Letter 312

• 312. Caroline to Wilhelm Schlegel in Berlin: Jena, 27 April 1801

Jena, 27 April [1801]

|109| I am managing to catch my breath a little, but only a little.

It would be enormously heartening to hear from you soon. This pause seems rather long to me even though I did receive a letter from you a week ago. [1]

I am writing you again today specifically to let you know that you do not need to get into too hasty a panic with regard to the money matters I mentioned in my last letter. [2] I can get at least as much as I need from Schelling, something I did not yet know at the time and was in fact doubting, since it was the beginning of the half-year period.

Yesterday afternoon, on Sunday, we read your most recent poems together. The “Fairy Child” greatly charmed him — he was not so absolutely satisfied with the Jew, finding |110| the colors in the blasphemy of the two fellows a bit too strong and a slight exaggeration in the action of the Jew himself, who according to the legend (he is very familiar with these legends) merely turned Jesus away from the door of his house, where Jesus wanted to rest on a rock, without doing him any further harm. I would probably tend to agree with him on that point.

But everything characterizing the Jew is extremely good and is rendered in the proper style. I am also wholly satisfied with the opening of the scene and with its simplicity. Schelling was looking for a richer composition. He mentioned an Eternal Jew by Schubart, though that version is probably a bit gruesome. [3]

By the way, no one admires your muse more enthusiastically than does Schelling. I have to listen to this Kotzebuade for the hundredth time. He claims to have a “unique” style of reading some of the portions aloud, portions he also read to Goethe. The first time he read the travelogue to him, which he had with him at the table, Goethe laughed so hard he almost choked after a piece of food got caught in his throat. [4]

Word has it that Kotzebue is due to arrive back here again very soon, and if such indeed be the case, then you should certainly be careful! [5] Vieweg also told me [6] that it was very fortunate that Paul was now dead, since he had allegedly, and with considerable vexation, taken note of the dog as an imperial courier and would have wanted to demand from the duke that you be handed over. [7] Although that may, of course, simply be a lie, someone did indeed write to Vieweg about it.

Loder speaks of nothing but all the rubles and fine-cut brilliants that Kotzebue is raking in, nor would I be surprised at all if he did not have a proper triumphal gate erected of boxwood and tinsel when K[otzebue] returns home. Nor will he be less graciously disposed toward you in person for that reason. The duke issued a proper lettre de cachet [8] forbidding Kilian from lecturing. [9] Loder has taken up his cause. There will be a commission that restricts the private docents.

|111| The duke will hear nothing of any appointment to the faculty medical position. [10]

It is fairly empty and quiet here, and we are in the middle of the semester break. If the Russians, Courlanders, and Livonians find their way back here, you will have to bite into the apple of aesthetics yet again after all. [11]

Vermehren now has a “Madam Multiplier” at his side, who will very soon be writing a novel. [12] He really is married to Madam Eber. Gerning cannot comprehend that you do not respond to him; his opinion is actually that you should go ahead and do the poems for him, which he is willing to publish. [13]

Gries paid his courtesy visit to me. Although the weak prince again did absolutely nothing for the entire winter, [14] he did consider himself quite fortunate, since he came from Weimar and had heard Schiller read his newest, mysterious play — das Mädchen von Orleans — aloud to the actors. [15] I could not get him to divulge anything about its character — I am inclined to believe it is a rather free rendering, since he studied Voltaire’s Pucelle quite closely while working on it. [16]

What are your thoughts about it? It will be performed in May. [17] Try to be here so we can see it together. —

Schelling is also planning to tell you about something Goethe is working on, though that is something he has reserved for himself and is unwilling to grant to me. [18]

Have you already heard that the author of the Gigantomachia is almost surely a certain Bothe? He must reside in Berlin, I have occasionally seen him in the Berlin Archiv. [19]

I absolutely cannot accept the story with Unger and the utter nonsense of his behavior and the downright villainy of those hiding in ambush in the background. [20] I hope I will learn more from your next letter about how the lawsuit is going and whom you may be considering as a publisher for Shakespeare. —

Gries knew about your publication of the |112| Fichtean piece; it does not seem to be a secret anymore, though I was the first to tell Schelling. Perhaps I can quickly receive a copy, and also one of the Charakteristiken. [21] Has nothing been published of Hardenberg’s novel? [22]

Friedrich has not been coming to visit me, and I can certainly understand why. We are involved in a courteous correspondence with each other through open notes concerning tables and beds and fire tongs etc. etc., all of which I have had to entice away from them. [23] I really am sorry that I have to pester him with all that, but I am quite consciously not waiting until she is back again that I might deal solely with him.

