Letter 331

• 331. Caroline to Wilhelm Schlegel in Berlin: Jena, 23 November 1801

23 November [18]01, Jena

|215| We are still lying at anchor here, in a dead calm, the ship moving neither forward nor backward. That is to say, Tiek is still here, the books are still here, the calendars are not yet here, money is not yet here, the errands are a long way from having been taken care of, and I myself would not write at all today were I not worried that you would be worrying. [1]

So do not worry, my dear Wilhelm, not even after these opening words, since actually I was about to write anyway because in a few days I would have been able to send my epistle free with our travelers. Tiek is quite definitely coming here tomorrow and is quite definitely leaving here on Thursday. [2] The poor, dear fellow, he really took the business with Schadow to heart, so much so that it gave him a headache. [3] In return, things shall now go ill for Schadow as well. —

I have now had a chance to have a more leisurely look at Tiek’s drawings from the exhibition, and especially the — race runner. [4] The latter is infinitely more beautiful than it appeared to me up higher, and if hanging it so high was not an outright betrayal, it was at least quite clumsy. Although there is admittedly something a bit off and distorted in the composition, there is nonetheless more thought, content, and drawing in a single head, arm, back, or fold than in all of Nahl’s pictures together. [5]

|216| You must have received my first letter very late, but surely you now have both. [6] Nathan has not yet been performed. [7] I am doing tolerably well. If you have arranged something with the Elegante Zeitung, do not forget to inform me. [8] As usual, I get to see nothing myself, hence also not Fichte and Biester. Today you will have something to see, since you will surely be seeing Jeanne d’Arc, will you not? [9]

Or are you perhaps consoling the Diminutive One, who perhaps does not particularly want to go to the theater? [10] I can well imagine her annoyance, which is doubtless larger than she herself, [11] and how upright Quast will doubtless provide some upright reproaches. [12] — Did you notice the spiritual announcement of Johanne in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung? [13]

We noticed one on Lichtenberg in the Erlanger Litteratur Zeitung that we are attributing to Schleiermacher, though it is not one of his best. [14] I recently suddenly realized that Gries really does believe you wrote the one on Macbeth; he swore up and down, offering life and limb as surety, all that sort of thing. I swore up and down in my own turn and offered my own soul as surety that you in fact were not the author. He does believe me now, but only believes. [15]

I am to relate to you from Schelling that he and Hegel will be publishing a critical philosophical journal with Cotta. [16]

But you are not to say anything yet to Fichte; he would really like to send him the first issue quite unexpectedly and, moreover, is constantly ruffling Reinhold, because of which noble undertaking — along with several others — he has not been coming here to see us for the past week until 9:00 in the evening.

Hence you can imagine how hermit-like we are living, in which regard even Julchen seems to get on very nicely with it, venturing out as she does into the larger world from time to time when she attends balls.

The first issue of that journal will be appearing soon and will be printed by Fromman, etc. It only just recently even came into being in the first place. Schelling did not say a thing to me about his having written to |217| Cotta until both the response and the acceptance were there. Schelling is glad that Fichte is putting all his energy into it, and is hoping for an alliance. He will be gladder still if your own forays succeed and would be a bit crazy were anything to get in your way, especially with the lectures.

With Tiek and Friedrich, your stay will be even more pleasant. Just do not let yourself become too distracted. What you related to me about Friedrich and Madam Veit is admittedly completely new to me. How was one able to overcome the Dresden difficulties? Indeed, how do they make all that possible? [17]

I cannot say anything about Charlotte. I have heard absolutely nothing more about her. I would think at least that she would not entirely put away her customary coolness toward Madam Veit in order to take her in without reservation, and she has probably not changed so dramatically herself that she would approve of Friedrich, who is still completely the same person as far as his lifestyle and manners are concerned, except that he is now more inwardly sure of himself. If you are planning to write her, do not put it off, since it will become more difficult for you with each passing day.

