agnes heller georg lukacs and irma seidler

8/18/2019 Agnes Heller Georg Lukacs and Irma Seidler

1/34

Georg Lukács and Irma Seidler

Author(s): Agnes Heller and Etti de LaczayReviewed work(s):Source: New German Critique, No. 18 (Autumn, 1979), pp. 74-106Published by: New German CritiqueStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/487851 .

Accessed: 12/11/2011 13:28

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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ngchttp://www.jstor.org/stable/487851?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/487851?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ngc


2/34

Georg

Lukdcs

and

Irma Seidler*

by

Agnes

Heller

"Kierkegaard

reated

his

relationship

o

RegineOlsen,"

writes

Kassner,

quoted

by

Luktcs

in his

immortal

ssay

on

Kierkegaard.

And

Georg

Lukacs

also

created

his

relationship

o Irma

Seidler.

He created

t and

recreated

t

again

and

again.

He created

it

and recreated t

according

o

the rules of

"Platonic"

conduct:

hrough

he

prism

of others'

ates,

others'

works,

others'

"forms."

Virtuallyevery

one of the

pieces

in

The

Soul

and the

Forms

s

such

a recreation. "The

essay

on

Philippe

s

maturing trangely,"

he noted in

his

diary

on

May

20,

1910.

"It seems

this will be the most

genuine

Irma-essay.

The

lyric

of

its

present stage

.

.

.

Thus

the

true

lyrical

series

will

be

completed: George, Beer-Hofman, Kierkegaard,Philippe.

The inter-

relation

of the

others

is

much

ooser;

Novalis: he mood of the first

meeting;

Kassner:

Florence,

Ravenna;

Storm:

etters

rom

Nagybanya."

And on

May

29

he

wrote:

"The

essay

on Ernst will

be an

essay

on

Irma

as well."

Georg

Lukacsrecreated

his

relationship

o IrmaSeidler.

Yet,

in

none

of

the

essays

can we discovereven

a

single

objective

similarity.

The re-creation

of the

relationship

onsists

of the

exploration

of the

relationship's

ossibili-

ties. These

possibilities

were

whatLukacs

hought

and

ived)

out

according

to

the

rules

of "Platonic"conduct. These

possibilities

are

daydreams,

or,

more

accurately

rational

visions,

the

dreams

and visionsof

"what

could

be

if,"

"what could

have

been,

if."

In

these

daydreams

and

visions,

however,

the

Other is

only

a

vagueshape,

an indefinite

object,

the

only

real

being

is the

one who dreams.

These

dreams are addressedto

Irma,

but

Irma

is not

present

n

these

rational

visions.

Through

he

prism

of his "Platonic"

tance,

the authorof

the

essays

bears

witness

to his own

possibilities.

Kierkegaard

xists,

but

*In

this

essay

I've

relied

on

the

following manuscripts,

ecovered

rom

a

Heidelberg

banksafe n 1973: hediaryof GeorgLukacs April5, 1910- December16,1911);notesand

the draft

of

a

letter

by

Lukacs

rom

1908;

draftsof two

etters

by

LukAcsrom he

spring

f

1910;

letters

sent

by

LukAcs

o

IrmaSeidler

n

1911;

and letterswritten

by

IrmaSeidler

o

Lukcs,

July

-

November

1908

and

January May

1911,

plus

he

correspondence

f

Lukics

withLeo

Popper

1910-1911.

The Lukfcs

quotations

havebeen

taken

rom

he

following

ssays:Rudolph

Kassner,

Soren

Kierkegaard

nd

Regine

Olsen,

StefanGeorge,

Charles-Louis

hilippe,

The

Metaphysics

f Tragedy,

Aesthetic

Culture,

nd On

Poverty

n

Spirit.

74


3/34

Georg

Luktics

and

Irma

Seidler

75

Regine

Olsen

does

not;

in

Storm's

ife,

consecrated

o

duty,

the beloved

wife

is

only

an

anonymous

accessory

o the ethical conduct

of

life;

the loves

of

Novalis are

merely

symbols

of the

poet's

earthly

ulfillment;

or is

Philippe's

Marie

Donadieu

more than

"great

ove's"

drill-ground

or

Jean,

the actual

hero.

("Marie

was for him

merely

a course

n

self-knowledge;

is

duty

done,

he

is now free to

walk his

own

paths.")

In the

essay

on

George

no

woman

s

present

at

all,

only

a man

"who

does

not wear his

hearton his

sleeve,"

passing

from

loneliness

through

ove back

into loneliness.

All

individuals

-

insofar as

they

are

capable

of

reflection,

insofar

as

they

can make

their

human

relationships

he

object

of

their

thinking

in a

certainsense

"create"

heir

relationship

withOthers

andcontinue

recreating

it. In the

light

of later events certainincidentsof the

past

gain specific,

symbolic

meanings;

others

disappear

n

the

abyss

of

forgetting;

ndifferent

gestures

are filled

with the

joy

of

mutual

recognition;

r

they

are

gradually

swallowed

up

in

the

thick

aura

of

sorrowand

disappointment.

And,

if

some-

thing

is

over

once

and for

all,

is

there

anyone

who would

not

question

the

facts

again

and

again

to

see whether

hey

were indeed

the factsof

necessity?

Is

there

anyone

who would

not think

through

the

possibilities

again

and

again

with the

wish-fulfilling ogic

or

illogic

of

daydreams?

n

portraying

base

life,

poetry

turns

white into

black.

The

poet

alone remains

whiteon

its

eerie screen. In

portraying

a noble

life,

poetry

continually

ransformshe

composition,

not the

colors.

All

individuals

reateand

recreate

heir

human

relationships.

But

this

creation

is

mainly

addressed

only

to

oneself.

It

is

painful

or beautiful

only

for

oneself.

"Kierkegaard

-

writes

Kassner

-

created

his

relationship

to

Regine

Olsen, and,

if a

Kierkegaard

reates

his

life,

he

does not

do

so in order

to

conceal,

but rather

o articulate

he truth."

f

Lukics

created

and

continually

recreated

his

relationship

to

Irma

Seidler,

he did not

do it in order

to

conceal,

but

also

in

order

to

articulate

he

truth

because

he had a

truth,

whichwas not addressed ohimselfalone,whichwasnot

painful

or beautiful

for

himself

alone."

When he

dreamt

and

thought

out

the

"possibilities

represented

by

Irma,"

he was

not

thinking

out

the

contingencies

deriving

from

the

"accidental"

meeting

of

two

"accidental"

ntities.

Both

the I-heroof

the

essays

and

their

non-objectified

object

are

invested

with

symbolic,

stylized

meaning.

The

I-hero

is

always

the

creative,

form-generating

man in

a

chaotic,

prosaic,

lifeless,

culture-forsaken

world. The

object

of desire

is

always

life,

or more

accurately,

he life

to be created.

"In

life,

desire

can

only

be love" - the

object

of love is the

object

of desire n lifeandforlife.

But can

life

be

created? Or

-

to

ask

the same

question

in

reverse

can

there

be

an

organic

path

from

life to

the created

work?

Can

the

creative

individual

live

a

genuine

life?

Is

it

given

to the

creative

individual

to

experience

love and

being-with-others,

the

happiness

of

human

fellowship?

