236a. Gottlieb Hufeland to Wilhelm Schlegel in Jena: Jena, 2 May 1799 [*]
Although I was indeed able to answer most of what you wrote in your recent missive without consulting my friend, since you did explicitly ask that I relate the matter to him I did so and am now able to respond all the more conclusively.
(1) With regard to Eschenburg’s translation of Shakespeare, Herr Hofrath Schütz explicitly charged me with remarking that on the occasion of your own Shakespeare such a comparison with his was already made and that he thus saw no reason for a renewal of that comparison, particularly since Eschenburg himself had objected to such. [1] I as editor reserve the right, as is customary in most such cases, to make decisions concerning the material nature of a judgment.
(2) With regard to the yet outstanding review of the subsequent volumes, we were certainly not expecting to receive even a cloaked reminder, not least because, quite contrary to our usual procedure, we had even followed your suggestion concerning a specific reviewer. [2] Perhaps you yourself can see from this example how difficult it sometimes is to bring about a review.
(3) With regard to the works of your brother, the delay in publishing a review derives from the quite simple fact that we have found absolutely no one who will have even a little to do with him. We cannot help it if he has provoked such a reaction against himself among the general public. [3] We took great care in seeking out men who are not so resolutely disinclined toward him or who might have had a relationship with him at one time. Three men one after the other wholly declined our offer. One has now declared his willingness with regard to one of the books. But because even this situation, too, is still in doubt, and the other materials have not yet been assigned, might we request, commensurate with our policy in similar cases, that you yourself recommend six possible reviewers from among whom we might then choose one. We can even ask them one after the other should anyone decline. [4]
(4) Several reviewers have also declined your Athenaeum for precisely the same reason; two weeks ago I urgently offered it to someone but have not yet received any answer. [5]
I do believe the above persuasively demonstrates to you that we have not incurred the culpability you believe. We must, of course, leave it to you yourself to decide whether after reading the above you are still inclined to insist on your threat. [6]
[Jena] 2 May 1799
Hufeland
Notes
[*] Source: Körner (1930), 1:89–90. — This letter is Hufeland’s response to Wilhelm’s letter of late April (letter 235a). Concerning the dispute, see in general Garlieb Merkel on C. G. Schütz, the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, and Wilhelm Schlegel; also Wilhelm Dilthey on the break between the Romantics and the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (supplementary appendix 258a.1). Back.
[1] William Shakspeare’s Schauspiele, revised edition, trans. Johann Joachim Eschenburg, vol. 1 (Zürich 1798). Christian Gottfried Schütz’s review of Eschenburg’s translation appeared in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (1798) 176 (Tuesday, 5 June 1798) 569–73. His assessment of volume 1 of Wilhelm’s edition of Shakespeare had already appeared in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (1797) 347 (Wednesday, 1 November 1797) 273–80; 348 (Wednesday, 1 November 1797) 281–82.
Eschenburg himself had written to Schütz from Braunschweig on 24 November 1797 concerning the sooner unflattering comparisons Schütz had made in his review of Wilhelm’s volume between Wilhelm’s translation and Eschenburg’s own earlier one (Christian Gottfried Schütz. Darstellung seines Lebens 2:85):
I would think that the praise in this assessment [of Wilhelm’s translation], with which on the whole I concur, might have been presented a bit less at my cost. I might almost regret having undertaken the edition, which took twenty years to complete, had I known its publication would prompt more such one-sided and malicious parallels and — something particularly hurtful to an upright man — more such backdoor, backhanded compliments. Our two pieces should be assessed from completely different perspectives; only thus would each be treated justly. Back.
[2] Ludwig Tieck was proposed but never did the review; see Tieck’s letter to Wilhelm in March/April 1799 (letter 230a), in which Tieck promises to deliver the review. Back.
[3] The reference is to the public reaction to Friedrich’s Lucinde. Back.
[4] Lucinde was eventually reviewed by Ludwig Ferdinand Huber in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (1800) 130 (Wednesday, 7 May 1800) 297–300 (see supplementary appendix 256.2). See Caroline’s reaction in her letters to Huber on 22 and 24–27 November 1799 (letters 256, 257). None of Friedrich’s other works were reviewed in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung. Back.
[5] Athenaeum was similarly reviewed by Ludwig Ferdinand Huber in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (1799) 372 (Thursday, 21 November 1799) 473–77 (see supplementary appendix 256.1). See Caroline’s reaction in her letters to Huber on 22 and 24–27 November 1799 (letters 256, 257). Back.
[6] Wilhelm remained true to his threat, found in letter 235a, and did not contribute any more reviews to the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung. His last review was that of Tieck’s Don Quixote, which had already been submitted and would appear on 20 July 1799; see Tieck’s letter to Wilhelm in March/April 1799 (letter 230a), note 10. Back.
Translation © 2013 Doug Stott