To be sure, you yourself cannot tolerate some things in this regard, and that quite apart from any consideration of me. I do not care what Charlotte thinks of me. Now that things have gone as far as they have, for me she joins those people about whom I no longer think. Friedrich may still remember how he asked me to represent him with Charlotte, to provide her with a more favorable perspective from which to judge him, and how glad I was to do just that — or no, he does not recall it at all, his lust for revenge has steeled him against everything. —

Keeping the Tieks’ company is also a bit unnatural, for they do, after all, know what they think of one another; things are strained with Madam Veit in any case. [18]

Yesterday Schelling insisted once more, and |218| quite sincerely, that he would seek Friedrich’s friendship again and would forget any hostility if only Madam Veit were not around.

But what does any of this help? I myself often feel I cannot die in peace without having come to an understanding with him. If only someone would strike her dead before I die. [19]


Philipp herewith charges you yet again, and urgently, to hammer Hufeland soundly. [19a] You cannot do that literally, of course, but you can indeed tell him that on the next occasion he kindly needs to pay you the money about which Philipp wrote him (who reckoned ahead to the Pfennig that Hufeland must pay him so and so much), and that you have certain arrangements with Philipp and are counting on the money.

Then you can assign it to me here. I am not yet lacking concerning our daily bread, so to speak, since for a half dozen old books I have already taken in 4 rth 10 gr. Carl is selling them as fast as I get them to him. It is instead the larger expenses that are oppressing us, the wine and the furniture, even given Schelling’s advance to my funds, and I know not why your brother writes not at all and does not send the interest payments. I will be writing to them today. [19b]

Schelling’s lecture revenue is not yet completely in. There are certainly enough students; he has over 100 signatures. Last week he also opened and organized the disputatorium. [20] A certain young Herr Schlosser put up such a good fight that the thing took two hours instead of one. [21]

I know of no other solution for the books than to ship the suitcase full of them as freight. The only alleviation is that Tiek and Friedrich can perhaps take along whatever does not fit into the suitcase. All the books, however, should be available in Berlin, though I can well imagine you are disinclined to expend the effort needed to collect them all together. Everything you ordered will be taken care of, down to the slightest and lousiest trifle.

The copies of the Almanach are at the book binder’s.


I received the picture from Leipzig and do not intend ever to let this precious shadow out of my hands. [22]

Stay well, my good friend, and do not forget me. Give my regards to Madam Bernhardi Write and tell me about everything that happens to you.

You are probably wondering what I am doing. I am not doing anything, my dear, and have already translated almost half a modest Petrarch. [23]


[1] Friedrich Tieck, in Weimar at the time, and Friedrich Schlegel were to travel together to Berlin on 23 November 1801 but were delayed because of irregularities with the postal coaches (see Dorothea Veit’s letter to Schleiermacher on 19 November 1801 [letter 330a]). They eventually departed on or about 29 November 1801 and arrived on 2 December 1801.

Caroline was intending to send several of Wilhelm’s books along to him in Berlin (see her letter to him on 16 November 1801 [letter 330]). Back.

[2] Caroline is writing on a Monday, the following Thursday was 26 November. Back.

[3] Presumably concerning the results of the artistic competitions of the Weimar Friends of the Arts, which Tieck did not win. See Caroline’s letter to Wilhelm on 16 November 1801 (letter 330) and supplementary appendix 326.1. Back.

[4] The exhibition included pieces entered in the annual competition organized by Goethe and the Weimar Friends of the Arts. See Caroline’s letter to Wilhelm on 16 November 1801 (letter 330) and supplementary appendix 330.1.

Caroline is having trouble remembering the name of Tieck’s painting or drawing; perhaps Atalante, in classical mythology the daughter of Iasus and Clymene who grew to be the most swift-footed mortal. When her father wanted her to marry, she demanded that every suitor compete with her in a foot race. If he won, he would be rewarded with her hand; if she won, he was to be put to death. Milanion (Hippomenes) won her hand by dropping three golden apples along the course, which Aphrodite had given him. Their beauty charmed Atalanta such that she could not resist stopping to gather them, causing her to lose the race (Christian von Hagen, after Charles Le Brun, Atalante [1679]; Herzog August Bibliothek; Museums./Signatur M: Lh 1551 [175]):



[5] Tieck’s drawing was apparently positioned too high to be viewed properly (anonymous illustration of the Dresden gallery interior in 1830; the Sistine Madonna is at the rear bottom left; Kupferstich-Kabinett, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Dresden; photo: Herbert Boswank):


Johann August Nahl had been one of the winners in the last two competitions. Caroline similarly criticizes him in her letter to Wilhelm on 16 November 1801 (letter 330). Back.