Rose has remarked that she feels quite sorry for him, that Madam Veit alone is to blame — and of that there can be no doubt. She found everything here, even the smallest things, all ready to receive them, and yet did not even have the decency to have all the things they used brought back to the house before my arrival. The piano is completely covered with dirt and stains inside and out. —

Madam Hufeland paid a visit to Luise; [24] I was by chance not present, being occupied upstairs at the time. They are now in Weimar. We are planning to pay a few visits this afternoon.

Wiedemann wrote Luise from Mainz today and is quite satisfait. [25] Professor Boehmer let me know that his wife had given birth to a daughter. —

Madam Berlepsch will be marrying a young tenant magistrate in Mecklenburg by the name of Harmes and is reckoning completely on eventually keeping house in Scotland. [26]

It is now absolutely certain that Madam Glockenbringk will be marrying Tischbein after the Leipzig book fair. [27] In Hamburg I saw his painting of Madam Meister, née Boehmer. [28] There was something quite grotesque about it, the hair was like stone. Although the |113| positioning did probably betray something of an unusual artist, there was nothing pleasing about it. Only a practiced eye — like mine — could discern the resemblance. —

I am yearning to hear of Friedrich Tiek’s arrival. [29]

Write and tell me approximately when you will likely be coming, and stay well, my precious, dear, good, handsome Wilhelm.

I was over at the Loders’ and received a naive description from her of the recent joyless winter, and observed the usual mannerisms in him — he is glad you will be returning soon, though he heard it would not be until toward Michaelmas [30] — he intends to pay me a courtesy visit soon etc. Madam Niethammer was not at home when I stopped by, since that whole clan is still out on the highways. [31]

Madam Fromman is moving into Hofrath Hufeland’s house. [32] I sent a note to Tiek through her. [33]

Again adieu, my dear Schlegel.


[1] Wilhelm’s letter of 18 April 1801 (letter 309). Back.

[2] On 24 April 1801 (letter 311). Back.

[3] As Erich Schmidt, (1913), 2:610, points out, Wilhelm was doubtless greatly irked by this lecture on Ahasverus, namely, his adaptation of the legend of the wandering Jew (Daniel Nikolaus Chodowiecki, Bibliothek der Romane: Volks-Romane. Beschluß des immer in der Welt herumirrenden Judens [1785]; Herzog August Bibliothek; Museums./Signatur Chodowiecki Sammlung [5-323]):


Schelling, the Swabian, was naturally already familiar with Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart’s, “Der ewige Jude. Eine lyrische Rhapsodie,” Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubarts sämtliche Gedichte, 2 vols. (Frankfurt/Main 1787), 2:68–73, which begins:

From a murky crevice in Mt. Carmel
Did Ahasverus creep. Soon it will be two thousand years
Since restlessness whipped him through all countries.
When Jesus once bore the burden of the cross,
And sought to rest at Ahasverus's door,
Alas! Ahasverus denied him respite,
And pushed the Mediator defiantly from his door;
And Jesus teetered, and sank beneath his burden.
But said nothing. — An angel of death stepped
In front of Ahasverus and said with ire:
"Because you have refused to grant the Son of Man respite,
So also shall it be denied to you, O inhuman one!
Till he returns!! — A black demon
From hell itself shall now scourge you, Ahasverus,
From land to land. The sweet comfort of death,
Of the grave, shall be denied you!"

