242b. Wilhelm Schlegel to Gottlieb Hufeland in Jena: Jena, July 1799 [*]
[Jena, July 1799]
Once I was engaged in my study of Don Quixote and Cervantes in general, I could not refrain from writing down my own thoughts on the material, and am herewith offering them to you for the A[llgemeine] L[iteratur]-Z[eitung]. Should you be inclined to make use of them, please be so kind as to do so quickly, otherwise please return the review to me, since I will perhaps then place it elsewhere.
If you read it, you will see that I was carefully considerate of Bertuch, and have assessed Tieck’s work with utter impartiality. [1] Nor can the review of Shakespeare assigned to him provide me any reason for partiality, since, should he yet deliver that review despite the lengthy delay, he will, of course, treat me quite justly. [2] In this regard I genuinely am more concerned with the material itself than with my own person.
I recently received from your shipping department an index of the pieces being proposed for me to review. I am sending it back, having marked with an asterisk only those I am sure I will not be able to take on. I cannot really say anything definite about the others as long as my otherwise quite reasonable request to the A.L.Z. remains unfulfilled and my relationship with it thereby in suspenso. [3] If a satisfactory review of Athenaeum does appear — of which you will soon be receiving the fourth issue [4] — I will then take on the proposed reviews, will deliver those yet outstanding, and will also deliver quite soon several important reviews, such as those on Bürger’s collected works, [5] on Diderot Oeuvres postumes, [6] etc.
Sunday
Yours,
Schlegel
Notes
[*] Source: Körner (1930) 1:94–95. Back.
[1] Wilhelm’s final contribution to the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, his review of Ludwig Tieck’s translation of Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote, 2 vols. 1605, 1615, trans. Ludwig Tieck as Leben und Thaten des scharfsinnigen Edlen Don Quixote von la Mancha, 4 vols. (Unger: Berlin 1799–1801); volume 1 (1799) reviewed by Wilhelm Schlegel in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (1799) 230 (Saturday, 20 July 1799) 177–83 (Sämmtliche Werke 11:408–26).
The review begins with a polite and considerate assessment of Friedrich Justin Bertuch’s merits on behalf of Spanish literature, to wit, Bertuch’s own translation, Leben und Thaten des weisen Junkers Don Quixote von Mancha, 6 vols. [1776–78]):
When some twenty-five years ago an erudite scholar of Spanish language and literature began to acquaint us with the latter, thereby introducing especially the virtually unknown Don Quixote to Germany, its animated and positive reception as well as its swift spread demonstrated that he had indeed chosen the right path given the overall circumstances in our own literature and for ensuring its reception among readers in general.
Because, however, the scattered poems were generally not included, several serious scenes abbreviated, and a rather long novella entirely omitted, the more comical and burlesque elements necessarily moved to the forefront amid this elimination of the more poetic parts and became the regnant characteristic of the overall piece.
The overall disposition of Don Quixote, however, is such a uniquely successful invention, and the primary events derived with such confidence and lightness, that it cannot fail to make an indelible impression from that side as well even on those who might not be so inclined to pay particular attention to such wondrous details. And yet the more popular features — features that have already attained proverbial status in various languages — are of precisely this nature.
That said, this poetic piece by the divine Cervantes is something more than merely a wittily conceived, boldly drawn, powerfully and freshly conceived bambocciate [ed. note: also bambocciade, from bamboccio, “cripple,” term originally used to refer to — sometimes grotesque — Dutch paintings of low life such a country wakes and “penny weddings”; name originally given to Pieter van Laer] (though even then it would be worthy of admiration).
It is at once also a perfectly completed masterpiece of higher romantic art, and in this respect everything depends on the grand contrast between parodic and romantic elements, a contrast that is always inexpressibly charming and harmonious, though it occasionally — as in the juxtaposition of crazy Cardenio with crazy Don Quixote — transitions into the sublime etc. Back.
[2] Tieck’s promised review never appeared. See Tieck’s letter to Wilhelm in March/April 1799 (letter 230a) and Gottlieb Hufeland’s letter to Wilhelm on 2 May 1799 (letter 236a) with note 2. Back.
[3] In his letter to Hufeland in late April 1799 (letter 235a), Wilhelm urgently entreated Hufeland to have Athenaeum reviewed in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung. Hufeland responded on 2 May 1799 (letter 236a).
As it turned out, Wilhelm’s review of Tieck’s translation of Don Quixote was his final for the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, and from this point onward relations between him and the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung deteriorated until a complete break came about later during the autumn, a break that, among other things, eliminated an important source of income for Wilhelm and Caroline. Schelling would also break with the journal during the coming autumn, albeit over a separate issue.
Concerning the dispute, see in general Garlieb Merkel on C. G. Schütz, the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, and Wilhelm Schlegel, and Wilhelm Dilthey on the break between the Romantics and the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (supplementary appendix 258a.1). Back.
[4] The fourth issue of Athenaeum appeared in August 1799. Back.
[5] The grand essay on Gottfried August Bürger (with the simple title “Bürger”) did not appear until the Charakteristiken und Kritiken 2:3–96 (also Kritische Schriften, 2:1–30; Sämmtliche Werke 8:64–141). Back.
[6] Wilhelm only occasionally dealt with Diderot, see, e.g., Sämmtliche Werke 6:142ff.; 9:15f., 280; 12:106 (1800: Diderot, “whose spirit in so many ways transcended the French horizon”); also in various Athenaeum fragments (for translations of the latter, see Friedrich Schlegel’s Lucinde and the Fragments, trans. Peter Firchow [Minneapolis 1971], fragments 177, 183, 189, 201.). Back.
Translation © 2013 Doug Stott