Heller1979 PDF

Georg Lukács and Irma Seidler
Author(s): Agnes Heller and Etti de Laczay

Source: New German Critique, No. 18 (Autumn, 1979), pp. 74-106
Published by: New German Critique
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/487851 .
Accessed: 11/02/2015 23:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to New German Critique.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
GeorgLukdcsand IrmaSeidler*
byAgnesHeller
"Kierkegaard createdhisrelationshiptoRegineOlsen,"writes Kassner,

quotedbyLuktcsinhisimmortal essayonKierkegaard. AndGeorgLukacs
also createdhisrelationshipto IrmaSeidler.He createditandrecreated it
again and again.He createdit and recreated it according to therulesof
"Platonic"conduct:through theprism ofothers'fates,others'works,others'
"forms."Virtually everyoneofthepiecesinTheSoulandtheFormsissuch
"The essayon Philippeismaturing
a recreation. strangely,"henotedinhis
diaryon May20, 1910."It seemsthiswillbe themostgenuineIrma-essay.
The lyricof its presentstage . . . Thus the truelyricalserieswill be
completed:George, Beer-Hofman, Kierkegaard,Philippe.The inter-
relationoftheothersismuchlooser;Novalis:themoodofthefirst meeting;
Kassner:Florence,Ravenna;Storm:letters from Nagybanya." AndonMay
29 he wrote:"The essayon Ernstwillbe an essayon Irmaas well."
GeorgLukacsrecreated hisrelationshiptoIrmaSeidler.Yet,innoneof
theessayscanwediscover evena singleobjective similarity.There-creation
oftherelationship oftheexploration
consists ofthe possibili-
relationship's
werewhatLukacsthought
ties.Thesepossibilities (andlived)outaccording
to therulesof "Platonic"conduct.Thesepossibilities are daydreams, or,
moreaccurately - rationalvisions,thedreamsandvisionsof"whatcould
be if," "what could have been, if." In thesedaydreamsand visions,
however,theOtherisonlya vagueshape,an indefinite object,theonlyreal
beingis theone whodreams.
These dreamsare addressedto Irma,butIrmais notpresent in these
rationalvisions.Throughtheprismofhis"Platonic"stance,theauthorof
the essaysbearswitnessto his ownpossibilities. Kierkegaard exists,but
*In thisessayI've reliedon thefollowingmanuscripts,recoveredfroma Heidelberg

banksafe in 1973:thediaryofGeorgLukacs(April5, 1910- December16,1911);notesand
thedraft ofa letter
byLukacsfrom1908;drafts
oftwoletters
byLukAcs fromthespringof1910;
letterssentbyLukAcsto IrmaSeidlerin 1911;andletters
writtenbyIrmaSeidlertoLukcs,
July- November 1908andJanuary- May1911,plusthecorrespondenceofLukicswithLeo
Popper1910-1911. TheLukfcsquotationshavebeentakenfrom thefollowing
essays:Rudolph
Kassner,SorenKierkegaard and RegineOlsen,StefanGeorge,Charles-LouisPhilippe,The
Metaphysics of Tragedy,Aesthetic andOn Poverty
Culture, inSpirit.
74

andIrmaSeidler
GeorgLuktics 75
RegineOlsendoesnot;inStorm'slife,consecrated toduty,thebelovedwife
is onlyan anonymous to
accessory theethicalconduct oflife;thelovesof
Novalisaremerely symbolsofthepoet'searthly norisPhilippe's
fulfillment;
MarieDonadieumorethan"greatlove's"drill-ground forJean,theactual
hero.("Mariewasforhimmerely a courseinself-knowledge;hisdutydone,
he is nowfreetowalkhisownpaths.")In theessayonGeorgenowomanis
presentat all, onlya man"who does notwearhishearton hissleeve,"
passingfromloneliness throughlovebackintoloneliness.
All individuals- insofaras theyare capable of reflection,insofaras
theycanmaketheirhumanrelationships theobjectoftheirthinking - ina
certainsense"create"theirrelationship withOthersandcontinue recreating
it. In the lightof latereventscertainincidents of thepastgainspecific,
symbolic meanings; othersdisappearintheabyssofforgetting; indifferent
gestures are filledwiththejoy of mutual or are
recognition; they gradually
swallowedupinthethickauraofsorrow anddisappointment. And,ifsome-
thing is over once and forall, is there
anyone who would not questionthe
factsagainandagaintosee whether theywere indeed thefactsof necessity?
Is thereanyonewhowouldnotthinkthrough thepossibilitiesagainand
again with the or of In
logic illogic daydreams? portraying
wish-fulfilling a
base life,poetryturnswhiteintoblack.Thepoetaloneremains whiteon its
eeriescreen.In portraying a noblelife,poetrycontinually transforms the
composition, not thecolors.All individualscreateand recreate human
their
relationships. But thiscreationis mainlyaddressedonlyto oneself.It is
painful or beautifulonlyforoneself.
"Kierkegaard - writesKassner- createdhis relationshipto Regine
Olsen, and,ifa Kierkegaard createshislife,he doesnotdo so inorderto
conceal,butrather thetruth."
toarticulate IfLukicscreatedandcontinually
recreatedhis relationship to IrmaSeidler,he did notdo it in orderto
conceal,butalso in orderto articulate thetruthbecausehe had a truth,
whichwasnotaddressedtohimself alone,whichwasnotpainful orbeautiful
forhimself alone."
When he dreamtand thoughtout the "possibilities represented by
Irma," he was not thinking out the contingencies derivingfromthe
"accidental"meetingof two"accidental"entities. BoththeI-heroof the
essaysand their object
non-objectified are investedwithsymbolic, stylized
meaning. The I-herois always the creative,form-generating man in a
chaotic,prosaic,lifeless,culture-forsaken world.The objectof desireis
alwayslife,or moreaccurately, thelifeto be created."In life,desirecan
onlybe love" - theobjectofloveis theobjectofdesireinlifeandforlife.
But can lifebe created?Or - to ask thesamequestioninreverse- can
therebe an organicpathfromlifeto thecreatedwork?Can thecreative
individuallive a genuine life?Is it givento the creativeindividual to
experiencelove and being-with-others, thehappinessof humanfellowship?
"Last nightI feltagain: Irma is life" (diary,May 8, 1910). In his work
Lukics stylized the "possibilities representedby Irma" into symbolic

76 Heller
events.Duringtheirfirst correspondence, whichbeganharmoniously, he

consideredthepossibilities
oflifetogether, marriage, companionship: the
essayon Stormsawlight, bearingwitness tothefactthatlifecanbe created,
thatcreativeworkcan blossomforth froma lifeconsecrated to a calling.
Aftertheirbreakup,he wrotethe essayon Kierkegaard, in whichthe
creationoflifeprovesto be a futile,
ship-wrecked endeavor.The essayon
a of
Philippe, masterpiece proud renunciation, is writtenin thefearand
of
hope meeting again.Great lovemust be ascetic- thecreativeindividual
musttouchlife,butonlyinorderto transcend it.Each essayis an attitude;
variousattitudes.
variouspossibilities, But the questionlevelledat the
variouspossibilities
andattitudesis alwaysthesame:howcancreation take
place? How can forms be generated in a chaotic,prosaic, culture-
lifeless,
forsakenworld?
The truththatLukacs wishednotto concealbuttoarticulate
is contained
inthisquestion.Lukacscreatedhisrelationship toIrmaSeidlerso thatinthe
process ofthat creationhe might formulate thisquestion:thevitalquestion
foreverysignificant, conscious, creative individualofthebourgeois world:
theproblemoftheviability ofthe"createdwork"inthefirst decadeofthe
20thcentury.
"Last nightI feltagain:Irmais life."All individuals "create"their
relationship to Others and continually recreate it. If this creationis
addressedonlyto oneself,ifitis painful orbeautiful only foroneself, then
the formsof re-creation are infinite, and its colorsand compositions
innumerable. But ifsomeonecreateshisrelationship to theOtherforthe
of
purpose articulating a truth, which is notpainful beautiful
or foroneself
alone,whichisnotaddressed tooneselfalone,thentheforms ofre-creation
arefinite,and thecolorsandcompositions arefinite.Then,fromthenon,
thegeneralproblemdefineseventheprivate dreams,andeverything inthe
relationshipof the two individualsgains symbolicsignificance. The
boundary linesbetweenthediaryandtheessaysbecomeblurred. Whathas
theonedrawnfrom theotherandviceversa?Did LukAcs composehisessays
in thewayhe did becausehe had composedhisrelationship to Irmain a
givenmanner, orwasitthereverse? Did hecreatehisrelationship toIrmain
a givenmanner becauseinhisessayshehadgivencertain answers tothevital
questionsof theever-present I? Whatwas primary here- theforms, or
life?Whatformed what?Did thehumanrelationship form thephilosophy,
or did thephilosophy formthehumanrelationship?
"But as it is now,metaphysically, I am absolutely faithless,
homeless,
etc. In reality,however, I amfaithful andearthbound. Bynow- because
intheultimate humaninterrelations manactswiththemetaphysical essence
of his being(well named: ens realissimum)- everyonetreatsme as though
I wereunfaithful, while(in reality)I am likea faithful
and unfortunate lover.
- It was withIrma thatall thiswas most evidentlyso" (diary,May 11,
1910). The "I" is doubled; spontaneity is lostinsofaras itremainsincognito;
the "metaphysicalI," the stance of the "I" of the essays is the "ens

andIrmaSeidler 77
GeorgLukdcs
realissimum"; theindividual/personal arecircumscribed

possibilities bythe
philosophicalpossibilities. The conduct of the individual becomes--
willingly or unwillingly - theexpression of thefinite, symbolic forms of
conduct. Lukacscreatedhisrelationship toIrmaSeidlerwithhisphilosophical
"I"; he alignedhislifewiththetruth ofphilosophy.
Everyphilosopher mustliveouthisphilosophy; theun-lived philosophy
isno longerphilosophy. Butthisphilosophy - thephilosophy ofcontradic-
tionbetweenlifeand"createdwork"- couldnotbe livedoutwithout the
consequence of life inthe
beingship-wrecked process. Life avenged itselfon
formbyconforming totheprinciples ofthisform.IntheessayonPhilippe of
1910,theherostridespastthatstageofhisfateinwhichwoman- life-
stillcouldplaya role,inthefollowing manner: "Desirehadmadehimhard,
strong. He, who had permitted the woman to departsobbingwordlessly,
annihilated,trembling in pain, now gainedluminousstrength forthe
renunciation. ... Forhehaddestroyed thewoman'slife,hadhenot?"Life
avengeditselfon philosophy byhideously realizing it.
And LukAcsknewthatlife'srevengewas morethanrevenge:it was
judgement. In hisdialogueOn Poverty in Sprit,he identified sinwiththe
intermingling of castes. The manof forms must notattach himself tolife.But
theun-lived is no
philosophy longerphilosophy. And in The Theory ofthe
Novela motif emerges which had alreadybeen implicit in allthequestions he
hadposedtotheworld- themotif ofthecreation ofa new,genuine, inter-
personallife.A lifewhichovercomes thedualism ofthe"empirical" andthe
"metaphysical," a lifewhich- as ThomasMannsaid- willagainprovide
an existential basisforart.
The dreamsofTheSoulandtheFormswereaddressed toIrma,butIrma
wasnotpresent inthesedreams.Theauthor oftheessaysborewitness tohis
ownpossibilities, to thepossibilitiesofhisown"metaphysical I." ButIrma
SeidlerwasnotRegineOlsen,wholivedhappily untilshedied.Kierkegaard
couldcreatehisrelationship toRegineOlsen;andhecouldcreateitina way
thatposterity couldonlyseek- andfind- thepossibilities ofthephiloso-
pher's"I" inthisphilosophical creation.RegineOlsenis truly onlya non-
objectified object,a beingtransformed intosymbol, whodoesnotintrude
intothestorywhichis notherstory, butthatofthemanwhohadgivenher
symbolic form.But IrmaSeidlerwasnotRegineOlsen,wholivedhappily
untilshedied.Shewasnottheheroineofphilosophical parables.Sheputan
end to thephilosophical parablesonceandforall withthefinalgesture of
suicide.It was she,andnotthephilosopher himself, whothrew intodoubt
andmadethephilosophy ofTheSoulandtheFormsequivocalwiththisfinal
gesture.Andwithherdeath-leap sheearnedherright tosharethisstory. Not
merelyas itsobject,butas itssubjectas well.

