¹ There exists so far no study of Friedrich's experiences in Paris, perhaps because his work of that period, while astonishingly profuse and stimulating, is largely anthological and unpolemic in character. (For a listing of these see Goedeke, Grundriß, vi, 22–23; for the most recent and detailed inventory of Friedrich's unpublished notebooks and lectures see Ernst Behler, “Der Stand der Friedrich-Schlegel-Forschung,” Jb. der dt. Schillergesellschaft, I [1957], 253–289.) The masterly though brief investigation by Ernst Robert Curtius, “Friedrich Schlegel und Frankreich” in Kritische Essays zur europäischen Literatur (Bern, 1950), pp. 78–94 (repr. from Zeitschr. f. franz. u. engl. Unterricht, xxxi [1932], 1–17), lays no claim to completeness and relies almost exclusively on Walzel's edition of the letters and the few Europa articles republished by Walzel in Kiirschner's Deutsche Nalional-Litteratur, CXLIII. In an interesting recent essay by Hans Flasche, “Friedrich Schlegel und die Romania. I. Friedrich Schlegel und Portugal,” DVLG, XXXII (1958), 417–447, Friedrich's residence in Paris is treated incidentally with reference to his Portuguese studies.

² His life story in these early years is none too well documented. Reasonable accounts of his achievements are contained in the following works, in order of merit: Christian Pfister, “La chaire de litterature grecque” in “La faculty des lettres de Strasbourg (1810–70),” Bull, de la Fac. des Lettres de Strasbourg (1925–26), pp. 175 ff. [subsequently published as Les Schweighaeuser et la chaire de litterature grecque de Strasbourg (1770–1855) (Paris, 1927)]; Roland Mortier, Un precurseur de Madame de Sta'el: Charles Vanderbourg, 1765–1827: Sa contribution aux echanges intellecluels a I'aube du XIXe siecle, “Etudes de litterature etrangere et comparee” (Paris-Bruxelles, 1955) passim; Adolf Michaelis, entry in Allg. dt. Biogr., xxxiii, 351 ff.; Albert Leitzmann, ed., 1) Neue Briefe von Karoline von Humboldt (Halle, 1901), 33–64, and 2) Wilhelm von Humboldts Briefe an Johann Gottfried Schweighduser, “Jenaer germanistische Forschungen, xxv” (Jena, 1934), passim; Revue Retrospective, 7me semestre (July-Dec. 1887), pp. 1–96,193–240 and 8me semestre (Jan–June 1888), pp. 79–87 (containing Vanderbourg's letters to Schweighauser); A. Laquiante, ed., Guillaume de Humboldt et Caroline de Humboldt, nee de Dacheroden, lettres a Geojfroi Schweighaeuser, traduites el annotees sur les originaux inedits (Paris-Nancy, 1893) (rev. by R. Haym, Gbttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1893, pp. 654–664, and A. Leitzmann, Euphorion, I [1894], 409–413; Laquiante is superseded by Leitzmann's editions); Charles Rabany, Les Schweighaeuser. Biographie d'une famille des savants alsaciens d'apres leur correspondance inidite (Paris, 1884).

³ Cf. Rabany, pp. 24 f. and Humboldts Briefe, p. 9.

⁴ Humboldt mentioned to Goethe, “Sie war nicht iibel,” and Schiller was finally able to make Goethe say grudgingly at least, “dafi man damit nicht ganz unzufrieden sein solle” (Ludwig Geiger, ed., Goethes Briefwechsel mit Wilhelm und Alexander von Humboldt [Berlin, 1909], p. 51, and in Goethe-jahrbuch, xxiii [1903], 206 [mtd. by Leitzmann, Humboldts Briefe, p. 59].)

⁵ Cf. A. Leitzmann, ed., Neue Briefe von K. v. Humboldt, pp. 11, 92, and Ludwig Urlichs, ed., Charlotte von Schiller und ihre Freunde (Stuttgart, 1862), ii, 178–181.

⁶ The entire story of this “chain reaction” is open to surmise. The reader is referred to the above-mentioned collections of letters edited by Leitzmann and Laquiante and the close-mouthed reviews by Haim and Leitzmann. Having returned to Paris, Karoline, on 11 May 1800, wrote to Schweighauser a letter (Humboldls Briefe, pp. 66 f.) which is couched in terms curiously similar to her declarations of 1799 to Rahel describing her renunciation of Karl von Burgsdorff (cf. A. Leitzmann, ed., Briefwechsel zwischen Karoline von Humboldt, Rahel und Varnhagen [Weimar, 1896], pp. 21–25). The problem of Karoline's amours has been fully discussed by Josef Korner in his Krisenjahre der Fruhromantik. Briefe aus dem Schlegelkreis, iii (Bern, 1958), pp. 227–230. This invaluable “Kommentarband” was not available to me when writing this study.

⁷ Cf. Humboldt's acknowledgment of 24 October 1801, from Berlin: “Ihr Brief, mein lieber theurer Freund, hat mir eine innige Freude gemacht, und mich iiberaus interessirt. Sie miissen ja fortfahren, mir recht oft zu schreiben, und mir so launige Nachrichten uber unsre ehemaligen Freunde zu geben, als Sie es jetzt gethan haben” (Humboldts Briefe, p. 15); or see his anxious inquiries regarding the fortunes of their mutual acquaintance, Mme. de Stael (ibid., pp. 17–18). The correspondence between him and Humboldt extends until 1823.

⁸ Apparently Humboldt had first recommended Schweighauser to her (ibid., p. 7); since Schweighauser had not yet been released by the military, she engaged the services of a M. Gerlach, a young Protestant minister from Coburg, who died shortly after her own (former) husband in May 1802, having bitterly complained about the loneliness of his existence at Coppet (Pauline de Pange, August Wilhelm Schlegel und Frau von Sla'el—Eine schicksalhafte Begegnung [Hamburg, 1940], transl. Willy Grabert, pp. 13 ff.). When she again approached Schweighauser, he refused because by that time she had been expelled by Napoleon (Pfister, p. 273; Humboldts Briefe, p. 58).

⁹ Their names, as they appear in his correspondence, are legion. Perhaps his closest associates should be singled out, learned men like Suard, the editor and classical scholar; Camille Jordan, the journalist and fearless politician; J.-M. Degerando, the philosopher and secretary-to-be of Napoleon's Ministry of the Interior; the afore-mentioned classicist Mil-lin; de Villoison, the geographer of Greece; de Sainte-Croix, absorbed in the history of early Greece and of Alexander; du Theil, the translator of Aeschylus; Bitaube, the Homer scholar and undistinguished translator of Hermann und Dorothea; Clavier, the student of Plutarch; Visconti, the most famous of archeologists. To these must be added Mme. de Stael's friends, Mme. Recamier, Benjamin Constant, de Villers and Voyer d'Argenson, the son of Louis XV's minister of war and the future prefect of Belgium. His friends and associates, with the possible exception of Degerando, were opposed to Napoleon and favored a constitutional monarchy.

¹⁰ Mortier, p. 49.

¹¹ Cf. Detlev Schumann, “Franzosische Emigranten in Schleswig-Holstein: Ein Kapitel aus der europaischen Kul-turgeschichte um 1800,” Nordelbingen, Beitrage z. Heimat-forsch. inSchl.-Hoist., xxi (1954), 121–149 and “Neue Studien zur franzosischen Emigration in Schleswig-Holstein,” ibid., xxn (1955), 134–156.

¹² Mortier, pp. 68 ff.

¹³ Cf. [Bertha Borngraber, ed.] Unvergessenes. Denkwur-digkeiten aus dem Leben von Helmina von Chizy. Von ihr selbst erzdhlt (Leipzig, 1858), I, 227. See also the uncomplimentary characterization of his mother and the Schlegels in Wilhelm Chezy, Erinnerungen aus meinem Leben (Schaffhausen, 1863), I, passim; n, 11–14.

¹⁴ Helmina writes: “Er [Schweighauser] schrieb Cotta… wie nur ein Liebender schreiben kann. Cotta schlug ein, nachdem er mehreres von mir gelesen hatte. So war ich denn Herausgeberin einer Zeitschrift, die von Wichtigkeit und Einfiufi werden sollte—und kannte kaum zehn Strafien von Paris” (Unvergessenes, I, 228; but also Humboldts Briefe, p. 62). Friedrich, in his letter to August Wilhelm of 15 January 1803, mentions the fact that he met Henrichs, who had served together with their elder brother August in a Hanoverian Regiment and was present when he died on 9 September 1782 in Madras (Oskar F. Walzel, ed., Friedrich Schlegels Briefe an seinen Bruder August Wilhelm [Berlin, 1890], pp. 509–510). Helmina later complained, “Friedrich Schlegel [in 1805?] hatte unrecht gehabt, mich zu bewegen, darauf [the editorship of the Franz. Misz.] zu verzichten.” Unvergessenes, i, 317–318.

¹⁵ He was to be their teacher until 1812. Laquiante gives the date of his departure from Paris as Fructidor [August–September] 1802 (p. 67).

¹⁶ A. Leitzmann and Bruno Gebhardt, eds., Wilhelm von Humboldts Gesammelte Schriflen (Berlin, 1903–20), xv, 37.

¹⁷ “Ueberlieferungen und Umrisse aus den Tagen Napoleons,” Der Freihafen, in (1840), No. 4, p. 80; No. 3, p. 167.

¹⁸ Josef Korner writes, “Das genaue Datum von Schlegels Eintreffen in Paris ist unbekannt, etwa gegen Ende Juni; der fruheste Brief aus Paris, von dem wir Kenntnis haben, ist der (iibrigens verlome) an Karl von Hardenberg vom 31. Juli ([publ. by Karl von] Holtei [Briefe an Ludwig Tieck, Breslau, 1864] in, S. 322)” {Briefe von und an Friedrich und Dorothea Schlegel [Berlin, 1926], p. 457).

¹⁹ Of interest to the historian of Romanticism is the fact that at approximately the same time Hblderlin returned to Germany; he had left Bordeaux on 9 May and passed through Strasbourg on 6 June (cf. Carl C. T. Litzmann, “Neue Mit-theilungen uber Holderlin,” Archiv f. Lileraturgeschichte, xv [1887], 66–67). For a contemporary account of the three routes to Paris (via Brussels, Metz, or Strasbourg, where the first is given preference), see Johann Friedrich Reichardt, Vertraute Briefe aus Paris, geschrieben in den Jahren 1802 und 1803 (Hamburg, 1804), I, 8. On the Schlegels' own journey via Mainz and Metz see “Reise nach Frankreich,” Europa, Eine Zeitschrift. Herausgegeben von Friedrich Schlegel, I (1803), No. 1, pp. 5 ff. [repr. by Oskar F. Walzel, ed., August Wilhelm und Friedrich Schlegel—In Auswahl herausgegeben, “Deutsche National-Litteratur, CXLIII,” 270 ff.].