[6] Caroline had included a postscript to Schelling’s letter to Wilhelm on 9 November 1801 (letter 329r), but her letter to Wilhelm on 16 November 1801 seems to have been her first to him since he departed for Berlin on 3 November. Back.

[7] See Caroline’s letter to Wilhelm on 16 November 1801 (letter 330), note 6 (Schauplatz der Natur und der Künste, vol. 5 [Vienna 1777], plate 30):



[8] After their break with the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung in 1799, certain members of the Jena Romantics were able to publish in the Zeitung für die elegante Welt and the Erlanger Litteratur-Zeitung; see the supplementary appendix on the Romantics and the Erlanger Litteratur-Zeitung.

Concerning what Caroline here calls the “Elegante Zeitung,” see her letter to Wilhelm on 19–20 July 1801 (letter 326), note 24. Back.

[9] That is, Schiller’s play Die Jungfrau von Orleans. Eine romantische Tragödie (Berlin: Unger, 1801), which premiered in Leipzig on 17 September 1801 and in Berlin on 23 November 1801, i.e., the day Caroline is here writing, hence her reference. Back.

[10] In the Berlin premiere of Schiller’s play, Henriette Meyer rather than Friederike Unzelmann performed the role of Johanna (the piece, moreover, was performed another thirteen times before the end of the year), about which Friederike Unzelmann, whom Schiller himself had suggested Iffland assign the role, wrote to the poet on 28 October 1801 to express her great annoyance (Ludwig von Urlich, Briefe an Schiller [Stuttgart 1877], 446). The editor, Urlich prefaces this letter with the following background:

The famous artist [i.e., Friederike Unzelmann] had delivered guest performances in Weimar to considerable acclaim and had departed on 2 October 1801. Schiller had seen her perform the role of Maria Stuart on 21 September. Wilhelm Schlegel shared her wish of having her perform as Johanna [in Die Jungfrau von Orleans] in Berlin, but the role was given [by Iffland] to Madam Meyer.

Friederike Unzelmann writes to Schiller:

(Berlin, 25 October 1801)

It is impossible for me, after the delight of having made your acquaintance, to repress my desire to communicate with you now and then. Please accept it kindly that someone so completely taken with you dares to write to you. I am thereby fulfilling the urgings of my own heart and simultaneously the obligation of gratitude you imposed on me by having shared with me the Maid of Orleans.

But now please also share my justified chagrin, and indeed my annoyance, at the fact that, this notwithstanding, Madame Meyer is now to play the role, moreover for the utterly pathetic reason that she has simply received no role for such a long time.

I am so unhappy at this loss that it is impossible for me to conceal my justified grief and chagrin from you, and must humbly beseech you to give me reason to hope I might perform the role again in Weimar someday under your direction. You need only give me a sign, and I will be there with you in a thrice, counting myself fortunate to see once more the man who showed me such profound deference and admiration.

Friderike Unzelmann

Schiller responded diplomatically on 17 November 1801 (Schiller, Briefe, ed. Fritz Jonas, 7 vols. [Stuttgart 1892–96], 6:317–18):

Weimar, 17 November (Tuesday) 1801

How your remembrance delighted me, my charming friend! Along with all your admirers here, I, too, would otherwise have had to come to terms with your having forgotten us and our simple village and our village theater amidst the grandeur of artistic Berlin! I was all the more surprised by your demonstration to the contrary.

Indeed, I do greatly regret that you will not be bestowing your artistic talents on my virginal heroine in introducing her to the world in a dignified manner. In the meantime, to the extent I myself am not an eyewitness, I can have no real opinion concerning the distribution of roles in my play in Berlin, hence be its preservation commended to the gods.

Here in Weimar, private circumstances are still hindering the performance of the Jungfrau [see Caroline’s letter to Wilhelm on 27 April 1801 (letter 312), notes 15 and 17], and nothing would be more welcome to me than for your appearance here to sweep away all these difficulties at once and render the little ship buoyant once more.