"Last

night

I felt

again:

Irma

is

life"

(diary, May

8,

1910).

In his

work

Lukics

stylized

the

"possibilities

represented

by

Irma"

into

symbolic


4/34

76

Heller

events.

During

their first

correspondence,

which

began

harmoniously,

e

considered

the

possibilities

of life

together, marriage, ompanionship:

he

essay

on Stormsaw

light, bearing

witness o the fact that ife canbe

created,

that creative

work

can blossom

forth from

a life consecrated

o a

calling.

After their

breakup,

he wrote the

essay

on

Kierkegaard,

n which

the

creation of

life

proves

to be a

futile,

ship-wrecked

ndeavor.

The

essay

on

Philippe,

a

masterpiece

of

proud

renunciation,

s

written

n

the fear and

hope

of

meeting again.

Great ove mustbe ascetic

-

the

creative

ndividual

must

touch

life,

but

only

in

order

to

transcend t.

Each

essay

is an

attitude;

various

possibilities,

various attitudes. But

the

question

levelled

at

the

various

possibilities

and attitudes s

always

he

same:

how

can creation ake

place?

How can formsbe

generated

n a

chaotic,

prosaic,

ifeless,

culture-

forsaken

world?

The

truth that Lukacs wished

not to

conceal

but to

articulate

s

contained

in

this

question.

Lukacscreated

his

relationship

o Irma

Seidler

o that

n

the

process

of

that

creationhe

might

ormulate his

question:

he vital

question

for

every

significant,

conscious,

creative

ndividual

f

the

bourgeois

world:

the

problem

of

the

viability

of the

"createdwork" n the

first

decade

of

the

20th

century.

"Last

night

I felt

again:

Irma is life." All

individuals

"create"

heir

relationship

to Others and

continually

recreate it. If this creation is

addressed

only

to

oneself,

if it is

painful

or

beautiful

only

for

oneself,

then

the forms

of

re-creation are

infinite,

and

its

colors

and

compositions

innumerable.But

if

someone createshis

relationship

o the Other

for the

purpose

of

articulating

truth,

which s not

painful

or beautiful

or

oneself

alone,

which s not

addressed

o

oneself

alone,

then

the

formsof re-creation

are

finite,

and the

colors and

compositions

are finite.

Then,

from

then

on,

the

generalproblem

defines even

the

private

dreams,

and

everything

n the

relationship

of

the

two

individuals

gains

symbolic

significance.

The

boundary

inesbetween the

diary

andthe

essays

becomeblurred.Whathas

the

one drawn romthe

other

and

vice

versa?

Did

LukAcs

ompose

his

essays

in the

way

he

did

because he had

composed

his

relationship

o

Irma in

a

given

manner,

or

was it the

reverse?

Did he createhis

relationship

o Irma

n

a

given

manner

because

n

his

essays

he

had

given

certainanswers o the vital

questions

of

the

ever-present

I?

What was

primary

here

-

the

forms,

or

life?

What

formedwhat?Did

the

human

relationship

ormthe

philosophy,

or

did the

philosophy

orm the

human

relationship?

"But as it is

now,

metaphysically,

am

absolutely

aithless,

homeless,

etc. In reality,however,I am faithfulandearthbound.By now- because

in

the

ultimatehuman

nterrelationsmanacts

withthe

metaphysical

ssence

of his

being

(well

named:

ens

realissimum)

-

everyone

treats

me

as

though

I

were

unfaithful,

while

(in

reality)

I

am

like

a

faithful andunfortunate

lover.

-

It was with

Irma that

all this was most

evidently

so"

(diary, May

11,

1910).

The "I" is

doubled;

spontaneity

is lost insofar as it

remains

incognito;

the

"metaphysical

I,"

the stance of

the "I" of

the

essays

is the "ens


5/34

GeorgLukdcs

ndIrmaSeidler 77

realissimum";

he

individual/personal ossibilities

re circumscribed

y

the

philosophical possibilities. The conduct of the individualbecomes--

willingly

or

unwillingly

the

expression

of

the

finite,

symbolic

orms of

conduct.Lukacscreatedhis

relationship

o

IrmaSeidler

withhis

philosophical

"I";

he

aligned

his

life

withthe truth

of

philosophy.

Every

philosopher

must

live out

his

philosophy;

he un-lived

philosophy

is no

longer

philosophy.

But

this

philosophy

the

philosophy

f

contradic-

tion

between life and

"created

work"

couldnot be lived out without he

consequence

of life

being

ship-wrecked

n the

process.

Life

avenged

tselfon

form

by conforming

o the

principles

f this orm. In

the

essay

on

Philippe

of

1910, the hero stridespast thatstageof his fate in whichwoman- life -

still could

play

a

role,

in

the

following

manner:

"Desire

had

made

him

hard,

strong.

He,

who

had

permitted

he woman to

departsobbing

wordlessly,

annihilated,

trembling

in

pain,

now

gained

luminous

strength

for the

renunciation.

..

For

he

had

destroyed

he

woman's

ife,

had

he not?"

Life

avenged

itself on

philosophyby

hideously

realizing

t.

And

LukAcs

knew that

life's

revenge

was

more than

revenge:

it was

judgement.

In

his

dialogue

On

Poverty

n

Sprit,

he

identified

sin with the

intermingling

f

castes.

The man

of

formsmust

not attachhimself o life. But

the un-livedphilosophy s no longerphilosophy.And in TheTheoryof the

Novel a

motif

emerges

which

had

already

been

implicit

n all

the

questions

he

had

posed

to the

world

-

the

motifof

the creation

of

a

new,

genuine,

nter-

personal

ife.

A life

whichovercomes he

dualism

of the

"empirical"

ndthe

"metaphysical,"

life

which

-

as ThomasMann

said

-

will

againprovide

an existentialbasis

for art.

The dreamsof TheSoul and

the

Formswere addressed o

Irma,

but Irma

was

not

present

n

these dreams.The authorof the

essays

bore

witness o his

own

possibilities,

to the

possibilities

of his

own

"metaphysical

."

But Irma

Seidlerwas notRegineOlsen,wholivedhappilyuntilshe died.Kierkegaard

could

create his

relationship

o

Regine

Olsen;

and

he

could

create

t in

a

way

that

posterity

could

only

seek

-

and find

-

the

possibilities

f

the

philoso-

pher's

"I"

in

this

philosophical

reation.

Regine

Olsen

is

trulyonly

a non-

objectified

object,

a

being

transformednto

symbol,

who

does not

intrude

into

the

story

which

is

not her

story,

but

that of the

man

who had

given

her

symbolic

form.

But

Irma

Seidlerwas not

Regine

Olsen,

who lived

happily

until she

died. She

was

not

the heroineof

philosophical

arables.

She

put

an

end to the

philosophicalparables

once and for

all with the final

gesture

of

suicide. It was she, andnot the philosopherhimself,whothrew nto doubt

and made the

philosophy

of TheSoul and theForms

equivocal

with

thisfinal

gesture.

And

with

her

death-leap

he

earned

her

right

o share

his

story.

Not

merely

as

its

object,

but as its

subject

as well.


6/34

78

Heller

2

ACT ONE

G.

first

met

I.

in

December,

1907.