²⁰ Dilthey, discussing Schleiermacher's protest against the trip, states, “In einem der Gedankenbilcher Schleiermachers findet sich die nach andren Grunden eben dieser Zeit an-gehorende kurze Bemerkung: ‘den Widerspruch so geradezu zu toleriren und zu setzen wie Schlegel ist ein Uebermaafi der Phantasie iiber die Vernunft’ ” (Jonas-Dilthey, Aus Schleiermacher's Leben—In Brief en [Berlin, 1860–63], iii, 304). See also Vermehren's letter of 21 April (H. Meisner and E. Schmidt, eds., Briefe August Ludwig Hulsens, J. B. Vermehrens und Fritz Weicharls an Friedrich Schleiermacher, “Mitteilungen aus dem Litteraturarchiv in Berlin,” N.S. [Berlin, 1913], viii, 51). Rahel's doubts regarding the wisdom of the journey are refuted by Friedrich in the most revealing document of 15 February (Kurt Martens, ed., Rahel von Varnhagens Freundeskreis. Galerie von Bildnissen aus Rahels Umgang und Briefwechsel herausgegeben von K. A. Varnhagen von Ense [Berlin, n.d.] pp. 82–83).

²¹ Korner, Briefe, p. 461; H. Liideke, ed., Ludwig Tieck und die Briider Schlegel. Briefe mil Einleitung und Anmerkun-gen, “Ottendorfer Memorial Fellowship Ser. of New York Univ., No. 13” (Frankfurt am Main, 1930), p. 118. Schweig-hauser had come to know both Schlabrendorf and Tieck while in the Humboldt household (Laquiante, passim).

²² “Die Wolzogen,” however, seems to have gotten along well with Helmina (Freihafen, iii [1840], No. 3, pp. 169–170, and Unvergessenes, p. 270) and Schweighauser (Laquiante, pp. 42, 45, 64, 82), whose projected article on Jacobi's philosophy she apparently encouraged (de Pange, p. 25). Friedrich's early mistaken view that her novel Agnes von Lilien (publ. in the Horen, 1796/97) had been written by Schiller himself is well known (Korner, Briefe, p. 13; Max Preitz, ed., Friedrich Schlegel und Novalis. Biographic einer Romantiker-freundsckaft in ihren Brief en. Auf Grund neuer Briefe Schlegels herausgegeben [Darmstadt, 1957], pp. 75 ff.; Josef Korner, Romantiker und Klassiker. Die Briider Schlegel und ihre Bezie- hungen zu Schiller und Goethe [Berlin, 1924], pp. 51 ff.). In 1807, however, Karoline's “pity” seems to have gotten the better of her and she offered her services to Friedrich (Josef Korner, ed., Krisenjahre der Fruhromantik. Briefe aus dem Schlegelkreis [Briinn, Wien, Leipzig, 1936–37], I, 461).

²³ Ludeke, p. 119 [same as von Holtei, iii, 325]; Korner, Briefe, pp. 49 f. See also Pierre Reboul, “Fr. Schlegel a. Paris: Projet d'y constituer une academie allemande (1802),” Revue des sciences humaines (Lille), N.S., fasc. 65 (Jan.–March 1952), pp. 27–31, which is probably a summary for the benefit of Cuvier of the manuscript described by Martin Honecker, “Eine unbekannte philosophische Abhandlung Friedrich Schlegels,” Forschungen und Fortschritte, viii, No. 31 (Nov. 1932), cols. 395b–396a. In the letter of 15 January 1803 to his brother, Friedrich remarks that he wants to save the “Consul” for yet another task (Walzel, p. 506). His plans included also the writing of a French work (Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 310, and Freihafen, iii, No. 3, 173). Another French manuscript of those days has recently come to light, cf. Ernst Behler, “Neue Ergebnisse der Friedrich-Schlegel-For-schung,” GRM, N.S., viii (1958), 350–365.

²⁴ Walzel, pp. 497, 523; J. Korner and E. Wieneke, eds., August Wilhelm und Friedrich Schlegel im Briefwechsel mil Schiller und Goethe (Leipzig, n.d. [1926], p. 173).

²⁵ Cf., for instance, the famous letter by Dorothea to Schleiermacher of 21 November 1802 (Meisner-Schmidt, vii, 118 ff. [abridged in Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 325 ff. and J. M. Raich, Dorothea von Schlegel… und deren Sohne Johannes und Philipp Veil. Briefwechsel im Auflrage der Familie Veit herausgegeben (Mainz, 1881), I, 109 ff.] and the undated one (Paris, 1803, in Meisner-Schmidt, vii, 125 ff. [Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 345 ff., and Raich, i, 114 ff.]).

²⁶ Walzel, p. 516; Raich, i, 72; Rudolf Unger, ed., Briefe von Dorothea und Friedrich Schlegel an die Familie Paulus, “Deutsche Literaturdenkmale des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts, CXLVI, 3rd Ser., No. 26,” p. 8.

²⁷ Goedeke, Grundriß, vi, 22, assumes Karoline von Humboldt as the authoress, as does Oskar F. Walzel and Heinrich Houben, Zeitschriften der Romantik, “Bibliographisches Re-pertorium. Veroffentlichungen der Deutschen Bibliographi-schen Gesellschaft, I,” col. 37. Both on external evidence (Karoline was then in Rome and would by that time hardly consider contributing to a journal edited by Friedrich) and on internal evidence (the author is extremely well acquainted with his material and writes Greek), Hase is the logical contender.

²⁸ Humboldts Briefe, p. 15; on the relations of Friedrich with Humboldt, see A. Leitzmann, ed., Briefwechsel zwischen Schiller und Wilhelm von Humboldt, 3rd enl. ed. (Stuttgart, 1900), particularly pp. 245 ft, 260, 287 f.; Korner, Briefe, p. 433; Korner, Romantiker und Klassiker, particularly pp. 26 ft, 43 f., 47.

²⁹ Korner, Briefe, pp. 34 ft, 451 f.; Martens, p. 82; Heinz Amelung, “Briefe Friedrich Schlegels an Clemens Brentano und Sophie Mereau,” Zeilschr. f. Biicherfreunde, N.S., v (1913), No. 1, pp. 182–192.

³⁰ Goethe's staging of Friedrich's Alarcos in May 1802 had brought about a greater rapprochement, but it did not last long (cf. Romantiker und Klassiker, pp. 122 ft). From Cologne, on 15 July 1805, Friedrich wrote on the appearance of Goethe's Winckelmann und sein Jahrhundert: “Der alte Fratz hat sich darin ganz offentlich zum Heidenthum be-kannt” (Krisenjahre, I, 214).

³¹ Reichardt and Schlabrendorf, both level-headed and liberal anti-Buonapartists and belonging to the older generation, in their anonymous Napoleon Bonaparte und das franziisiscke Volk unter seinem Consulate (Germanien, im Jahre 1804), refer to Napoleon as an “in indischem Lichte glanzenden Alexander” (p. 116) and state unequivocally, “Chateaubriand's Genie holte selbst aus der indischen Natur neue blendende Farben und Tone zur Belebung des erstor-benen Christenthums, und hatte sogar den Muth, diesem auch eine kunstfahige Natur, innewohnende Kunstschon-heiten anzudichten. Andre genielose Schwarmer und Heuch-ler folgten zahllos seiner Spur. Es ist ein Jammer zu sehen, welche armselige, von dem ganzen aufgeklarten Europa langst verachtete und nach Wurden abgeschatzte Schriften jetzt in alien franzosischen Blattern und Bucherverzeich-nissen feil geboten werden” (p. 101)! These critics did not realize that the “Indian” view found its strongest support among the anti-Napoleonic camp. A study, investigating the intellectual cross-currents of religious thought in Paris in those years, until Napoleon pacified the Catholic opposition through the signing of the Concordat in 1804, and their effect on Friedrich, is wanting.

³² The two scholars later were in correspondence, cf. Rabany, p. 58.

³³ Jean-Jacques Anstett, ed., Friedrich Schlegel. Cours d'histoire universale (1805–06) (Paris, 1939), p. 103. In Hans Eichner, ed., Friedrich Schlegel, Literary Notebooks, 1797–1801 (Toronto, 1957), p. 209, he apparently still treats India and Egypt indiscriminately. He and Novalis had, of course, taken a deep interest in all things Indian and Sanskrit, particularly in the year 1798–99. In Novalis' Die Lehrlinge zu Sais Sanskrit stands for the original genuine language of all peoples; in “Die Christenheit oder Europa” India is the land of poetry, the Romantic paradise. Raymond Immerwahr has kindly drawn my attention to a retrospective fragment of 1827 which has been quoted in the Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe (Miinchen-Paderborn-Wien, 1958), xi, xxv, by the ed. Ernst Behler. The fragment gives further support to the importance which Friedrich ascribed to India in the history of religious revelation in his “dritte Stufe” (i.e., precisely the Paris years).

³⁴ This happy event was not to take place until 1816, when he married Sophie Lauth, but apparently he had moved into one of their old rooms at the rue de Clichy No. 19, as will be seen in footnote 131 to Letter xv.

³⁵ Briefe, p. iv; but see also his later jubilant statement on the occasion of the “Coppeter Fund,” Krisenjahre, I, xxiv.

³⁶ Cf. Anstett, p. 16, a classical understatement: “L'ecriture de F. Schlegel est malaisee a dechiffrer, dira-t-on”; Walzel, p. xxi: “Die Textgestaltung war durch die von Friedrich selbst immer wieder betonte Unleserlichkeit und Fluchtigkeit seiner Schrift grofien Schwierigkeiten unterworfen”; Unger, pp. vi–vii: “unentzifferbar”; Preitz, p. 253:… der Fak-simileabdruck des Schlegelbriefes… [bietet] dem Leser eine Fiille… auch von den Ratseln, die die Handschriften reich-lich aufgegeben haben.“

³⁷ Single page.

³⁸ The date was obtained from the reference to the jardin des plantes, see below.

