• 182. Wilhelm and Caroline Schlegel to Schiller in Jena: Jena, 1 June 1797 [*]
Jena, 1 June 1797
[Wilhelm]
Enormously distressed as I am at your unexpected declaration, which is to put an end to a relationship I count among the most fortunate I have made here, I hasten to jot down at least a few lines for my own justification in the hope that you will give me the opportunity to remove any doubt you may now be harboring concerning the uprightness of my own comportment.
As I have no authority whatsoever over my brother, nor any power to prevent him from doing things regardless of how strongly I may object to them, I would be unfortunate indeed were I to be held responsible for all his actions (of which, moreover, I do not become aware until after they have become public). If my own most urgent notions had been successful, he would never have allowed his letter concerning the Almanach of 1796 to be published. [1] That this manner of judgment was countered by several mocking jests I found to be quite natural and reasonable, [2] and I wish with all my heart he had left it at that.
He was aware of the degree of affection I have for you, which is why from that time forward we agreed that he never express himself to me with respect to anything even remotely concerning you. I hardly need assure you that he doubtless did not show me beforehand a review of Die Horen in which, of course, I, too, would necessarily be judged insofar as I do indeed consider it an honor to have hitherto participated in the journal. In fact, I have still not even read the review, nor know its content. The manner in which I recently spoke to you about the dispute with Woltmann must convince you of that. [3] Nor do I know what part he had in that review, though I do surmise from his statements concerning the Woltmann affair that he did not do it entirely himself. [4]
Woltmann has spread a rumor here in Jena that it was not my brother, but my wife who wrote the critique of “Theoderich.” If this rumor has also made its way to you, as I must suppose (I was intending to speak to you about it as early as Saturday evening [3 June 1797]), let me assure you herewith on my honor that it is untrue.
I went to Woltmann and severely demanded an explanation concerning this imprudent and — since he declared the critique to be an unabashed lie or ignorance — highly insulting gossip. And indeed, he immediately retreated at least as far as to allege he had stated it “only as a suspicion,” having concluded from a billet from my brother that he, my brother, was not himself the author and had claimed instead merely to have represented an author close to him. But this is merely an excuse, and had he not departed so quickly, [5] I would have insisted he formally recant that assertion among those to whom he explicitly made it. I can say unequivocally that I have never in the slightest abused your trust or acted contrary to the gratitude I owe you for so much beneficence and participation in my own good fortune. If ever you have harbored a modicum of friendship for me, do not refuse my request to demonstrate in person my complete innocence in this unfortunate state of affairs as soon as possible; simply let me know a time convenient for you.
If, however, this situation should rob me of your confidence and contact, I will nonetheless never cease to be, with the most ardent respect and affection,
your devoted
Aug. Wilh. Schlegel
[Postscript from Caroline]
Please allow me the opportunity to confirm myself what my husband has averred to you in my heart. I as little as he have been not even remotely involved in what has happened — indeed, to this very hour, I have not yet even seen the review under discussion, and in any event never meddle in such complicated matters. We respect and love you so sincerely that precisely this straightforward and steady disposition has guided us along a straight path despite the presence of so many apparent collisions.
Forgive me for being unable to repress this assurance just now, since Schlegel is in danger of losing something so fortunate, something which, as I know, is enormously important to him. [6]
Caroline S.
Notes
[*] Only Caroline’s postscript was published in Schmidt (1913), 1:420. Most recent source of entire letter: Körner-Wieneke, 38–40; Wilhelm’s portion published earlier without Caroline’s postscript: Briefe Schillers und Goethes an A.W. Schlegel, aus den Jahren 1795 bis 1801, und 1797 bis 1824, nebst einem Briefe Schlegels an Schiller (Leipzig 1846), 17–19. — This letter is the response to Schiller’s letter to Wilhelm on 31 May 1797 (letter 181g); concerning the break with Schiller in general, see supplementary appendix 181g.1. Back.