It

was

in the midst

of

a

noisy

company

that he

noticed

a female voice of unusual

imbre;

he

set

out

afterthe

voice,

moving

from room to

room in

search of

its owner

and

found

her.

The

unwritten

aws of

their social class

did not

permit

hem to

meet

frequently.

Altogether

they

spent

no more thana few hourswith

one

another. . wanted

to

be

a

painter.

On

May

28,

1908

he

left

forFlorence.

G.

followedher

with

a

friend.AmongG.'s papers,thereare thefollowingnotes:"Twominuteson

the

train,

two

beautifulmomentsas we cross he PonteVecchio."

"Saturday,

June

6.

S.

Croce

and

S.

Lorenzo

with Irma. We

buy pictures.

Bargello.

Alone

in

the

evening;

one

kiss

in the dark."

They

returned

o

Budapest

on

July

1st.

A few

meetings.

Among

G.'s

papers,

the draft of the

essay

on

Kassner

with

the

following nscription:

"I

read

part

of

this

to

Irma

on

June

28,

1908

on

Svab

Hill. After

that,

I saw her

only

twice."On

July

1st,

I. left

for

Nagybainya,*

o

study

painting.

Among

G.'s

papers,

there are the

following

notes,

dated between

July

1-3:

"Scruples marriage

would be

impossible). . .I was preparedfor malaise, fear, the mellowingeffect of

happiness,

fear that

I

might

not be

able

to orient

myself

n

a

more

broadly-

based

life."

From

July

1

through

October,

correspondence.

On

October

25,

I.'s

first

letter

to

suggest

breaking

off the

relationship.

November

2,

I.'s

second

break-off letter.

Among

G.'s

papers,

a draftof a

good-bye

etter: "I must

write

now,

now

when

you

will

only

receive

these

lines

along

with the

news

of

my

death.

. ."

I.

married

R.

ACT

TWO

In

March, 1910,

G.

sent

the

Hungarian

dition

of

his

volume

of

essays

to

I.R.,

accompanied

by

a

letter. The

draft of the

letter,

addressing

her

as

"Most

esteemed

Madam,"

survived

among

G.'s

papers.

"This

ruly

cannot

obligate you

to

me

in

any

manner,

for it is I

who am

obliged

to

thank

you,

with

the most

sincere

andmost

deeply

felt

gratitude

nd

affection,

or

every-

thing you havedone for me, foreverythingyou have beento me, for what

:''

NagybAnya

name of a small

town

in

Hungary

nd the

artists'

olony

which

lourished

there

from

1896

onwards.

In contrastto

contemporary

cademic

painting,

he

Nagybanya

colony developed

a

distinctive aturalistic

tyle

whichborrowedmuch

rom

mpressionism

n

its

treatmentof

light

but

stopped

shortof

the

atmospheric

issolution f form.

The

colony

hosted

many

students

as well as

accomplished

artists from all over

Europe during

the

1910s.

-

Trans. note


7/34

Georg

Lukdcs

and IrmaSeidler

79

you

have made of

me."

I.'s

answer:

"Dear

Gyuri,*my

heartfelt hanks

or

the book.

.

.Sincere

greetings,

Irma

Seidler,

R."

The

diary begins

with

April,

1910.

"There's rouble. am

thinking nly

of

her;

she could

help

me"

(April

27).

"To remember one event

with

her

is more than

a life to be

spent

with

another"

(May

8).

"But,

in that most

general

sense,

everything

s

'over

between

us.'

Between

us,

yes.

But from

me

to

her,

no. And from

her

to

me,

who

knows?"

(May 14).

"Irma

will

have

something

to

do with

the end"

(June

1).

"Strange,

I

knew her

for

barely

a

year,

and

how

long

it took me

to

learn what

she

really

meant

to me"

(June

21).

G.

decided

to dedicate he

German

editionof

his

essays

o

I.

Dedications

drafts."I

place

this book in

your

hands,

for

you

have

given

me more thanI

could

possibly

recount

in

it;

everything

hat

I have

acquired

and

won. And

even

if

you

do

not

need,

even

if

you

will not suffer

this

expression

of

gratitude,

it will still

silently

fall

upon

your

head like faded flowers

in

autumn"

May

14).

"In

memory

of

my

first

days

n Florence."

"I

entrust

his

book

to

the

hands which

gave

it to

me."

Fall, 1910,

G.'s

letter

to his

friend,

L.: "The

difficulties,

t

seems,

are

greater

still

with Irma.

I saw

a

sketch

of hers

for a fresco.

.

.

.

It

is as

though

Nagybainya

nd

R.

never existed.

And

with her..

.this

is

a

bad

sign

-

in

termsof her

marriage.

The fact that she is

coming

to

Budapest

his winter

while her husband

s to

stay

in

Nagybinya

is

only

a

symptom

of

this.

...

Lucky

for

me

that

by

the time

she

will

have

arrived,

shallbe

far

away,

that

by

now I look

upon

this

whole affair

with

simple

human

compassion

so

much

so

that

I

could

even be her

well-meaning

riend

if it

were not

so

dangerous

(for

her),

which,

of

course,

is

why

it will not

be."

ACT

THREE

January,

1911, G.'s

letter to

I.,

in

which he asked

her

to

accept

the

dedication from

him. "You

know...why

these

writings

were

written,

because

I

cannot

write

poems,

and

you

know

again

who

these

'poems'

are

addressed

o,

and

who

awakened

hem

in

me."

"What

wish

to

accomplish,

only

an

unattached

man

can

accomplish."

I.'s

answer: "Thank

you

for

retaining

so

much

warmth or

me. I

am

proud

that

I had

something

o do

with the

production

of such

a

book

-

or

that

you

believe

that

I

had. I am also

glad

that,

as it turns

out,

I read

the

Hungarianeditioncorrectly."

March,

1911.

G.

and

I.

meet

for the

first

time

in almost

hree

years.

G.'s

letters

to

his

friend,

L.: "Irma

is here

and we've

met a

few

times,

and so far

it

*

Gyuri

-

affectionate

erm

for

Georg

in

Hungarian.

After

Irma's

marriage,

heircorres-

pondence

takes

on an

appropriate

ormality,

which s not reflected

n

the undifferentiated

se

of

"you"

in

English.

-

Trans.

note


8/34

80

Heller

seems

everything

s

over. But Irma s

immensely

unhappy.

t's

quite

certain

that her

marriage

s

totally

and

hopelessly

bad."

"Whatever arm he did

to

me

turnedout well for me

in

the end

-

here she is innocent.The fact

that

t

was even

worse for her

-

this is her

misfortune."

"I've

chattered

n about

myself

too

long, perhaps

n

your eyes,

suspiciously ong."

I.'s

two letters to

G.,

sent

by

messenger

n

March,

1911.

"But I must

absolutely

speak

with

you

alone

before

your trip..

.and

don't eave

before

we've

had a chanceto

speak

with

one

another.

Greetings,

rma.

Pleasesend

an

answerto mother."

"I

would

very

much

ike to

speak

with

you

still

....

And I

wish

you lovely

days.

. . .

God

be

with

you,

Gyuri,

your

true

friend,

Irma."

I.'s

letter

to

G.

in

Florence,

April

19,

1911:

"My

dear

good

friend

Gyuri,

why

don't

you

ever write

me

a line?

Please

write,

my

dear

Gyuri,

or

I am

as

alone here as

a

stray

dog."