78 Heller
ACT ONE
G. firstmetI. inDecember,1907.Itwasinthemidst ofa noisycompany

thathe noticeda femalevoiceofunusualtimbre; he setoutafterthevoice,
movingfromroomto roomin searchof itsownerand foundher.The
unwritten lawsoftheirsocialclassdidnotpermit themtomeetfrequently.
Altogether theyspent no morethan a few hourswithoneanother. I. wanted
tobe a painter.On May28,1908sheleftforFlorence.G. followed herwitha
friend.AmongG.'s papers,therearethefollowing notes:"Twominutes on
thetrain,twobeautiful moments as wecrossthePonteVecchio.""Saturday,
June6. S. Croce and S. LorenzowithIrma.We buypictures. Bargello.
Alone intheevening;one kissinthedark."Theyreturned toBudapeston
July1st.A fewmeetings. AmongG.'s papers,thedraftof theessayon
Kassnerwiththefollowing inscription: "I readpartofthistoIrmaon June
28, 1908on SvabHill.Afterthat,I sawheronlytwice."On July1st,I. left
forNagybainya,* to studypainting.AmongG.'s papers,thereare the
following notes, dated betweenJuly1-3: "Scruples(marriagewouldbe
.
impossible). .I was preparedformalaise,fear,themellowing effect
of
happiness, fearthat I mightnotbe able to orient
myself ina more broadly-
based life."
FromJuly1 through October,correspondence. On October25,I.'s first
letterto suggestbreakingofftherelationship. November2, I.'s second
break-off letter.AmongG.'s papers,a draftofa good-bye letter:"I must
writenow,nowwhenyouwillonlyreceivetheselinesalongwiththenewsof
mydeath. . ." I. marriedR.
ACT TWO
In March,1910,G. senttheHungarian editionofhisvolumeofessaysto

I.R., accompaniedby a letter.The draftof theletter,addressingheras
"MostesteemedMadam,"survived among G.'s "This
papers. trulycannot
obligateyouto me inanymanner, foritis I whoamobligedtothankyou,
withthemostsincereandmostdeeplyfeltgratitude andaffection,
forevery-
thingyou havedone forme,for everything you havebeento me,forwhat
- nameofa smalltowninHungary
:''NagybAnya andtheartists'
colonywhichflourished
therefrom1896onwards.In contrast to contemporary academicpainting,theNagybanya
colonydevelopeda distinctive
naturalistic
stylewhich borrowed muchfrom inits
impressionism
treatmentoflightbutstoppedshortoftheatmospheric dissolution
ofform.Thecolonyhosted
manystudentsas well as accomplished artistsfromall over Europe duringthe 1910s.
- Trans. note

GeorgLukdcsandIrmaSeidler 79
youhavemadeofme." I.'s answer:"Dear Gyuri,* myheartfelt thanks for

thebook. . .Sinceregreetings, IrmaSeidler,R."
The diarybeginswithApril,1910.
"There'strouble. I amthinkingonlyofher;shecouldhelpme"(April27).
"To remember one eventwithheris morethana lifeto be spentwith
another"(May 8). "But, in thatmostgeneralsense,everything is 'over
betweenus.' Betweenus,yes.Butfrom metoher,no.Andfrom hertome,
who knows?"(May 14). "Irmawillhavesomething to do withtheend"
(June1). "Strange, I knew herfor a
barely year, andhow longittookmeto
learnwhatshereallymeantto me" (June21).
G. decidedtodedicatetheGermaneditionofhisessaystoI. Dedications
drafts."I placethisbookinyourhands,foryouhavegivenmemorethanI
couldpossiblyrecountinit;everything thatI haveacquiredandwon.And
even if you do not need, even if you willnot suffer thisexpression of
gratitude, it will still fall
silently upon your head like faded flowers in
autumn"(May14). "In memory ofmyfirst in
days Florence." "I entrust this
book to thehandswhichgaveitto me."
Fall, 1910,G.'s letterto hisfriend, itseems,are
L.: "The difficulties,
greaterstillwithIrma. I saw a sketchofhersfora fresco.. . . It is as though
Nagybainyaand R. neverexisted.Andwithher...this is a bad sign- in
termsofhermarriage. The factthatsheis comingto Budapestthiswinter
whileherhusbandis to stayin Nagybinyais onlya symptom ofthis....
Luckyfor me thatbythe timeshewillhave I
arrived, shall
be faraway,that
by nowI look uponthiswhole with
affair simple human compassion - so
muchso thatI could even be herwell-meaning friendifit werenotso
dangerous(forher),which,ofcourse,is whyitwillnotbe."
ACT THREE
January,1911,G.'s letterto I., in whichhe askedherto acceptthe

dedicationfromhim. "You know...why thesewritings were written,
becauseI cannot writepoems, and youknow againwho these 'poems'are
addressedto, and who awakened them inme." "What I wishtoaccomplish,
onlyan unattached mancan accomplish."
I.'s answer:"Thankyou forretaining so muchwarmth forme. I am
proudthat I had somethingto do withtheproductionof sucha book- or
thatyoubelievethatI had. I am also gladthat,as itturnsout,I readthe
Hungarianeditioncorrectly."
March,1911.G. andI. meetforthefirst timeinalmostthreeyears.G.'s
lettersto hisfriend,L.: "Irma is hereand we've meta fewtimes,and so farit
*
Gyuri- affectionate
termforGeorginHungarian.After theircorres-
Irma'smarriage,
pondencetakeson an appropriate whichisnotreflected
formality, use
intheundifferentiated
of"you"inEnglish.- Trans.note

80 Heller
seemseverything isover.ButIrmaisimmensely unhappy. It'squitecertain

thathermarriage istotallyandhopelessly bad." "Whatever harmshedidto
meturnedoutwellformeintheend- heresheisinnocent. Thefactthatit
was evenworseforher- thisishermisfortune." "I've chattered on about
myself too long,perhapsinyoureyes,suspiciously long."
I.'s twolettersto G., sentbymessenger in March,1911."But I must
absolutely speakwithyoualonebeforeyourtrip...and don'tleavebefore
we'vehada chancetospeakwithoneanother. Greetings, Irma.Pleasesend
an answertomother.""I wouldverymuchliketospeakwithyoustill....
And I wishyoulovelydays.. . . God be withyou,Gyuri, yourtruefriend,
Irma."
I.'s lettertoG. inFlorence, April19,1911:"Mydeargoodfriend Gyuri,
whydon'tyoueverwritemea line?Pleasewrite, mydearGyuri, forI amas
alonehereas a stray dog."G.'s answertoI.: "Therefore, I begyoutoplease
understand: itwasquitewonderful thatwemetagaininBudapest,andwhat
revivedbetweenus,I sense,is buta beginning .... ButI amhappytobe
alone. It's not thatI wishyou bothaway- butI wishmyself to be by
myself."G.'s letterto I. sentfromFlorencetoBudapest:"At timesI fear
youdon'twritebecausethings aren'tgoingwell.Thiswouldpainmedeeply,
forI knowthere'slittle,almostnothing, I coulddo foryounowincaseof
trouble.Butstill,perhaps...." I.'s lastlettertoG., April28: "Something
mustbe understood all overagain.In everyrespect."
April- May1911:I.'s briefrelationship withG.'s friend, H. Inbreaking
off,H. appealsto thesanctity offriendship.I. commits suicide.
On May 24, G. makesthefollowing entryin hisdiary:"No one is so
miserablethatGod cannotmakehimmoremiserable. I didnotknowthis.
Everybond is broken,forshe was everybond.And nowthereare only
sharedgoals and thingsand work,forshe was everything. Everything.
Everything. Everythought I broughttoherwasa flower, anditsjoyandlife-
valuewerethatitwashers- and thatperhapsshe'dsee itanddelight in
it. ... It no longermatters nowwhether ornotshewantedme.Ifonefeels
thiswayaboutsomeone,he mustalwaysbe ready.He mustwaitbyher
doorstep,andperhapsonce. ... Onlyinthiswaycanhebecomeworthy of
whathe feels,onlyinthiswaycanheearntheright tobe human.I havelost
myrightto life."
3.
"The gestureis unequivocal,onlyinsofar as all psychology

is conven-
tional"- writesLukicsinhisKierkegaard essay.
In theworldofconventions everygestureis unequivocal, clear,trans-
We knowwhata kisssignifies,
parent,intelligible. we knowwhata love
ora warmsqueezeofthehandatthegate,or.if
lettersignifies, wedancewith
thesame personall nightat a ball,or a serenadeunderthewindows;we

GeorgLukacsand IrmaSeidler 81
knowwhata bethrothal or marriage signifies;we also knowwhatmarital

infidelity The
signifies. significance of individual gesturesis regulated by
institutions andcustoms.Ifthegesture issincere, therecanbe nomisunder-
standing;the onlysourceof misunderstanding is deceit,butdeceitalso
presupposesknowledge of the significance gestures:it is theabuseof
of
thesesignifications. Butthesignificance ofgestures remains unequivocal for
all that;indeed,deceitconfirms theirunequivocal meaning.
Subjectively, Kierkegaard did notparticipate in theworldofconven-
tions,his psychology was notconventional. But in his approachto and
estrangement from another human being, nevertheless
he utilizedthis
conventional setofcustoms. He wasbethrothed, andhebrokehisbetrothal.
AlthoughRegineOlsenmight havesenseda uniqueness concealedin the
a
gestures,uniqueness which couldnot be describedin terms ofpsychological
conventions, shecouldjustas wellhaveinterpreted themaccording to the
significations ofsacrosanct custom. According to conventional signification,
breaking offan engagement definitivelyconcludes a relationship.Thismay
be painful, but,inthelastanalysis, according to the rulesof custom italso
signifiesfinality and freedom regained.Regine Olsen wasa childof conven-
tion,therefore shecouldmarry andlivehappilyuntilshedied.
Butwhathappensifthecustoms losetheir validity? Whathappenswhen
neither ofthetwopeoplehavea conventional psychology? Indeed,whatif
neitherof themhas accessto a system ofinstitutions and customs whose
could
significations helpinterpret the Other's actions andgestures? And, at
thesametime,whatifneither ofthemhasaccesstoa system ofinstitutions
and customsto help interpret theirownactionsand emotions? Can two
people meet at all inharmonious, mutual understanding, ifallexistinginsti-
tutions and their significations embodyfor them a contemptible,
unacceptable quotidienbanality, iflifeturnsintopurechaos,fromwhich
they riselike two solitary mountain peaks?Can onesoulreachanother ifit
experiences only itselfas genuinely existent?
The fated-togetherness ofGeorgLukacsandIrmaSeidlerwasrootedin
theirlonelyrejection oftheconventions. Andprecisely becauseofthis,their
being-fated-for-each-other could never become living-for-each-other.
Both Georg Lukacs and IrmaSeidlercame frombourgeoisJewish
familiesin Budapest- the formerfroma financially prosperousand
growing family, thelatterfroma waningone. The "socialexistence" into
whichtheywerebornwerestrongly repugnant to themboth.Theywere
disgustedby the mustyatmosphere of thehomecontaminated by petty
deals,calculations, self-seeking andtheconventions ofmoney.Thiswasthe
lifeinwhichtheywereraised,andtheybothfeltstrongly thatthislifewas
somehow"not genuine."The home,thefamily, theinstitutions - they
wereall inauthentic. Theywerebothstrangers amongtheirown.LukAcs
fledinto"purespirit," helearnedtobreathe theheadyairofphilosophy. To
theirrelevant conventions whichrepresented chaostohim,hecounterposed
purespirit, the"createdwork."TherootsofIrma'srebellion wereassuredly

