SOURCE: Waldstein, Edith. “Political Communications and the Conversational Novel.” In Bettine von Arnim and the Politics of Romantic Conversation, pp. 59-93. Columbia, S.C.: Camden House, 1988.

[In the following excerpt, Waldstein refutes the common critical dismissal of Arnim's political writing as the work of a dilettante.]

The connection between Bettine von Arnim's cultural activity and the society in which she lived cannot be fully understood without a review of the social and political activities in which she was involved.¹ This aspect of her life has until recently been overlooked in literary history. Critics tend either not to discuss it at all or to recognize, but discredit, her political engagement. Lilienfein and Haberland/Pehnt, for example, conclude that Bettine von Arnim was a political dilettante.¹ While such criticism is relatively mild, others are harsh and confusing. Hans von Arnim, for example, begins one of his chapters, entitled “Auf politischen Wegen,” with the sentence: “Bettine ist kein politischer Mensch.”² Ludwig Geiger reveals a similar attitude when he uses phrases such as “unpolitische Politik”³ to describe von Arnim's politics. And Irmgard Tanneberger also paints a confusing picture when she claims that “realpolitische Tätigkeit” was foreign to von Arnim, while at the same time giving her credit for lending the women's movement “praktische Schlagkraft.”⁴ Although these literary critics, and others like them, at least are not ignoring the political side of Bettine von Arnim's life and works, they apparently find it difficult to reconcile genuine political engagement with what they perceive to be a somewhat eccentric woman. A tendency to recognize her spontaneity as well as her organized political activity, but actually to use the former in order to discredit the latter, is typical of many biographies of Bettine von Arnim. As will become apparent through a discussion of early romantic influences and her specific political activity, these two elements of her personality were consciously fused to give her personal as well as public life a unique quality, which few biographers have accurately described. One of the first literary critics to make an attempt in this direction was Karl-Heinz Hahn. With regard to von Arnim's political life, he notes: “… daß hier vielmehr ein von edelsten humanistischen Absichten beseeltes bewußtes politisches Handeln zu beobachten ist …” and that Bettine von Arnim must be given “eine viel tiefere historische Bedeutung … als dies bisher geschehen ist.”⁵ By examining letters, primarily those to her sons, which had been ignored until the publication of his book, Hahn determined that Bettine von Arnim followed contemporary political issues rather closely,⁶ despite her own claims of being a “bad politician”⁷ uninterested in newspapers.

According to contemporary reports, Bettine von Arnim seems to have been most radical and outspoken in the 1840s, especially during the latter half of this decade. As early as 1840, Friedrich Engels took notice of her and mentioned von Arnim in the same breath with Heinrich Heine.⁸ Then around 1843 as well as in 1847 there were secret reports filed on her political activities.⁹ The following is an excerpt from a report on Berlin salon activity written by a member of the “Zentral-Informationsbehörde” of Mainz in 1847:

Die Tendenz dieser Teegesellschaften ist eine sozialistische, indem die Versammelten sich vorzugsweise über ein in Wesen und Form zu verbesserndes Leben unterhalten und besprechen. Vorzüglich ist es das weibliche Geschlecht, das sich nach Befreiung von den Fesseln des Herkommens, der Mode, der Konvenienz sehnt. Unter allen Frauen dieser Art in Berlin, die einen öffentlichen Ruf genießen, ist Bettina von Arnim unstreitig die erste und bedeutendste. Daß ihre Abendzirkel den bezeichneten Charakter haben, ist hier allgemein und selbst dem Hofe bekannt. Man läßt sie gewähren, da sie hier in allgemeiner Achtung steht und man ihr von Rechtswegen nichts anhaben kann.¹⁰

Von Arnim was certainly not enough of a threat to warrant drastic measures against her, no matter what lip service was paid to the letter of the law, which after all did not prevent the censorship of the Young Germans, for example. But Bettine von Arnim was at the very least a thorn in the government's side, and therefore attempts were made to disrupt her work. These took the form of spying on her and threatening her with censorship and law suits.