G.'s answer o

I.:

"Therefore,

beg

you

to

please

understand:

t was

quite

wonderful

hat

we met

again

n

Budapest,

andwhat

revived between

us,

I

sense,

is

but

a

beginning

...

But

I am

happy

o be

alone.

It's

not

that

I

wish

you

both

away

-

but

I

wish

myself

to

be

by

myself."

G.'s

letter

to

I.

sent

from

Florenceto

Budapest:

"At

times I fear

you

don't

writebecause

hings

aren't

going

well. This

would

pain

me

deeply,

for

I

know there's

little,

almost

nothing,

I could do for

you

now

in

case

of

trouble.

But

still,

perhaps.

..."

I.'s

last letter to

G.,

April

28:

"Something

must be

understoodall

over

again.

In

every

respect."

April

-

May

1911:

I.'s

brief

relationship

withG.'s

friend,

H. In

breaking

off,

H.

appeals

to

the

sanctity

of

friendship.

.

commits

uicide.

On

May

24,

G.

makes the

followingentry

in

his

diary:

"No one is

so

miserablethat

God cannot

make

him

more miserable.

did not know this.

Every

bond

is

broken,

for

she was

every

bond. And now

there are

only

shared

goals

and

things

and

work,

for

she

was

everything.Everything.

Everything.Everythought brought

o her

was

a

flower,

and ts

joy

and

ife-

value

were

that

it

was

hers

-

and

that

perhaps

she'd see it and

delight

n

it.

...

It

no

longer

mattersnow

whetheror

not she

wantedme.

If

one

feels

this

way

about

someone,

he must

always

be

ready.

He

must wait

by

her

doorstep,

and

perhaps

once.

...

Only

in

this

way

can

he

become

worthy

of

what he

feels,

only

in

this

way

can he earnthe

right

o

be

human.

I

have lost

my

right

to

life."

3.

"The

gesture

is

unequivocal,

only

insofar

as

all

psychology

s conven-

tional"

-

writes

Lukics

in

his

Kierkegaard

ssay.

In

the

world of conventions

every

gesture

is

unequivocal,

clear,

trans-

parent,

intelligible.

We know

what

a

kiss

signifies,

we knowwhata

love

letter

signifies,

or a

warm

squeeze

of the

hand

at

the

gate,

or.ifwedancewith

the same

person

all

night

at

a

ball,

or

a

serenade

under the

windows;

we


9/34

Georg

Lukacs

and Irma

Seidler

81

know what a bethrothalor

marriage

ignifies;

we also

know what

marital

infidelity

signifies.

The

significance

of

individual

gestures

is

regulated

by

institutionsand customs.If the

gesture

s

sincere,

herecanbe no misunder-

standing;

the

only

source of

misunderstanding

s

deceit,

but

deceit also

presupposes knowledge

of the

significance

of

gestures:

t is the

abuse

of

these

significations.

But the

significance

f

gestures

remains

unequivocal

or

all

that;

indeed,

deceit confirms heir

unequivocal

meaning.

Subjectively,

Kierkegaard

did

not

participate

n

the

world of conven-

tions,

his

psychology

was not

conventional.

But

in his

approach

o

and

estrangement

from

another

human

being,

he

nevertheless

utilized

this

conventional

et

of

customs.

He

was

bethrothed,

and

he broke

his

betrothal.

Although

Regine

Olsen

might

have sensed a

uniqueness

concealed n the

gestures,

a

uniqueness

whichcould

not be described

n terms

of

psychological

conventions,

she could

just

as well

have

interpreted

hem

according

o

the

significations

f

sacrosanct

ustom.

According

o

conventional

ignification,

breaking

off an

engagement

definitively

oncludes

a

relationship.

This

may

be

painful,

but,

in the last

analysis,

according

o

the rulesof

custom

t

also

signifies

finality

and

freedom

regained.

Regine

Olsenwas

a

child

of

conven-

tion,

therefore

she

could

marry

and

live

happily

until

she

died.

But

what

happens

f

the

customs

ose

their

validity?

What

happens

when

neitherof the two

people

havea conventional

psychology?

ndeed,whatif

neither

of

them has

access

to a

system

of

institutions

and

customs

whose

significations

ould

help

interpret

he Other'sactions

and

gestures?

And,

at

the same

time,

what

if

neither

of

them

has

access

to

a

system

of

institutions

and customs

to

help

interpret

their

own

actions

and emotions?

Can

two

people

meet

at

all

in

harmonious,

mutual

understanding,

f all

existing

nsti-

tutions

and their

significations

embody

for

them

a

contemptible,

unacceptable

quotidien

banality,

if

life

turns

nto

pure

chaos,

from

which

they

rise

like two

solitary

mountain

peaks?

Can

one

soul reach

another

f

it

experiences

only

itselfas

genuinely

existent?

The

fated-togetherness

f

Georg

Lukacs

and Irma

Seidlerwas rooted

n

their

lonely rejection

of

the conventions.

And

precisely

because

of

this,

their

being-fated-for-each-other

ould

never become

living-for-each-other.

Both

Georg

Lukacs

and Irma

Seidler

came

from

bourgeois

Jewish

families

in

Budapest

-

the former

from a

financially

prosperous

and

growing

family,

the latter

from a

waning

one.

The

"social

existence"

nto

which

they

were born

were

strongly

repugnant

o them

both.

They

were

disgusted

by

the

musty atmosphere

of the

home

contaminated

by

petty

deals, calculations, elf-seekingandtheconventionsof money.Thiswasthe

life

in which

they

were

raised,

and

they

both

felt

strongly

hatthis

life was

somehow

"not

genuine."

The

home,

the

family,

the

institutions

they

were

all

inauthentic.

They

were both

strangers

among

their

own.

LukAcs

fled into

"pure

spirit,"

he

learned

o breathe

he

heady

airof

philosophy.

To

the irrelevant

onventions

which

represented

haos

to

him,

he

counterposed

pure

spirit,

the"created

work."

The

roots

of

Irma's ebellion

were

assuredly


10/34

82

Heller

in

goodness;

she could

not bearthe

sight

of

suffering,

and she

suffered

rom

the

lack

of the

meansto

heal.

"What

hall

I

do?

Imagine,

a

lovely,young

and

talentedwoman accustomed o

hunger

isn'tthis monstrousWhatI can

do to

help

her

amounts

to

zero"

(July

26,

1908).

"I

was

tremendously

delighted

with

the

10

Forints,

which

I

rushed

o

the

L's;

they immediately

bought

some

paint

and

food.

In

the

fall

you

will

receive

a smallsketch rom

them because

I

cannot

give

them

the

money

like

this

without

asking

for

something

in

return"

(August

2).

At

the same

time

this

considerateand

good person

felt uncertain

n

the

atmosphere

f

"pure pirit"

which,

or

her,

was

not

so

heady,

but ratherrare

ndeed.

She

yearned

or

palpable,

ensual

reality,

for

nature. She writes

confidently:

"We have

both,

I

think,

surpassed

in

very healthy

fashion,

a

perhaps overly

theoretical

stage.

I

through

nature,

and

you through positive history, through

the

study

of

Marx." In

1919

-

had

she

lived

-

Irma

Seidler

would

certainly

have

considered as her

vocation

the

organization

of

summer

vacations

for

proletarian

children.