82 Heller
ingoodness;shecouldnotbearthesightofsuffering, andshesuffered from

thelackofthemeanstoheal."WhatshallI do?Imagine, a lovely,
youngand
talentedwomanaccustomed tohunger - isn'tthismonstrous! WhatI can
do to help her amountsto zero" (July26, 1908). "I was tremendously
delightedwiththe10 Forints, whichI rushedto theL's; theyimmediately
bought some paintand food.In thefallyouwillreceivea smallsketchfrom
thembecauseI cannotgivethemthemoneylikethiswithout askingfor
something in return"(August2). At thesame time thisconsiderateand
goodperson felt in
uncertain the of
atmosphere "purespirit" which,for her,
wasnotso heady,butrather rareindeed.Sheyearned forpalpable,sensual
reality,for nature. She writes confidently:"We have both,I think,
in
surpassed veryhealthy fashion,a perhapsoverly theoretical
stage.I
through nature, and you through positivehistory,through studyof
the
Marx." In 1919 - had she lived- Irma Seidler would certainlyhave
consideredas her vocationthe organization of summervacationsfor
proletarianchildren.
Thiswas therootofGeorgLukacs'and IrmaSeidler'sfated-together-
ness.And yet,thisbeing-fated-for-each-other
couldneverbecomeliving-
for-each-other.
Can one soul reachanotherifit experiences onlyitselfas genuinely
Can twopeoplearriveat understanding-each-other
existent? ifeveryword
and gesturebetweenthemcarriessignificanceonly in- ifthe
and-for-itself,
institutions
andcustoms do notoffer
atleastsomebasisfortheinterpretation
ofgesturesandwords?Or,toinquire isa purely
further, uniquerelationship,
freeof all regulation,createdfromthevoid,at all possible?
triesandtriesagain,andtriesincessantly
Lukracs tomakehimself
under-
stood by Irma Seidler,to make herunderstandthebeingthatis specifically
him,whoisnooneelse,buthim."Love" hasnomeaning. Itisa banalword.
"I missyou"has no meaning.It,too,is a banalexpression.
Whatmustbe
madeclearto theOtheris whatitmeans(formeandonlyforme) to love,
whatitmeans(formeandonlyforme) tomisssomeone.Buttoarticulate
thequestion"What does itmeanthat," . . . thisrequiresan entiresystemof
categories.AndLukacsborrowsthissystemofcategories
fromphilosophy.
Personalfeelings
arenotarticulated
intheconventional
significations,
they
gain theirsignificances
fromLukacs philosophy.Froma philosophywhose
essence and systemof categoriesare inaccessible
to Irma.Everyword
becomesambiguous, everysentence misconstruable.
Desirelosesitsobject,
andthe"I" becomesa construct."Makingoneselfunderstood"turns intoits
ownopposite.ThemoreLukacswishestorevealhis"I" toIrma,thedeeper,
the more impenetrable his incognito
becomes."Thereare people who
understandand do notlive,and thereare otherswho liveand do notunder-
stand. The firstkind can never reallyreach the second even thoughthey
understandthem,and thesecond can neverunderstandanything, butthen,
thatcannot be importantforthemin any case because theylove or hate,
tolerateor willtolerate,and thecategoryofunderstanding does notexistfor

Georg Lukdcsand Irma Seidler 83
them."Lukaicswrotethisin March1910to IrmaSeidler,analyzing the

failureoftheirrelationship. Lukaicscreatedhisrelationship toIrmaSeidler,
and continually recreateditthrough theprismofhisphilosophy. For this
analysisisinfactphilosophical poetry. "Irmaislife."Themanofphilosophy
understands theexistential being,theexistential beingknowshowtolivebut
does notunderstand themanof philosophy. Thusfarthepoem.But the
reality is this:no mancanmakehimself understood through theprism ofhis
philosophical categoriesalone. No one cangrasp what is But
intangible. the
realityis this:Irmawas not"life"- notinthephilosophical senseofthe
word.Nordid shemerely wantto live,shealso wantedto understand the
Other;however, theOther'sself-clarification wasincomprehensible toher.
The realityis this:Lukacsdidnotunderstand IrmaSeidlerbecausehe also
wantedto understand her withphilosophical categories,and the living
personwithitslivingdesirescannotbe understood through thephilosophy
withwhichLukaicswishedto understand it.
"You wishedto saveme- I thankyou.You wishedto saveme,butI
cannotbe saved. . . . You haveventured uponan impossible task,andyou
haverealizedthis,haveyounot,orrather, lifehasmadeyourealizeit,life,
whichlovesthosewhoknowhowtolive,andhatesthoseofmyilk"(Lukics'
good-bye letterto Irma, November-December, 1908). "Irma...the
woman,theredeemer"(diary,April25, 1910)."ButperhapsI couldhave
savedher,ifI hadtakenherbythehandandledher"(diary,May24,1911).
Rescue, redemption, grace- these are the categorieswithwhich
described hisrelationshiptoIrmaSeidler,whether inthedialogueof
Lukbacs or in hismonologues. Irmawishedto save him.Irma
misunderstandings
wishedto redeemhim.The redemption failed,and he retreatedinto
solitude.Had Irmatruly understood him,thenhe wouldhavepartaken of
grace.In themystical senseoftheword,graceismerging withtheOther. But
Irmacouldnotsavehim.Andaftertheterrible end,therolesareapparently
reversed:it is he whoshouldhavesavedIrma.It is he whoshouldhave
redeemedIrma,buthecouldnotsaveher,couldnotredeemher,forhehad
notpartaken ofthe"graceofgoodness"(On Poverty inSpirit).Buttheroles
areonlyapparently reversed. Be hesavedorsavior,redeemed orredeemer,
it amountsto thesame: it is he whomustpartakeofgrace, eitherto be
redeemed,or to be capableofredeeming theOther.
"I go toprovemysoul" - wastoquoteBrowning wellafterthe
conclusion ofourstory whenheLuka.cs
wasresearching theconduct ofDostoievsky's
heroes."I go to provemysoul"- thisis the"challenge"ofthoselivinga
lifelesslife,thosewhodo notwishto livebythenormsofcustom, butstill
hopetogainsomeinsight intotheirown "I to
viability. go provemy soul" -
LukAcswishedto "prove"his own soul, his ownhumanviability in his
relationship toIrmaSeidler.He didnotwishtolove,hesought He
certainty.
did not expectlove, but ratherthissame certainty, proofof his own
authenticity, redemption, grace.Thatis,thiswashisquestatthistime.This
is whatthewords"love" and "I am loved"meantto him.

84 Heller
ButtheydidnotmeanthesametoIrmaSeidler.
"DearestGyuri,godbe withyou,writeandloveme,Irma"(August14).
Irmawantedneither tosavenorredeemtheOther,as shealsoneverwanted
to be savedor redeemed.She simply wishedto loveandbe loved.Butshe
was loved!Or, perhapsnot?Whatdoesitmean,"to love"?
Butwhathappens
parent,intelligible. when two peoplemeet, neither
and of
themhasaccesstoa system ofinstitutionsandcustoms whosesignifications
couldhelpinterpret theOther'sactionsandgestures? Can theystillinvest
withthe same significance thatsimplephrasewhichsubstantiates and
resolveseverything, which the
expresses beginning and the end of every-
thing,whichjoinssoulto soul:"I loveyou"?
WhatdiditmeanforIrma"to love"?
"You writethatthedifficult paths(in work)mustalwaysbe walked
alone. Butperhapsitis stillpossibleforanother tosee everystep.I see the
valueoftwopeople'sbelonging together in that one isnotalone.In thatall
sortsofdifficulties,
losses,disappointments can be so muchbetterborneif
thereis another,ifsomeoneholdsone's hand"(August5). For Irma"to
love"meanstoaccepttwofold solitude."To holdone'shand"isforIrmathe
gesture ofearthlylove."Back then shemight havefeltthatI couldsaveher
fromhertroubles,thoughshedidnotloveme. ButperhapsI couldhave
savedher,ifI hadtakenherbythehandandledher"(diary,May24). The
"receiver"ofLukacs'souldidnotinterpret theoffer of"holding hands"as
love("she didnotloveme"). Forhim,"holdinghands"wasthegesture of
rescue,notof love,butofgoodness."For theunionof soulsthereis no
marriagebed."
For Irma,thesymbolic "holdinghands"meant"to love,"forLukacs,
redemption meant "to love." They bothlove, but neither feelsloved.
Becausethewords"I loveyou"meansomething differenttotheoneandto
theother.
GeorgLukaicsand IrmaSeidlerwerebothstrangers amongtheirown.
Neitherofthemfeltthatordinary lifewas"genuine."Thehome,thefamily,
theinstitutionswereall inauthentic.Butwhatcouldtheycounterpose toall
this?
Lukaics- theunmediated meeting ofsoulsinthestateof"grace."But
the pure,unmediated meeting of souls couldonlybe momentary. "The
possibility,the one-time actualizationof a -
possibility says Eckhart -
meansitseverlasting reality.
Metaphysically, time does not exist.And the
momentwhenI was I is trulylife,fulllife;and yet,the'moods'which
permeateall of lifeare only'momentary.' Here,too, thesamedreadful
ambiguity. Is thisnotfrivolous,
as well?In otherwords,theoldproblem -
wheredoes HjalmarEkdalbecomedistinguishable fromNovalis?"(diary,
May11). Lukicsdoesnotsparehimself thecruelty oftheclear-sighted, truly
noble individualagainsthimself;indeed,wheredoes HjalmarEkdal
become distinguishablefromNovalis? Where does the conventionalized

egotistbecomedistinguishable fromthepoet fearlessly experiencing his

death?AndhowcantheOther's"receiver" notregister theveryambiguity
of whatis problematic and ambiguousforthe"I" itself.How couldthe
Otherdistinguish thesetwointertwined How coulditnotsee
possibilities?
- justifiably,too - thefearoftheover-refined, conventionalized egotism
in thestanceof"hoursinlieuoflife"?
The meeting ofsoulsinthemoment, hoursinlieuoflife- thisiswhat
Lukacscounterposed to the"lifelesslife"oftheeveryday world.Butwas
thisalso Irma'sanswer?Was thisalso Irma'schoice?
Irma'svisitto theFerenczys": "Theylivea lovelylife.... Theirlifeis
trulynot ordinary, but a noble,warmand simplesomething builtupon
immeasurable richness. It is a higherform ofexistence" (August5). Irma's
choice:lifeinsteadofhours.Butnottheordinary life,rathertherealization
ofa "higherformofexistence."
Irma'schoice:habitable institutions.
Notinstitutions furnished withthe
banal furniture ofcustom,butthosewhichprovidecomfort and warmth,
those whichcreatenew meaning,thosewhichcan be replenished with
authentic life.
But, can privately inhabited be created?Is therea private
institutions
language? Are private customs possible? twopeoplemakea world?
Can
Lukacs could not understand Irma'sanswer, forhenecessarily sawfalse
illusionin all this.Because he knewthatprivatelanguageand private
customscannotexist.He knewthattwopeoplecannotcreatehabitable
institutions.
Whereculture islacking,thehabitable isan "island"
institution
atbest.Andevenifhelookedupontheseislandswithlonging, andevenifhe
heldtheauthentic lifeorganized on theseislandsofhabitable to
institutions
be exemplary, he stilldidnotwishto liveinWilhelm Meister'smarvelous
tower."Irmais life"- andLukcs didnotwantthislife.
"Thereisno marriage bedfortheunionofsouls."Didn'tthepromise of
thefuturelie inIrma'searthly dream,after all?
Strindberg - andmanyothers afterhim- havewritten ofthemanand

thewomanwhotorture eachotheruntilall mutualunderstanding
burnsup
intheheatofhate.Buthasanyonewritten Thebreath-
theanti-Strindberg?
takingdramaoftwosoulsinsearchofone another? Whenall truegestures
become ambiguous,all understanding - misunderstanding, when the
wordsthataresaidcausepain,andtheunsaidwordsevenmoreso,whenwe
are able toexpresslessandless,whenself-revelation becomesintroversion
untilfinallyfaithis silenced,andthesoulsare alienatedfromone another
withthefinality offate?Has anyonewritten thisdramayet?
one oftheprincipals
*KarlFerenczy(1862-1917), andteachers
at theNagybfnya
artists'
colonyanda professor
at theHungarianAcademyofFineArtsafter1906.