Unfortunately you would have to generously accept making do with your fame and our joy, and I myself, for my own part, would precede you with a similar sacrifice by covering the entire theater costs without reimbursement. This measure is necessary because after your departure, the piece can no longer be performed; the only actress to whom one might entrust such a role, Dame Jagemann, can no longer be assigned any new role in the theater because of certain theatrical contractual considerations.

Hence if you think it might be worth the effort to make such a sacrifice to art and your own renown and pleasure, just let me know, and I will then speak with Goethe about it. I am admittedly doubly interested in this matter, since quite apart from seeing you perform Johanna, I will also see you yourself once more, thereby revivifying what for me was a delightful encounter that too quickly disappeared.

And so stay well, my dearest friend, and please do remember with benevolence your sincere friend and admirer,


Things turned out very ill indeed. Reviews in the Zeitung für die elegante Welt (1801) nos. 151 (Thursday, 17 December 1801), 1213–17; 153 (Tuesday, 22 December 1801), 1232–35, in part severely castigated Meyer’s performance, acknowledging not only the opinion of connoisseurs that Friederike Unzelmann was the only Berlin actress up to the role, but also pointing out how

Madame Meyer, who in any case simply does not possess the talent to recite iambics, spoke several passages incorrectly, even as regards their meaning, otherwise keeping in character only in isolated passages and thus offering no genuinely consistent whole in her performance.

Her monotonous voice also became excessively noticeable, since she was unable to distribute her, though weak, by no means repugnant organ economically. Several passages in which she tried to incorporate to much inwardness and pathos failed completely . . .

Not even her external appearance was able to live up to the high expectations of the public etc. etc. Back.

[11] Friederike Unzelmann was of diminutive stature. Here with August Wilhelm Iffland (Almanach für Theater und Theaterfreunde, ed. August Wilhelm Iffland [1807]):



[12] Wilhelm von Burgsdorff writes to Rahel Levin from Berlin on 24 March 1801 (Wilhelm von Burgsdorff Briefe, ed. Alfons Fedor Cohn, Deutsche Litteraturdenkmale 139 [Berlin 1907], 180; 217):

I was at Madam Unzelmann’s yesterday evening, with Madam Liebmann [concerning the possible identity of Madam Liepmann, see Wilhelm’s letter to Sophie Bernhardi on 21 August 1801 (letter 327f), note 20], Wilhelm Schlägel [sic], Quarst [sic], and Madam Bernhard [Bernhardi?].

One might note in passing concerning Wilhelm’s stay in Berlin that, as Cohn points out in his annotations (217), Wilhelm mentions Burgsdorff frequently in his letters to Ludwig Tieck: Briefe an Ludwig Tieck 3:282, 286, 290 (from Berlin on 15 February, 28 May 1803, and 8 February 1804, in which Wilhelm passes along his regards to Burgsdorff), 292 (13 March 1804, in which Wilhelm passes along regards and a request from Karl Gregor von Knorring, Sophie Bernhardi’s second husband, to Burgsdorff “not to forget the [apparently previously mentioned] request concerning the horses, since, if I am not mistaken, the horse market is now underway”). Back.

[13] With the adjective “spiritual,” Caroline is referring essentially to the insubstantial nature of the review, which appeared in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (1801) 312 (Wednesday, 4 November 1801) 249–50; it was extremely succinct, saying (in the opinion of Erich Schmidt, [1913], 2:626) essentially nothing and concluding with a reproduction of the stanzas “Farewell, ye mountains” (from scene 4 of the prologue; translation of monologue here from The Works of Frederick Schiller. Historical Dramas etc. trans. Anna Swanwick [London 1847], 340–41):

A new work by Schiller need neither serve as the vehicle for an appended calendar [Caroline had heard rumors the piece would appear as an “almanac”; see her remarks in her letter to Wilhelm on 27 February 1801 [letter 292), also note 7 there] to increase sales, nor be anticipatorily praised in order to awaken interest. In both respects, it suffices merely to announce that it is there.

And we herewith make do with precisely such today, announcing it as a piece of news with which one cannot quickly enough become acquainted in the elegant calendric form in which Herr Unger is introducing it to the public for the first time.