³⁹ Most of the German visitors to Paris were greatly impressed by the Jardin des Plantes, which combined botanical gardens with a zoo. Kotzebue gave a long and detailed description of it in his Erinnerungen aus Paris im Jahre 1S04, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1804), pp. 421–430. Friedrich was not overwhelmed (Europa, i, No. 2, pp. 132 f.). On 16 September 1802, he wrote to his brother, “Auch die Menagerie hier ist sehr schon, besonders der Elephant hat mir viel Achtung und Theilnahme eingeflofit” (Walzel, p. 497).

⁴⁰ See the same formula in Letter No. iv of the same year. Friedrich's liking for French revolutionary terms until ca. 1803 strikes every reader of his correspondence. The first letter of Vanderbourg to Schweighauser in the “Correspon-dance ineclite de Charles Vanderbourg avec Geoff roi Schweighaeuser,” Revue Retrospective, 7me semestre (July-Dec, 1887), p. 1, is misdated “Paris, le 27 messidor, an XI (16 Juillet 1802).” The month of messidor, an XI falls into 1803. On the basis of internal evidence, e.g., the mention of reviews of Vanderbourg's Clolilde de Surville which appeared in 1803, there is no doubt that the letter was written in the year 1803. Schweighauser was still in Paris in July 1802.

⁴¹ Single sheet. Address: (In Friedrich's hand) “Pour Monsieur Schweighauser”; (by a foreign hand) “Caffe Franklin rue du Fauxb[ourg] St Honore.”

⁴² This can be assumed to be one of the earliest letters, written perhaps in June 1802.

⁴³ Aubin Louis Millin (1759–1818), classical scholar and director of the cabinet of antiquities in the National Library, was also the influential editor of the Magazin encyclopedique. e was a friend of Schweighauser's father (Rabany, pp. 99 ff.) and published several of Schweighauser's essays (cf. Mag. enc, ix (1802), No. 3, pp. 533–537). As early as 1798 Schweighauser had written to Schiller about him {Humboldts Briefe, p. 60). Millin characterized himself in 1817 in a letter to Schweighauser, “Je suis trop mat6riel pour que le spiritual-isme puisse avoir quelque attrait pour moi…” (Rabany, p. 93). Reichardt in April 1803 praised the “gefalligen dienst-willigen” scholar (Vertraute Briefe, iii, 306).

⁴⁴ Both Reichardt and Kotzebue referred to Millin's social gatherings in his apartment at the National Library. Kotzebue writes: “Sein The literaire, zu dem an jedem Mittwoch sich so manche ausgezeichnete, einheimische und fremde Gelehrte versammeln, ist schon oft beschrieben worden” (Erinnerungen, pp. 310 f.). Reichardt states that the “Mittwoch Abendgesellschaft” took place between the hours of 7 and 10 (Vertr. Briefe, I, 66–67). Millin's name occurs several times in the Europa. The first time in one of Schweighauser's own contributions, I, No. 2, p. 113: “Seine Abhandlungen zeichnen sich oft, so wohl durch Gelehrsamkeit, als durch Scharfsinn aus…” where perhaps the term “oft” has to be credited to Friedrich's editorial censorship. Friedrich himself remarked rather grudgingly, “des Antiquar Millins KenntniB der deutschen Sprache und der deutschen Werke seines Faches ist aus mehreren Proben bekannt” (i, No. 2, p. 124). On 2 May 1806, he referred scathingly to August Wilhelm to the “abgeschmackten Millin” (Krisenjahre, I, 325). We can assume from this that Friedrich and Millin, introduced to each other by Schweighauser, did not get along at all.

⁴⁵ Single sheet. Address: (In Friedrich's hand) “Pour Monsieur Schweighauser du Caffe' Franklin rue du fauxbourg St Honore.” Notation near edge above by Friedrich: “Montags Vormittag.”

⁴⁶ The date is established by the return address, see below.

⁴⁷ Upon their arrival in Paris the Schlegels gave as their mailing address that of the banker Pobeheim (or Pobekheim, Pobecheim, and even Pobechheim in the various sources) at least until 16 Sept. (cf. Walzel, p. 497). At that time they had apparently been staying at an expensive boarding house. Achim von Arnim wrote on 18 November to Brentano that he will probably be with Friedrich Schlegel “in einem Hause bei einer Madam Polier, die Pension halt” (Reinhold Steig, Achim von Arnim und Clemens Brentano in R. Steig and Herman Grimm, eds., Achim von Arnim und die ihm nahe standen, Vol. I [Stuttgart, 1894], 54; on Mme. de Polier, a close friend of Vanderbourg, and her Indian interests, cf. Mortier, pp. 56 ff.). On 21 November, Dorothea mentioned to Schleier-macher: “In der Angst, weil man Alles so ungeheuer theuer angab, gaben wir uns in eine sehr theure Pension… in einigen Tagen wollen wir uns auf unsre eigne Hand einrich-ten” (Meisner-Schmidt, vii, 120; see also Wieneke, p. 354). We may assume then that they had been staying at the rue Cadet at least from August until the end of November. On 15 January 1803, Friedrich wrote to Wilhelm, “Auch hoffe ich Du hast nicht wieder unter der Addresse Deines letzten Briefes (rue Cadet Faubourg Montmartre) geschrieben, den ich habe nur kurze Zeit da gewohnt, jetzt steht das Haus ganz leer [,] der Brief konnte also leicht verloren gehn” (Walzel, p. 499).

⁴⁸ Two pages.

⁴⁹ The approximate date is assumed from the reference to Schweighauser's imminent departure for aux Ormes in Fructi-dor, an X (Aug.-Sept., 1802; cf. Laquiante, p. 67, fn. 1).

⁵⁰ A Parisian residential suburb lying to the West and along the Seine river, favored by the intelligentsia.

⁵¹ Joseph-Marie Degerando (1772–1842), philosopher and historian, was one of Schweighauser's early associates (Pfister, passim; Mortier, passim; Laquiante, p. 6). He apparently attended Friedrich's public lectures during the fall of 1802 (Reichardt, Verlraule Briefe, I, 431), and he contributed to the same journals as did Schweighauser (Mortier, passim). Friedrich did not like him. In the Europa, i, No. 2, he refers to him as an ideologiste (p. 124), a term sufficiently proven by Degerando's cautious suggestions to Schweighauser concerning the latter's interest in magnetism (Rabany, pp. 88 ff.). The Schlegels' opinion of Degerando is further illustrated by Dorothea's warning to Helmina in 1803/04: “… laB Dir von Degerardo [sic!] nichts in den Kopf setzen” (Wieneke, p. 362). In 1804 Degerando became secretary to the Minister of the Interior, and, because of his great influence over the French educational system, Friedrich was at pains to cultivate again his acquaintance, for he wanted the appointment at the ecole superieure in Cologne (cf. Krisenjakre, I, 178, 201, 215, 270, 325). Friedrich once even wrote to him from Aubergenville in 1806 (Korner, Briefe, pp. 89 f.), in anger referred to him as “franzosisches Pack” (Krisenjakre, I, 359), and then diplomatically praised him to others (i, 463). In 1807 he hoped to gain a position at the Persian embassy through his intercession (i, 423 f.). The work to which Friedrich refers in our letter was probably DegSrando's Des signes et de I'art de penser consideres dans leur rapport naturels, 1800, 4 vols, (sub-title: “un traite complet de logique et de metaphy-sique”). Amongst the Schweighauser letters is the following note by Dorothea on a single sheet without date: “Monsieur Schweighauser avec quatres [sic] volumes” which I assume to have been written in May 1804 and which might have accompanied the four volumes of Des signes once borrowed from Schweighauser.

⁵² The Abbe Roch-Ambroise Cucurron Sicard (1742–1822) was de l'Epee's successor as director of the famous “Taub-stummenanstalt” in Paris. His praises were sung by all visitors (cf. Joachim Heinrich Campe, Reise durch England und Frankreich in Brief en an einen jungen Freund in Deutsch-land, Braunschweig, 1803, II, 240 ff.). His chief work was the Cours d'instruction d'un sourd-muet de naissance, 1800. It is probably this work which Friedrich wanted to borrow. In his announcement of the “Polymathische Schule” Friedrich mentions that Sicard was associated with the institution (Europa, I, No. 2, p. 164).

⁵³ Three pages.

⁵⁴ The letter must be assumed to have been written shortly before Schweighauser's departure for aux Ormes and also previous to Friedrich's letter to Reichardt and Dorothea's letter to Schlabrendorf, both of which Korner dated January 1803 (see below).

⁵⁵ Johann Kaspar Lavater, Physiognomische Fragmente, zur Beforderung der MenschenkennlniB und Menschenliebe (Leipzig, Winterthur, 1775–78). Probably a reference to the abridged edition by Johann Michael Armbruster (Winterthur, 1783–87). Cf. Goedeke, Grundriii, iv, Part 1, No. 31 b under “Lavater.”

⁵⁶ The date for Schweighauser's departure for the chateau des Ormes was late August to early September (cf. Laquiante, p. 67, fn. 1; Unvergessenes, p. 241; Humboldts Briefe, p. 58).

⁵⁷ In his letter to Reichardt (which Korner placed in January 1803) Friedrich uses the same forthright approach and also asks for a loan of “25–30 L[ouisd]ors auf 2 oder 3 Monate, die ich aber nicht anders als auf einen Wechsel in strengster Form haben mochte….” He goes on to say, however, “Wollen Sie diese Freundschaft ftir mich haben, so wahlen Sie aber dazu keinen, der schon lange in Paris eingewohnt ist. Ein langer Aufenthalt hier macht meistens schmutzig und eigenniitzig. Auch wahlen Sie keinen dessen Namen mit S anfangt; dieser Buchstabe, wie ich gefunden habe, fiihrt immer etwas judisches mit sich” (Krisenjakre, I, 36). Dorothea, in her letter to Schlabrendorf, to be sure, had only asked for counsel and not for money (Korner, Briefe, pp. 48–51, 460 f.), but Reichardt, who arrived in Paris on 4 November 1802 and left early in April 1803, probably was not too well acquainted with Schweighauser. He was, however, very intimate with Schlabrendorf, although he abbreviates his name (see our Letter No. vi). It can therefore be taken for ranted that in the letter to Reichardt Friedrich thought primarily of Schlabrendorf's refusal, although he might have had an earlier unpleasant association with the letter S. Korner also assumes Schlabrendorf (Krisenjakre, iii, 36).