I.'s Letter
to G. fromNagybdnya
ActOne: Hope
July3, 1908.I havereceivedyourletter,

"butI amstillnotfrightened
by
thethingsyousayin it. But then- mydearGyuri,listento me: do you
believethattwopeoplecangrowtoward oneanothergenuinely,notsuperfi-
ciallybutsincerely,
withoutanypain?... Afterwegrewso veryclosetoone
another,I sensedthatsomething ofthissortwasboundtocome.ButI was
notafraid.I treatthewholethingas somenoblework,something whichone
does withcourageousintegrity,innobility."
Act Two: BetweenFearand Hope
July17,1908."I amafraid- andat timeslikethisI feelverylonely-

thatyoumissme,andmissmeonlywherethoughts andworkareconcerned,
inthatdomainwhichisyours, andmine,butwhich isnottheonlydomain there
is. No, don'tbe angryforthesethoughts, whichI can barelyexpress...it
shouldmeannomoretoyouthanthatthereissomething I cannotexpress...
I loveyouverymuch,youknowthat,butoneshouldsayso again,anyway."
August2. "As forwhatyouwriteregarding thetwoofus,I haveonlyone
reply,dearGyuri,I havebeenthrough somuchdisappointment. Therehave
beenmenwholovedmewell,andtheywereallcowards. Theywereafraid of
me. And nowyou,too,are afraid.I wanta greatlove,theloveofa noble
man.You grantme this."
August5. "At times...it seemsas thoughsomething hashappened with
youinrelationtome." "Letter-writing iswretched.""Love meandunder-
standeverything well.I wasunableto saywhatI thought. I believewecan
reachone another,butno, no moretalkofthis.I loveyouverymuch."
August 14. ". . .we so verybadlyneed a day together,a lovely,sunny
andseriousday,witheachother."G. shouldvisither;ifitdisturbs
hiswork,
he shouldnotcome."But ifyoucan,ifyouarenotafraid,thencome,for
sure."
August29. "I onlyknowone single.. .methodforyourcominghere.
And thatis: openly,withparentalpermission,
withtheexpresspurposeof
visiting
Nagybanya andmyself."
September2. "It is mylasthopethatyoumight comefromBudapest.
Openly."
Act Three:Despair
October1. "Duringthesummer somewhat

youexplained tome
cruelly
in long, painfullettersthatwe ultimatelycannotmake each otherhappy.
But at the time,all these thingsyou were sayingbouncedoffme. .. And

nowthereactionhassetin,anditweighsheavilyon me."
October25. "Gyuri,wespentmuchtimetogether. ... Butwewerenot
together withevery partof ourbeing. We werenottogether whereI havemy
mostwretchedly humancoreof blood and pulsating fleshwhichlivesin
tangiblethings.. . . And todayI willdiscontinue thiscombative together-
nessbecauseI oftenfeel,toa degreethatwillbrooknoargument, thatthere
arethings inwhichthemostincisive anddeeppsychological analysis,as well
as thepeculiardelightthatgoeswithit,are uselessforme,becausethey
cannotsubstitute forfunctions of thesoulbutremainmerelyintellectual
pleasure.""You nevertoldme- and I certainly neverknewbecauseI
alwayshadamplereasontopresume theopposite- I neverknewwhether
or notyoureallyconsidered livingourlivestogether. Anddespitethefact
thatyouhaveneversaidyouwanteditso,I askyoutodaytoreturn myfree-
dom,whichperhapsyounevertookfrom me- whichyoualwayshesitated
andfearedtotake.I nowreclaim it.You knowthatI'vegonethrough a great
deal ofpainto buildup mystrength so I couldwriteyouall this.""God be
withyouGyuri,I bidyougoodbye,becausewe cannotgo on together."
November 2. "MydearestoneandonlyGyuri,I ampacking andcoming
to Budapest.. . . I wanttospeaktoyou.To speaktoyouandmakemyself
understood. Ifthereisstillsomewaywecanreacheachother.I wantustodo
so. Andifnot,I shallstillremaindevotedtoyouforever, andI shalltakemy
leave intheknowledge thatthewarmth ofmyentiresoulwasyours,andI
shall alwayswatcheverystepyou takefromafar.The onlythingthatI
urgently, deeplydesire,ifwemustpart,isthatwedo so notwithbitterness,
butwithmagnanimous and tendersentiments - gently."
The lastrendez-vous sheexpecteddidnottakeplaceat thattime.
There is resigneddespairand provocative despair;the provocative

is an
despair always expectation ofmiracles. Irma Seidler'sdespairwasjust
such an expectationof miracles.The goodbyeletteris ambiguous.The
wordsspeakofbreaking up,butthepassionthatrisesfromthewordswith
elementalforcecarriestheoppositemeaning. IrmaSeidlerwantsonething:
thedefinitive
theultimatecertainty, answer.The certainty ofbreaking up,
thecertainty - or,themiracle.IrmaSeidlerexpecteda mircale,
offailure,
and, whenitdid notcome,she challenged it. Perhapsthefinality ofone
thecertainty - or,themiracle.IrmaSeidlerexpecteda miracle,
offailure,
force.Perhapsthefinality of "no" is theonlywayto attainthefinality of
"yes."
IrmaSeidler'sdespairwasthedespairofexpecting miracles. Perhapsshe
wasnotevenexpecting a "big"miracle, butonly"small"miracles. ("We so
badlyneed a day together.""My lasthopeis thatperhapsyoucan come
fromBudapest.")Butthe"small"miracle isas mucha miracle as thebigone,

88 Heller
to expectmiracles.
and itis fruitless Theycannotbe forced.The one who
receivedthe letterhad no "ear" forthesecretmessage.The ambiguity
carrieda singlemeaning forhim.GeorgLukicswasa proudman,andthe
proudmanhas no feeling forthistypeofambiguity. Andso thelastcryof
despair("If thereisstillsomewayforustoreacheachother,I wantustodo
so.") was in vain. Onlyone alternative - the
remained,one certainty
certainty of failure,whichwas thefailureoftwopeople.The lastrendez-
voussheexpecteddidnottakeplaceat thattime.
IrmaSeidlerlovedGeorgLukaics, lovedhimas hewas.Shelovedhimfor
thesame reasonsthatanyone,whoreallyloves,loves- becausehe was
exactlywhathewas.Andyet,IrmaSeidlerwantedthismansoterribly much
to be differentthanhewasinhisrelationship toher.IrmaSeidlerexpected a
miracle.But,thesoundoftrumpets willcausethewallsofJericho
tofall,and
life-givingmannawillfallfromheaven,beforea significant individualwill
act contraryto theprinciplesof his own individuality.
"You too are afraid"..."if you are not afraid"..."you always
hesitatedand feared"- IrmaSeidlerexpectedthebiggest miracleofall:
shewantedthemanshelovedtobe unafraid.
GeorgLuktcswroteinhisdiary:"To expectmiracles is alwaysthesign
ofcrisis.As longas thereisnodifficulty,
onecanhavefaith inmiracles. And
theywillcome.Buttheexpected isalwaysimpossible"
miracle (June6, 1910).
The expectedmiracleis alwaysimpossible. Butwhatdoes itmeanto
"have faithinmiracles"?CouldIrmaSeidlerhavehadfaithinmiracles?
Faithisalwaysdirected towardtranscendence. To havefaithinmiracles
meansthatwehavenotpartinthemiracleitself. Themiracleisexternal -
In
grace. thehavingoffaithinmiracles thereisnotime.Wecanhavefaith in
miraclesthroughout ourlives,andwe canneversaytheywillnothappen.
Thatwouldbe lackoffaith.
To havefaithin anotherhumanbeingmeansto consider theOtheras
transcendent, to knowfromthe startthatthereis no relationship, no
reciprocity.Everything proceedsfrom theOther.TheOtheristhesubject.I
theobject- I am subjectonlyinsofar as I havefaithintheOther.
But Irma Seidler'srelationship to GeorgLukcs was anything but
religious;forher,a relationshipmeantreciprocity,theconstant dialogueof
twohumansouls.IrmaSeidlerdidnothavefaithinGeorgLukcs, andthat
is whyshe had thestrength tojudgehim:"You. . .alwayshesitated and
feared."
IrmaSeidlerjudgedGeorgLukics,andyet,shewantedto provokea
miracle.But a miracleis justas mucha religious category as faithis; the
provoked miracleis a paradox.And to to is
appeal paradox alwaysthesign
of despair: "but to expectmiraclesis alwaysa signof crisis"- thesignof
impotence; the sign of failure. Irma Seidler's good-bye letter was
ambiguous, but the one who receivedthe lettercould have no ear forit
because he was, suchas he was. To tryto provokea miracleis already,in its
own paradoxical fashion,an admissionoffailure.

andIrmaSeidler 89
GeorgLukdcs
The soundof trumpets willcausethewallsofJericho to fall,and life-

giving manna willfall from heaven before a man, who fears, ceasestofear.
"Scruples (marriage would be impossible)...I was preparedfor
malaise:fear,themellowing ofhappiness,
effect fearthatI might notbe able
toorientmyself ina morebroadly-based life"(Lukic'snote,July 1-3,1908).
GeorgLukaics wasafraid ofIrmaSeidler, buthedidnotfearforlife,rather
forhis work."WhatI wishto accomplish onlyan unattached mancan
accomplish." "I feel more and more strongly that the reallyimportant things
happeninsolitude .... I experience solitude as a great'redeeming' joy,not
as a resignation tobeingexcludedfromlife,butas thediscovery oflife,my
life,the life in which is
everything adequate."(Letters of G.L. to I.S.
and
January April,1911)
"Last nightI feltagainthatIrmaislife"- butGeorgLukAcs wasafraid
of thislife."Greatlove is alwaysascetic.Thereis no difference between
elevating the beloved to the of
height heights and so alienating from
her
oneselfas wellas herself, andusinghersimply as a stepping stone"(Lukacs'
on
essay Philippe).
In theory theremaybe no "difference" betweenthesetwoattitudes, but
Lukics was a refined and honorable man. He knew thereisa difference. And
he chosethefirst course.The figure ofIrmabecamesymbolic forhim,and
he chose this symbolictransformation: "Strange how littleI feltthe
necessity, in Leo and Irma's case, of their and
being-with-me being-for-
me. .... Theirbeing-here was sufficient" (diary,November30, 1911).
Lukics transformed Irma Seidler into a mythicalfigure,into the
unobjectified object hiseternaldesire.He hadfaithinIrma,(as Irmadid
of
nothavefaithinhim),andhecouldhavefaithbecausewhatwasessential for
him,work,was notbeing-with-her, butherexistence initself.
GeorgLukacswasafraidofIrmaSeidler.He fearedforhiswork,andhe
fearedheras he wasa refined andhonorable man.Ofthetwoattitudes, he
chosethefirst. HefearedIrmabecausehefearedfor Irma;hedidnotwantto
transform herintoan instrument. "Whatever Kierkegaard did,he diditin
ordertorescueRegineOlsenforlife."RegineOlsenwasa childofconven-
tions,andshemarried andlivedhappily untilshedied.ButIrmaSeidlerwas
nota childofconventions, andatthesametime,shewasunabletohavefaith
in miracles.She triedto provokea miracle,and simultaneously provoked
fateagainstherself.
GeorgLukicswasafraid ofIrmaSeidler, buthedidnotfearforlife,rather
fearedforIrma.Thisfearwasofhisessence;andyetIrmawanted himnotto
fearbutstillbe himself andremainhimself. Irmaexpecteda miracle, butthe
miraclenevercame.Irmatriedtoprovokea miracle butmiracles willnotbe
provoked.All ourliveswe canhavefaithinmiracles; faithknowsno time.
But miraclescan onlybe provokedin time,and onlywiththegesture of
finality.And Irma Seidler - the second time around- foundthe only
gesturein whichfinality final,thegesturein which
becomesindissolubly
thereis no moreambiguity.