An analysis of the ingenious artistic touches through which the poet ennobles the origin, actions, and end of the famous Jeanne d’Arc, and an examination of the question whether this Schillerian Maid of Orleans is to be viewed merely as a beautiful romantic drama, or simultaneously as an appropriate and suitable piece for the stage (it has already been performed several times in Leipzig), and finally a detailed analysis of its manifold elements of beauty — all this must for now remain in abeyance until over time more opportunity has been gained for a lengthier study of a work whose duration is calculated as lasting not quite an entire year.

In the meantime, every aficionado of the beautiful will delight in experiencing the heroic deeds of a shepherdess whose miraculous transformation is announced in the following stanzas:

[Berlinischer Damen-Kalender auf das Gemein-Jahr 1807; Inhaltsverzeichnis deutscher Almanache, Theodor Springmann Stiftung]:


Farewell, ye mountains, ye beloved glades,
Ye lone and peaceful valleys, fare ye well!
Through you Johanna never more may stray!
For aye Johanna bids you now farewell.
Ye meads which I have water'd, and ye trees
Which I have planted, still in beauty bloom!
Farewell ye grottos, and ye crystal springs!
Sweet echo, vocal spirit of the vale,
Who sang'st responsive to my simple strain,
Johanna goes, and ne'er returns again.

Ye scenes where all my tranquil joys I knew,
For ever now I leave you far behind!
Poor foldless lambs, no shepherd now have you!
O'er the wide heath stray henceforth unconfin'd!
For I to danger's field, of crimson hue,
Am summon'd hence, another flock to find.
Such is to me the Spirit's high behest;
No earthly vain ambition fires my breast.

For who in glory did on Horeb's height
Descend to Moses in the bush of flame,
And bade him go and stand in Pharaoh's sight––
Who once to Israel's pious shepherd came,
And sent him forth, his champion in the fight,––
Who aye hath loved the lowly shepherd train,––
He, from these leafy boughs thus spake to me,
"Go forth! Thou shalt on earth my witness be.

"Thou in rude armour must thy limbs invest,
A plate of steel upon thy bosom wear;
Vain earthly love may never stir thy breast,
Nor passion's sinful glow be kindled there.
Ne'er with the bride-wreath shall thy locks be dress'd,
Nor on thy bosom bloom an infant fair;]
But war's triumphant glory shall be thine;
Thy martial fame all women's shall outshine.

"For when in fight the stoutest hearts despair,
When direful ruin threatens France, forlorn,
Then thou aloft my oriflamme shalt bear,
And swiftly as the reaper mows the corn,
Thou shalt lay low the haughty conqueror;
His fortune's wheel thou rapidly shalt turn;
To Gaul's heroic sons deliv'rance bring,
Relieve beleaguer'd Rheims, and crown thy king!"

The heavenly Spirit promised me a sign;
He sends the helmet, it hath come from him.
Its iron filleth me with strength divine,
I feel the courage of the cherubim;
As with the rushing of a mighty wind
It drives me forth to join the battle's din;
The clanging trumpets sound, the chargers rear,
And the loud war-cry thunders in mine ear. Back.

[14] Schleiermacher’s review of Georg Christoph Lichtenberg’s posthumous Vermischte Schriften aus dessen hinterlassenen Papieren gesammelt und herausgegeben von L. C. Lichtenberg und Friedrich Kries, 2 vols. (Göttingen 1800, 1801), in the Erlanger Litteratur-Zeitung (1801) 2, no. 206, 1642–48 (repr. Aus Schleiermacher’s Leben 4:561–67), which begins:

These two slim volumes contain everything in Lichtenberg’s literary estate the editors, whom the deceased himself appointed, thought suitable for publication, with the exception, however, of material of a scientific nature relating to mathematics and natural science.

Similarly, little in this collection has any scientific reference as such, and little of that which one might otherwise seek from the papers of such a scholar in the way of instructional insights into his mode of study, his complex talents, things that determined the direction taken by his literary career.

What one finds instead is what an extremely learned, interesting, original personality thought worthy of committing to paper for the sake of, in part, preserving his thoughts and, in part, developing them further in writing. This collection is intended for those interested in getting to know Lichtenberg the human being.

