I need this by 3:30 pacific time I need one of the questions from the 4 answered in about 300-400 words. other sources are okay too whatever it needs to fully answer the question.

Friedrich Von Schiller Schiller was a poet, dramatist, and literary theorist who wrote during the French Revolution’s worst phase (Reign of Terror, 1793-1794). The French government was extremely controlling and sentencing people to death for even suspecting someone of being against the regime. He is known as one of the most influential romanticists (writers who focused on the intense emotions and aesthetics experience, putting a newfound emphasis on terror, fear, and awe). Schiller was influenced by Kant’s ideas of the aesthetics of writing and the harmony with imagination and reason. Schiller viewed the Greek society (the ancient Greeks) as the perfect form of balance, “they were wedded to all the delights of art and all the dignity of wisdom, without however, like us, falling a prey to their seductions. The Greeks put us to shame” (Page 485 2nd Edition). Schiller believed that the Greeks mastered the Arts with the perfect harmony of imagination and reason. Their works had emotional weight and the story made reasonable sense in the realm of the Abstract. The Greeks were able to be free with their works on levels that his current country of France was clearly not doing. This gives Schiller a more cynical look on society’s growth, as a whole, but maybe rightfully so? Naturally, Schiller was a supporter of being free and that is what fueled his literary theory, having art be as free as it can be. Freedom was the general source of his writing and as a romanticist he wanted art to be emotionally and intellectually free. “Art is a daughter of Freedom” (483). He viewed the Greek works as more than just free but viewed society as progressively getting worse, with science making things less expressive and more categorical. Schiller believed that the more the “Abstract” was taken out of our daily lives the worse art became, with its constraints over its freedom. I wouldn’t be able to end this discussion on Schiller without quoting my favorite line of his, “Impart to the world you would influence a Direction towards the good, and the quiet rhythm of time will bring it to fulfillment” (492). Schiller has a very interesting look at the world bouncing between cynicism and hope while advocating for Artistic freedom as if it was a living breathing person, which I believe it is. Living in the time period he did, Schiller takes a positive approach to not only point out the degradation of society’s art but gives many pointers on how to fix it and to persevere until Art becomes free again. Germaine Necker de Stael Germaine Necker de Stael (also known as Madame/Mme de Stael) was a French Romanticist who was a “woman of letters” (female author) and political theorist. She was the daughter of a prominent French banker/finance minister and she had a large networking net around the world. She was a very big deal in the political world. Her views on literature were just as influential as her political views were. She is known for introducing German Romanticism to the French. In a way, she caused the French Romanticist Movement with her influence and voice (writing voice). Schiller’s theories are almost identical to de Stael’s with the use of imagination to drive writing, “Man’s most valuable faculty is his imagination. Human life seems so little designed for happiness that we need the help of a few creations, a few images” (507). The only difference between the two seems to be the tie to freedom of writing. She believes that we should be made to have an abstract view of literature but she never mentions its “Freedom” in the way Schiller does. I think it is because of how they were raised and brought up, one being from a more free way of living than the other. The elements of the imagination being a vessel are topics that modern writers that do science fiction/fantasy tend to use to connect to their readers, so it surprises me that this concept has become “normal” from hundreds of years ago. “Virtue is actual and real, but happiness floats in space; anyone who tries to examine happiness inappropriately will destroy it” (508). She believes in a certain form of restraint when it comes to writing and her views on happiness being the goal of writing are quite interesting. This is why I believe she has such a disdain for Tragedies and a more positive opinion on Dramas. “Tragedies with completely imaginary subjects will not be included here: they portray a more lofty nature, an extraordinary situation at an extraordinary level” (508). She sees tragedies as nonrealistic scenarios that happen rarely, so they should not be viewed as a way to move someone’s heart/emotions. She views work grounded in a more real and imaginary sense. This is why she views Dramas in such high regard because it takes emotions/situations that normal people feel THEN heightens them to new levels creating a connection between reader/viewer and the work. “We would still have to add a kind of dramatic effect to the truth; not deforming it, but condensing it to set off” (511). Her views on what makes a writer tend to be very...weird compared to her views on her literary and political standpoints. She believes that mediocracy is within all of us as writers while only a few have the greatness in them to grab hold of writing and correct the wrong mediocrity produces, “It has taken the very greatest masters to bring this genre back again, despite the writers who have degraded it” (509). She views writings as having a plateau of what should be produced and how to produce it. This is different than Schiller in the sense that it is no longer freedom of expression for de Stael but more a rule of what freedom should look like, ironically. QUESTIONS: Now that we have seen both their perspectives, which do you agree with and why? Does art need to be constrained somewhat or should it be free? Do you think Germaine de Stael’s background gives her an extremely biased look at literature compared to Schiller’s views? Who do you think was influenced more by Kant’s idea of harmonical literature (having the right balance of wisdom/experience)? Do you view art as being alive in the sense of Schiller? Why do people seem to care more about Artistic freedoms than human freedoms? Using Schiller’s views on what literature “should be” do you agree with him on art having limitless freedom? If so, why? If not, what should the limits be? Using both these Literary Theorists opinions on the way Art “should be”, which era (that we have read so far) would you agree with more of having a bigger and better grasp on where literature is going to head in modern times?