Schubart’s admittedly gruesome adaptation includes such elements as

  • Ahasverus grabbing skulls from a pile next to him and then, with a mad look in his eyes, casting them down Carmel, skulls of his father, wives, and children (frontispiece to Schubart’s Sämtliche Gedichte, vol. 2 [Frankfurt 1787]):
  • Schubart_Ahasveros

  • Ahasverus lamenting that though they could die, he could not, despite having, e.g., cast himself into the flames as Rome burned.
  • Nations rose and fell, he laments further, while he remained, unable to die.
  • He cast himself from cliffs into the sea only to be cast up upon the shore, still living.
  • Even Mount Etna spit him out in a lava stream, he breathing in ash and yet still living.
  • Burning forests could consume him and yet leave him unscathed, nor could he find death in battle even when wounded by arrows, swords, bullets, and even land mines.
  • Elephants and horses were similarly unable even to trample him to death, nor tigers, lions, or dragons devour him, nor serpents poison him.
  • The executioner’s blade was dulled by his neck.
  • He insulted Nero and other leaders to no avail.

Schubart also offers a different ending than does Wilhelm:

Hah! not being able to die! not being able to die!
Not being able to rest from the body's labors! . . .
Terrible, wrathful one in heaven,
Have you in your inventory
An even more terrible judgment? . . .

And Ahasverus sank. . . .
Night covered his bristly eyelids.
An angel carried him up again into the crevice.
"So sleep now, Ahasverus," the angel said,
"Sleep sweet sleep; God is not eternally wrathful!
When you awaken, He will be here,
Whose blood you saw flow on Golgatha;
And who also forgives — you!" Back.

[4] Caroline is referring to Wilhelm’s pun-loving poem “Kotzebues Reisebeschreibung” (Kotzebue’s travelogue), part of Wilhelm’s Ehrenpforte und Triumphbogen für den Theater-Präsidenten von Kotzebue bei seiner gehofften Rückkehr in’s Vaterland. Mit Musik. Gedruckt zu Anfange des neuen (Braunschweig 1801), here 97–104 (Sämmtliche Werke 2:257–342, here 336–40), though it is arguably not the most amusing section of the piece.

Schelling excerpts several lines of sample puns on Russian locales and tribes in his review in the Erlangen Litteratur-Zeitung (1801) 35 (19 February 1801) (Sämmtliche Werke 7:535–41). Schelling seems so enthusiastic about these lines in his review that they are probably to be identified as the lines he felt capable of reading in a “unique” style. Back.

[5] Caroline is well informed. Kotzebue left Petersburg with his family on 29 April 1801, journeyed first to Estonia and Livland, then to Königsberg, and from there to his hometown Weimar (Heinrich Döring, August von Kotzebue’s Leben [Weimar 1830], 241–42; map: Elementarische Landkarte von Europa, from the Kupfersammlung zu J[ohann] B[ernhard] Basedows Elementarwerke für die Jugend und ihre Freunde: Erste Lieferung in 53 Tafeln. Zweyte Lieferung in 47 Tafeln von L bis XCVI [Leipzig, Dessau, Berlin 1774], plate xl):



[6] Presumably while she was still in Braunschweig. Back.

[7] The reference is to a scene with a dog in act 2 of the play “Kotzebue’s Rettung,” part of Wilhelm’s Ehrenpforte und Triumphbogen für den Theater-Präsidenten von Kotzebue; for the text of the scene, see the section on the Kamchatkan dog in the supplementary appendix on Wilhelm’s Kotzebuade. Back.

[8] Fr., a letter bearing an official seal and usually authorizing imprisonment without trial of a named person. Back.

[9] Caroline mentions this matter in her letter to Wilhelm on 20 April 1801 (letter 310). Back.

[10] Karl Gustav Himly eventually got the position vacated by Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland, who had left Jena for Berlin. Back.

[11] Foreign students represented a not inconsiderable portion of the student body in Jena. — Caroline’s reference to “biting into the apple of aesthetics” alludes to Wilhelm lecturing again on aesthetics at the university in Jena. In fact, however, Wilhelm never lectured in Jena again. Back.

[12] I.e., Germ. eine Vermehrerin, “a Madam Vermehren,” “Madam Multiplier,” Germ. vermehren, to “multiply, increase.” Vermehren had just married (Taschenbuch für das Jahr 1813: Der Liebe und Freundschaft gewidmet [Frankfurt], Inhaltsverzeichnis deutscher Almanache, Theodor Springmann Stiftung):


See the similar play on Vermehren’s name in the basically negative review of his Musen-Almanach für das Jahr 1803, ed. Bernhard Vermehren, in Der Freimüthige, oder Berlinische Zeitung für gebildete, unbefangene Leser (1803) 3 (Thursday, 6 January 1803) 10–11:

Although one does indeed find a couple of good poems here, they are merely modest, isolated flowers whose seeds some birds gone astray dropped on a naked rock, where they laboriously managed to root. The editor [Vermehren, Germ, “to multiply, increase”], contributed most of the material, whereby — if one might witticize after the fashion of the Schlegels and Bernhardi” — he in fact did not really “increase” its value.

