259h. Schelling to Schiller in Weimar: Jena, 25 April 1800 [*]
Jena, 25 April 1800
If I may, esteemed Herr Hofrath, please allow me to leave the enclosed letter to Cotta with you. I would like for him to have it soon and know not whether he will be coming here or, if so, whether I will still be here. [1]
You have no doubt already heard about my expedition against the Literatur-Zeitung, and I am taking the liberty here to communicate several details concerning it. [2] I would have sent you the piece immediately, or would do so now, had I not been intending to send it to you together with the journal itself.
Although people in Weimar may perhaps think I was already familiar, when the brochure appeared, with the new decrees prohibiting professors here from publishing contra one another, I in fact did not learn of them until yesterday, after my piece had already been in print for two days and had already long been sent elsewhere; [3] moreover my complete absence from society here prevented me from learning of them any earlier, that is, before my own piece had already been printed.
Just as little did I intend any hostile intentions toward the university to come to expression in the piece, intentions which, as I now hear, those who feel targeted would like to impute to me. On the contrary, my obligations to the university would have prevented me from publishing the piece in the first place were I not beholden to even higher obligations toward the matter itself, which I believe I have explicated in that piece. No impartial reader will find anything in the piece that has not already been proven or, if proof be requested, would not be utterly capable of such.
Last autumn, when I disclosed to Herr Geheimrath von Goethe my decision to publish something against the Literatur-Zeitung, he was disposed to dissuade me from doing so as long as the subject matter itself did not make it necessary. I believe such did indeed become the case, and the piece itself, based on nothing but facts, doubtless provides the necessary evidence.
Hence I would be extremely sorry if thereby, inadvertently and unavoidably, I were to leave an unpleasant impression, and I must admittedly hope — and indeed can only hope — that the resulting reaction be directed sooner toward those who through their sufficiently documented behavior forced me to take such harsh measures in the first place, rather than toward me, who am completely faultless in this matter and who only with the greatest aversion could undertake these measures in any case.
Might I ask you to send me a few words concerning your opinion of the matter? [4] — I will take that as a new demonstration of your kind disposition, to which I most earnestly commend myself by remaining with utter respect
Your devoted
Schelling
Notes
[*] Marbacher Schillerbuch II, Veröffentlichungen des Schwäbischen Schillervereins, vol. 2, ed. Otto Güntter (Stuttgart, Berlin 1907), 318–20; Fuhrmans 1:185–86. — Schiller had moved to Weimar in December 1799. Back.
[1] Schelling is clearly anticipating leaving Jena soon, just as plans were already being made for Caroline’s stay at the mineral-springs spa in Bocklet; Caroline’s anticipated departure was already tentatively set for mid-May. See Dorothea Veit’s letter to Schleiermacher on 4 April 1800 (letter 259c).
Before actually leaving for Bocklet, the decision was made for Caroline and Auguste as well — not just Schelling — to go to Bamberg first, where Caroline wanted to consult the physician Andreas Röschlaub about her own health (Rudolf Koch and Fritz Kredel, Deutschland und angrenzende Gebiete [Leipzig 1937]):
It may be recalled that Schelling had already long been planning a journey to Bamberg, having promised Röschlaub back in the early autumn of 1799 that he would deliver private lectures on the philosophy of nature there; he writes to Fichte on 12 September 1799 (see supplementary appendix 241.1, no. 5):
My plan has sufficiently progressed. I have, without any external support, for now been put in a position to go to Bamberg for the summer. Röschlaub is asking that I lecture there privately, something that, as you can easily imagine, is very welcome to me. I intend to spend the following year in Vienna and then see what develops after that.
(See no. 6 there, where he even invites Fichte to come to Bamberg himself.) And as early as 2 March 1800 — only a day or so after the onset of Caroline’s illness and well before any thought had been given to her traveling to Bocklet — Schelling wrote to his father (cited in Caroline’s letter to Auguste on 21 October 1799 [letter 250], note 15):
I will not be staying here very much longer. I am thinking about going to Bamberg immediately after Easter [13 April 1800], where I will spend part of my time studying, part of it lecturing privately on the philosophy of nature.
It seems quite possible or even likely, esp. given the unpleasant personal dynamics that had developed among the group according to Dorothea’s accounts (and in light of the opportunity to leave Jena with Caroline), that Schelling himself advised Caroline to travel to Bamberg first to consult the physicians Röschlaub and Adalbert Friedrich Marcus, both of whom were advocates and practitioners of the Brunonian method (Caroline’s other physician of record, Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland, being resolutely anti-Brunonian). Hermann Patsch (KFSA 25:448fn13) concurs, pointing out that:
the route from Jena to Bocklet did not necessarily have to proceed by way of Bamberg, i.e., Caroline’s decision to travel with Schelling was privately motivated, notwithstanding consultations with Marcus and Röschlaub [concerning her illness] did seem promising.
The remark about the route is trenchantly illustrated by the 1795 map for postal coaches; Münnerstadt was the nearest postal station to Bocklet (Post Karte Durch ganz Deutschland, ed. J. Walch [Augsburg 1795])
Finally, in an undated letter to Schleiermacher on ca. 28–30 April 1800 (letter 259m), Dorothea remarks concerning Caroline and Schelling’s plan to travel to Bamberg together that
notwithstanding how utterly transparent it is and that is was already long decided between them, only yesterday did Schelling present [this plan] to Wilhelm in quite humble terms for his signature . . . Back.
[2] The reference is to Schelling’s Ueber die Jenaische Allgemeine Literaturzeitung. Erläuterungen, vom Professor Schelling zu Jena. (Aus dem ersten Heft der Zeitschrift für spekulative Physik besonders abgedruckt) (Jena, Leipzig 1800), a special printing of the article “Anhang zu dem voranstehendem Aufsatz, betreffend zwei naturphilosophische Recensionen und die Jenaische Allgemeine Literaturzeitung,” in Schelling’s Zeitschrift für speculative Physik (1800) I, 1, 49–99. See Schelling’s “declaration” in the Intelligenzblatt of the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung on Saturday, 2 November 1799, and the editorial response (letter/document 252d), esp. with note 4. Back.
[3] Concerning the “new law,” or “decree, rescript” which was essentially an injunction against libel in the sense of defamation of a person by written or representational means, see Johannes Schmidt, Aeltere und neuere Gesetze, Ordnungen und Circular-Befehle für das Fürstenthum Weimar und für die Jenaische Landes-Portion bis zum Ende des Jahres 1804, vol. 9 (Jena 1805), 255–56:
Personally offensive remarks
leveled by academic teachers against one another in publicationsIn concurrence with the princely trustees of the academy, it is herewith declared that if ever in the future it be charged or otherwise made known that an instructor of said academy has publicly disparaged another in same by name or through an otherwise unmistakable reference in a publication, the variously current prorector or the latter’s representative is herewith charged with issuing a reprimand to the offending party in the presence of the offended and with issuing to the former a stern warning against any such inappropriate behavior in the future.
Should, that notwithstanding, a teacher commit a similar such transgression a second time, he is then to be wholly deprived of his freedom from censorship, and at the third transgression, having demonstrated himself incapable of improvement, the same can expect complete dismissal from his academic position.
20 March 1800
Issued to the entire Academy in Jena Back.
[4] Schiller answered on 1 May 1800 (letter 259n); see also Schiller’s letter to Goethe on 5 May 1800 (letter 259q). Back.
Translation © 2014 Doug Stott