90 Heller
Lukacstriedandtriedagain,andtriedincessantly tomakehimself under-

stoodbyIrmaSeidler,tomakeherunderstand thebeingthatisspecifically
him,who is no one else, buthim.Everypersonin love does this.Every
personis a uniqueentity,and everypersonin love wantstheOtherto
perceivethisuniqueness.Thisis whathe wantsto reveal.Thisis whathe
wantsloved:"I wouldloveto be loved".. ."thatI might be seen."*- Is
therea moreelementary needthanthis?
Butweknowthatwordsarenotenough.Weknowthatourvocabulary is
poor,and,ifevenitwerea thousand timesricher, wewouldstillnotbe able
todescribewhatweareandwhattheOthermeanstousbecausethesethings
are indescribable.
The significance
parent,intelligible. ofindividual gesturesis regulated by
institutions
andcustoms.We understand one another, butis itoneanother
thatwe understand.Wecomprehend the"signs."Butarewecomprehending
thesignsofhumanuniqueness? In theworldofconventions uniqueness isan
obstaclesinceonemustconform there.Individual meanings mustdissolve in
the universalmeaning.Theymustbe integrated withit. In theworldof
conventions everything is simpleandtransparent. Butis mansimple?And
can theuniversal makeouruniqueness transparent?
Everypersonisa uniqueentity, andeverypersoninlovewantstheOther
to perceivethisuniqueness.Thisis whathe wantsloved,butweknowthat
wordsarenotenough.We needdirectandsensualencounters, thefreeplay
ofeyes,themeeting ofhands.We needtheembrace.Butwhatdoesthefree
playofeyes,themeeting ofhandsmean,andwhatdoesan embrace mean?
Once westepoutsidetheworldofconventions, oncenothing hasa universal
meaninganylonger,onceeverygesture - a signonlyof
existsonlyforitself
-
ouruniqueness thenthedirectandsensualencounters againhaveneedof
words.We circumscribe whatwe haveexperienced. We liveoutwhatwe
have circumscribed. "Thereis no marriage bed fortheunionofsouls"-
evena marriage bed willnotunify souls.
Everypersonisa uniqueentity, andevery personinlovewantstoreveal
thisuniqueness totheOther:"I wouldlovetobe loved".. ."thatI might be
seen." But the revelationof uniqueness,makingoneselfknown,is no
miracle,and even less is it grace.The revelation of uniquenessis an
accomplishment which developsslowly in the search-for-one-another; and
thesearch-for-one-another is being-together, ifyouwill,"holdinghands".
And thishand-holding isno longerthemeeting oftwosoulsinthevoid,but
twopeople acceptingone another.And thisacceptanceofone anotheris
life.IrmaontheFerenczys: "Theylivea lovelylife..... Theirlifeistruly not
*Thelinesarefrom
a poembytheHungarian - Trans.note
poetEndreAdy(1877-1919).

GeorgLukacsandIrmaSeidler 91
ordinary,but a noble, warm and simplesomething, built upon an

immeasurable richness. It is a higherformofexistence."
The revelationof uniquenessis an accomplishment whichdevelops
slowly in the search-for-one-another, and this search-for-one-another is
And
being-together. being-togetherholding - hands. And holding hands
- accepting one another.Andtheacceptance ofoneanother- life.And
thisacceptanceofone another, thislifedevelopsitsowncustoms, inwhich
thegestures willbe unequivocal becausetheywillhaveconsequences inlife.
Anduniqueness still
may gainexpression inthese unequivocal significations
because thisbeing-together is itselfbased on thesearchforuniqueness.
Habitableinstitutions. Did notthefuture's promiselie in Irma'searthly
dream,afterall?
triedandtriedagain,andtriedincessantly tomakehimself under-
Luka.cs
stood by Irma Seidler, to make her understand the being thatisspecifically
him,who is no one else buthim.He describedhimself withwords.He
articulated himself through categories. He described hisrelationshiptoIrma
withwords,and he articulated it through categories. These words and
categories were not conventional. They were the categories his
of
philosophy. And Irma Seidler did not understand thesecategories, andthe
moreLukAcsrevealedhimself, themoreopaque,themoreincomprehen-
siblehe becameforher.
Werethesecategories "beyond"Irma?Did shefailtounderstand what
they articulated because she could not understand them? "Why were Irma
and Leo beneficialforme? I thinkbecausetheywerestrongenoughto
understand exactlywhatI thought, butnotstrong enoughto continue on
anotherplaneoncetheyembarked withme" (diaryMay29, 1919).Thatis,
Irmadid notconsidertheLukaicsian categories appropriate fordescribing
theirrelationship withoneanother. Thatis,Irmafeltthatthesephilosophical
categoriesonlyalienatedthemfromone another.The articulation ofvital
problems on a purelyphilosophical plane was not acceptable to her. She
refusedtounderstand theirrelationship the of a
through categories philoso-
phicalsystem whichhasnothing butcontemptuous termsforlife.
Irmaattempted to recoverimmediacy in theprojectofmutualunder-
standing,to recoverspontaneity, to recoverwhatis sensuallyreal- to
recoverall thisfroma philosophy whichconsiders sensualitycontemptible
and whichexcludesspontaneity fromthesphereofwhatitconsiders to be
"of a higherorder".
"Butifyoucan - foryouownsake,too- do notanalyzethisso much
inthefuture"(Irmaon therelationship ofthePlatonist andthepoet- the
keyideaoftheessayon Kassner)."Sometimes onepicksa bunchofflowers,
thenrearranges them,andso farithasalwaysseemedtomethatI cannever
replace theiroriginal fresh harmony becauseI hadmovedevery singleoneof
them.In arranging likethis,inseekingharmony likethis,oneshouldretain
somefixedreference - orelse,onemight easilyruineverything" (August 5).
"Analysisdissects- anditisnotalwayspossibletoreassemble thingsonce

92 Heller
they have been reducedto theirseparateelements.. .the fact that

something canbe pickedapartdoesnotprovethatithadtobepickedapart,
but onlythatthe experiment couldbe performed" (August30). "No, I
cannotbearto analyzethings, nordo I wantto becauseitis crueltoplace
one's ownand another's soulon thedissection table"(October1).
We do nothave thelettersLukics wroteto NagybBnya; yet,we can
imagine what this analysis might have been like. Lukaics was contemptuous
ofpsychoanalysis as an explanatory theory. Forhimpsychological analysis
was theanalysisofmotivesandmoods.Andsincemotives andmoodsare
ephemeral,constantly changing, thedissection ofmotives andmoodswill
neverreveal to us the ultimate, the trulyessential,the unconditional.
However,it was throughanalysisthatLukaicswantedto arriveat the
unconditional, ultimateessences.Lukacswas contemptuous of psycho-
analysisas an explanatory theory. The "soul," just as it is, in its own
essentialnature,hasnopriorhistory. To probethispriorhistory wouldagain
mean gettinglost in the chaos of contingencies. This "priorhistory"
introduces elements intotheanalysis whichareexternal tothe"soul".And
theseexternalelements are contingent elements. We mustarbitrarily pick
and choosefromamongan infinity of contingent elements, and whatwe
wanttograspmost,whatwewanttoknowmostandcomprehend initsown
unconditional essence, in its in its
"being-just-so," uniqueness, thepure
the
individuality, "intelligible I" will our
againslipthrough fingers. It was
this"intelligible I" thatLukicswishedto revealinhisanalysis, anditwas
through analysisthathe wantedto arriveat thisultimate, unconditional
essence."The newlyself-conscious soulmarvels atitsentirepriorexistence
likea stranger. . . . Thesearethedialoguesofnakedsoulwiththeirnaked
fates."
This is existential analysis.The objectof theanalysisis nottheliving
individual,forthe "soul" of even thenoblestindividual carriesitsown
prehistory.He, too, has motives, even motives that are contingent andnot
decisivein termsof his individuality. The objectof the analysisis the
individualconceivedandformalized as symbol. Everyindividual - thatis,
everysignificant individual, for the
only significant individual is worthy of
existential
analysis - becomes the symbol of an attitude,and the dialogueof
two individualsis the meetingof two symbolicattitudes.And every
symbolically conceivedattitude isafateandthemeeting oftwonakedsouls,
twofatesseekingone another.Andso, IrmaSeidlerisnotIrmaSeidlerbut
"life,""goodness,""theredeemer".And GeorgLukacsno longerinhis
actual,empirical presence,butthe"manofthecreatedwork,""solitude,"
"unviability". "I was honestand conscientious in alwaysrevealing what
therewas stillbetweenus, although I diditbecauseI believedthatthese
thingswerebutthestruggles ofthepast,andthefuture wasalreadyon its
way,thatitsfirst signswerealreadyvisible,andthatyouhadsavedmeandI
wouldperhapsbe abletoreciprocate yoursavingme"(G.L.'s unsent good-
bye letter,November-December, 1908).But IrmaSeidlerwas not "the

savior".She neither wantedtosavenorbe saved.She loved,wantedtobe

loved. But what does itmean"to love"?
It was through existential
analysis,through thedialogueoftwonaked
souls,thatLukicswantedtoarriveattheultimate, unconditionalessences.
He wantedtoprovokeredemption withthemagicofphilosophical analysis,
themagicofwords.Butmerewordsaretheeternity ofrepetition.
Wordsby
themselves can neverrevealfateto us. And iffateis notrevealed,then
wordsintheireternalrepetition onlyalienateus from oneanother, andthe
vehicleofcommunication becomesthevehicle ofeternal-unredeemability.
"Hic Rhodus,hicsalta.Hier istdie Rose, hierTanze" (Marx)Mere
words,analysis,aretheeternity ofrepetition.Foritis onlyinthedeedthat
wegaincertainty ofwhatsomeonemeanstous,of"whatitmeanstolove,"of
what"I loveyou"and"youloveme" means.It is onlyinthedeedthatwe
gaincertainty ofwhatsomething meanstous; onlythedeedis transformed
intofate.Whoeverwantsto know,whoeverwantsto love,whoever wants
eternalrepeatability. "Hic Rhodus,hic salta. Hier ist die Rose, hier
wordsintodeeds.Andthis"leap" cannotbe avoided,anditcannotbe done
away withthroughanalysis,because analysisis eternalrepetition and
eternalrepeatability. "Hic Rhodus,hic salta. Hier ies die Rose, hier
Tanze." The leapfrom wordsintodeedsisa riskandtheacceptance ofrisk.
Foritmayturnoutthatwe do notlovetheonewe loveafterall.Itmayturn
out thatthefatewe chooseis notourfate,andwhatwasresplendent with
symbolism inthe analysis
may lose its and
brillance, we may fail
tofindwhat
we wereseeking.And yet,"hicRhodus,hicsalta.Hieristdie Rose, hier
Tanze." Without acceptingrisk,without the"leap,"we,humans, cannever
findone another.
"Justa question- isn'titsomewhat frivolous ofempirical
(thefrivolity
lazynessderiving from transcendental pessimism) to transform every
psychological phenomenon intosymbols?" (diaryMay11,1910).Fewmen
have revealedthemselves - even to themselves--withmorecruelty,
morerelentless honesty.
And whenIrmaSeidlermisunderstood GeorgLukacs,shestillunder-
stoodhimcorrectly; sheunderstood whatthistranscendental pessimismand
thisempiricallazynessmeantforher. "You are afraidof me." Lukics
symbolically transformed everypsychological phenomenon because he
fearedtheriskofthe"leap". LukdcsfearedIrmaSeidler;hefeared,notfor
his"empiricalI" butforhis"symbolic I". He fearedforhisWork.
But"wheredoesHjalmarEkdalbecomedistinguishable from Novalis?"
In thefactthatNovalisaccomplishes hiswork.
Humanbeingsmakethemselves theobjectsoftheirconsciousness.
to makehimself
Lukics triedand triedagain,and triedincessantly

94 Heller
understood byIrmaSeidler.He described himself withwords.He articulated

himselfthrough categories, thecategoriesof hisownphilosophy. Every-
thingbecametheoretical and symbolic.
Thereare no ephemeral motives,
and thereare no indisoluble sentiments.
Onlytheultimate, unconditional
essences,whosesymbolic can be grasped,exist.Thereis no
significances
longerany immediacy, becauseonlywhatis conceptually mediatedand
integratedinto these symbolsis real and "intelligible." Only those
sentiments existthatarepartofa conceptually constructed
"fate."
Human beingsmake themselves the objectsof theirconsciousness.
Human beingsare capableof lookingat themselves through theeyesof
Others.Humanbeingsarecapableofjudging themselvesinterms ofnorma-
tiveprinciples. Humanbeingsare capableofconsciously their
socializing
affects.Humanbeingsarecapableofforming theirownmoralindividuality.
Humanbeingsmakethemselves theobjectsoftheirconsciousness.But
can a manbecome"pureconsciousness," "purespirit"?The sensesmay
becometheoretical, butcan theybecometheoreticians?
I.'s letterto G.: "I, too,mustfrequently thinkaboutthatevening.. .it
wasa partofthosefewhourswhenwewerestillfree.Freeofallself-censure
and reflection, freeofthatsmallbutnonetheless importanthobbleon that
warmestlifein our innermostdepths"(August14). ". . .write,as spontane-
ouslyas possible,whatever
comesto mind.Becausewe needto be more
intenselytogether"(August30). ". . .themostincisiveand deep psycholo-
gicalanalysis.. .is uselessformebecauseitcannotsubstitute forfunctions
of thesoul,butremainsmerely intellectual
pleasure."
FromG.'s diary:"Andas longas communication isnotallthereisandall
thereis is notequallycommunication, nothing exists" (May8, 1910).
The sensesmaybecometheoretical. Butcantheybecometheoreticians?
Humanbeingsarecapableoflookingat themselves throughtheeyesof
Others.Humanbeingsarecapableofjudging themselves intermsofnorma-
tiveprinciples. Humanbeingsare capableofconsciously their
socializing
affects.Humanbeingsarecapableofforming theirownmoralindividuality.
This is themeaningof culture,and thisis theconductof individuals of
culture.
But whathappensifone does notsee through theeyesof theOther
because there are no unequivocalsignifications and if one cannot
the
comprehend "signs"? What happens if the normative are
principles
nothing more than the skeletonsof exhausted conventions? How can
individuals be cultured withouta culture?How canindividuals makethem-
selvesobjectsoftheirconsciousness inthe"era ofabsoluteculpability"?
Thereis no privatelanguage,andthereareno private customs, andthe
institutionscannot be made privatelyhabitable. In the "era of absolute
culpability" "the majorityof human beings live withoutlife and remain
unconsciousof it." The majorityof humanbeingsdo notmake themselves
objects oftheirconsciousness- notinthenobleorethicalsenseoftheterm:
"theirfatesare concealed by petty'musts'."