Among all the various talents nature may well have bestowed on him, the poetic is not one of them, and anyone who tells him he possesses such is his enemy. Back.

[13] Friedrich Schlegel did publish material in Vermehren’s Musen-Almanach für das Jahr 1802 and Musen-Almanach für das Jahr 1803. See also Caroline’s letter to Wilhelm on 7–8 May 1801 (letter 314). Back.

[14] (Daniel Nikolaus Chodowiecki, Ich stand da, albern und betroffen genug (1794); Herzog August Bibliothek; Museums./Signatur Chodowiecki Sammlung (6-444):


Caroline does not otherwise use the epithet “weak prince” for Gries.

Gries had been in Bamberg in late September 1800 when Caroline was still there after Auguste’s death; see his account in supplementary appendix 268.1. Although he wanted Schelling to accompany him to Vienna from Bamberg, both chose instead to return to Jena, where they arrived on 3 October 1800.

He was not, however, entirely idle during the winter 1800–1801. Elise Campe picks up the trajectory of his biography, Aus dem Leben J. D. Gries, 48–49 (first illustration: Gustav Heinrich Schneider, Die Burschenschaft Germania zu Jena [Jena 1897], 73):

Gries quickly felt at home again in his old surroundings, and although life with all its changes had robbed him of some of his old friends, it also brought new ones who touched kindred strings in his own personality.

Such included Arnold, a young man from Hamburg who was studying medicine and in whom Gries found all the interests united that were prerequisites for his own life, namely, an interest in all that was sublime and beautiful in science, art, and literature, the same love of music, and especially a soft, elegiac disposition, which Arnold’s entire personality exuded.


Besides this acquaintance, Gries’s brother Karl, was still studying law in Jena. Friends and countrymen such as Lichtenstein, Kunhard, and Hofmeister were the core of a circle that assembled daily at Gries’s apartment and which with Kunhard’s splendid voice as well as the masterful playing of both Gries and Arnold provided many a memorable evening.

(Jena students enjoy an evening together in 1760; illustration from Ernst Borkowsky, Das alte Jena und seine Universität [Jena 1908], 107):


This cheerful conviviality was unfortunately disrupted by the death of young Hofmeister from Braunschweig, in whom an incurable chest ailment quickly developed. A quiet air of sadness now descended on the entire winter. Gries was liberated from this somber atmosphere by an unexpected visit from Henrik Steffens, who had come to Jena from Freiberg to celebrate the turn of the new century.

(Photograph of the Frommann house in 1970, reproduced by permission: Stadtmuseum Jena.)


The friends spent wonderful hours together, spending the important evening at the home of the Frommanns in the company of Friedrich Schlegel and Madame Veit, and drove over to Weimar together on the first day of the new century to attend the performance of The Creation. They also attended a redoute at which Schiller, Schelling, Hufeland, and others came together with the friends and remained together till early morning amid cheerful, witty conversation in which Schelling was especially impressive, after which each went home.

Thus did the winter months pass between conviviality and work. In the spring of 1801, Gries moved into a garden apartment near town in order to spend the daylight hours working undisturbed on his translation of Tasso. He worked uninterruptedly on part two, which was published at Michaelmas of that same year.

During the following winter as well [1801–2], after moving back to town, he continued this activity such that after not quite four months he was able to finish part three as well, which was then published at the Easter book fair in 1802. His stay in Jena now continued uninterrupted for a lengthy period. Back.

[15] The published title of Schiller’s play was eventually Die Jungfrau von Orleans. Eine romantische Tragödie; see below.

The alleged reading to the actors of the Weimar company is an uncertain allusion. Schiller seems to have finished the play on 16 April 1801 and then read it aloud to some “ladies” on 24 April (Ernst Müller, Schillers Calender [Stuttgart 1893], 105–6; see however his letter to Goethe on 15 April 1801 [Correspondence Between Goethe and Schiller 376]: “I shall get my piece finished to-day”).