This

was the root

of

Georg

Lukacs'

and Irma

Seidler's

ated-together-

ness.

And

yet,

this

being-fated-for-each-other

ould

never become

living-

for-each-other.

Can

one

soul reach

another

if it

experiences

only

itself

as

genuinely

existent? Can two

people

arriveat

understanding-each-other

f

every

word

and

gesture

between

them

carries

ignificance nly

in-

and-for-itself,

f the

institutionsand

customs

do not offer at

leastsome

basis

or the

interpretation

of

gestures

and

words?

Or,

to

inquire

urther,

s a

purelyunique

elationship,

free

of

all

regulation,

created

from

the

void,

at

all

possible?

Lukracs

ries

and

tries

again,

and tries

incessantly

o

make

himself

under-

stood

by

Irma

Seidler,

to make

her

understand the

being

that

is

specifically

him,

who is no

one

else,

buthim.

"Love"hasno

meaning.

t

is a

banalword.

"I

miss

you"

has

no

meaning.

It, too,

is

a banal

expression.

What

must

be

made clear to the Other iswhat it means

(for

me and

only

for

me)

to love,

what it

means

(for

me and

only

for

me)

to miss someone. But to articulate

the

question

"What

does

it

mean

that,"

.

.

.

this

requires

an entire

system

of

categories.

And

Lukacs

borrows

his

system

of

categories

rom

philosophy.

Personal

feelings

are

not

articulated

n

the conventional

ignifications, hey

gain

their

significances

from

Lukacs

philosophy.

From

a

philosophy

whose

essence

and

system

of

categories

are

inaccessible

to Irma.

Every

word

becomes

ambiguous,

every

sentence

misconstruable. esire loses its

object,

and the "I"

becomesa

construct.

"Making

neself understood"urns nto ts

own

opposite.

ThemoreLukacswishestorevealhis "I"toIrma, he

deeper,

the

more

impenetrable

his

incognito

becomes. "There are

people

who

understand

and do not

live,

and

there are others who live

and do

not under-

stand.

The first kind can

never

really

reach

the second even

though they

understand

them,

and

the

second can never

understand

anything,

but

then,

that cannot be

important

for them

in

any

case

because

they

love

or

hate,

tolerate or will

tolerate,

and the

category

of

understanding

does not exist for


11/34

Georg

Lukdcs and

Irma

Seidler

83

them."

Lukaics

wrote this in

March

1910

to

Irma

Seidler,

analyzing

he

failure

of

their

relationship.

Lukaics

reatedhis

relationship

o

Irma

Seidler,

and continuallyrecreated t throughthe prismof his philosophy.For this

analysis

s

in

fact

philosophicalpoetry.

"Irma

s life."The man

of

philosophy

understands

he

existential

being,

the existential

being

knows

howto

livebut

does

not

understand

he man of

philosophy.

Thus far

the

poem.

But

the

reality

is this: no

man

can

make

himselfunderstood

hrough

he

prism

of

his

philosophical

categories

alone. No one can

grasp

what s

intangible.

But the

reality

is

this:

Irma

was

not "life"

-

not

in

the

philosophical

ense

of

the

word.

Nor did

she

merely

want

to

live,

she also

wanted to understand

he

Other;

however,

the Other'sself-clarification

as

incomprehensible

o her.

The

reality

is this:Lukacsdid

not

understandrmaSeidlerbecausehe also

wanted

to understand

her with

philosophical

categories,

and the

living

person

with its

living

desires

cannot

be

understood

hrough

he

philosophy

with

which

Lukaics

wished

to

understand

t.

"You

wished

to

save

me

-

I

thank

you.

You wished

to save

me,

but

I

cannot

be

saved.

.

.

.

You

have ventured

upon

an

impossible

ask,

and

you

have realized

this,

have

you

not,

or

rather,

ifehas made

you

realize t, life,

which

loves

those

who know

how

to

live,

andhates

those

of

my

ilk"

(Lukics'

good-bye

letter

to

Irma,

November-December,

1908).

"Irma...the

woman, the redeemer"(diary,April25, 1910)."Butperhaps couldhave

saved

her,

if

I

had

taken

her

by

the

hand

and

led her"

(diary,

May

24,

1911).

Rescue,

redemption,

grace

-

these

are the

categories

with

which

Lukbacs

escribed

his

relationship

o

Irma

Seidler,

whether

n the

dialogue

of

misunderstandings

r

in

his

monologues.

Irma

wished

to save him.

Irma

wished

to

redeem

him.

The

redemption

failed,

and

he retreated

into

solitude.

Had

Irma

truly

understood

him,

then

he would

have

partaken

of

grace.

In

the

mystical

ense

of

the

word,

grace

s

merging

with

the Other.

But

Irmacould

not save

him.

And

after

the terrible

nd,

the roles

are

apparently

reversed:it is he who shouldhave savedIrma.It is he who shouldhave

redeemed

Irma,

but

he

could

not

save

her,

could

not redeem

her,

for

he

had

not

partaken

of the

"grace

of

goodness"

On

Poverty

n

Spirit).

Butthe

roles

are

only

apparently

eversed.

Be

he saved

or

savior,

redeemed

or

redeemer,

it amounts

to the same:

it

is

he

who

must

partake

of

grace,

either

to

be

redeemed,

or to

be

capable

of

redeeming

he

Other.

"I

go

to

prove

my

soul"

-

Luka.cs

was

to

quote

Browning

wellafter

the

conclusion

of our

story

when

he was

researching

he conduct

f

Dostoievsky's

heroes.

"I

go

to

prove

my

soul"

- thisis the

"challenge"

f those

living

a

lifeless life, those who do notwishto liveby the normsof custom,butstill

hope

to

gain

some

insight

nto

their

own

viability.

"I

go

to

prove

my

soul"

-

LukAcs

wished

to

"prove"

his

own

soul,

his own

human

viability

n

his

relationship

o

Irma

Seidler.

He

did not

wish

to

love,

he

sought

certainty.

He

did

not

expect

love,

but

rather

this

same

certainty, proof

of his

own

authenticity,

redemption,

grace.

That

is,

this

was

his

quest

at thistime.

This

is

what

the

words

"love"and

"I

am

loved"

meant

to him.


12/34

84 Heller

But

they

did not mean

the same to Irma

Seidler.

"Dearest

Gyuri,god

be with

you,

write

and ove

me,

Irma"

August14).

Irma

wanted

neither o

save

nor

redeem

he

Other,

as

she also

never

wanted

to

be saved or redeemed.

She

simply

wishedto love andbe loved. But

she

was

loved

Or,

perhaps

not?

What

does

it

mean,

"to love"?

In the world of conventions

every gesture

is

unequivocal,

lear,

trans-

parent,

intelligible.

But what

happens

whentwo

people

meet,

andneither

of

them

has

access

to

a

system

of

institutions

nd customswhose

significations

could

help interpret

he

Other'sactionsand

gestures?

Can

they

still

invest

with

the

same

significance

that

simple

phrase

which

substantiatesand

resolves

everything,

which

expresses

the

beginning

and the end

of

every-

thing,

which

joins

soul

to

soul:

"I love

you"?

What did

it

mean for

Irma

"to love"?