andIrmaSeidler 95
GeorgLukdcs
But ifindividuals nevertheless wanttomakethemselves objectsoftheir

consciousness, theycanonlydo so through theory. Andno immediacy can
remainin the "soul" becausethisimmediacy onlymediatesthe"lifeless
life"; and the spontaneity of thesensesmustbe renounced becausethis
can
spontaneity only be the vehicle of"absolute culpability".The individual
of culturecan onlydevelopwithina culturebecauseonlyin a culturecan
spontaneity and sensuality itselfbecomecultured.Onlyin a culturecan
individualsmake themselvesobjects of theirconsciousnesswithout
sacrificing theirsensestotheory, onlyina cultured worldcantheharmony of
sensualand intellectual beautydevelop.Habitableinstitutions. Habitable
world."Hic Rhodus,hicsalta.Hieristdie Rose, hierTanze."
Individuals ofculture canonlydevelopwithin a culture; whoever makes
himself orherself theobjectofconsciousness inthe"eraofabsoluteculpa-
bility"is over-refined. Theoryabsorbsthesenses."Povertyin spiritis
nothing less than liberation fromour ownpsychological determinants in
orderto deliverourselvesto thosemetaphysical and metapsychological
necessities whicharemoreproperly from ourown."Butisitliberation tobe
liberatedfromourpsychological determinants?
In theworldofconventions psychology is alsoconventional. We under-
standone another.But is itone another thatwe understand? We compre-
hend the "signs". But are we comprehending the signs of human
uniqueness? We remain strangers to one another, perhaps without even
knowing it,because we never arriveat thequestion: what arewe really? We
know"whatitmeansthatI loveyou,"buttheother,deeperquestion never
evendawnson us: "whatdoes itmeanthatI loveyou?
On theotherhand,thefateof theover-refined wholeaves
individual
behindtheconventional lifetoriseaboveit.Thefateofthe"nakedsoul"is
poverty inspirit.The sensesareabsorbedbytheory, andtherearenomore
psychological determinants, no past. Immediacy is lost,
spontaneity is lost,
andonlywordsremainforself-revelation, wordsandwordsalone.Andthe
articulated wordscausepain,andtheunarticulated wordscausepain,and
everygesture becomes ambiguous, and every understanding becomes
misunderstanding untilat lastfaithis silencedand thesoulsare alienated
fromone anotherwiththefinality offate."Thereis no marriage bed for
theunionofsouls."
"And as longas communication is notall thereis andall thereis is not
equally communication, nothing exists."
Over-refinement is desire--desire for culture.The over-refined
individual is theindividual desirousofculture-in a worlddevoidofculture.
"In life,desirecan onlybe love."
"Irmaislife."Habitableinstitutions. Habitableworld."HicRhodus,hic
salta.Hieristdie Rose, hierTanze."

96 Heller
"Don'tbe angry I haveceasedtomeansomething

if,though inyourlife-
ifeverI wasanything? - don'tbe angry
ifyounevertheless remaintheonly
content inmylife"(G.'s unsentgood-bye lettertoI.). "Backthenshemight
havefeltthatI couldsaveherfrom hertroubles,though shedidnotloveme"
(G.'s diary,May24, 1911)."I was for
never her what shewasforme" (G.'s
diary, October 27, 1911).
Irma did not love me. - Irmaneverlovedme. - I was neveranything
to her.- She alwaysmeantmoreto me thanI didto her.GeorgLukacs
createdhisrelationship to IrmaSeidler,andhe createdinthismanner.
"I've written withlong-distance love." "Goodbye,dearGyuri,I love
youverymuch, Irma." "Write, because I loveyouverymuch.""ButI love
youalways." "If there
is still
some way canreachoneanother,
we I wantus
to do so. And ifnot,I shallstillremaindevotedtoyouforever, andI shall
take myleave in theknowledgethatthewarmth of myentiresoulwas
Is it
yours." possible for someone to read these letters
tomean"shedidnot
love me?"
Whydid GeorgLukacscreatean IrmaSeidlerwhoneverexisted,an
Irmawhodidnotlovehim?
"He wholovesis morelikeuntogod thanhe whois lovedbecausehis
love mustalwaysremainunrequited, becausehisloveis buta pathtoself-
perfection" (Lukics in the on
essay Philippe).He wholovesis superior to
love,and themorehe lovesandthelesshisloveis returned, theloftierhe
stands.GeorgLukacs createdthe IrmaSeidler,who did notlove him,
becauseitwaswiththeprideof"amordeiintellectualis" thathe recreated
theirhistory.
The manofconventions, theman"living thelifelesslife,"isalwaysvain.
The menwho standtalland lonelyabove theworldof conventions are
alwaysproud.They are not proudofsomething; the source of theirprideis
nottheirsociallydetermined position;pride is theirmode ofbeing.
The vainmansays:I amlovedbymany.Thevainmansays:itismethey
lovemore.Theproudmansays:I cannotbe loved.Theproudmansays:itis
I wholovesmorestrongly; he wholovesismoreakintogodthanhe whois
loved.
The vainmansays:I amattractive. Thevainmanwantstobe attractive.
The proudmansays:I amnotattractive, andI do notwanttobe attractive.
The vainmansays:I am superior.The vainmanis constantly out to
provehissuperiority. Theproudmanisnotouttoproveanything becausehe
is sureofhimself.
The vain man compareshimselfto others:his whole lifeis a processof
"comparisons."The vainman is envious.The proudmandoes notcompare
himselfto anyone: thereare no standardsthathe and otherscan hold in
common. The proud man knows no envy. Even when a superiorbeing
crosses his path, he does not compare,ratherhe prostrateshimself.

For thevainman,a superior beingis tragedy. Fortheproudman,the

superiorbeing is the of
justification his -
life a joy.
Vanityis self-centered. Pridewantstofindlife'scenterinanother.
Vanityisjealous.Itscentsdangerineveryone atalltimes.Pridedoesnot
know what jealousy is. Whoeverabandonshim is dismissed;he was
unworthy.
Vanitysaysto theonce-beloved: youdeceivedme;thisis notwhatyou
promised. Pride says:you did but
this, sinceI lovedyou,yourdeedcannot
be wrong.
The vainmansays:I was right, I am right.The vainmanseeksto be
confirmed inhistruth. The proudmanwantstobe wrong; he seeksa truth
higher thanhimself.
Is itnecessary to seekthehumiliation ofpride?
It is notnecessary toseekthehumiliation ofpridebecausehumility goes
handinhandwithpride.Humility is prideturned"insideout";humility is
theself-manifestation ofpride.The superior being is the of
justification his
life- a joy. If a superior beingcrosseshispath,he prostrates himself;he
seeksa truth higher thanhimself.
The menwhostandtallandlonelyabovetheworldofconventions are
alwaysproud.Georg Lukdcs createdthe Irma Seidler, who didnot lovehim,
becauseitwaswiththeprideof"amordeiintellectualis" thathe recreated
theirhistory. "If I loveyou,whatbusinessis itofyours?"
I lovedyou,butyouneverlovedme;hewholovesissuperior tohewhois
loved:thisisthegesture ofpride.Butitisnotnecessary toseekthehumilia-
tionof pridebecausehumility goeshandin handwithpride.And in the
gestureofproudhumility everyunconditional essencebecomesitsopposite:
I am notright, theOtheris right, theoneI loveis right. Andintheabsolute
unconditionality of love the belovedrisesabove the lover.The lover
humiliates himself, pridebowshishead"becausebeforeGod we arenever
right."
"And inthiswayeventhiswholly abstract metaphysics ofform takesone
backto thecenterofall things - to Irmabecauseshespecifically wasthe
centerofall things, thesourceofallthings. Shehadtobe as shewasanddo
whatshedid.I mustacceptthatjustas itis,andI mustholditsacredso thatI
might respectmyownlife.... I usedtobelieve:I shouldcondemn her,but
now I don'tknow"(diary,May29, 1910).And evenmoreunequivocally,
andwithevenmorefinality: "Peopleareright orwrong withrespecttoeach
othernotintermsofdeedsandcertainevents,butintermsoftheirbeing.
Certainpeopleare alwaysright withrespectto certain people.AndnowI
feelthatshewas andwillalwaysbe right withrespecttome." Thisis "the
self-conscious bow beforea superiorbeing,vassalage,Hagen'srangeof
sentiments" (diary,June2, 1910).
The proudmanissolitary, andhumility tempts himterribly.Butifpride
is tohumiliate itself,thenthebeingbeforewhichithumiliates itselfmustbe
perfect.Iftheproudmanhumiliates himself, thenhemustacceptthebeing

98 Heller
beforewhichhe humiliates himself "justas itis"so thathemight respect his

ownlife.Andifpridehumiliates itself,itloses itsright- and its
opportunity!
- topassjudgement becausethebeingorobjectbefore whichithumiliates
cannolongerbe judged"interms
itself ofdeedsandcertain events,"indeed
the"center"oflifecanno longerbejudgedatall.
GeorgLukaicsbrought hisphilosophy "downtoearth"andtransformed
itintoa myth. "Irmaislife."AnditwasthisIrmamagically transformed into
a philosophical myth - and not the empirical woman - that became the
centerofhislife.Andheprostrated himself beforeherandidolizedher,and
he deniedhimself therightto judgeher:"theself-conscious bowbeforea
superiorbeing,vassalage,Hagen'srange of sentiments."
The proudmanissolitary, andhumility tempts himterribly: beforeGod
we are neverright.
But,judge,so thatyoumaybe judged!
The myth ofphilosophy willnotcomedowntoearth.Andtheempirical
womanis nottheIrmaofthemyths, andshemustindeedbe judgedbyher
deedsbecausethereis no essenceexternal tothedeeds.Andtheloverisnot
holierthanthebeloved,butneither isthebelovedanidoltobe worshipped.
Let us judge,so thatwe maybe judged!
Vanityalwaysjudges,butthecenterof itsjudgment is alwaysitself.
Whateveris rightforitselfis "right",whateveris beneficial to itselfis
"good". Vanity also has idols, but are
they empirical idols.Vanitydoesnot
abstractfrom the deed because it justifies the deed when thedeed justifiesit.
Blessedis pridewhichseeksgreatness. Blessedis pridewhichcan bow
downbeforegreatness. Blessedis pride,eveninitsownself-humiliation.
But,judge,so thatyoumaybe judged!
The proudmanis solitary, andhumility tempts himterribly.
And ifhe is solitary no longer?
The proudmanis notproudofsomething; prideis hismodeofbeing.
Pride is solitude'smode of being.Wherethereis no solitude,where
significant substantialities do notneed to riseabovetheworldto realize
themselves, thereisnomorepride.Prideismellowed intoself-respect. Self-
is
respect pride socialized. isthe
Self-respect prideofequals. The love ofself-
respecting persons is the love of equals. For the self-respecting individual,
the superiorbeingis theobjectof his friendship and alliance.The self-
respecting individual also knows no envy; he does notcomparehimself
withothers,notbecausethereare no commonstandards forhimself and
others,butbecausetrueequalsareincomparable, becausetheuniqueness of
individuals is incomparable. The self-respecting individual doesnotsay:I
am alwaysright. Andhe doesnotsay:beforeGod I amneverright because
theself-respecting individual does notidolizehimself, nordoeshe idolize
anything outsidehimself
He judges,so thathe maybe judged.
Blessedis pride,whichmaymellowintoself-respect.
But can one be self-respecting inthe"era ofabsoluteculpability"?