The session with the ladies, however — probably Charlotte Schiller, Caroline von Wolzogen, and Charlotte von Stein — seems to have occurred earlier, since Charlotte von Stein recalls it on 23 April as having occurred “recently” (Heinrich Düntzer, Schillers Jungfrau von Orleans, Erläuterungen zu den Deutschen Klassikern, 3:21, 22, 2nd ed. [Leipzig 1878], 29).

No reading to the Weimar actors seems to be documented, not surprising considering that Duke Karl August had not even read it yet, and since it was because of his objections and Caroline Jagemann that the piece did not premiere in Weimar. Schiller had envisioned Jagemann in the title role, but as the duke’s mistress, she could hardly play a virgin. Gries possibly overheard the reading to the “ladies.”

Here in any case a stylized rendering of the much younger Schiller reading his play The Robbers (premiered on 13 January 1782 in Mannheim) aloud to his friends (illustration from Anton Ohorn, Karlsschüler und Dichter: Geschichtliche Erzählung für die deutsche Jugend [Berlin 1897]):



[16] Erich Schmidt, (1913), 2:610, maintains that despite the enormous differences between the two pieces, Voltaire’s burlesque mock-heroic poem La Pucelle d’Orléans. Poëme divisé en 15 livres (Louvain 1755) did indeed influence the idealized figures of Agnes Sorel and Count Dunois in Schiller’s play Die Jungfrau von Orleans. Eine romantische Tragödie (Berlin 1801) despite the ample licentious matter in Voltaire’s piece. Here the frontispiece to Voltaire’s edition of 1764; click to open a gallery of the illustrations in that volume:


That Voltaire’s piece was viewed decidedly askance by Enlightenment interest in improving public morality through reading comes to expression in Daniel Nikolaus Chodowiecki’s illustration Ein junges unschuldiges Mädchen hat die Wahl zwischen Arbeitsamkeit und Zeitverschwendung (“A young, innocent girl has the choice between [scil. wholesome] diligence and [scil. unwholesome] wasting of time”) (1777); Herzog August Bibliothek; Museums./Signatur Chodowiecki Sammlung (3-148), where the choice is between Voltaire’s La pucelle d’orleans and the Biblia sacra:


Schiller composed a concurrent poem “Voltaires Pücelle und die Jungfrau von Orleans” to address the unkind comparisons with Voltaire’s poem and derisive misinterpretations playing not least on the French word pucelle (which came to have an obscene connotation in connection with Voltaire’s piece), even to the point of seeking obscene references in Schiller’s play.

Schiller sent the poem to Johann Friedrich Cotta on 19 June 1801 — shortly after Caroline’s present letter —, who published it in the Taschenbuch für Damen auf das Jahr 1802, ed. Huber, Lafontaine, Pfeffel, et al. (Tübingen), 231. Only later was the title shortened to “Das Mädchen von Orleans,” Schiller feeling that his attempt to contrast the historical and his own “maid” with Voltaire’s characterization was not entirely successful. It is generally included in anthologies of Schiller’s works under the shorter title (Poetical Works of Friedrich Schiller, trans. E. P. Arnold-Forster, ed. Nathan Haskell Dole [Boston 1902], 108–9):

The Maid of Orleans

Humanity's bright image to impair,
Scorn laid thee prostrate in the deepest dust;
Wit wages ceaseless war on all that's fair, —
In angel and in God it puts no trust;
The bosom's treasures it would make its prey, —
Besieges fancy, — dims e'en faith's pure ray.

Yet issuing like thyself from humble line,
Like thee a gentle shepherdess is she —
Sweet poesy affords her rights divine,
And to the stars eternal soars with thee.
Around thy brow a glory she hath thrown;
The heart 'twas formed thee, — even thou'lt live on!

The world delights what'er is bright to stain,
And in the dust to lay the glorious low;
Yet fear not! noble bosoms still remain,
That for the lofty, for the radiant glow;
Let Momus serve to fill the booth with mirth,
A nobler mind loves forms of nobler worth. Back.