⁵⁸ Jean Francois Henri Collot (1716-October 1804) was a well-known author of lesser rank. An authority on veterans' affairs, he had contributed the article on Invalids to Diderot's Encyclopedie. His works include satires, verses, and comic operas. Vanderbourg, on 26 August 1803, writes to Schweighauser, “votre lettre est charmante, je me rend au merite superieur de Collot” (Rev. Relr., 7me semestre, p. 43), in the only reference to Collot in their correspondence.

⁵⁹ In his letter to Reichardt Friedrich forwards regards from Dorothea, but demands secrecy, while Dorothea in her letter to Schlabrendorf insists that Friedrich has no knowledge of her request. It can be assumed that Schweighauser, who himself was in debt to the Humboldts, was unable to raise the required sum.

⁶⁰ Three pages. Address: (in Friedrich's hand) “Pour Monsieur Schweighauser chez le C[itoye]n Voyer aux Ormes Departement dela[sic] Vienne.”

⁶¹ Cf. Friedrich's letter to Novalis, Berlin, 20 Oct. 1798: “Wohl bist Du nun Mitglied im Comite de Salut public universel und hast als Burger des neuen Jahrhunderts nach meinem Sinn einen vollen Biirgerkranz verdient” (Preitz, p. 131 [uncorrected in Korner, Briefe, p. 17]; see also Tasso, I, iv, 11. 682 f.; II, iii, 11. 1299 f.).

⁶² This establishes the fact that Schweighauser, in addition to his known “Einige Nachrichten iiber die neuesten Arbeiten der Pariser Philologen” (Europa, I, No. 2, pp. 107–116, signed “J.G.S.,” cf. Walzel-Houben, col. 36), contributed nother article to Friedrich's Europa. The latter is entitled “Ueber die Resultate der Expedition nach Egypten” {Europa, i, No. 1, pp. 64–74) and follows immediately upon Friedrich's own “Reise nach Frankreich” and “Litteratur” (pp. 5–63 [rpr. in DNL, cxLiii, 217–313]). Walzel-Houben doubtfully guess Helmina's authorship (col. 30, but how, in view of p. 73?), and Leitzmann (Humboldts Briefe, p. 71), Korner (Briefe, pp. 459 f.), and Johannes Bobeth (Die Zeitschriften der Romantik [Leipzig, 1911], p. 128), follow suit. The article is anti-Egyptian in tone (particularly pp. 67–69, 74). Friedrich did not mention it by name in his correspondence with Wilmans (13 Aug.), as he had done with Helmina's contribution to the “Ansichten und Miscellen” (Korner, Briefe, p. 42) whom he had urged to send it in on 25 August (Wieneke, p. 356). He had arrived in Paris under contract with the publisher Friedrich Wilmans (Bremen, later Frankfurt), signed in May in Leipzig (Liideke, p. 117) for the publication of the Europa. On 16 Aug. Karoline von Wolzogen wrote, “Er steckt sehr in der Armuth und will allerhand Enterprisen machen, ein Journal iiber Paris” (Urlichs, n, 83). On Friedrich's desire not to have the journal widely known in Paris, see Krisenjahre, I, 38. Later Korner assumed correctly Schweighauser's authorship (ibid., iii, 39).

⁶³ Friedrich's and Dorothea's often repeated requests for manuscripts for the Europa from their old friends fell on deaf ears (cf. Jonas-Dilthey, I, 357; in, 322 f., 330 f., 341; Meisner-Schmidt, vn, 125; Liideke, p. 120 [even A. W. S. asked Tieck, pp. 134 f.]; Walzel, pp. 495 ff., 501 f., 514 f.; Krisenjahre, I, 67 f.). No wonder that Friedrich finally stated that only his brother had stood by him (Jonas-Dilthey, in, 384) and that his friends had hurt him more than his enemies (ibid., iii, 409). Undoubtedly Friedrich aimed for popularity in this journal (cf. Bobeth, pp. 118 f.; Walzel, pp. 501 ff.; Meisner-Schmidt, vn, 123 f. [Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 328]), as he had intended as early as 1798 (Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 88–90). But much of the editorial policy of this journal was dictated to him by his isolated position in Paris (cf. Krisenjahre, I, 73 f.). The attack against the journal by his erstwhile friends who left him to fend for himself was not slow in coming (Jonas-Dilthey, III, 339, 369, 430; Steig, pp. 105, 116; Krisenjahre, I, 57 ff.). The Europa certainly was a far cry from the “Ency-clopadie” which he had envisaged so early (Jonas-Dilthey iii, 232, 304, 310; i, 325; but also i, 335; iii, 337, 361 f.) and which Friedrich and Dorothea insisted it was (ibid., iii, 330 f.; Meisner-Schmidt, vii, 121 [Raich, I, 110]). On his great difficulties with Wilmans see particularly the letters in Korner, Briefe, and Krisenjahre, i, during these two years. Yet even in Vienna in 1808 and 1809 he still suggested to his brother a continuation of the old Europa (Krisenjahre, I, 648, and ii, 7f.).

⁶⁴ Schweighauser's first article is signed “r” (p. 74). The important reason could easily have been the fact that he had told Cotta and Suard that he was too busy to edit or continue editing the Franz. Miszellen and Le Publiciste respectively.

⁶⁵ See fn. 62 about his “Einige Nachrichten….” In that second essay Schweighauser mentions many of his associates, such as Villoison (p. 108), Ste.-Croix (109), Clavier (112), du Sacy (114 ff.), Millin (113), Bitaube (112), Hase (115), Bast (115), Langles (116), du Theil (110), his father (111), and criticizes an uncritical translator of Arrian (109 f.). Remarkable is the following paragraph which must have had Friedrich's approval, if not help: “Im orientalischen Fache ist des alten Anquelils du' [sic] Perron lateinische Ueberset-zung des Oupnekhat, eines vor mehr als hundert Jahren von einem mongolischen Fiirsten gemachten Auszugs des indi-schen Vedams [sic], allerdings eine merkwiirdige Erscheinung, obgleich eine ziemlich undurchdringliche Dunkelheit darin herrscht. Was mir iibrigens besonders auffiel, war, dafi jener Prinz dem principium unifications nachreiste, also wahr-scheinlicher Weise ein indischer Spinozist war” (p. 115; on Friedrich's and Schweighauser's subsequent views of Spinoza, see fn. 114).

⁶⁶ The first article, “Ueber die Resultate…,” concludes with the following observation: “… was man auch zum Vortheile der stidlichen Lander sagen mag, ich lobe mir die vierziger Grade nordlicher Breite, den wahren Mittelpunkt der schonen Natur und der menschlichen Bildung, deren Maximum nicht unter dem 35sten und nicht iiber dem 55sten erreicht werden zu konnen scheint” (p. 74). There were only two years between this statement and his inquiry about the best route to India to La Harpe! By “southern tendency” Friedrich jokingly referred to his still-born scheme (from 16 Sept. 1802–15 May 1803) to travel to Provence and even Madrid in his brother's company (Walzel, pp. 497,500,512). At the same time he planned a critical edition of Provencal poetry (Walzel, pp. 506, 511) which finally appeared in the form of an essay, “Beitrage zur Geschichte der modernen Poesie und Nachricht von provenzalischen Manuskripten. (An A. W. Schlegel.),” in the Europa, I, No. 2, pp. 49–71. Undoubtedly Friedrich knew of Humboldt's repeated trips to Spain, of Schweighauser's disappointment at not having been able to accompany the family in 1799, and Humboldt's deep interest in the Basque language (Humboldts Briefe, p. 70).

⁶⁷ The term “falsche Tendenz” is a favorite expression of Friedrich and Schleiermacher (cf. Walzel, p. 513 [15 May 1803]; Jonas-Dilthey, I, 329 [10 Sept. 1802]).

⁶⁸ In this period of Friedrich's nascent nationalism, “deutsch” conveyed his greatest praise. On 16 Sept. 1802 he described the revered Werner, the geologist and teacher of Novalis, whom he had met in Leipzig in May 1802, as “ein gottlicher Mann und wahrer Deutscher” (Walzel, p. 498). The statement is repeated in the Europa, “Ein wahrer Deutscher, wie es wenige giebt” (i, No. 1, p. 7 [DNL, cxxiii, 271]). In the paragraph immediately preceding the last encomium to Werner, he writes, “Was Freundschaft bedeute und welches Gliick sie gewahre, das mag nur ein Deutscher fuhlen” (pp. 6–7).

⁶⁹ The first mention of Helmina, though not by name, occurs in the letter by Friedrich to Wilmans of 13 Aug. (Korner, Briefe, p. 42). In Dorothea's letter to her of 25 Aug. the question of living together seems to be insinuated (Wieneke, pp. 355 f.). According to Helmina's own statements, she lived in Versailles until 1 October (Freihafen, in, No. 3, p. 166). She then moved to the place Beauveau, which was Schweig- hauser's old address (for the Cafe Franklin was situated there, according to the facsimile of Humboldt's letter dated 30 May 1802, in Laquiante, between pp. 236 and 237). From Friedrich's following statement we must assume that she had already returned to Paris by the date of the letter, 20 September.

⁷⁰ Friedrich criticized the French for their lack of individuality in his “Bemerkungen” in the “Reise nach Frank-reich.” Reflecting on the uniformity of French society, he observes that “in den Pariser Cirkeln jene Bestimmtheit des franzosischen Lebens unserm Gefilhle oft als eine storende und fesselnde Pedanterie erscheint” (Europa, I, No. 1, p. 22 [DNL, cxxiii, 283]). Dorothea echoes this view in No. 39 of her Paris diary: “Es herrscht in Paris gar nicht der leichte Ton, den man sich so wunderbar vorstellt, sondern sogar der hochste Leichtsinn ist pedantisch und gewissen Regeln der Tollheit unterworfen; der nackteste Anzug ist steif; es ist unglaublich, welche Mtihe es hier kostet, im neglige1 zu sein” (Raich, I, 129). Schleiermacher in 1797 had already found that Friedrich did not like French mannerisms (Jonas-Dil-they, I, 162). It was obvious that Helmina's quarters in the Cafe Franklin were not suitable for a single woman. On the later relations between the Schlegels and Helmina see particularly Krisenjahre, ii, passim, and Wieneke, passim.