GeorgLukdcsand IrmaSeidler 99
Habitableinstitutions.Habitableworld.A worldpeopledwithself-
individuals.
respecting Culture.
Over-refinement isdesire- desireforculture.
Theover-refinedmanis
theproudman,themandesiring cultureina worlddevoidofculture.
ofpride?
But can culturebe createdbytheself-humiliation
"Fromcontingencies tonecessity - thisisthepathofeveryproblematic

individual"(Lukaicsin theessayon Kassner).Thiswas thefirst flowerhe
had presented to Irma.
Two problematic individuals inthe"eraofabsoluteculpability".
Thesis:womanas theformation oftragedy through death.
"This self-liberation of the womandoes not come aboutby wayof
themostessentialnecessity offinaldeparture, as does everygenuineself-
liberation of a tragicman.And theendofthedramaraisesthequestion,
posedmuchearlierbythetheorist Ernst:cana womanbe tragic inherown
right, outside of her relationship to the man in herlife?"The question
alreadycontains theanswer:womancannotrisetotragedy, freedom initself
can neverbe a valuetoher.In thetragedy's Briinhilde - Lukacsmusedin
hisdiary- thereis something masculine. "A womanis onlya woman."
G.'s entry inhisdiaryonFebruary 11,1911:"I meantshamefully littleto
her.The onlyquestionis:shamefully formeorforher?Madquestion:thisis
tragedy,butshe couldnotriseto whereI soared."A womancannotbe
tragic."A womanis onlya woman."
G.'s entry inhisdiaryon October22, 1911:"ForIrma,yes.Hertragedy
lay life, sphere,wheredeathis genuinely
in in a oppositeof
thedialectical
life."
The formation oftragedy through death.
I.'s letterto G. September 20, 1908: "Perhapsthereismoreinmeofthe
womanly and more of the unwomanly, theartistandtheperson,thanyou
know- and thesetwostruggle witheachother."
A womanina provincial country, earlyinthiscentury, desiredtobreak
withtheworldofconventions. Shedesiredtobreakwithitas a humanbeing
and as an artist becausecreation, self-realization increative
work,bringing
forth thenew,wasjustas indispensable a partoflifeforIrma,justas much
theobjectofherpassion,as itwasforG. She wasdrivenbythedemonof
work;creativeworkjustified herlife- thefailure ofherworkamounted to
thefailureofherlife.
I.'s lettertoG. (July 5): "I breakoutina coldsweatwhenI think thatina
shorttwomonths' timeitwillbe clearwhether I canaccomplish anything, or
whether all myeffort thisyearhasbeensimply a sham."July19:"In allmy
lifeI haveneverworkedso hard."Beginning ofSeptember (dateillegible):
"And I amexhaustedfroma stretch ofover-intensive work,buttheresults

100 Heller
are inno wayproportionate tothestrenuous efforts

involved.. .thingsare
very farfrom mygoals!""The results
ofthe lasttwomonths'work amounts
to zero."
A womanina provincial country,earlyinthiscentury,desiredtobreak
withtheworldofconventions. Shedesiredtobreakwithitas a humanbeing.
Andinordertobreakwithitas a humanbeing,shehadtobecomeanartist. If
theworldofcreativeworkcouldnotbeherhome,thentheworldofmenhad
to remainherhome,for"a womanis onlya woman."
But thiswomanwantednotonlytobe a humanbeingandan artist, she
also wantedtobe a woman."Andthesetwostruggle witheachother."And
she did notwantto relinquish eitherone. Thisdoublefidelity, to
fidelity
womanhoodand fidelity to human-creative caused
existence, her tragedy
since she did not wantto be ifshe could notbe bothat once.
A womanina provincial country,earlyinthiscentury,desiredtobreak
withtheworldofconventions. Andshealsodesiredtobe a woman.Butshe
could onlybe a womanwiththosewho,likeher,had brokenwithtlhe
conventionalworld.Butthemenwerearrogant, andintheireyes"a woman
was onlya woman."She didnotwantthosewhoknewa prioriwhatthings
meant. She wanted neitherengagement, nor marriage,nor marital
She
infidelity. wanted to "holdhands" withan equalwhoacknowledged her
to be an equal in theworldofthesensesandofthespirit.She wasa self-
respectingwoman,butthemenwereproud,andintheireyes"a womanwas
only a woman."
G. expectedhertobelieveinhim.G. madea myth ofherandwantedher
tobecomethismyth. He wantedherpersonality toconform totheprinciples
ofthismythso thatshemight risetothetragedy ofa man. Butshedidnot
wanttorisetomasculine tragedybecauseshe wanted tocreate
herownlife,
and, ifnecessary- and it was necessary- herown tragedy.
The voicesof self-respect,
thegesturesof self-respect:
"letbothour
individuallivesgrow throughour relationship,
and viceversa" (July5). "I
thinkwe have bothsurpassed - in ratherhealthyfashion - a perhaps
overlytheoretical stage"(August23). "Thesepeople,fromwhomI go on
receivingand receiving. . .thisis lovelyand good, forreceivingmeans
growing,beingsupported, carriedalong.On theotherhand,thisis not
good,fornotbeingabletogiveissucha weightless Onefeelsso light
feeling.
andairy- likea child- andthiscanbe painful, too,verypainful"(April
28, 1911).
The voices of recovering one's own individuality,the gesturesof
preserving one's substance:"No, I cannotbearto analyzethings,nordo I
wantto" (October1). "In theseletters, I havetotally
accomodated myself
and conformedto you, and I mustspeak frankly - at the cost of
inexpressible sacrifices- I have assumed the soul-formsof mutual
understandingthat you stipulated. And today I will discontinuethis
combativetogetherness"(October 25).

The confrontation ofherowncreativeego withthatoftheOther,the

voicesof judgement, thegesturesof thewoman-person-creator's world-
view:"Onlythosepeopleare goodpeople- and bygoodI meansome-
thingrather grand- whoseloveofmenandrangeofsentiments inallsorts
ofhumanrelationships is as spiritual
andas 'prophetic' ofthe
as theattitude
artistto hiswork.Andthosetruly devotedto creationandworkarethose
who can relateto theirworkas to an organic,livingentity whichcan be
warmly loved, which can be killedor saved,butwhich lives."
A womanwantedtobreakwiththeworldofconventions, butshewanted
to breakwithitas a humanbeing,as an artist. Therewasno otherwayfor
her.Andatthesametimeshewantedtoremaina woman,too,butthemen
whocouldhavebeenhercompanions insolitudewereproud,andforthem
"a womanwas onlya woman."
Still,didn'tshecommit a tragicoffensebylovingtheoneshehappened
to love?
Love can neverbe an offense.And yet,didn'tshe commita tragic
offensebypromising something intheecstaticmoment oflove,something
shecouldnotdeliverintermsofherownindividuality?
I.'s firstletterto G.: "I wouldliketo be able to measureup to the
standardsyouhavesetforme" (December30, 1907).I.'s letterto G. on
August30, 1908:"I feelthat,ifI leavemyworknow,I shallleaveitonother
occasionsas well.AndI alsofeelthat,ifI cannotsoonerorlaterarrange my
lifeso thatI shallneveragainbe unabletoworkfullforceforthegreater part
oftheyear,I wouldleaveartbehindforever. Withgoalssuchas mineone
cannot get anywhereat thisrate.. . . And still,I mightcome. Dear God,
don'tbe angry withmeforthisletter- justlovemeanddon'tjudgemefor
it. .... I needmywork- andI missyou."Shouldthiswomanhavewritten
- evenonce: "I wouldliketo be able to measureup to thestandards you
havesetforme?"
And herelies IrmaSeidler'stragicoffense. For she did notkeepthe
promise she had made to a man.She followed the ofherown
principles
individuality. Is thereanythingmorenobleormorejustified? Butsheshould
neverhavemadethatpromise.The lovepotionwasthepotionofdeath.
G. wasI.'s
"In life,desirecanonlybe love.Thatis itsjoy,itstragedy."
everlasting love,theobjectofhereverlasting desire.Butshewantedtobe a
humanbeingandanartist, andshewantedtoliveaccording totheprinciples
ofherownindividuality, andshewasunabletomeasureuptothestandards
herlovehad setforher.Yet, shehadtakenituponherself todo so.
And so, withthegestureof despair,I. marrieda painter,renounced
love, and decided to liveforherart.But thisartdid notcome to fruition.It
did not bringfulfillment.
I.'s last letterto G. (April28, 1911): "Today I feelthosewaysofseeing
and those perspectiveswhichhave sustainedme foryears- thoughgood
and honest- are miserablypoor compared to the intensityof art. ...
Somethingmustbe understoodanew. In everyrespect."

102 Heller
Irmacouldnotintegrate herlovewithherart.
"Irma is life." "In life,desirecan onlybe love. That is its joy, its
tragedy."Irmacouldnotintegrate hertragedyintoherlife.Forher,thelove
potion was thepotion of death.
And through deathshe formedhertragedy - herowntragedy. And
her
through death-leap all herdeedsbecame symbolic,and all the
contingen-
ciesofherlifetookon theformofnecessity.
Irma expecteda miracle,Irma wantedto provokea miracle.And
behold, the miraclematerialized. G. neveragainwrotethe words:"a
womanis onlya woman."The manwhohadarrogantly stated:a woman's
lifecan neverbe tragicbecausefreedom isnota valueforher,wrotethisin
hisdiary:"Her tragedy layinlife,ina sphere,wheredeathisgenuinely the
dialecticaloppositeoflife."
"Fromcontingencies tonecessity- thisisthepathofevery problematic
individual."
Two problematic individualsinthe"era ofabsoluteculpability".
10
"Fromcontingencies tonecessity - thisisthepathofevery problematic

individual."
Two problematic individuals inthe"eraofabsoluteculpability".
Counterthesis:manas theintegration oftragedywithlife.
I writetheword"man"anxiously. GeorgLukicswas22 yearsoldwhen
he metIrmaSeidler,and,whenthetragedy hehadjustcompleted
occurred,
his26thyear.
"WiththisbookI bidmyyouthgoodbye,"LukAcs wroteIrmaSeidlerin
March,1910,inan unsentletter, referringtotheHungarian editionofThe
Soul and theForms.Thiswas theperiodofSturmundDrang,thetimeof
maturation. And yet,thistragedy is alreadya man'stragedy becauseitis
rootedinthestancewhichGeorgLukacslivedoutandtookuponhimself as
thefateof a man: living- and whatamountsto thesamein thiscase -
thinking through theconflictsofa manlivinginandforhiswork.
"Kierkegaardcreatedhis relationship to Regine Olsen, and, if a
Kierkegaard createshislife,hedoesnotdo so inordertoconceal,butrather
to articulatethetruth."IfGeorgLukacscreatedandcontinually recreated
hisrelationshiptoIrmaSeidler,healsodiditinordertoarticulate thetruth.
His questionswere not only his personalquestions.Everything was
resplendent withsymbolic light.Hisquestions werethequestions ofhisgreat
contemporaries, the questionsof Babits,*Ady,*Bartok,and Thomas
Mann. Can therebe an organicpathfromlifeto art?Whichlifeis the
authentic life?Can themanofartlivean authentic life?Is itgivento the
*TheHungarian Babits(1883-1941)
poetsMihaly - Trans.note
andEndreAdy(1877-1919).

