• 195b (was 227). Friedrich Schlegel to Caroline in Jena: Berlin, mid-February 1798 [*]
[Berlin, mid-February 1798]
|517| Yesterday I did something stupid by presenting to the two of you Unger’s offer without mentioning all the favorable secondary circumstances, [1] namely, that the Ungers were already planning to reside in the Garden at that time in any event, and that she explicitly emphasized several times that they had absolutely no intention of disturbing you in any way. The latter is indeed quite necessary, since she is currently quarreling and squabbling with absolutely everyone. For example, the Sanders are among her |518| enemies. Even though they are more intimate with the Viewegs, and on good terms at least externally, there, too, there is constant nonsense.
I am hoping you received my letter of yesterday, which I gave to our greatest virtuoso in the negative sense to deliver. [2] —
As far as Tieck is concerned, I admire Wilhelm’s attraction to his art all the more because it does not derive merely from the sacred spring of pure sympoesy, as is also the case with his former love and admiration for Bürger and Schiller, but because there is instead more magnanimity, indeed more invention in it. Please do believe me when I say that I willingly acknowledge what he has and knows.
But he himself, the person, is not yet anything other than a — boy. Nor is even a germ of character evident, and I fear, I fear, that given his complete lack of goodness, prudence, and wisdom — that he will with hasty steps sink down into that class of young scoundrels of German literature — of the Woltmanns etc. He does have a very slight instinct for gentlemanity and honesty, [3] but we all know how quickly, in the case of someone without character, such can get lost amid all the pushing and shoving. —
What has given me at least a slight glimmer of hope with regard to his talent is that he is hesitating with his essay on Shakespeare and cannot finish it. [4] At most, it might perhaps turn into a lively note on Plato’s Ion in addition to the supplementary volume on Richter. [5] But it is also the familiar sort of rhapsody as far as its obtuseness and presumption is concerned. He will be enormously flattered by my having put him together with Richter.
I doubt I will say anything else about him in the fragments. Really, to this point he could only be an object of critical recommendation or desiderata. The former has already done its work on him. What thus remains now is only the latter. —
|519| I know with absolute certainty that he is as full of conceit as the most preeminent and exemplary of rogues, and yet now Wilhelm thinks he is modest and has opened up toward him to the point of incaution. I became infuriated about it in thought, in Wilhelm’s soul, when I imagined the impression the letter made; that is why I used such harsh language.
What else should I write about M., [6] even though your manner of reacting or responding to my initial information or inspiration did give me pause — She is an upright, decent woman of sound character. But she is very simple and has a mind for nothing either in or outside the world other than love, music, wit, and philosophy. In her arms I have rediscovered my youth, and I can no longer imagine my life without her. [7]
Nor is this mere deception, but rather understanding, since both of us, wealthier in sensibility and reason than in imagination, so clearly discern and recognize the limits of our relationship; and she in particular has always borne it in a grand, albeit very feminine manner when I specified these limits with all the severity of my openness. Even if I cannot make her happy, I do nonetheless hope that my love will cause the germ of happiness to flourish in her disposition such that the surrounding fog can harm it no more. [8]
Please pass along to Hufeland the enclosure from Herz as soon as possible. [9]
Notes
[*] Additional source: KFSA 24:85–86. — Formerly letter 227 in Erich Schmidt, (1913), 1:517–19. Redated (as was letter 226) from March 1799 to mid-February 1798 according to KFSA 24:370, on which see the explanation in letter 195a. Back.
[1] That is, an offer of accommodations should Caroline and Auguste come to Berlin; see Friedrich’s previous letter to Caroline (letter 195a) (Rudolf Koch and Fritz Kredel, Deutschland und angrenzende Gebiete [Leipzig 1937]):
[2] Friedrich was not particularly fond of Karl Gustav von Brinckmann, elsewhere calling him a “Bolognese of nullity” and remarking that “I find few lousy rascals as repugnant as him” (letters to Schleiermacher in late March 1798 [Aus Schleiermacher’s Leben 3:74] and Wilhelm in March 1802 [Walzel, 493; KFSA 25:344]). Back.
[3] “Gentlemanity” and “honesty” in English in original. Back.
[4] The reading “hesitating” according to KFSA 24:371n49.6. No essay on Shakespeare by Tieck is known from this period; his “Briefe über W. Shakspear” were not published until 1800 in the Poetisches Journal, ed. Ludwig Tieck (Jena 1800) (two issues: July, August), 1:18–80 and 2:459–72, reprinted in Tieck’s Kritische Schriften, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1848), 1:133–84. Back.
[5] Fragment 125, Athenaeum (1798) 209–10; trans. here Friedrich Schlegel’s Lucinde and the Fragments, trans. Peter Firchow (Minneapolis 1971), 177–78 (one of Tieck’s pseudonyms was Peter Leberecht; Friedrich Richter’s was Jean Paul):
Perhaps there would be a birth of a whole new era of the sciences and arts if symphilosophy and sympoetry became so universal and heartfelt that it would no longer be anything extraordinary for several complementary minds to create communal works of art.
One is often struck by the idea that two minds really belong together, like divided halves that can realize their full potential only when joined. If there were an art of amalgamating individuals, or if a wishful criticism could do more than merely wish — and for that there are reasons enough — then I would like to see Jean Paul and Peter Leberecht combined. The latter has precisely what the former lacks. Jean Paul’s grotesque talent and Peter Leberecht’s fantastic turn of mind would, once united, yield a first-rate romantic poet.
The allusion to Plato’s Ion implies that Tieck, with his non-rational inspiration, is almost ingenious in his obtuseness (KFSA 24:371n9). That is, these harsh statements view Tieck only as an enthusiast rather than as a genuine artist. Tieck in any case never contributed to Athenaeum. Back.
[6] Viz., Dorothea Veit, née Mendelssohn. As KFSA 24:371:13 points out, this mention of Dorothea also militates in favor of dating the letter to 1798 rather than 1799, since in 1799 Friedrich would have no reason to respond to such queries concerning his “new” relationship with her. Back.
[7] Daniel Nikolaus Chodowiecki, Peter Marks und seine Frau nach der Hochzeitsnacht [1779] (Herzog August Bibliothek Museumsnr. / Signatur Chodowiecki Sammlung [2-121]):
[8] Erich Schmidt was uncertain of the reading Nebel (fog), which he thought might also be read Uebel (misfortune, malady, hurt, inconvenience, ill, disaster, etc.). Back.
[9] Possibly the letter Markus Herz published in the Intelligenzblatt of the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (1798) 26 (14 February 1798) 224 (the letter is dated 2 February 1798) involving a denial concerning a letter to him from Alexander von Humboldt that ended up in the Salzburger medicinisch-chirurgische Zeitung. If this indeed be the reference, Friedrich’s present letter here might have been written several days before mid-February (KFSA 24:371–72n15). Back.
Translation © 2015 Doug Stott