birmingham. [URL]
Wehrs, Donald R. and David P. Haney (eds). 2009. Levinas and Nineteenth Century Literature: Ethics and Otherness from Romanticism through Realism. Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2009. Language as Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Rainer. 1986. “Zur Erkenntnis Funktion des Fragments. Friedrich Schlegel und Novalis.” In Zeitschrift für Aesthetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, 30-43.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.