creativeindividual,theone at homeincreativework,theambitious man,

theone whobringsforth thenewtoexperience loveandbeing-with-others,
the happinessof humanfellowship? Is artat all possiblein the "era of
absoluteculpability?"
GeorgLukicswasable to articulate thetruth byrecreatinghisrelation-
shipto IrmaSeidler.He integrated hislovewithhiswork.He builtintohis
workthebloodofthemason'swife*so thatthefortwouldstandandrise
above lifelikea solitarymountain peak.
"In otherwords,theoldproblem- wheredoesHjalmarEkdalbecome
distinguishablefromNovalis?"
The answer- Novalis accomplished his work.And Georg Lukacs
accomplished hisworktoo. He builtitwiththebloodofthemason'swife,
butthefortstoodandroseabovelifelikea solitary mountain peak.
"Greatloveis alwaysascetic.Thereis no difference betweenelevating
thebelovedtotheheight ofheights andso alienatingherfrom oneselfaswell
as herselfandusinghersimply as a steppingstone."Intheory perhapsthere
is no "difference" betweenthesetwoattitudes, butGeorgLukacswas a
refinedand honorableman:he knewtherewas a difference. Lukcs was
afraidofIrmaSeidler.He fearedforhiswork,andhe fearedforIrma.And
becausehe fearedforboth,hechosethefirst course.He transformed Irma's
earthly beingintoa mythical figure, intothemyth of"life,"theobjectofthe
creativeindividual's eternaldesire,and he humbledhispridebeforethis
magicallymythicized life,beforephilosophy stylizedintolife.But Irma
SeidlerwasnotRegineOlsen,wholivedhappily untilshedied.Sheformed
herownlifeinthedeathshechose.Andwiththat,sheintegrated herhuman
life-blood within
theedificeofart,whichcouldstandnootherway,so thatit
might riseabovelifelikea solitarymountain peak.IrmaSeidlerdidnotwant
tosaveanyone,andshedidnotwanttobe saved.Shedidnotwantanyoneto
fearher,nordidshewantanyonetofearforher.Andso shestillbecamea
"steppingstone"forthecreativeindividual, evenagainsthiswill,forthe
edificewas erectedwithherblood.
It is impossiblenotto transform
lifeintoan instrument
ifwe approachit
throughforms.Buttheformalized, mythicized, lifeavengesitself
stylized on
it.
formandjudges Yet, is ittruly that is
form judgement passedupon? Life
passedjudgement onformbyrealizing ofthe
it.Butisn'tthisstillindicative
that
factthattheformis, afterall,theformofthislife, whatis reproduced
and recreatedon the puresnowsof solitary mountain peaksis stillthe
turmoilofthischaoticlife?
Lifeavengeditselfon form,butitis notformthatitjudged.It passed
judgement on the"eraofabsoluteculpability" inwhichthemajority ofmen
must"live a lifelesslife,"andwherethegenuinely living,thosewhogive
meaningto theirlives, mustlive out the same tragedywhethertheyerect
*In the folkballadKimivesKelemennd
(TheMasonKelemen's
Hungarian Wife)a mason's
to guarantee
wifeis immured thestrength - Trans.note
ofthefortress.

104 Heller
thatedificeor fallsilentthrough thegestureof chosendeath.Habitable

institutions. Habitable world. A world peopled with self-respecting
individuals.
An individualwho is ambitiousand creativein the "era of absolute
culpability"mustuse lifeinstrumentally. And GeorgLukacsused Irma
Seidleras an instrument forhis work- againsthiswill.Andthethings
that
happened,andthewaytheyhappened,allhappenedfortheCreatedWork,
forthesakeofart.
Lukacs on Kierkegaard:"Didn't he perchanceabandona possibly
successfulstruggle againsthisowngreatsorrowbecausehe cherished this
sorrow,cherished itmore than and
anything, have
couldn't livedwithout
it?"
Lukacs'draft ofa lettertoIrmaSeidlerinMarch,1910:"I thankyoufor
appearingbriefly inmylife,andI thankyouforleaving.I thankyouforthe
joys your nearness brought me,and I thankyouforthepainsthatnearly
destroyed this life.I thankyouforthembecauseI couldnotgo on without
them.Theyweresigns;theywerenecessary."
Luk~csentry inhisdiaryonJuly 27, 1910:"Herpicture isonmydesk-
reasons - fortheessayon Philippe.But I hardlylookat it....
forstylistic
It disappeared- although a littledesireandsorrowforitwouldnothurt
now- forthesakeoftheessayon Philippe.... The essayon Ernstwas
perhapsruined(mademorepathetic) byherconstant presence;shedidnot
fit
always organically into the parameters oftheessay.Butthisonemaybe
dry without her."
Lukacs letterto Irma Seidlerin January,1911: "WhatI wantto
accomplishcan onlybe accomplished byan unattachedman- one who
does notknowwhatanotherhumanbeingcanbe tohim,whatone person
canbe toanother.He canonlybe lefttohimself, butneverfirm andfreeof
desireinhisscholarly solitude.Onlysucha mancanproudly andcalmly pass
up thefalseandpetty opportunities fortogetherness
thatareoffered tohim.
Onlysucha mancanchancehisentirelifeontheperilous fateofhiswork."
Georg Lukics was afraid of Irma Seidlerbecause he fearedforhis
solitude.He fearedforhissolitudebecausehe fearedforhiswork.Andhe
constructed hisworkinsolitude, buttheworkcannotbe constructed without
life,and so he builtthis edifice of hiswork withthe blood ofthe mason's
wife.Irmabecamean instrument forhiswork,eventhough Lukcs didnot
want to use her so. But it is impossiblenot to transform lifeintoan
instrument ifwe approachitthrough forms.
The ethicallaw stilllives.And theethicallaw commands thathuman
beings must not use each other as mere instruments.
AndthisethicallawwasaliveinGeorgLukacs.Andthatiswhyhetrans-
formed IrmaSeidler'sflesh-and-blood womanhood intoa myth, andthatis
whyhe humbledhimselfinhispridebeforeher,and thatis whyhe said,with
respectto her, I can neverbe right.
Georg Lukics did not want to use anotherhuman being as a mere
instrument because theethicallaw was alive in him,and he helditsgreatest

commandment sacred.The frivolity of"aesthetic culture" wasnothispath.

And thedayhe opened diary his forthe last time,he wrote:"Andall this
bringsmeback to the old question: how can I becomea philosopher? That
is, how can I create the form, the sublime when I as a human beingcan
neverget beyondthe ethicalsphere?"(December16, 1911).Habitable
institutions. Habitable world. A world peopled with self-respecting
individuals.
GeorgLukcs wasafraidofIrmaSeidler.He fearedforhissolitude. And
fategave him thissolitude.
DoctorFaustus,1911:"He comforted himself withthepossibility, with
theobjectofdesirewhichcouldalwaysbepresent, yet isnot It is
present. not
present now" (November 23). "I am beingpunished myprideandforthe
for
hope I have invested in work and the effortexpendeduponit."
Fate gave himhissolitude,buthe no longerwantedthissolitude.He
integrated IrmaSeidler,hislove,hislifewithhiswork,buttheethicallaw
was aliveinhim:humanbeingsmustnottreatone another as mereinstru-
ments.Thiswas histragedy.
IrmaSeidlercouldnotintegrate herlovewithherart,andthatiswhyshe
formedherowntragedy through death. GeorgLukacsintegrated hislove
intohiswork,andthiswashistragedy. Butheintegrated thistragedy with his
life.
"Permanenttragedy...is the greatestfrivolity. ..the sentiment of
eternaltragedygives absolutionforall idleness."Lukics in Aesthetic
Culture.
"Thereisnomarriage bedfortheunionofsouls."Orperhaps thereis,or
at least,thereoughtto be?
"By virtueof thefactthateverything belongsto us, thateverything
belongs to the soul and everytragic event must be playedoutwithin it....
And theabsolution - theredeeming power ofform - onlycomes at the
very end of all and
paths sufferings, inthat faith which cannot be provedand
whichlivesbeyondallproof,inthefaiththatthedivergent pathsofthesoul
shallmeetintheend.Theymustmeet,fortheyhavetheirsourceinthesame
center."
But fortheover-refined man,all understanding is misunderstanding.
The sensesare absorbedby theory,spontaneity is lost,and onlywords
remainforself-revelation, andeverygesture remains ambiguous. Theover-
refined manlivesouthistragedy andthinks itthrough. Thesetwoareone
and thesameforhim.And he judgesit;hejudgesirrevocably the"'eraof
absolute culpability,"the source of his over-refinement. He passes
irrevocable judgement on a worldin whichthecreatedworkcan onlybe
builtwiththebloodoftheOther.
The humility of pride is like the bow of the over-refined man to
barbarism. The hope"thatthebarbarians willcomeand,withroughhands,
tearasunderall over-refinement." Allegrobarbaro.
Pridemellowsintoself-respect - thedesireoftheover-refined man,

106 Heller
desire forculture.Habitableinstitutions.
Habitableworld.A worldpeopled
withself-respectivingindividuals.Thepromiseof Karl Marx.
Georg LukAcsintegratedhislove withhiswork,and thiswas histragedy.
But he integratedthistragedywithhis life.
Georg LukAcs"holdinghands" withanotherOther.Pridebowingdown
beforethe New God. But thatis anotherstory.
Life avenged itselfon formby realizingit. And withthat,it passed
judgementon the "era of absoluteculpability."But, can formalso avenge
itselfon life?And ifso, whatis thejudgementpassed upon?
"Kierkegaard created his relationshipto Regine Olsen." And Georg
LukAcs also created his relationshipto Irma Seidler. In a certainsense,
everyonecreateshis relationshipto an Other,and continuallyrecreatesit.
But few- veryfew- people can createtheirrelationship to theOtherin
such a waythatothersafterthemcan also createitand recreateit. Onlythe
paradigmaticcan become parabolic.
Translatedby Ettide Laczay
ANNOUNCEMENTS
WOMEN IN GERMAN
Sessionat the1980MLA
Call forPaperson WomenWriters Priorto1800
Please submit
abstractsforpapers(2-3 pages)byApril1, 1980.Sendproposals
to:
GabrieleStrauch and JuliePrandi
407 WisconsinAve., 5 266Hillcrest
Rd.
Madison,WI 53703 Berkeley,CA 94705
FORTHCOMING CONFERENCE
The FifthAnnualEuropeanStudiesConference willbe heldon October9, 10,
and 11,1980inOmaha,Nebraska.Thisconference, sponsored bytheUniversity of
NebraskaatOmaha,isaninterdisciplinarymeetingwithsessionsdevotedtocurrent
research,researchtechniques,and teaching
methodologies, as wellas traditional
topics.The Conference stressestheinterdisciplinary
themefocusing on Europe
fromtheAtlanticto theUrals.
Abstractsofpapersand/orsuggestionsforpanelsshouldbe submitted byMay1,
1980 to Dr. PatriciaKolasa, Department of EducationalFoundations, or Dr.
BernardKolasa, Departmentof PoliticalScience,University of Nebraskaat
Omaha,Omaha,Nebraska68182.


Heller1979 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heller1979 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Georg Lukács and Irma Seidler

Author(s): Agnes Heller and Etti de Laczay

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

"Kierkegaard createdhisrelationshiptoRegineOlsen,"writes Kassner,

*In thisessayI've reliedon thefollowingmanuscripts,recoveredfroma Heidelberg

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

events.Duringtheirfirst correspondence, whichbeganharmoniously, he

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

realissimum"; theindividual/personal arecircumscribed

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

G. firstmetI. inDecember,1907.Itwasinthemidst ofa noisycompany

In March,1910,G. senttheHungarian editionofhisvolumeofessaysto

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

youhavemadeofme." I.'s answer:"Dear Gyuri,* myheartfelt thanks for

January,1911,G.'s letterto I., in whichhe askedherto acceptthe

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

seemseverything isover.ButIrmaisimmensely unhappy. It'squitecertain

"The gestureis unequivocal,onlyinsofar as all psychology

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

knowwhata bethrothal or marriage signifies;we also knowwhatmarital

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

ingoodness;shecouldnotbearthesightofsuffering, andshesuffered from

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

them."Lukaicswrotethisin March1910to IrmaSeidler,analyzing the

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

egotistbecomedistinguishable fromthepoet fearlessly experiencing his

Strindberg - andmanyothers afterhim- havewritten ofthemanand

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

July3, 1908.I havereceivedyourletter,

Act Two: BetweenFearand Hope

July17,1908."I amafraid- andat timeslikethisI feelverylonely-

October1. "Duringthesummer somewhat

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

There is resigneddespairand provocative despair;the provocative

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

The soundof trumpets willcausethewallsofJericho to fall,and life-

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

Lukacstriedandtriedagain,andtriedincessantly tomakehimself under-

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

ordinary,but a noble, warm and simplesomething, built upon an

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

they have been reducedto theirseparateelements.. .the fact that

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

savior".She neither wantedtosavenorbe saved.She loved,wantedtobe

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

understood byIrmaSeidler.He described himself withwords.He articulated

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

But ifindividuals nevertheless wanttomakethemselves objectsoftheir

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

"Don'tbe angry I haveceasedtomeansomething

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

For thevainman,a superior beingis tragedy. Fortheproudman,the

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

beforewhichhe humiliates himself "justas itis"so thathemight respect his

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

"Fromcontingencies tonecessity - thisisthepathofeveryproblematic

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

are inno wayproportionate tothestrenuous efforts

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:39:33 PM

The confrontation ofherowncreativeego withthatoftheOther,the