In this regard, one justifiably expects that what he thought about himself or at least remarked concerning himself might serve as the key to and quintessence of everything else. The editors appropriately begin with material the deceased noted about himself. Although we are told he intended to develop this material into a presentation of his own life, he seems not to have progressed very far toward that goal.

And judging from the present material, it seems much would have been missing in any case, since nowhere is there even the slightest trace of any historical connection between the individual pieces of material, no description of how what he found within himself came to be in the first place, no allusion to the incipient presence of many elements in his childhood. Nor any portrayal of the entire person from a unified perspective.

Later in the review, Schleiermacher draws a comparison between Lichtenberg and Christian Garve. Concerning Schleiermacher’s own review of Garve’s writing in Athenaeum (1800) 129–39, which Wilhelm called “invaluable” (to Schleiermacher on 16 December 1799 [letter 257d]), see Friedrich Schlegel’s letter to Caroline on 20 October 1798 (letter 205), with note 7. Schleiermacher continues:

Concerning the acquaintance with and observation of human beings as such, this reviewer almost involuntarily drew a comparison between Lichtenberg and Garve, a comparison that, in his opinion, issues wholly to the advantage of the former, though less because of any superiority of natural talent than because he simply better understood how to limit himself within the parameters of his own nature.

Garve was unable to function as an observer to this degree, nor be as pleasant company as a writer, being simply unable to prevent himself from constantly engaging in conceptual transformation and logical analysis, being instead everywhere, and clumsily, inclined toward the systematic, and because his ill-timed engagement of such analytical acumen also prevented him from acquiring even the slightest intimation of wit.

Schleiermacher concludes the review as follows:

One cannot really judge the editorial merit of this collection because one cannot know what the editors withheld from publication, though one must assume that the quantity of material was far greater, in which case this reviewer would have wished to see less frugality.

Lichtenberg’s well-merited fame would not have suffered even if some additional material might not have seemed particularly significant to our readers. The editors should have given more consideration to the public’s veneration of the relics of so beloved a writer as well as to the possible enhancement of the enjoyment of more critical readers, enjoyment which such frugality has all but squelched.

Such enjoyment particularly is similarly little enhanced by the organization of this material. Had one but followed the chronology, the collection would have been enhanced much more by both the visible and invisible connections and peculiarities of the author.

As it is, the organization and sections are poorly chosen and ill implemented. Some of the separations of material run quite contrary to Lichtenberg’s own nature and as such simply do not work. Some material pertaining to himself he in fact, through pardonable self-deception, noted as observations concerning human beings as such.

One similarly finds in almost all sections fragments or developed elements of an otherwise unacknowledged whole. Since the purpose was to present a collection of all dispersed essays by Lichtenberg, this reviewer would reproach the publisher all the more for having chosen paper of such abominably low quality. Although this reviewer is not aware of any better edition, neither does he live in those particular regions whither one is wont to dispose of blotting paper. But even if there are several such better editions, even the worst should never have been this atrocious. Back.

[15] Concerning Schiller’s adaptation of Macbeth, see Caroline’s letter to Wilhelm on 25 May 1801 (letter 318).

Caroline is quite correct. Schleiermacher himself, not Wilhelm, was the anonymous author of the review in the Erlanger Litteratur-Zeitung (1801) 148 (Thursday, 30 July 1801) and 149 (Friday, 31 July 1801), 1177–91. For a discussion of the review (in German), see KGA I/3, section 15 of the introduction. Back.

[16] Kritisches Journal der Philosophie, ed. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (Tübingen 1802—03). As Caroline points out here, it was published by Johann Friedrich Cotta in Tübingen and printed by Friedrich Frommann in Jena.

This periodical represents yet another attempt to create a publication organ after the break with the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung in 1799 and the failure of the Romantics’ Jahrbücher project. This publication, however, was the only one actually implemented.

Caroline now goes on to mention Schelling’s preference not to let Fichte know about the project immediately, perhaps not least because part of its concept naturally incorporated some of what Fichte himself had been planning with the Jahrbücher project, though now focused exclusively on philosophical material.

The first issue appeared at the turn of the year 1801/1802.