In the late forties she developed a particular hatred of the reactionary forces, in general, and of the Berlin “Kreuzzeitung,” specifically.¹¹ In an editorial of the “Urwählerzeitung” (May 22, 1850) von Arnim expresses her disgust with the reactionary forces by blaming them for Seseloge's assassination attempt on King Friedrich Wilhelm IV:

Es ist wahr: Das Vertrauen ist im höchst verderblichen Maße zerrüttet. Wer aber trägt die Schuld?—Nicht das Volk, daß [sic] den Gesetzen und den gesetzlichen Zuständen vertraute. Nein! Die Partei, die dazu drängte, Gesetze wider Recht umzustürzen und Gesetze wider Recht aufzurichten. …

Die Partei, denen alle Beschränkungen nicht genug war und die ewig und unausgesetzt der Krone zur völligen Vernichtung des verfassungsmäßigen Zustandes rät. …

Die Partei, die im Siege der Standrechte nicht genug haben, der Kriegsgerichte nicht satt werden konnte—sie trägt die Schuld.¹²

Bettine von Arnim's political commitment went beyond mere criticism to include alternatives to existing conditions. Her plan to establish settlements for the poor (Armensiedlungen), in particular for the economically deprived and exploited Silesian weavers, where education and means for survival would be provided through government programs, is the best example of the creative and progressive side of her political personality.¹³ Her plea was against passivity and for action.

Aus sich selbst handeln, fühlen, daß man das Schicksal beherrsche, weil alle Keime zu allem, was mir widerfahren kann, durch mein Tun lebendig werden und zum Blühen kommen und zu Früchten werden muß.—Mit andern Worten, vermöge meines Charakters und meiner Kraft handeln. …¹⁴

Bettine von Arnim hoped to be directly instrumental in bringing about political change through her personal correspondence with the King of Prussia. Although she never gave up entirely on the idea of the necessity of a monarch¹⁵ and never realized that many of the societal ills she wanted eliminated were endemic to this system of government, von Arnim valued democratic principles. Generally speaking, she argued for the implementation of a constitutional monarchy and was outspoken in her demands of the King for a constitution. On October 13, 1840, Varnhagen, whose diary accounts have proven quite accurate, reports on a letter to the King that von Arnim had read to him, “der entschieden Konstitution fordert. Sie will solche durchaus, hält alles andre für nichts.”¹⁶ And three years later in April, 1843, she wrote Friedrich Wilhelm what was probably her strongest letter, reminding him of this and a number of other issues upon which he had not acted.¹⁷ Somewhat earlier, and in a lighter tone, she also advised Crown Prince Karl von Württemberg to guard against arrogance in his role as ruler, for

Wer … mit Überzeugung sich auf einen Misthaufen setzt, es sei ein bequemes Polster, und so können aller Schwürigkeiten eines holperigen Wegs überhoben die Tage im sanften Ablaß der Sünden … dahinfließen, wie ist dem von diesem Misthaufen herunterzuhelfen.¹⁸

Von Arnim's harshest criticism, however, continued to be directed at the King, as is evidenced not only by the content of many letters, but also by the King's insinuation that she was exhibiting disloyalty: “… was Preußen, Deutschland und die Zeit vor Erst und vor Allem braucht ist das was Sie gnädige Frau in schwerster Verblendung verdammen: die energische Reaktion der heiligen Treue wider die wirre Untreue dieser Zeit.”¹⁹ To this von Arnim boldly responds: “Von der Reaction in die Euer Majestät vertrauen, daß sie ‘für die heilige Treue, gegen die Untreue dieser wirren Zeit kämpfe’—von der meine ich; daß ein Ungeheuer ihr im Hinterhalt lauere. …”²⁰ And she goes on in the same letter to criticize and remind the King of the executions he had condoned under the existing death penalty.²¹ The tone of Bettine von Arnim's letters to the King, as well as her personal remarks about him to others, became increasingly bitter, due at least in part to her own ineffectiveness. The harsher the criticism, the less response she received from him. In 1858, shortly before her death, Varnhagen reported that von Arnim showed great apathy toward the King.²² The hopes she had placed in him had proved unwarranted.

In her criticism of the Church she linked that institution with the State. She rejected religious orthodoxy and pietism, lamenting that “die kirchlichen Angelegenheiten sind jetzt die geheime Triebfeder des Staatsrades. …”²³ Instead she viewed religion as freedom of thought, which provided the basis for action.²⁴ As a result, she welcomed the Toleranzedikt of 1847 which simplified the procedure for leaving the Church and also stipulated that by doing so one's civil rights would not be lost.²⁵ Von Arnim was also an advocate of equal rights for Jews. She criticized, among others, Fürstprimas Carl Theodor von Dahlberg's “Stättigkeits- und Schutzordnung der Judenschaft zu Frankfurt am Main” of 1808, which denied Jews equal rights.²⁶ Her commitment to freedom of religion and in particular to the Jewish cause, which was uncommon in her social circles, was sincere and lent this movement support.²⁷