⁷¹ Apparently Schweighauser, acting on Friedrich's suggestion, had directed his friend Vanderbourg (who wrote similarly about her present quarters, “sa reputation peut soufrir beaucoup,” Revue Relrosp., p. 6) to find better accommodations for his fianc6e (ibid., pp. 9–10). She left her apartment and moved in with the Henrichs about the middle of October (ibid., pp. 15,18), where Reichardt reports her on 2 December 1802 (Vertraute Briefe, i, 260) and 5 March 1803 (ibid., iii, 64). As for Schweighauser's later relations with Helmina, the date of their separation is not clear, although judging from some of the Schlegels' remarks it could have occurred even before April–May 1804 (Krisenjahre, I, 73 f.; Unger, p. 13). This is also indicated by Rev. Relrosp., pp. 23, 25–26, and by the subsequent silence of Vanderbourg on “notre aimable baronne” or “la petite dame,” or even “Mme. de Hartfer [sic],” as she was called by him. She married de Chezy in 1805 and divorced him five years later. Dorothea at that time even stated harshly, “Mich ergotzte Helminas leichtes Wesen nie; es war ohne Anmuth, eine blofie Anlage zur Liiderlichkeit, ohne inneren mildernden Gegensatz” (Krisenjahre, ii, 180 f.), but made her peace with her again.

⁷² This observation appears also in the “Nachricht von den Gemalden in Paris” (Europa, I, No. 1, p. 110 [Friedr. v. Schlegel's sammlliche Werke, 2nd ed. (Wien, 1846), vi, 11]), and in the letter to Goethe of 26 September 1802 (Korner-Wieneke, p. 172).

⁷³ This too is echoed in the Europa (p. lll [S.W., vi, 12]), and in his letter to Goethe (Korner-Wieneke, p. 172). Ennio Quirino Visconti (1751–1818), at first director of antiquities in Rome, upon his escape as a leader of the Revolution in Italy, had been invited to Paris in 1799 to take charge of the collections in the Louvre. Later he also taught archeology. Schweighauser mentioned him with praise in “Einige Nach-richten…” (Europa, i, No. 2, pp. 114 ff.) and frequently in the notes to his edition of La Bruyere's translation of Des caracteres de Theophrasle (Paris, an X [1802]). Friedrich on 2 May 1806 writes to his brother, “solltest Du Visconti sehen, so bitte ich mich seinem Andenken zu empfehlen” (Krisenjahre, I, 325). In 1804 Schweighauser edited the text of the Musee Napoleon for him (Pfister, p. 274). It can be taken for granted that Schweighauser had introduced Friedrich to Visconti.

⁷⁴ In a letter of 15 April 1803, to Wilmans, Friedrich mentions Schweighauser (for the only time) in connection with a book order: “Die Auslage fur meine und Schw[eighauser]'s Biicher geht ja so… ” (Krisenjahre, I, 40), referring, no doubt, to Schweighauser's credit as author of two articles in the Europa.

⁷⁵ The “Stereotypen-Anstalt” of Herhan is mentioned several times by Reichardt with references to both Schlegel and Schlabrendorf (cf. Vertr. Briefe, II, 6; in, 366). Volume in of the Vertraute Briefe has an “Anhang” entitled “Kurzer Bericht iiber die Stereothypie,” where the praise of the new printing process, of interest to Reichardt, the publisher, is sung (pp. 371–390). It appears that Schlabrendorf had ventured into the printing business. In 1802, Schweighauser had been requested by the latter to publish a volume of Theo-phrast's Characters (translated by LaBruyere) together with an edition of La Bruyere's own Caractcres in three volumes, to be preceded by Schweighauser's “Apercu de l'histoire de la morale en Grece avant Th6ophraste” (Rabany, p. 31; Pfister, p. 274). It is entirely possible that this edition had not yet appeared by 20 September. We may assume that Schlegel wanted to buy his friends' work. On Schlabrendorf's interest in this printing venture, see also Steig, pp. 68 f. Louis Etienne Herhan, a printer, was the inventor of the method of book reproduction used in the “Anstalt” (cf. Rev. Retrosp., p. 29 fn.).

⁷⁶ The rue de Lille is a well-known street in the book district of Paris. It is on the Left Bank close to the Quai Voltaire and Gare D'Orsay.

⁷⁷ Four pages.

⁷⁸ The approximate date was obtained through the reference to Campe, see below.

⁷⁹ Friedrich and Dorothea often complained that he was almost unknown in Paris (cf. Wieneke, pp. 353 ff.; Meisner-Schmidt, vii, 121; Walzel, p. 523; Unger, p. 9; Korner-Wieneke, p. 173; Korner, Briefe, pp. 48 ff., 460 f.; see also Freihafen, m, No. 4, p. 52). His treatment by the French scholarly world came as a complete surprise to him. Friedrich's own attitude to them finds expression in statements like these, “Nichts hassen die Affen hier mehr als Kritik, namlich acht historische” (Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 323), faithfully echoed by Dorothea, “er [Friedrich] hafit die sogenannte Aufklaxung liber jeden andern Unfug” (Unger, p. 20; cf. also Walzel, p. 497). His resentment found expression in the Euro pa, where he damns by faint praise (cf. “Bemerkungen,” I, No. 1, pp. 17 ff. [DNL, CXLIII, 279 ff.]; “Journalisten und Theater,” I, No. 2,153 ff.). This in part explains his hesitancy to have the journal sold in Paris (Krisenjahre, I, 38).

⁸⁰ Regarding Friedrich's difficulty in translating philosophical terms into French see Mathilde Boisser6e, ed., Sulpiz Boisserees Briefwechsel… (Stuttgart, 1861), I, 35. For his own bitter opinion of the ability of French scholars to speak or read German, cf. “Ausbreitung der deutschen Sprache in Frankreich,” Europa, I, No. 2, pp. 123 ff. He obviously did not heed Reichardt's advice to his countrymen which reads, “Gegen den Anreiz solcher traulichen Freundschaftsver-bindungen mit Landsleuten, mufi man anfanglich gewaltsam gegen angehen, um nicht bios [sic] mit ilmen in Paris zu seyn, um auch wirklicli mit den Parisern in Paris zu leben…” (Vertr. Briefe, in, 65 f.).

⁸¹ This request was not unusual for the Schlegels (cf. Unger, pp. 23 f., 33). Schweighauser in 1808 of his own accord offered to advertise one of Humboldt's major poems, but was refused (Humboldis Briefe, pp. 47 f.).

⁸² Since a complete run of the Publiciste was not available in this country, I have not been able to discover whether Schweighauser acted on Friedrich's request. The only mention of Friedrich in one of Schweighauser's articles that I have been able to trace is in his “Lettre a M. Millin, sur quelques passages de Th6ophraste, Suidas et Arrien,” dated “Aux Ormes, le 30 germinal an 11 [20 April 1803],” in the Mag. enc., ix (1803), No. 1, pp. 438–456. On p. 441, after a discussion of the possibly Indian or Persian origin of the name “Wodan” for the ancient Germanic god, a footnote states, “Je me plais, a consigner ici que je dois une partie de ces idfies a M. Schlegel, savan[t] allemand, qui a donne cet hiver, un cours de litterature et de philosophie dont j'ai beaucoup profiteV' (Cf. Friedrich's etymological attempts, which he began in these years, in Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier. Ein Beitrag zur Begriindung der Alter-tkumskunde (1808) in S.W., 2nd ed., viii, 279–290.) Friedrich, even after his departure from Paris, continued reading the Publiciste (Krisenjahre, I, 409, 513, 648; ii, 129).

⁸³ Joachim Heinrich Campe (1746–1818), the famous pedagogue, in his Reise durch England und Frankreich… (Braunschweig, 1803), mentions under the date of 4 March 1803 that he had arrived in Paris two weeks ago (18 February) and that he wished to stay there from ten to twelve weeks (ii, 171). Campe was indeed well-known in France through his early and sympathetic eye-witness account of the French Revolution (when he was in Paris as tutor of the young Wilhelm von Humboldt) and through his Petite bibliothcque des enfants (Brunswick, 1800) and Le nouveau Robinson (Geneve, 1801). The occasional remark about him in the Mag. enc. is always complimentary (cf. viii[1802], No. 4, p. 232). Campe's ties with the Jena circle were fostered by Caroline who became friendly with him and his wife Marie in 1795 in Braunschweig (Erich Schmidt, ed., Caroline. Briefe aus der Friihromantik [Leipzig, 1913], i, 359, 369, 372, 381; Walzel, p. 249; Korner, Briefe, 406, 428, 437). He does not mention the Schlegels in his Reise.

⁸⁴ Because of the unavailability of a complete run of Le Publiciste for these years, I am unable to identify Friedrich's “Berichtigung.”

⁸⁵ The reference is to his two collections of classical essays: Die Griechen und Romer. Historische und kritische Versuche iiber das Klassische Alterlhum, wn Friedrich Schlegel. Erster (and only) Band. Neustrelitz, beim Hofbuchhandler Mi-chaelis. 1797 (Contents in J. Minor, Friedrich Schlegel, 1794–1802. Seine Prosaischen Jugendschriften, 2 vols. [Wien, 1882]: I, 28 ff., 46 ff., 74 ff., 85 ff., 179 f.). The first essay in that collection: “Ueber das Studium der Griechischen Poesie” (pp. 1–250 [Minor, I, 85–178]). Geschichte der Poesie der Griechen und Romer, von Friedrich Schlegel. Ersten (and only) Bandes erste Abtheilung. Berlin, Johann Friedrich Unger. 1798 (Minor, I, 230–36 2). Cf. Goedeke, Grundriß, vi, 21, Nos. 14, 18.

⁸⁶ Lucinde. Ein Roman von Friedrich Schlegel. Erster (and only) Theil. Berlin. Bei Heinrich Frolich, 1799.

⁸⁷ Alarcos. Ein Trauerspiel von Friedrich Schlegel. Berlin, 1802. Bei Johann Friedrich Unger.