At the same time, Schelling was continuing his project with the Zeitschrift für speculative Physik with, among others, Carl Eschenmayer, Henrik Steffens, Andreas Röschlaub, Adalbert Friedrich Marcus, and Carl Joseph Windischmann, which in practice meant that Hegel became responsible for most of the work for the new periodical, though the articles were nonetheless likely collectively authored by him and Schelling.

The exception was issues five and six, which Hegel largely authored, and the first issue, in which Schelling presented his dispute with Karl Leonhard Reinhold. No other contributors participated in the project. See Paul Hocks and Peter Schmidt, Literarische und politische Zeitschriften 1789–1805: Von der politischen Revolution zur Literaturrevolution (Stuttgart 1975), 119–21.

Neither during his time as a private lecturer in Jena nor later did Hegel, like Friedrich von Hardenberg, develop any closer relationship with Caroline. See his letter to Friedrich Immanuel Niethammer from Nürnberg on 4 October 1809, barely a month after Caroline’s death (Briefe von und an Hegel, ed. Karl Hegel, part 1, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Werke, vol. 19, part 1 [Leipzig 1887], 248):

Let me kiss the beautiful hands a thousand times of the very best woman. — May God — and I am sure he will — keep and preserve her according to her merit ten times longer than that particular septem [“evil seven”], news of whose death we recently received here and about whom some [presumably the Paulus family in Nürnberg] have hypothesized that the devil himself came and fetched her.

The allusion is to the topos of the “vain lady of the world” being fetched by the devil. Here one iteration (Daniel Hopfer, Die Weltdame und der Tod [ca. 1504–1536]; Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum; Museums./Signatur DHopfer AB 3.51); second illustration: death similarly comes to fetch a “lady of the night,” Daniel Nikolaus Chodowiecki, Das Freudenmädchen [1791]; Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum; Museums./Signatur DChodowiecki AB 3.891):




[17] Uncertain reference, though, given Caroline’s next sentence, Friedrich and Dorothea may have been considering the possibility of relocating to Dresden. See in any case Friedrich’s letter to Schleiermacher on 5 May 1800 (letter 259r) concerning the worrisome Jewish toll that Dorothea — still a Jew — had already had to consider in connection with Dresden. Back.

[18] Ludwig Tieck and his family had been living in Dresden since the spring of 1801. See esp., from an earlier period, Ludwig Tieck’s letter to Sophie and August Ferdinand Bernhardi on 6 December 1799 (letter 257c). Back.

[19] See Dorothea’s own feelings in early December 1801 (Briefe von Dorothea Schlegel an Friedrich Schleiermacher 116; KGA V/5 277; KFSA 25:311):

Frankly we would have long gotten away from this hostile environment had we but had the money and were we not so keen on choosing our future place of residence very carefully indeed that we might finally have a little peace and quiet again.

Erich Schmidt did not include in his edition the text that begins here and extends to “Schelling’s lecture revenue is not yet completely in.” The omitted text reads as follows in the manuscript (Digitale Edition der Korrespondenz August Wilhelm Schlegels; line breaks as in original; transcription by the translator and Hedwig T. Durnbaugh):

Philipp trägt dir hiermit nochmals
und dringend auf, Hufel. zu exiquiren.
Du kannst das nun freylich nicht mit
Hand-anlegen thun, aber ihm doch sagen,
er möchte dir gelegentlich das Geld
auszahlen, von dem ihm Ph. geschrieben
(denn er habs ihm bey Pfennig und Zeile
vorgerechnet, daß er ihm so und so viel
bezahlen muß) du habest mit Ph. arrange-
mens und auf das Geld gerechnet. Dann
kannst du mir das hieher assigniren.
Noch leide ich nicht was das Tägliche
Brod betrift, denn für ein halb Dutzend
alte Bücher habe ich schon 4 rth 10 gr
eingenommen. Carl verkauft sie mir aus
der Hand. Es sind nur die großen
Kosten die uns drücken, der Wein
und die Meubles, angesehen. Schellings
Vorschusses in meine Casse, und ich weiß
nicht warum mir auch dein Bruder
gar nicht schreibt und die Zinsen nicht schickt.
Ich schreibe heut dorthin. Back.

[19a] The reference is to an ongoing but otherwise unspecified debt Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland owed to Philipp Michaelis. Wilhelm was acting as the mediator in Berlin. See, e.g., Caroline’s letter to Wilhelm on 19–20 July 1801 (letter 326), note 35. This debt has been mentioned earlier and reappears during the coming months. Back.