[1] “An den Herausgeber Deutschlands, Schillers Musen-Allmanach betreffend,” Deutschland (1796) 6, no. 3, 348–60. Wilhelm is not being straightforward, having instead provided Friedrich with one of the more ridiculing remarks concerning Schiller’s poem “Würde der Frauen.” Friedrich himself acknowledges Wilhelm’s contribution in a letter to him on 27 May 1796 (Walzel, 274–75; KFSA 23:302):
Let me alert you that I have inserted an extremely strong passage concerning the “in-dignity of women” and also incorporated the remarks you authorized me to use concerning the exchange of verses and about reading the whole backwards, so be careful not to mention such to anyone lest you be suspected of contributing even more to this blasphemy. Back.
[2] Schiller responded with Xenien nos. 302, 303, 304, 305, 306 (nos. 826, 827, 828, 829, and 830 according to Erich Schmidt’s numbering in Xenien 1796. Nach den Handschriften des Goethe- und Schiller-Archivs, ed. Erich Schmidt and Bernhard Suphan [Weimar 1893], 96), specifically 305:
Schiller's Dignity of Women. From the front forward the Lied does not really read at its best; I read it from the back end, Stanza for stanza, and thus indeed does it behave quite charmingly. Back.
[3] In his review of Die Horen (1796) 8–12 in Deutschland (1796) 12, no. 8 (Jugendschriften 2:33–35), Friedrich had accused Karl Ludwig Woltmann’s contribution to Die Horen, “Theoderich, König der Ostgothen,” of being a case of blatant plagiarism from Edward Gibbon, indeed so much so that for all practical purposes it ought count as a translation. Back.
[4] Here and in an exchange with Woltmann in the Intelligenzblatt of the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (the “Woltmann affair”), Wilhelm and Friedrich tried to claim at least partial anonymity (i.e., disclaim at least part of the responsibility) for that review of Die Horen. Woltmann had lodged a protest in the Intelligenzblatt of the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (1797) 65 (Saturday, 20 May 1797) 344:
Page 361 in the 12th issue of the journal Deutschland, in a review of Die Horen, contains remarks about my presentation of the eastern Goth Theoderich that also attacks my character. It is either an unabashed lie or attests the most ridiculous ignorance with respect to historical portrayal and the use of sources. Because of certain relationships, I am constrained to make this declaration. Otherwise I would lose not a single word concerning the refined gossip of the initiator of that review, who is doubtless at one with the impure spirit that has for some time now haunted the reviews of this periodical, and whom one could certainly expect to fly away only with raucous poltergeist commotion, considering that the public has dealt so derisively with his hateful one-sidedness and audacity.
Friedrich replied at length in the Intelligenzblatt of the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (1797) 76 (Saturday, 17 June 1797) 631–32, remarking among other things that
I am the author of what was said in the 12th issue of the journal Deutschland in a review of Die Horen concerning the essay “Theoderich” by Herr Professor Woltmann . . .
One may not, however, conclude from this declaration anything not already directly stated there, and that review of Die Horen, excepting everything said about Woltmann’s “Theoderich,” is to be viewed as anonymous. . . .
What is peculiar, however, is that Herr Woltmann makes his declaration against my remarks not at all because, as he insists, they attack his character, but rather, as he explicitly says, solely because of certain relationships — which indeed is a rather original way of thinking about matters of honor. But what sort of relationships can such possibly be that according to his own words alone constitute the true reason of his reckless manifesto? . . .
I do indeed consider myself too refined in the moral sense to respond to Herr Woltmann’s crudities. And that his own feeling of powerlessness prompts him to incite all the authors reviewed in the journal Deutschland against me is so manifestly base that I would have taken no notice of it at all were I not glad to seize the opportunity to secure myself against similar remarks from similar persons in the future by declaring that from now on, I will publish no reviews without either identifying myself immediately or, should the journal’s guidelines prevent such, eventually lifting such anonymity. Back.
[5] According to Goethe’s diary (Weimarer Ausgabe 3:2:70), Woltmann took his leave on 29 May 1797 while both were at Schiller’s home; Goethe continues in that diary entry (ibid.):
Evening [afterward] at Loder’s, where Humboldt yet lingered, and where an extremely merry time was had discussing the affair concerning Reichardt and Schlegel. Back.
[6] Schiller responded on 1 June 1797 (letter 182a). Back.
Translation © 2012 Doug Stott