⁸⁸ Friedrich planned a second volume of Lucinde in Paris which he wanted to publish together with, or at the same time as, a second edition of the first part (Walzel, pp. 515 f.). He did not include the novel in his Sammtliche Werke. The publication of Alarcos, the performance of which he and Dorothea witnessed in Weimar (Europa, i, No. 1, p. 7 [DNL, CXLIII, 271 f.]; Romantiker und Klassiker, pp. 116 ff.; Korner-Wieneke, p. 171), engaged his attention shortly before setting out for Paris (Walzel, pp. 490 ff.; Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 312, 330 f., 341; Korner, Briefe, pp. 38, 454; Ludeke, pp. 101, 108 f., 114). In Paris Friedrich occasionally spoke about his Alarcos (Korner-Wieneke, pp. 171 f.; Walzel, p. 528). Helmina quotes him in all seriousness, “ ‘Wenn ich nur den Alarcos unbegreiflicher, undurchdringlicher gezeichnet hatte,’ sagte er zuweilen, und setzte hinzu: ‘Ich hatte mehr Opium nehmen sollen als ich ihn schrieb, dann wiirde ich mit ihm erreicht haben, was ich gewollt!’ ” (Freihafen, iii, No. 4, p. 89). On 16 April 1803, Vanderbourg jokingly refers to “l'auteur de Lucinde et A'Alarcos” in a letter to Schweighauser (Rev. Rltr., p. 24). Possibly the last echo of the play is found in Helmina's description of Paris, where she quotes two lines to prove her point (Unvergessenes, p. 327).

⁸⁹ Athenaum. Eine Zeitschrift von August Wilhelm Schlegel und Friedrich Schlegel. Berlin. Vol. I at Friedrich Vieweg, Sr.; Vols. II and in at Heinrich Frolich; 1798–1800. From Paris Friedrich, due to the difficulties he had with Wilmans, the publisher of the Europa, and the “shallowness” of some of the material which he was forced to print in that journal, repeatedly urged his brother to continue with the old Athenaum (Walzel, pp. 517 f., 528; Krisenjakre, I, 67). Until 1808 he kept writing to August Wilhelm suggesting a “muchtige Schlag” via a “iovtgesetzte Athenaum” (Krisenjakre, I, xv, 2l7, 239, 346).

⁹⁰ Since 1796 Friedrich had planned a translation of Plato (Walzel, pp. 257, 267). The project gathered momentum in 1798 (ibid., p. 410; Korner, Briefe, p. 447); in 1799 he requested the assistance of Schleiermacher (Jonas-Dilthey, I, 220 f.) and in 1800 he signed a contract with Frommann to publish their edition (Krisenjakre, I, 9; Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 157). Because of his more than average conscientious and slow working habits, his part of the bargain was not kept. The letters of Schleiermacher and the Schlegels are full of recriminations concerning the laborious progress of the edition (cf. Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 175, 316; Raich, I, 66; Meisner-Schmidt, VII, 122 [Jonas-Dilthey, in, 325 f.; Raich, I, 111]; Walzel, pp. 478,495; Krisenjakre, I, 520). In Paris, until September 1802, Friedrich still kept up the pretense of being able to contribute his share of the work (Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 317 ff. [but also p. 321]; Walzel, p. 497), but by that time Schleiermacher had become convinced that their cooperative efforts were futile (Jonas-Dilthey, I, 312) and had asked Frommann whether he could do the translation alone (ibid., i, 321,329, 334, 336). He also disagreed with Friedrich's conclusions concerning the genuineness of some of the Dialogues (ibid., i, 345 f., iii, 374), and by the beginning of 1803 he wrote to Reimer (ibid., i, 357, 364 f.) and signed a contract with him in July (ibid., I, 373 ff.; iii, 356 f.). By January 1804, the first volume was nearly ready (ibid., I, 391). As for Friedrich, by May 1803 he had almost given up his own plans for the edition (ibid., in, 340 ff.; but see Walzel, p. 525). After the first volume of the Schleiermacher Plato's Werke appeared at the “Oster- messe” in 1804 in Berlin, which A. W. Schlegel had proofread (Josef Korner, ed., Briefe von und an August Wilhelm Schlegel [Zurich, Leipzig, Wien, 1930], i, 183 f.), the author requested Friedrich's opinion (Jonas-Dilthey, ni, 399). On 14 September Friedrich wrote to Reimer complaining about Schleier-macher's plagiarism of his ideas without crediting him (Korner, Briefe, pp. 467 f.), whereupon the latter defended himself (Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 405 f.), but in two letters in 1805 Friedrich repeated the charge (Korner, Briefe, pp. 63 f.; Krisenjakre, i, 230). This unpleasant history of the Plato edition contributed greatly to the eventual break between Schleiermacher and Friedrich (Korner, Briefe, pp. 467 f.). See also Behler, Schlegel-Ausgabe, xi, 306 f.

⁹¹ Almost the same terms are used in a positive sense in the Europa, I, p. 24 [DNL, CXLIII, 284]. For a description of a moving anecdote that happened in this “Gedrange,” see Raich, I, 127. See also Friedrich's letter to his brother of 15 September 1802: “Ueberhaupt ist hier viel anziehendes, das Wasser, die Luft, das Erdreich und die Menschen ausgenom-men [,] ist hier alles gut” Walzel, p. 497).

⁹² At the bottom of the fourth page is a notation by a strange hand, possibly Schweighauser's, which is almost totally illegible. As best as I could decipher it, it reads: “Je [/]re[gre]tte p[ou]rM[onsieur]le Comte.” If it actually is Schweighauser's writing, the meaning is still not clear. Perhaps he had asked Count Voyer d'Argenson? Or did he even write to Friedrich after the Count had refused?

⁹³ Single sheet.

⁹⁴ For the reasons why this note must be assumed to have been written during the winter of 1803, see below.

⁹⁵ The Schlegels had arranged literary gatherings in Paris as they had done in Berlin and Jena. Their regular meetings took place on Sunday evenings (cf. Freihafen, iii, No. 4, pp. 52 ff.; Steig, p. 67; Unvergessenes, p. 296; S. Hensel, Die Familie Mendelssohn 1729–1847—Nach Briefen und Tage-biichem [Berlin, 1879], 3rd ed., I, 53), but apparently they also entertained during the week (cf. Reichardt, Vertr. Briefe, iii, 64 ff.; Unvergessenes, pp. 246 f.; Freihafen, rv, 187; Bois-seree, I, 24; see also fn. 110).

⁹⁶ Helmina, speaking of her “salon” after the summer of 1803 [!], writes, “die Genofeva [sic] las Dorothea eines Abends in einem kleinen Kreise mit einer Liebe und einer Kraft der ergreifenden Wahrheit, mit einer Melodie zarten und innigen Gefiihls, daB ich meinte zu vergehn” (Freihafen, iv, 182). She further mentions that in his lectures Friedrich compared the play with Goethe's Faust [Ein Fragment, of 1790, of course] (Freihafen, iii, No. 4, p. 71). Friedrich, immediately upon the appearance of the Leben und Tod der heiligen Genoveva, ein Trauerspiel, “Romantische Dichtungen, ii,” Jena, 1800, had expressed high praise of the work (Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 171). Dorothea, after Friedrich's death, wrote to Tieck, “iiber alles andre gieng ihm aber Die heilige Genovefa [sic]!” (Liideke, p. 194). See also Krisenjahre, I, 386, 559, and Korner, Briefe, p. lll (but Meisner-Schmidt, viii, 26).

⁹⁷ The death of Novalis on 25 March 1801 had been a hard blow to Friedrich. Helmina, for instance, mentions that he often'wept when he talked about him (Freihafen, iii, No. 4, pp. 69–70). Surprising is his first impression of the work (May 1800): “Hardenberg hat auch einen Roman gemacht, der bei Unger erscheint [the first (Schlegel-Tieck) edition appeared at Georg Reimer's], Heinrich von Ofterdingen [originally Afterdingen, cf. Preitz, pp. 157, 159]. Eine wunderbare und durchaus neue Erscheinung. In Mahrchen ist er einzig, und konnte bald auch so vollendet und gewandt und sicher darin seyn wie in Liedern und Gedichten. Das Ganze soil eine Apotheose der Poesie seyn, es sind indessen vor der Hand herrliche Bergmannstraume, das Centrum das Symbol des Goldes, manches mir aber noch durchaus unverstandlich, und da alles so zusammenhangt, freylich alles. Ich habe nur den ersten Theil in Manuscript gelesen” (Jonas-Dilthey, in 178 f.). At times, on those evenings, Friedrich also read from his brother's (and Caroline's) Shakespeare translation (Freihafen, iv, 181; Korner, Briefe, p. 461).

⁹⁸ Two pages.

⁹⁹ For dating the letter I rely on Ernest John Knapton, The Lady of the Holy Alliance. The Life of Jidie de Kriidener (New York, 1939), p. 65, fn. 45, see below.

¹⁰⁰ philipp Veit (born 13 February 1793) was the youngest son of Dorothea and Simon Veit. After the divorce of December 1798, he accompanied his mother to Jena (Oct. 1799), Dresden, Paris, and later Cologne. In Paris he attended the ecole polymathique (Raich, I, 117 ff.), at which Friedrich hoped to teach, but probably did not (Walzel, p. 515; Europa, I, No. 2, pp. 164–167). During all this time Simon Veit regularly sent a sum of money to Dorothea for the boy's education. On 29 July 1806, Philipp finally returned to his father in Berlin, but later joined his mother in Vienna, and together with his brother Jonas entered the Catholic Church. About his career as an artist, cf. also Raich, I, vi–x, and II, passim.

¹⁰¹ Both Dorothea and Friedrich had tendencies towards hypochondria (Jonas-Dilthey, i, 174) which in Dorothea's case were founded on a long history of illness. In her first letter to Helmina of 25 August 1802, she warned the latter, “sich ja nicht zu sehr durch refraichissements, die man in Paris zu sehr liebt, [zu] schwachen. Verzeihen Sie mir Liebe aber ich habe so traurige Erfahrungen unter der iiblen Be-handlung der Aerzte gemacht, dafi ich jedesmal zittere wenn ich hore dafi eine Freundin nicht wohl ist” (Wieneke, p. 355; cf. also Raich, I [15]). The same consideration is expressed in her letter to Paul Thieriot of 10 February 1803 (Korner, Briefe, pp. 51 f.). In an undated letter, which Wieneke dates “Paris 1803/04” and which is to be placed shortly after our letter (the same day), Dorothea wrote to Helmina, “il povero Schweighauser ist krank, wir haben diesen Morgen Nachricht von ihm gehabt. Wie kann er krank seyn, da. Mutter und Tochter ihn so lieben? Aber im Ernst, er mufi doch recht krank seyn, da er sich beklagt, und den Arzt ver-langt. Ich mochte ihn [sic] so gem hiilfreich seyn - jetzt fiihl ich es daB ich weit weg wohne. Konnte ich ihn [sic] irgend niitzlich seyn, so laC es mich ja wiflen liebe Helmina” (Wie-neke, pp. 361 f.).