[17] It was not. It premiered instead in Leipzig on 18 September 1801, the only play by Schiller that, because of misgivings by Karl August, did not premiere in Weimar (see above). The play was not performed in Weimar until 23 April 1803, and with a different actress in the title role. See Caroline’s letter to Wilhelm on 11 May 1801 (letter 315). Back.

[18] Uncertain allusion. Back.

[19] I.e., in the Berlin periodical Berlinisches Archiv der Zeit und ihres Geschmacks.

Caroline is referring to the anonymous satire (in Knittelvers, rhyming couplets of four-stress lines) here attributed to Friedrich Heinrich Bothe, Gigantomachia, das ist heilloser Krieg einer gewaltigen Riesenkorporation gegen den Olympos. An das Licht gestellt durch Augenzeugen ([Leipzig] 1800), a lengthy satire about the Romantic attempt to storm Olympus. See the supplementary appendix on Gigantomachia and the Romantics. Back.

[20] Because of problems of trust with the publisher Friedrich Wilhelm Unger, Wilhelm no longer had a publisher for his edition of Shakespeare; concerning this issue and the lawsuit Caroline goes on to mention, see his letter to Caroline on 18 April 1801 (letter 309). Back.

[21] Fichte’s (according to Schmidt, [1913], 2:610–11) extraordinarily crude polemical treatise, for which Wilhelm Schlegel, however, provided an elegant introduction, Friedrich Nicolai’s Leben und sonderbare Meinungen Ein Beitrag zur Litterargeschichte des vergangenen und zur Pädagogik des angehenden Jahrhunderts, ed. A. W. Schlegel (Tübingen 1801). See the supplementary appendix on Fichte’s Friedrich Nicolai’s Leben und sonderbare Meinungen. Back.

[22] Friedrich von Hardenberg (Novalis), Heinrich von Ofterdingen. Ein nachgelassener Roman von Novalis (Berlin 1802). The table of contents of the Musen-Almanach für das Jahr 1802, iv, alludes to Tieck’s imminent publication of the novel. The editors included the following note with respect to Hardenberg’s poems in the Musen-Almanach (“Bergmanns-Leben,” 160–61; “Lob des Weines,” 162–64):

The two preceding poems are part of a still unpublished and unfortunately unfinished novel, Heinrich von Afterdingen [sic], which Tieck will be publishing from the manuscripts of our unforgettable, intimate friend, who was torn from us through an untimely death.

The other issue was Tieck’s and Friedrich Schlegel’s objections to Wilhelm’s and Schleiermacher’s idea of having Tieck finish the novel. See Friedrich’s letter to Wilhelm on 17 April 1801 (letter 308b) and Tieck’s letter to Friedrich on 23 April 1801 (letter 310b). Back.

[23] See Friedrich’s letter to Wilhelm on this same day, 27 April 1801 (letter 312a), for his version of his initial meeting with Caroline after her arrival and his reasons for being disinclined to repeat the visit.

Caroline is referring (“them”) to Friedrich and Dorothea Veit, the latter of whom was in Leipzig at the time; see Caroline’s letter to Wilhelm on 24 April 1801 (letter 311), note 3. Back.

[24] Madam Hufeland was paying a return visit to Luise Wiedemann, née Michaelis, who was her sister-in-law and who had visited her on 24 April 1801 (see Caroline’s letter to Wilhelm on that date [letter 311]); the Hufelands lived across the courtyard from the Schlegels at Leutragasse 5, but Caroline and Wilhelm had not been on good terms with the them since Wilhelm’s (and Schelling’s) break with the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung back in the summer and autumn of 1799. Here a view of the Hufelands’ apartment (on the right) on an early twentienth-century postcard (courtesy Martin Reulecke):


Here, from essentially the same camera position, the entry to the apartments on the opposite (right) side of the courtyard along with the windows (left) to Caroline’s apartment (photo: Stadtmuseum Jena):



[25] Wiedemann was on his way to southern France; concerning this trip, see the cross references in Caroline’s letter to Wilhelm on 1–2 March 1801 (letter 293), note 12. Back.

[26] The wedding announcement appeared in the Intelligenzblatt of the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (1801) 129 (Wednesday, 8 June 1801) 1039:

Madam von Berlepsch, née von Oppel, familiar as a poetess, has, following the dissolution of her first marriage, recently married the ducal Mecklenburg tenant administrator Herr Harmes of Redvin in Mecklenburg.