"You

write that the difficult

paths

(in work)

must

always

be

walked

alone. But

perhaps

t

is still

possible

for another o

see

everystep.

I

see

the

value of two

people's belonging ogether

n

that

one

is not alone. In

that all

sorts of

difficulties, osses,

disappointments

an

be so muchbetterborne

f

there

is

another,

if someone

holds one's hand"

(August

5).

For Irma

"to

love" meansto

accept

twofold

olitude.

"Tohold

one's hand" s

for

Irma he

gesture

of

earthly

ove.

"Back

then

she

might

have felt that

I

could

save

her

from her

troubles,

though

she did not

love

me. But

perhaps

I

could have

saved

her,

if I

had taken her

by

the

handand led her"

(diary,May

24).

The

"receiver"

of

Lukacs'

soul did not

interpret

he offer of

"holding

hands"as

love

("she

did not

love

me").

For

him,

"holding

hands"was

the

gestureof

rescue,

not

of

love,

but

of

goodness.

"For

the union

of

souls there is

no

marriage

bed."

For

Irma,

the

symbolic "holding

hands"meant

"to

love,"

for

Lukacs,

redemption

meant "to

love."

They

both

love,

but neither

eels

loved.

Because the

words

"I

love

you"

mean

something

different o

the one and

to

the other.

Georg

Lukaics

nd Irma

Seidler were both

strangers mong

their

own.

Neither of

them felt that

ordinary

ife was

"genuine."

The

home,

the

family,

the institutionswere all

inauthentic.But

what

could

they

counterpose

o all

this?

Lukaics the

unmediated

meeting

of

souls

in

the

state

of

"grace."

But

the

pure,

unmediated

meeting

of

souls could

only

be

momentary.

"The

possibility,

the

one-time actualization

of

a

possibility says

Eckhart

means

its

everlasting

reality.

Metaphysically,

ime does

not

exist. And the

moment when I was I is

truly

life, full life; and

yet,

the 'moods' which

permeate

all of

life

are

only 'momentary.'

Here, too,

the same

dreadful

ambiguity.

Is this

not

frivolous,

as well?

In

other

words,

the old

problem

where does

Hjalmar

Ekdal become

distinguishable

romNovalis?"

diary,

May

11).

Lukics doesnot

spare

himself he

cruelty

of

the

clear-sighted,

ruly

noble individual

against

himself; indeed,

where does

Hjalmar

Ekdal

become

distinguishable

from

Novalis?

Where does the

conventionalized


13/34

Georg

Lukdcsand IrmaSeidler

85

egotist

become

distinguishable

rom the

poet fearlessly

experiencing

his

death?

And

how

can

the

Other's

"receiver"

not

register

he

veryambiguity

of what is

problematic

and

ambiguous

or the

"I"

itself.

How

could

the

Other

distinguish

hese two

intertwined

possibilities?

How

could it not

see

-

justifiably,

oo

-

the

fear

of the

over-refined,

onventionalized

gotism

in

the stance

of

"hours

n

lieu

of life"?

The

meeting

of

souls

in

the

moment,

hours

n

lieu

of life

-

this is what

Lukacs

counterposed

o the

"lifeless life" of

the

everyday

world. But was

this also

Irma'sanswer?

Was this also

Irma's

choice?

Irma'svisit to

the

Ferenczys":

"They

ive

a

lovely

life.

...

Their life

is

truly

not

ordinary,

but a

noble,

warm

and

simplesomething

built

upon

immeasurable ichness.

It is

a

higher

ormof existence"

August

5).

Irma's

choice: life instead

of

hours. But

not

the

ordinary

ife,

rather

he

realization

of a

"higher

orm of

existence."

Irma's

choice:

habitable

nstitutions.Not

institutions urnished

with the

banal

furniture

of

custom,

but those which

provide

comfortand

warmth,

those

which

create new

meaning,

those

which

can be

replenished

with

authentic

life.

But,

can

privately

nhabited nstitutionsbe created?Is

there

a

private

language?

Are

private

customs

possible?

Can two

people

make

a world?

Lukacs

could not understand rma's

answer,

or he

necessarily

aw false

illusion

in

all this. Because

he knew

that

private language

and

private

customs cannot exist. He

knew

that two

people

cannot

create

habitable

institutions.Whereculture s

lacking,

he

habitable

nstitution

s

an "island"

at

best. And even

if

he

looked

upon

these

islands

with

onging,

andeven

if he

held

the

authentic

ife

organized

on these islandsof

habitable nstitutions

o

be

exemplary,

he

still

did

not wish to live

in

WilhelmMeister'smarvelous

tower. "Irma s life"

-

and Lukcs did

not

want this life.

"There s no

marriage

bed

for

the

union

of

souls."

Didn'tthe

promise

of

the future lie in

Irma's

earthly

dream,

after

all?

4

Strindberg

and

many

others

afterhim

-

havewritten

of

the

man

and

the

woman who

torture

each other

until

all

mutual

understanding

urns

up

in the heat

of hate. But has

anyone

written he

anti-Strindberg?

he breath-

taking

dramaof

two

souls

in

searchof

one

another?

When all true

gestures

become ambiguous, all understanding misunderstanding,when the

words

that

are said

cause

pain,

andthe unsaidwords

even more

so,

whenwe

are able to

express

less and

less,

when

self-revelation ecomes

ntroversion

until

finally

faith

is

silenced,

and the

souls

are alienated

rom one another

with

the

finality

of fate? Has

anyone

written his drama

yet?

*Karl

Ferenczy

1862-1917),

one of

the

principals

nd

teachers

at the

Nagybfnya

artists'

colony

and

a

professor

at the

HungarianAcademy

of Fine

Arts

after

1906.


14/34

I.'s

Letter

o

G.

from

Nagybdnya

Act One:

Hope

July

3,

1908.

I

have received

your

letter,

"but

I am

still

not

frightened

y

the

things

you

say

in

it. But

then

-

my

dear

Gyuri,

listen to me:

do

you

believe that two

people

can

grow

toward

one another

genuinely,

not

superfi-

cially

but

sincerely,

without

any

pain?.

..

Afterwe

grew

so

very

close

to one

another,

I

sensed that

something

of this

sort was

bound

to

come.

But I

was

not afraid. I

treat

the

whole

thing

as

some noble

work,

something

which

one

does

with

courageous ntegrity,

n

nobility."

Act Two: BetweenFearand

Hope

July

17,

1908.

"I

am

afraid and at times

like

this

I feel

very

lonely

-

that

you

miss

me,

and

missme

only

where

houghts

and

work

are

concerned,

in thatdomainwhich

s

yours,

and

mine,

butwhich

s

not

the

only

domain

here

is.

No,

don't be

angry

for these

thoughts,

whichI

can

barely

express.

..it

shouldmean

no

more

to

you

than hatthere

s

something

cannot

express.

.

I

love

you very

much,

you

know

that,

but

one

should

say

so

again,anyway."

August

2.

"As

for what

you

write

regarding

he

two of

us,

I

have

only

one

reply,dearGyuri,Ihavebeen

through

omuch

disappointment.

herehave

been men who

loved

me

well,

and

they

were

all

cowards.

They

were

afraidof

me. And now

you,

too,

are

afraid.

I

want a

great

love,

the love of

a noble

man.