¹⁰² Friedrich and Dorothea did not hold Goethe's Wtrther in high esteem (cf. Freihafen, iii, No. 4, p. 71). This particular reference, however, could easily have come to Dorothea's mind through Mme. de Krudener's novel (see next fn.), which struck every reader as resembling Goethe's work in style (cf. Archives lilteraires, I [1804], “Gazette Litteraire,” Janvier, p. xxiii and Knapton, p. 65).

¹⁰³ The reference is to Mme. de Krudener's VaUrie ou Let-tres de Gustave de Linar d Ernest de G… n.p. [Paris], n.d. [Dec. 1803], which appeared anonymously. For the relationship between the Schlegels and the authoress in Paris in 1803/04, see Freihafen, iii, No. 3, pp. 170–175; No. 4, p. 64; iv, 187 f. The problem of a German translation of this work by Dorothea in cooperation with Helmina, which the former denied (Unger, p. 10) and the latter affirmed (Unvergessenes, p. 253), has been left in doubt for lack of evidence (cf. Unger, pp. 120 ff.; Franz Deibel, Dorothea Schlegel als Schriftstellerin im Zusammenhang mil der romantischen Schule, “Palaestra, XL” [Berlin, 1905], pp. 134 ff.; Knapton, p. 67, fn. 51). The issue must be considered closed in favor of Helmina's testimony since Korner's publication of Friedrich's letter to Wilmans of 3 February 1804, in which the (now lost) manuscript and fee for the translation are mentioned (Krisenjahre, I, 64). As for Dorothea's sarcasm about the popular acclaim of this second-rate work, see the encomium heaped upon the book by the Official Gazette de France, “Les moeurs et la religion sont parfaitement respectees dans tout le cours de l'ou-vrage…” (29 December 1803, No. 2196, pp. 386 f.). Knapton translates part of the review of the book in the Publiciste of 26 December 1803: “it is truly surprising that one can express oneself with so much ease and grace and think with so much delicacy in a language which is not her own” (p. 65).

¹⁰⁴ By that time Helmina was living with the Schlegels, see fn. 69 and 131.1 have not been able to establish the exact time when she moved away from the Henrichs'; it probably occurred in the summer of 1803.

¹⁰⁵ Four pages.

¹⁰⁶ The date is established by Friedrich's reference to Schweighauser's essay in the Archives lilteraires de I'Europe.

¹⁰⁷ See the preceding letter, fn. 101. On Dorothea's illness in 1804, cf. also Krisenjahre, I, 72, 74, 102, 218; Unger, p. 8.

¹⁰⁸ Schweighauser's article “Sur l'etat actuel de la philosophic en Allemagne” in the Archives litUr aires de l'Europe (publ. by Cotta and Henrichs, Stuttgart, Paris), Tome I, Livre II, chap, v, pp. 189–206, appeared in the March issue of the new journal. It had been long in coming, for Jacobi on Vanderbourg's authority had expected it to appear in the Mag. enc. as early as the summer of 1802 (de Pange, p. 25). On the history of the new journal, cf. Roland Mortier, Les ‘Archives Lilteraires de l'Europe’ (1804–08) et le cosmopoli-tanisme sous le premier Empire, “Acad. Royale de Belgique / Classe de Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques/Memoires/Collection, Tome LI, fasc. 4 et dernier” (Bruxelles, 1957).

¹⁰⁹ On the entire question of the moderately pro-German policy of the Archives, see Mortier, Vanderbourg, pp. 64 ff. Vanderbourg, the actual editor of the journal, though Suard lent his name for official purposes, incurred the enmity of de Villers for not being sufficiently pro-German. In keeping with his anti-Romantic orientation it is clear that Vanderbourg contributed the uncomplimentary footnotes on Fichte and Schelling (pp. 195 f. and 198) which are signed “C.V.” to Schweighauser's essay (cf. also Mortier, Vanderbourg, pp. 184 f.). The article itself is not friendly to the Romantic philosophers and was obviously written by a novice who had no clear ideas about the subject and was content to treat philosophy historically. It favors Kant and Jacobi (or, in other words, it does justice to both de Villers and Vanderbourg). By 22 March Jacobi had received de Villers' negative reaction to the article (de Pange, p. 57); by 12 April he had read it himself and expressed his dislike for it (ibid., pp. 70 f.). On Friedrich's hate-love relations with Jacobi, cf. Korner, Briefe, pp. 430 f. and elsewhere. Apparently the two met in May 1804, in Aachen (Boisseree, I, 28).

¹¹⁰ The reference is not to Friedrich's public lectures of the autumn and winter 1802/03, the winter portion of which Schweighauser attended (Mortier, Vanderbourg, p. 163). Similar to the Berlin “Mittwochsgesellschaft” (Jonas-Dilthey, I, 161 f., 170) and the Jena “Sonnabend” meetings (Walzel, p. 501), the Schlegels had organized a Sunday evening gathering (after the lecture in the morning). Descriptions of these are found in Unvergessenes, pp. 247 ff., 296; Freihafen, iii, No. 4, p. 65; Boisseree, I, 25. Helmina states, “Schweighauser kam selten” (Freihafen, iii, No. 4, p. 52). I am loth to interpret Friedrich's charge as implying that Schweighauser attended his private lectures on philosophy of 1803/04 which he gave to the Boisser6es and Bertram, and to which apparently only Helmina had been invited (Freihafen, iV, 190). Perhaps he did take part in informal evening gatherings during the week, at which an interesting topic of the private lectures might still have engaged the attention of the participants (cf. Boisseree, i, 24). See also fn. 95.

¹¹¹ Friedrich is partly correct in stating that at least publicly (with the possible exception of the favorable criticism of his brother's Ekrenpforte in the Europa, I, No. 1, p. 53 [DNL, CXLIII, 306]) he had not recently replied to his assailants' attack, although he conveniently antedates the time. But privately he often vented his spleen on them (particularly against Kotzebue, cf. Krisenjahre, I, 40). In Paris Friedrich must have been galled by the popularity of these authors who were mentioned with respect in the daily and scholarly press. For Kotzebue's contemporaneous visit and reception in Paris, see Freihafen, iii, No. 3, pp. 175 f. and No. 4, p. 56; Mag. enc. IX (1803), No. 2, p. 505. In the account of his trip to Paris Kotzebue uses the same phrase referring to the Schlegels; lauding Euripides he writes in parentheses (!) “trotz Schlegel und Consorten” (the only time that he refers to them in the book, Erinnerungen, p. 238). For the entire history of these relations, cf. Korner, Romantiker und Klassiker, passim.

¹¹² The good relationship between Schelling and Friedrich (Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 234, 242; Korner, Briefe, p. 13) deteriorated rapidly during 1800 primarily because of the mutual dislike of Caroline and Dorothea (cf. Raich, i, [13], 35). In the middle of 1801 it led to an open break between the two women and the dissolution of the Jena circle (cf. Krisenjahre, I, xv). Friedrich's letters from Paris are full of hostility towards Schelling, his successful rival (cf. Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 314 f., 322; Walzel, p. 479), faithfully echoed by Dorothea (cf. Meisner-Schmidt, vii, 123) and Tieck (Ludeke, pp. 150 f.). However, he remained highly interested in Schelling's new thought and work (cf. Walzel, p. 522; Krisenjahre, i, 42; n, 522). He obviously was more opposed to Schelling than was his brother (cf. Krisenjahre, I, 322 f.), and he even attacked Schelling's views in a letter to Mme. de Stael in 1806 {Krisenjahre, I, 272).

Friedrich and Dorothea during their Paris days thought little of Mme. de Stael's literary merits; she had left the city before their arrival (cf. Raich, I, 128; also Deibel, p. 77); their negative attitude is particularly noticeable in Dorothea's criticism of Mme. de Stael's Delphine (1802) in her “Gesprach tiber die neuesten Romane der Franzosinnen” in the Europa, I, No. 2, pp. 88–106 (cf. also Deibel, pp. 90 ff.; Freihafen, iii, No. 4, p. 71). Friedrich's opinion changed immediately upon the news that August Wilhelm had become Mme. de Stael's companion in May 1804 (Krisenjahre, I, 76, 100 f.), but not so Dorothea, whose unreconstructed view of 16 Oct. is still, “Der Delphine nach zu urtheilen, gehort sie zu den Eitelsten der Eiteln” (Wieneke, p. 373 [Raich, I 141]). After Friedrich's first meeting with Mme. de Stael in the fall of 1804 at Coppet and his six months' stay with her in 1806/07 at Aubergenville, their relations became very intimate (Krisenjahre, i, 167, 215, 346 ff.; regarding the history and the text of his private lectures to her on “philosophie transcendentale” see Josef Korner, Friedrich Schlegel, Neue philosophische Schriften [Frankfurt, 1935], passim). In 1807 Dorothea translated Mme. de Stael's Corinne, which appeared 1807/08 (cf. Deibel, pp. 139 ff.). Neither Mme. de Stael's nor Friedrich's name occur in the Schweighauser article, although Schleiermacher's Reden are mentioned anonymously in a footnote (p. 202), and Schelling's philosophy is attacked (pp. 197 ff.). See also fn. 113.

¹¹³ In Schweighauser's discussion of Romantic philosophy (the origins of which he traces to Spinoza) the following observations occur: “Un des rultats le [sic] plus singuliers de cette philosophie, enseignee dans un pays protestant, et s'ap-prochant beaucoup de l'atheisme, c'est le retour de ses disciples vers la religion catholique, non comme etant la plus vraie mais comme fitant la plus poetique…” (p. 201); “… La reunion de fideles de l'ecole forme done une eglise invisible, une confr6rie ideale a laquelle les membres le plus affid6s donnent pour symbole et pour mot d'ordre la Vierge Marie…” (p. 202.) The insinuation against Friedrich is clear.

Friedrich in those years attacked Schelling primarily for borrowing his ideas (Krisenjahre, I, 67 f.). On the literature about the philosophical interdependence of Friedrich and Schelling, cf. Korner, Briefe, p. 468. Friedrich, who aimed for a “philosophy of life” but whose views at this time were particularly close to Schelling's theosophic and neoplatonic phase, often accused the latter of mysticism (Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 322; Unger, pp. 27 f.). As his own attitude towards Spinoza developed from total acceptance towards reasoned rejection, he first accused Schelling of misinterpreting the former (Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 314 f., 12 April 1802) and four years later of being a Spinozist and therefore a lost man {Krisenjahre, I, 321 f., 15 April 1806; Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 411, 17 Sept. 1806). On 27 March 1805, Friedrich wrote to Karoline Paulus that Schelling was not well known in Paris (Unger, pp.49f.).