Concerning Emilie von Berlepsch and Scotland, see Caroline’s letter to Wilhelm on 4–5 April 1801 (letter 304), esp. note 5. The couple went not to Scotland, but to Switzerland. Back.

[27] The Neapolitan Tischbein did not marry Sophia Klockenbring, a possibility Caroline similarly mentions in her letter to Wilhelm on 5–6 March 1801 (letter 296). See Franz Landsberger, Wilhelm Tischbein: Ein Künstlerleben des 18. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig 1908), 136–37:

A powerful need for peace and quiet must have seized the fifty-year old [Tischbein] when he finally resolved to found his own family. He chose as his wife the daughter of a miller in Haina by the name of Kitting, and now established his permanent residence in the town of his initial successes, namely, Hamburg. Back.

[28] Erich Schmidt, (1913), 2:661, points out that “Meister,” which Waitz, (1871), 2:76, reads, should read “Meyer,” i.e., Madam Meyer, née Böhmer, namely, Friederike Meyer, née Boehmer, wife of Friedrich Johann Lorenz Meyer in Hamburg. It is, however, also quite possible that Caroline genuinely did mean “Meister,” namely, Auguste Louise Elisabeth Meister, née Böhmer, wife of Johann Jacob Friedrich Meister in Göttingen.

Franz Landsberger, Wilhelm Tischbein: Ein Künstlerleben des 18. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig 1908), 188–212, attests no portraits by Tischbein that have as their subjects either Madam Meyer or Madam Meister, though several portraits of otherwise anonymous women may conceal the portrait to which Caroline is here referring. Tischbein did do a portrait in 1783 of Friedrich Johann Lorenz Meyer during the latter’s stay in Naples.

Tischbein, however, made Caroline’s and Wilhelm’s acquaintance in Göttingen in October 1800, at which time he also seems to have delivered to them Friedrich Moritz von Brabeck’s invitation to visit Söder Chateau later that month.

Tischbein spent time in both Göttingen and Hannover between 1799 and 1800, then moved to Hamburg after his marriage, as mentioned earlier. Such seems to have happened in late 1800 or early 1801. This portrait seems either to have disappeared or is no longer known by the name of its subject. Back.

[29] Wilhelm had been considering enlisting Friedrich Tieck to do the memorial and bust for Auguste. See Tieck’s letter to Wilhelm from Paris on 24 April 1801 (letter 311b), and the cross references to previous letters and materials in note 1 there. Back.

[30] 29 September; perhaps Loder had gotten wind that Wilhelm would not be returning to Jena immediately. As it was, Wilhelm did not come until 11 August 1801. Back.

[31] Uncertain allusion; perhaps in connection with the suicide of Rosine Niethammer’s eldest brother? See Caroline’s letter to Wilhelm on 20 April 1801 (letter 310), also note 18 there. Back.

[32] Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland left Jena in early April 1801 for a position in Berlin; he had been in Jena since Easter 1793 (Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland: Eine Selbstbiographie, ed. Dr. Göschen [Berlin 1863], 35).

During the summer of 1800, however, and for a period thereafter, Hufeland, at Schiller’s suggestion, rented the garden house owned by Schiller, Hufeland himself having originally wanted to buy the house at the same time as did Schiller. Heinrich Karl Abraham Eichstädt had similarly expressed a desire in June 1800 to rent the house for that summer and winter, but Schiller had declined in favor of Hufeland (Bertold Litzmann, ed., Schiller in Jena, 2nd ed. [Jena 1890], 123; see Schiller’s letters to Hufeland concerning the purchase and then rental of the house in Aus Weimars Glanzzeit: Ungedruckte Briefe von und über Goethe und Schiller, ed. August Diezmann [Leipzig 1855], 16, 18–19).

Johanna Frommann seems to have rented the garden house as a summer residence now that the Hufelands were no longer in Jena. Back.

[33] Ludwig Tieck had tentatively been planning to stay with the Frommanns during his anticipated visit to Jena; see his letter to Friedrich Schlegel on 23 April 1801 (letter 310b). Back.

Translation © 2015 Doug Stott