You

grant

me

this."

August

5.

"At

times.

..it

seems

as

though

omething

has

happened

with

you

in

relationto me."

"Letter-writing

s

wretched."

"Love

me

and

under-

stand

everything

well.

I

was

unableto

say

what

I

thought.

I

believe

we

can

reach one

another,

but

no,

no

more talk

of this.

I

love

you

very

much."

August

14.

".

.

.we

so

very badly

need

a

day

together,

a

lovely, sunny

andseriousday,witheachother."G. shouldvisither; f itdisturbshiswork,

he

should not

come.

"But if

you

can,

if

you

are not

afraid,

then

come,

for

sure."

August

29.

"I

only

know one

single.

.

.method

for

your

coming

here.

And that is:

openly,

with

parentalpermission,

with

the

express

purpose

of

visiting

Nagybanya

and

myself."

September

2.

"It

is

my

last

hope

that

you

might

come

from

Budapest.

Openly."

Act Three:Despair

October

1.

"During

he summer

you explained

omewhat

cruelly

o

me

in

long, painful

letters that we

ultimately

cannot

make each other

happy.

But

at

the

time,

all

these

things

you

were

saying

bounced off

me. ..

And


15/34

Georg

Lukdcsand

Irma

Seidler

87

now

the reaction

has

set

in,

and it

weighs

heavily

on

me."

October

25.

"Gyuri,

we

spentmuch imetogether. ... But we were not

together

with

every

part

of

our

being.

We

were not

together

whereI

have

my

most

wretchedly

human

core of

blood and

pulsating

lesh which

lives in

tangible

things.

.

.

.

And

today

I will

discontinue

his combative

ogether-

ness

because

I

often

feel,

to

a

degree

that

will

brookno

argument,

hat

there

are

things

n

whichthe most incisiveand

deep psychological

nalysis,

as

well

as

the

peculiar

delight

that

goes

with

it,

are useless for

me,

because

they

cannot

substitute

for

functions

of

the soul but

remain

merely

intellectual

pleasure."

"You never told

me

-

and I

certainly

never knew

because

I

always

had

ample

reason

to

presume

he

opposite

-

I

never knew

whether

or not

you

really

considered

iving

our lives

together.

And

despite

the fact

that

you

have never said

you

wanted

t

so,

I

ask

you

today

to

return

my

free-

dom,

which

perhaps

you

never took from

me

-

which

you

always

hesitated

and

feared to

take.

I now reclaim

t.

You know

thatI've

gone through

great

deal

of

pain

to build

up

my strength

o

I

could

write

you

all

this." "God

be

with

you Gyuri,

I

bid

you goodbye,

becausewe cannot

go

on

together."

November

2.

"My

dearestone

and

only Gyuri,

I am

packing

and

coming

to

Budapest.

.

.

.

I want to

speak

to

you.

To

speak

to

you

and

make

myself

understood.

If there is

still

some

way

we

can

reach

eachother.

I wantus to

do

so. And

if

not,

I

shall

still remain

devotedto

you

forever,

and

I

shalltake

my

leave

in

the

knowledge

that the

warmthof

my

entire

soul

was

yours,

and

I

shall

always

watch

every

step you

take

from afar. The

only thing

that

I

urgently,

deeply

desire,

if we

must

part,

is that

we do so

not

with

bitterness,

but

with

magnanimous

and tender sentiments

gently."

The last rendez-vous

he

expected

did not take

place

at that

time.

5

There

is

resigned

despair

and

provocative

despair;

the

provocative

despair

is

always

an

expectation

f

miracles.

rma

Seidler's

despair

was

just

such

an

expectation

of miracles.

The

goodbye

letter

is

ambiguous.

The

words

speak

of

breakingup,

but

the

passion

that rises from

the

words

with

elemental

force

carries he

opposite

meaning.

Irma

Seidler

wants

one

thing:

the

ultimate

certainty,

he definitive

answer.The

certainty

of

breakingup,

the

certainty

of

failure,

-

or,

the

miracle.

IrmaSeidler

expected

a

mircale,

and,

when it

did

not

come,

she

challenged

t.

Perhaps

he

finality

of one

the certaintyof failure,- or, themiracle.IrmaSeidlerexpecteda miracle,

force.

Perhaps

the

finality

of

"no"

is the

only way

to attain

the

finality

of

"yes."

IrmaSeidler's

despair

was the

despair

of

expecting

miracles.

Perhaps

he

was not even

expecting

a

"big"

miracle,

but

only

"small"

miracles.

"We

so

badly

need a

day

together."

"My

last

hope

is that

perhaps

you

can come

from

Budapest.")

But

the

"small"miracle s

as

much

a

miracle s

the

big

one,


16/34

88

Heller

and it is

fruitless

to

expect

miracles.

They

cannot be

forced.

The

one

who

received the

letter

had no

"ear"

for the

secret

message.

The

ambiguity

carrieda singlemeaning orhim.GeorgLukicswas a proudman,andthe

proud

man

has

no

feeling

for this

type

of

ambiguity.

And so the last

cry

of

despair

("If

there is

still some

way

for

us

to

reach

each

other,

Iwant

us to

do

so.")

was

in

vain.

Only

one alternative

remained,

one

certainty

the

certainty

of

failure,

which

was the failure

of

two

people.

The last

rendez-

vous she

expected

did

not

take

place

at

that time.

IrmaSeidler oved

Georg

Lukaics,

ovedhimas

he

was.

She

lovedhim

or

the

same reasons

that

anyone,

who

really

loves,

loves

-

because he was

exactly

whathe

was.

And

yet,

Irma

Seidlerwanted hismanso

terribly

much

to be differentthan hewasinhisrelationshipoher.IrmaSeidlerexpecteda

miracle.

But,

the sound

of

trumpets

will

cause

he wallsof

Jericho

o

fall,

and

life-giving

manna

will

fall from

heaven,

before a

significant

ndividual

will

act

contrary

to

the

principles of

his own

individuality.

"You

too are

afraid"..."if

you

are not

afraid"..."you always

hesitated

and feared"

-

Irma Seidler

expected

the

biggest

miracleof all:

she wanted

the man

she

loved to be

unafraid.

Georg

Luktcs wrote in

his

diary:

"To

expect

miracles s

always

he

sign

of

crisis. As

long

as

there s no

difficulty,

one

can have

faith

n

miracles.

And

theywillcome. But theexpectedmiraclesalwaysmpossible"June6, 1910).

The

expected

miracle

is

always

impossible.

But

what does

it

mean to

"have

faith

in

miracles"?Could Irma

Seidlerhave

had

faith in

miracles?

Faith

is

always

directed oward

ranscendence.To

have

faith n

miracles

means

that

we

have not

part

n

the

miracle tself. The

miracle s external

grace.

In

the

having

of faith n

miracles here s no time.

We

can have

faith

n

miracles

throughout

our

lives,

and

we can

never

say

they

will

not

happen.

That would

be

lack

of faith.

To

have

faith

in

another human

being

means

to consider

he Other as

transcendent, to know from the start that there is no relationship,no

reciprocity.Everything

proceeds

romthe

Other.

The

Other s the

subject.

I

the

object

-

I

am

subjectonly

insofaras

I

have faith in

the Other.