¹¹⁴ In the article Schweighauser writes: “Il est bizarre sans doute de voir des rosaires dans les mains de ces religionnaires nouveaux, qui placent Spinosa au rang de leur plus grands prophetes” (p. 202). This certainly is a veiled criticism of Friedrich, whose admiration for Spinoza in the Paris period must have been well known to Schweighauser (cf. Europa, i, No. 1, p. 34 [DNL, cxxiii, 291]). In the summer of 1802 the first volume of Paulus' Benedicti de Spinoza opera… omnia… (Jena, 1802/03, 2 vols.) appeared, and Friedrich, acknowledging his copy, at that time wrote from Paris, “Ich werde, wenn Sie nichts dagegen haben eine kleine Anzeige davon in ein franz. Journal machen; ich sollte doch denken, dafi sich einige Liebhaber auch hier finden miiCten… ” (Unger, p. 7). The Mag. enc. had, however, already advertised its appearance (vm [1802], No. 2, p. 368). In 1804 Friedrich had not yet received the 2nd volume (Unger, pp. 17 f., 28); it arrived on 28 April 1805 (ibid., p. 52). In the important letter of 15 April 1806, he wrote to his brother, “Was den Spinosa betrifft, so habe ich meine Meinung iiber manche Punkte wohl geandert… Den Spinosa selbst werde ich nie aufhoren zu bewundern wegen der vollendeten Form seines Geistes, weg en seiner Grofie und Schdnheit” (Krisenjakre, I, 321). No matter whether Friedrich had read Schweighauser's article or not, he probably realized that the latter's reading of Spinoza was second-hand, or at least colored by his friends' views. De Villers thought Schweighauser incapable of writing this good an article and that he must have had some help (probably Vanderbourg's, his bete noire; de Pange, p. 57); Degerando liked it very much (Rabany, pp. 87 f.). It was to be Schweighauser's one and only contribution to philosophy; he heeded Humboldt's advice and returned to philology (Humboldts Briefe, pp. 29 f.).

¹¹⁵ Single sheet. Address: (In Dorothea's hand) “Monsieur Schweighauser.”

¹¹⁶ The letter appears to have been written shortly after the preceding one.

¹¹⁷ See the commentary to Letter x.

¹¹⁸ Schweighauser apparently had a guilty conscience concerning his philosophical article, as shown by his gift.

¹¹⁹ By that time Schweighauser probably knew that Friedrich and Dorothea were planning to accompany their three young boarders to Cologne (Krisenjakre, I, 65, 70). Being again connected with the Publiciste, Schweighauser had many opportunities of obtaining German newspapers (Mortier, Vanderbourg, p. 49). As for the Kblnische Zeitung and its history, cf. Karl Buchheim, Die Stellung der Kolniscken Zeitung im vormarzlichen rheinischen Liberalismus, Karl Lamprecht, ed., “Beitrage zur Kultur-und Universalge-schichte, XXVII” (Leipzig, 1914). The name Kolner Zeitung was changed to Kolnische Zeitung on 9 June 1802 (Franz Diendonne, Die Kblnische Zeitung und Hire Wandlungen [Berlin, 1903j). Diendonne regards the paper as ultra-conservative (pp. 5 ff.). There were no copies available in this country to aid the discovery of the article to which Dorothea refers.

¹²⁰ See Letter x and commentary.

¹²¹ One page. Address: (In Friedrich's hand) “Pour Monsieur Schweighauser rue Beauvais Maison de Geneve pres du Louvre.”

¹²² The letter precedes the day of Dorothea's baptism and the Schlegels' wedding by eight or fifteen days (cf. Freihafen, III, No. 4, pp. 80 f.; Raich, i, 130).

¹²³ Apparently Schweighauser had introduced Helmina to his old friends Pastor and Mrs. Gambs of the Swedish Chapel {Unvergessenes, p. 230); she in turn introduced Dorothea to them (Freihafen, iii, No. 4, p. 80). Pastor Gambs had instructed Dorothea in the Protestant religion that winter (Krisenjahre, I, 79; Freihafen, iii, No. 4, pp. 80 f.; but also Krisenjakre, i, S64). Dorothea borrowed money from Mr. and Mrs. Gambs (and Helmina) in order to join Friedrich in Cologne (Wieneke, p. 368; Raich, I [25 f.]), and when she left, she apparently forgot to take her certificate of baptism with her (Krisenjahre, I, 109). On Dorothea's and Friedrich's long discussed plans to get married, cf. Korner, Briefe, pp. 18 ff., 442 ff., 450; Meisner-Schmidt, vii, 121; on Dorothea's plans to be baptized, see Meisner-Schmidt, vii, 124; Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 168, but also Krisenjahre, I, 564; on their later conversion as related to this event, cf. Freihafen, iv, 181 ff. and iii, No. 4, pp. 75, 78; Korner, Briefe, p. 82. Schweighauser and Helmina, both well known to the Schlegels and Pastor Gambs, certainly would make good witnesses. See the following letter concerning the delay of the ceremony.

¹²⁴ The same term in Korner, Briefe, p. 57; the fast postal service in Paris in those days.

¹²⁵ Single page.

¹²⁶ The letter presumably was sent immediately after the last one.

¹²⁷ The winter of 1804 produced several severe political crises in France: The arrest of Pichegru, Cadoudal, and Moreau in February, and the occupation of Hanover and the execution of the due d'Enghien on 22 March (for a vivid description of these events see Unvergessenes, pp. 303 f.). Napoleon began to show his hand in earnest; on 18 May he was to be proclaimed Emperor. The letters of the Schlegels in those last months in Paris are full of veiled misgivings about the political scene (cf. Krisenjahre, I, 66 ff.; Jonas-Dilthey, iii, 384). Boisseree blamed the political unrest for their and the Schlegels' hurried departure (i, 25 ff.). Dorothea wrote similarly in an (undated) letter to Helmina, blaming, however, primarily her illness for the cancellation of the meeting at the Gambses (Raich, I [22 f.]; this letter should also be assigned to March).

¹²⁸ The Schlegels all this time had been known as M. and Mme. Schlegel (cf. Urlichs, II, 184; Unvergessenes, p. 257), and they therefore asked their friends abroad to keep their belated marriage a closely guarded secret (Raich, I [23]; Krisenjahre, I, 70, 73). That was probably an additional reason for asking Schweighauser and Helmina to be witnesses rather than the three young people from Cologne who, of course, had been addressing Dorothea as “Frau Dr. Schlegel.” Raich mentions several other witnesses at the actual ceremony, including a relative of Dorothea (i, 130 fn.), a fact which is contradicted by Helmina (Freihafen, in, No. 4, pp. 80 f.) and by Dorothea's own letter to Charlotte Ernst, where she simply remarks, “einige Freunde waren Zeugen” (Krisenjahre, I, 70). Helmina's statement should be accepted, in spite of the fact that she places the date of the ceremony on a Monday rather than on the Friday (6 April), on which it occurred.

¹²⁹ Single sheet. Address; (In Dorothea's hand) “Monsieur Schweighauser rue de Bauvais [sic] Hotel de Geneve [sic] pres [sic] du Louvre.” Inkspots at the bottom of the page.

¹³⁰ Written shortly before Dorothea's and after Friedrich's departure for Cologne (cf. Freihafen, iv, 192).

¹³¹ The afore-mentioned inquiry of Dorothea, “Und in welcher von unseren Stuben wohnt er denn?” (Raich, I [32]), makes it clear that Schweighauser had accepted her offer. On the Schlegels' home in the rue de Clichy No. 19 (one floor of the former Hotel d'Holbach) and their lodgers, see Bois-seree, I, 22 f.; Meisner-Schmidt, vii, 120; Walzel, pp. 449, 523; Freihafen, iv, 190; Krisenjahre, pp. 70 ff.; Korner, Briefe, p. 460. Helmina had lived with the Schlegels since the summer of 1803 (cf. Korner, Briefe, pp. 54, 462); Sulpiz and Melchior Boisseree and Bertram had arrived in Paris during September 1803 and moved in with the Schlegels shortly afterwards (Boisseree, I, 22 f.). The “Polymathische Schule” was also situated on the rue de Clichy (No. 337, Europa, I, No. 2, p. 167).

¹³² On the portier, rather than his wife, and his bad habits see Boisseree, I, 24. He is mentioned also in Unvergessenes, p. 256, in passing.

¹³³ Single sheet. Address: (In Dorothea's hand) “Pour Monsieur Schweighauser rue Beauvais maison de Geneve pres [sic] du Louvre.”

¹³⁴ The last sentence shows that the note was written shortly before Dorothea's departure for Cologne at the end of May.

¹³⁵ To quote from Thieme-Becker, Allgem. Lexikon der bildenden Kiinstler (Leipzig, 1902 ff.), xxix, 200: “Rullman, Ludwig, Maler, Radierer und Lithogr., geb. 1765 Bremen, >1822 Paris, stud. 1788 a.d. Akad. Dresden, dann tatig in Bremen, seit 1805 [!] in Paris, zuerst als Schuler Davids.”

¹³⁶ The “new” Jenaische AUgemeine Liter alur-Zeilung vom Jahre 1804 contains several matters of interest to the people involved. For the artist there was a review of Eschenburg's translation of Henry Fuessli's Lectures on Painting (Vorle-sungen uber die Malerey [Braunschweig, 1803]), Nos. 32–34 (7–9 Feb.), cols. 249–269. For Schweighauser there was are-view of the “Franzbsische Miszellen, i, 1, 2, 3 and ii, 1, 2, 3” in No. 44 (21 Feb.), cols. 348–352, which stated, “Urn sich eines grofieren Lesepublicums zu versichern, miifite die Herausgeberin sich mehrere solcher Mitarbeiter verschaffen konnen, als der mit J.G.S. bezeichnete, von welchem einige sehr brave Aufsatze herruhren” (col. 349). For Dorothea (perhaps) there was a lengthy review of “Vier Tragodien des Aeschylos ubersetzt von Friedrich Leopold Graf en zu Stolberg, 1802. 300 S. 8,” Nos. 48–50 (25–28 Feb.), cols. 377395, signed by A.W.S. [August Wilhelm Schlegel].