For someone like Bettine von Arnim, who was concerned with the practical consequences of ideas, freedom of thought and religion were incomplete without freedom of speech. Von Arnim expressed her outrage over governmental censorship in a letter to Varnhagen: “… wie viel verderblicher für den Staat es ist das Zensurgesetz als Privatrecht der Tücke sich anzumaaßen, als je eine Zensurfreiheit sein könnte.”²⁸ The censorship laws in Prussia were strict during the time she was writing, and von Arnim had difficulty with the publication of nearly all her books, in particular with Der Frühlingskranz and Ilius Pamphilius.²⁹ She was even forced to discontinue work on her Armenbuch for fear that it would never be published.³⁰ When the writings of the Young Germans were banned in Germany in 1835, Bettine von Arnim sided with this progressive literary and political movement.³¹ In her struggle against censorship, she also publicly supported Bruno and Egbert Bauer, who were described by the Berlin Police Commissioner as “die ächten enfants perdus der Deutschen sozialen und geistigen Revolution—ächte Sanscülotten.”³²

Finally, Bettine von Arnim's support of the poor deserves special attention. Biographers and historians have generally acknowledged her work with the underprivileged, but typically not without hesitation.³³ Despite this reluctance, the number of references, both contemporary and since her death, warrants an investigation of her social engagement, which distinguishes her from most of her literary and intellectual contemporaries. The writings which best illustrate her practical concern about social issues are the appendix to Dies Buch gehört dem König, describing the unsatisfactory living conditions of the poor in the Vogtland, a working-class ghetto on the outskirts of Berlin, Das Armenbuch, an unfinished collection of empirical information and personal commentary documenting the misery of the Silesian weavers, and “De la misère en Allemagne,” an article which appeared in the French paper “Voix des Femmes” in 1848. While von Arnim believed in education as the foundation for the emancipation of the oppressed—a common belief during this era—she also realized that a certain minimum standard of living was a prerequisite to such education. She consequently worked with and gave financial aid to the poor during her entire life. The first such activity was her organizational, medical and monetary support of the poor in Berlin during the cholera epidemic of 1831. Later she began her visits to the Vogtland, which she conducted either personally or indirectly by sending others and which she continued for approximately one decade. Because of the deprivation she observed there, she disseminated information about the living and working conditions of the Silesian weavers in the hope that this knowledge would inspire others to take actions against it. She also hoped that these sentiments would eventually reach the King himself. In a letter to Alexander von Humboldt, who often served as mediator between her and the King, von Arnim writes: “Geliebter König, würde ich sagen, bauen Euer Majestät den Dom nicht in den Lustgarten; bauen Sie ihn in zerstreuten Hütten auf, dort in Schlesien!”³⁴ And to strengthen her argument for governmental aid to the weavers she enclosed a few pages from her Armenbuch. A direct report to the King, which is believed to have been written a year later in 1845, contained von Arnim's analysis of the exploitation of the Silesian weavers and their uprising. She argued that increases in productivity only encouraged continued exploitation of the workers by the factory owners, and she criticized the fact that the government's support was on the side of the owners.³⁵ Von Arnim's social concerns had acquired a very political nature, as the Prussian Minister of the Interior Adolf-Heinrich Arnim-Boitzenburg's accusation indicates: Bettine von Arnim “sei Ursache des Aufstandes, sie habe die Leute gehetzt, ihnen Hoffnungen erweckt; durch ihre Reden und Briefe. …”³⁶

The radical element in her politics became even more apparent a couple of years later during the time when the Berlin Magistrate ordered her to purchase the Bürgerrecht which she needed, if she wished to continue her own publishing “business,” which she had begun in 1846 in order to simplify the process of publishing Achim von Arnim's and her own works. Von Arnim, wishing to register her protest, for she realized that this was merely another way of sabotaging her cultural and political activity, responded that she would accept this honor, if it were bestowed upon her, but that she would not pay for it. Interpreting this as an insult to the government, the Magistrate brought suit against Bettine von Arnim. She replied in very political terms:

Was nun Ihre letzte Bemerkung anbelangt, daß keine Veranlassung vorliege, mir das Bürgerrecht als ein Ehrengeschenk zukommen zu lassen, so gebe ich dieses zu, da ich zumal das Bürgerthum höher stelle als den Adel. … Ebenso stelle ich noch höher die Klasse des Proletariats. … Der Schatz des Armen besteht im angeborenen Reichthum der Natur, das Verdienst des Bürgers im Anwenden und Ausbeuten dieses Naturreichthums, welchen er vermittelst seiner thätigen Gewandheit und zum eignen Vortheil derjenigen Menschenklasse zuwendet, deren Hochmuth, Verwöhnung und geistige Verbildung Alles verschlingt, eben weil sie keine Productionskraft hat.³⁷

Although von Arnim confused innate qualities with the social consequences of belonging to a specific economic class and although one can find discrepancies between her theoretical statements about the aristocracy and her own life, it is important to note that she did not hesitate to emphasize the bourgeois and aristocratic exploitation of the working class. That von Arnim was dissatisfied with her class of origin, as well as with the one into which she had married, may partially explain her attraction to the common people.³⁸ But one must go farther. Her support of the poor also stemmed from an understanding of the relationship existing between the various classes in early nineteenth-century Germany, even if she did not always describe this in socio-economic terms.