But

Irma

Seidler's

relationship

to

Georg

Lukcs

was

anything

but

religious;

for

her,

a

relationship

meant

reciprocity,

he constant

dialogue

of

two

human

souls. Irma

Seidlerdid not have

faith n

Georg

Lukcs,

and

that

is

why

she

had the

strength

to

judge

him:

"You.

.

.always

hesitated

and

feared."

Irma

Seidler

judged

Georg

Lukics,

and

yet,

she

wanted

to

provoke

a

miracle.But a miracle is just as much a religiouscategoryas faithis; the

provoked

miracle

s

a

paradox.

And

to

appeal

to

paradox

s

always

he

sign

of

despair:

"but to

expect

miracles

is

always

a

sign

of

crisis"

-

the

sign

of

impotence;

the

sign

of failure. Irma

Seidler's

good-bye

letter was

ambiguous,

but the

one who

received the letter could have

no ear for

it

because he

was,

such

as he was. To

try

to

provoke

a

miracle

is

already,

in its

own

paradoxical

fashion,

an

admission

of

failure.


17/34

Georg

Lukdcs ndIrma

Seidler 89

The

sound

of

trumpets

will

cause the

walls of Jerichoto

fall,

and

life-

giving

manna

will fall from heaven before

a

man,

who

fears,

ceases

to

fear.

"Scruples

(marriage

would be

impossible)...I

was

prepared

for

malaise:

ear,

the

mellowing

ffect

of

happiness,

ear

that

I

might

not be able

to

orient

myself

n

a more

broadly-based

ife"

(Lukic's

note,

July

1-3,

1908).

Georg

Lukaics

as afraid f Irma

Seidler,

buthe didnot fear or

ife,

rather

for his work.

"What

I wish

to

accomplish

only

an unattached

man

can

accomplish."

"Ifeel more andmore

strongly

hatthe

really mportant

hings

happen

n

solitude

....

I

experience

olitudeas

a

great

redeeming'oy,

not

as

a

resignation

o

being

excludedfrom

ife,

but as the

discovery

of

life,

my

life,

the

life

in which

everything

is

adequate."

(Letters

of

G.L. to

I.S.

January

and

April,

1911)

"Last

night

I

felt

again

hat Irma

s

life"

-

but

Georg

LukAcs

was

afraid

of

this life.

"Great

love

is

always

ascetic.

There is

no difference

between

elevating

the

beloved

to the

height

of

heights

and

so

alienating

her

from

oneself

as well as

herself,

and

using

her

simply

as

a

stepping

tone"

(Lukacs'

essay

on

Philippe).

In

theory

there

may

be

no "difference" etween

these

two

attitudes,

but

Lukics

was a

refinedand

honorableman.

He knew here

s a difference.

And

he chose

the

first course. The

figure

of Irmabecame

symbolic

or

him,

and

he chose this

symbolic

transformation:

"Strange

how little I felt the

necessity,

in

Leo and

Irma's

case,

of

their

being-with-me

and

being-for-

me.

....

Their

being-here

was sufficient"

(diary,

November

30,

1911).

Lukics

transformed

Irma

Seidler into a

mythical figure,

into

the

unobjectifiedobject

of

his

eternaldesire.

He

had

faith n

Irma,

(as

Irma

did

not have

faith in

him),

and

he

could

have

aith

becausewhat

was

essential or

him,

work,

was

not

being-with-her,

ut her existence

n

itself.

Georg

Lukacswas afraid

of Irma

Seidler.He feared

or

his

work,

andhe

feared

her as

he

was a refined

and honorable

man.

Of

the

two

attitudes,

he

chose the first. He

feared

Irmabecause

hefearedfor

Irma;hedidnotwantto

transform

her

into

an instrument.

"Whatever

Kierkegaard

id,

he did

it

in

order

to

rescue

Regine

Olsen for life."

Regine

Olsen

was

a

childof conven-

tions,

and

she

marriedand

ived

happily

untilshe died. But

IrmaSeidler

was

not a child

of

conventions,

and

at the

same

time,

she wasunable

o

have

faith

in

miracles.

She tried to

provoke

a

miracle,

and

simultaneously

rovoked

fate

against

herself.

Georg

Lukics

was

afraid

f

Irma

Seidler,

buthe didnot fear

or

ife,

rather

feared for

Irma.This fearwas

of

his

essence;

and

yet

Irmawanted

himnot to

fear

butstillbe

himself

andremainhimself.Irma

expected

amiracle,butthe

miracle

never

came.

Irma

riedto

provoke

a

miracle

but

miracleswill not be

provoked.

All our lives

we

can have faith

in

miracles;

aith knowsno time.

But

miracles

can

only

be

provoked

in

time,

and

only

with the

gestureof

finality.

And

Irma

Seidler

-

the second

time around

-

found

the

only

gesture

in which

finality

becomes

indissolubly

inal,

the

gesture

in which

there

is no

more

ambiguity.


18/34

90

Heller

Lukacs

triedand tried

again,

andtried

ncessantly

o make

himself

under-

stood

by

Irma

Seidler,

to make her

understand

he

being

that s

specifically

him,

who

is no one

else,

but

him.

Every

person

in

love does

this.

Every

person

is a

unique entity,

and

every person

in

love wants

the Other

to

perceive

this

uniqueness.

This is

what he

wants

to reveal. This is what

he

wants

loved:

"I

would love

to

be loved".

.

."that I

might

be seen."*-

Is

there a

more

elementary

need

than this?

But

we know thatwordsare not

enough.

We know

thatour

vocabulary

s

poor,

and,

if

even it were a

thousand imes

richer,

we wouldstill

not

be able

to describe

what

we are andwhatthe Othermeans o us because hese

things

are indescribable.

In

the

world

of

conventions

every

gesture

s

unequivocal,

clear,

trans-

parent,

intelligible.

The

significance

of individual

gestures

s

regulated

by

institutions

and customs.

We understand ne

another,

but

is

it

one another

that

we

understand.We

comprehend

he

"signs."

But

are

we

comprehending

the

signs

of

human

uniqueness?

n

the worldof conventions

uniqueness

s an

obstacle

since one

must

conform

here. Individual

meanings

must

dissolve

n

the

universal

meaning.

They

must be

integrated

with it.

In

the world

of

conventions

everything

s

simple

and

transparent.

But is man

simple?

And

can the

universal

make

our

uniquenessransparent?

Every person

s a

uniqueentity,

and

every

person

n

love

wants

he

Other

to

perceive

this

uniqueness.

This

s

what he wants

oved,

but we

know

that

words are not

enough.

We

need

directand sensual

encounters,

he free

play

of

eyes,

the

meeting

of

hands.

We need the

embrace.But

what

does the

free

play

of

eyes,

the

meeting

of hands

mean,

and what

does

an embrace

mean?

Once we

step

outside the

world

of

conventions,

once

nothing

has

a

universal

meaningany longer,

once

everygesture

exists

only

for

tself

-

a

signonly

of

our

uniqueness

then the

directand

sensual

encounters

gain

haveneed

of

words. We

circumscribe

what we

have

experienced.

We live out what we

have

circumscribed.

"There s no

marriage

bed for the

union

of souls"

-

even a

marriage

bed will

not

unify

souls.

Every

person

is

a

uniqueenti

agnes heller georg lukacs and irma seidler

Documents