forms and matters into one work of art.^21 This is at least one aspect of
the kind of irony that Schlegel writes about so many times: Romantic
irony, at least to a large extent, is a kind of formal irony that results from
mixing different genres and modes of representation. Schlegel some-
times calls poetic irony ‘unlimited’ (unendlich). Ironic poetry in this
sense is formally unlimited because there are no limits of form or genre
for modern literature, and therefore, so Schlegel argues, no possible con-
tent of thought that cannot become the content of a poetic work. Any
thought that can be expressed can be expressed poetically. Thus poetry
turns out to be the only unlimited medium of thought and speech, in
sharp contrast to religious or scientific modes of speech which are both
rather restricted, religious speech in content, scientific speech in form.
Science and religion therefore both need a kind of mediator or inter-
preter. It seems that this job can only be done by modern poetry.
Schlegel calls this feature the ‘universal’ or ‘transcendental’ aspect of
poetry. So, when Hegel calls poetry, or art in general, ‘limited’ (endlich),
this is meant as a direct negation of Schlegel’s claim concerning the
power of poetry. For Hegel, what Schlegel calls transcendental poetry is
neither poetry nor transcendental philosophy in the Kantian sense but a
kind of hybrid mixture of both. I will return to Hegel’s criticism of
Schlegel below. But let me remark in advance: when Hegel talks about
the end of art, this is not intended as a neutral observation but in a
polemic sense. As he does not mention any names explicitly we have to
contextualize his polemics in order to understand its point. Danto, how-
ever, does little hermeneutic work in this direction. As a result, his read-
ing of Hegel’s dictum is rather free-floating.
(B) SCHELLINGAnother point of reference for Hegel’s discussion of the limits of art is
Schelling. What Schelling wants to determine in the first place is the
relation between philosophy and art. This is a conceptual matter and not
to be confounded with the questions concerning the significance of art
today that Schlegel is interested in. On the other hand, he is not hostile
to Schlegel’s program. Both share the conviction that Christian religion
is bound to undergo a fundamental change and cannot be maintained in
its traditional shape any longer.^22 Modern philosophy, from Descartes to
Kant, has undermined its foundation by establishing stricter criteria for
the justification of knowledge claims, including the knowledge claims
that are part of the Christian doctrine. Science has considerably enlarged
our knowledge about nature both in scope and depth. Schelling is aware
A Prophecy Come True? Dante and Hegel on the End of Art 61