[19b] Caroline relates to Wilhelm in her letter to him on 26 November 1801 (letter 332) that she had indeed heard from Karl Schlegel in Hannover concerning the money. Back.

[20] During the winter semester 1801/1802, Hegel and Schelling together conducted a disputatorium, a practical session during which students could discuss and debate the lecture material and ask the professor questions.

The title in this instance was “Introduction Concerning the Idea and Boundaries of True Philosophy” (Dokumente zu Hegels Jenaer Dozententätigkeit (1801–1807), ed. H. Kimmerle, Hegel-Studien 4 [Bonn 1967], 53). Back.

[21] Hieronymus Peter Schlosser (1735–97), one time deputy mayor in Frankfurt, was an early friend of Goethe from Frankfurt days. Schlosser’s brother, moreover, Johann Georg Schlosser (1739–99), had married Goethe’s sister, Cornelia (1750–77), in 1773.

Although Hieronymus Peter had two sons studying in Jena during this period, Caroline is almost certainly referring to the elder, Johann Friedrich (Fritz) Heinrich Schlosser. It is certainly not impossible that the younger son is meant, namely, Christian Friedrich (1782–1829); although he was studying medicine, cross-disciplinary interests were certainly common enough at the time, and Schelling himself enjoyed considerable contact with physicians and medical scholarship during his Würzburg years and had earlier attended lectures in medicine in Leipzig.

The elder son, however, who was known as Fritz, appears otherwise in a more proximate connection with Schelling. In his introduction to Henry Crabb Robinson’s lecture notes from Schelling’s lectures on the philosophy of art during the winter semester 1802–3, James Vigus remarks (Henry Crabb Robinson: Essays on Kant, Schelling, and German Aesthetics, ed. James Vigus, Modern Humanities Research Association 18 [London 2010], 64):

Schelling had previously lectured on this topic in winter 1799–1800, winter 1800–1801, and summer 1801; but he probably revised his work considerably for the present course. He was to revise and expand it again for his lectures at the University of Würzbug in winter 1804–05, and it was this latter that was eventually published in the collected works edited by Schelling’s son. HCR’s (Henry Crabb Robinson’s) notes are of remarkably high quality and until recently constituted the most complete record of the 1802–1803 course.

However, a new discovery has raised the question of whether or not these notes are original to HCR. Roland Kany is currently preparing a transcription of notes to this lecture course in the handwriting of Fritz Schlosser, a friend of HCR. The two sets of notes are almost identical up to the point where HCR’s record ends — but Schlosser continues for a further 38 paragraphs.

Lectures notes often circulated in manuscript at that time, and it seems probable that HCR may have copied from Schlosser, an enthusiastic devotee of Schelling. On the other hand, HCR’s fluency in German and his command of shorthand were sufficient to the task, and another conjectural explanation is that HCR and Schlosser may have worked together.

Although certainty is perhaps not possible, it seems likely that Caroline is indeed referring to Fritz Schlosser rather than his younger brother.

Erich Schmidt did not include in his edition the text that begins here and extends to “Everything you ordered will be taken care of.” The omitted text reads as follows in the manuscript (Digitale Edition der Korrespondenz August Wilhelm Schlegels; line breaks as in original; transcription by the translator and Hedwig T. Durnbaugh):

Für die Bücher weiß ich keinen
andern Rath, als den Koffer voll mit
Fracht. Die einzige Erleichterung ist daß
T. und Fr. vielleicht noch mitnehmen was
nicht in den Koffer geht. Zu haben müßten
die Bücher fast sämtlich in B. seyn, aber
du scheust wohl die Mühe das zu sammeln [?]. Back.

[22] Uncertain reference, though likely the portrait of Auguste by Johann Friedrich August Tischbein, who was currently residing in Leipzig. Concerning possible portraits of Auguste, see Sophie Tischbein’s letter to Caroline on 28 August 1800 (letter 267), note 2. Back.

[23] See the supplementary appendix on Caroline’s and Schelling’s translations of Petrarch. Back.

Translation © 2015 Doug Stott