So kämpft Bettina—quasi mit den Jungdeutschen—um die Etablierung eines Bürgertums gegen den Adel, aber der Klassenunterschied ist nicht: Feudalismus—Bürgertum—Proletariat, sondern Herrscher und Beherrschte, und auf diese Weise kann sehr wohl das Bürgertum bereits als Herrschaftsklasse von Bettina kritisiert werden. …³⁹

When recognized, Bettine von Arnim's political activity is sometimes associated with the masculine, whereas her empathy, her social concerns about the poor and disadvantaged, is characterized as feminine. Irmgard Tanneberger writes:

Trotz aller ausgedehnten politischen Tätigkeit und männlichen Energie bei der Erreichung eines Zieles blieb sie [Bettine von Arnim] immer Frau, da ihr Interesse stets dann am meisten erwachte, wenn es unverdient Leidende zu schützen galt.⁴⁰

The purpose of defining von Arnim's energies in terms of masculine and feminine qualities is unclear and, as expressed above, implicitly discredits any political import von Arnim may have had. If one chooses to discuss Bettine von Arnim's political and social work in terms of gender, it would prove more discerning and less misleading to point out that it was socially quite difficult and legally impossible for women to participate directly in politics at this time. Even as late as 1848 women were generally absent from the German political scene.⁴¹ Smaller women's groups, offering their services to the poor, in particular, were formed in 1848.⁴² Surprisingly, von Arnim did not officially belong to any of these, but carried on her work independently.

Another false assumption implicitly inherent in the masculine/feminine dichotomy of the discussion of von Arnim's political activity is that political work is not compassionate. To support such an assertion is to propagate a traditionally male understanding of both politics and humanitarian solicitude, which places both genders at an unfair disadvantage: Women are to nurture and love, while men deal with the “real” issues of practical life. It is, therefore, more fruitful and accurate to describe Bettine von Arnim's political and social activity as arising from human compassion. She certainly did not distinguish between the two and thereby exhibited a type of feminism through a qualitatively different definition of politics, which took into consideration subjective needs as well as objective conditions, and through utilizing every opportunity available to her as a woman to act upon what she believed.

“… engagiert und mitfühlend, hellsichtig und traumtänzerisch,”⁴³ Bettine von Arnim struggled for her own emancipation and for social progress in general. In a discussion with Günderrode about their “Schwebereligion” Bettine articulates her dream:

Ach, in unserer Religion soll die Tapferkeit obenan stehen,—denn wenn wir nur darüber wachen, daß wir kühn genug sind, das Große zu tun und die Vorurteile nicht zu achten, so wird aus jeder Tat immer eine höhere Erkenntnis steigen, die uns zur nächsten Tat vorbereitet, und wir werden bald Dinge beweisen, die kein Mensch noch glaubt.⁴⁴

Von Arnim was not satisfied with only observing, which Ricarda Huch calls “das wesentlich Weibliche im Menschen,”⁴⁵ and formulating brave new ideas, she also realized the necessity of putting them into practice. At the young age of nineteen she laments: “Mir überwältigt diese immerwährende rastlose Begier nach Wirken oft die Seele und bin doch nur ein einfältig Mädchen, deren Bestimmung ganz anders ist.”⁴⁶ Von Arnim's awareness of traditional gender roles pertaining to observation and action is apparent.⁴⁷ Nonetheless, she attempted to overcome what appeared to be a gender-determined destiny of impotence. Irmgard Tanneberger's evaluation of the impact some of the women in nineteenth-century Germany had on their society is a fitting description of Bettine von Arnim's contribution to progress:

Allein mit der Darlegung kühner Ideen wäre der gewaltige Fortschritt nicht bewirkt worden. Die Tat mußte erweisen, daß der Frau wirklich die Fähigkeit innewohne, sich mit selbständiger Kraft aus der begrenzten Sphäre der reinen Geschlechtsinteressen zu allgemein Menschlichem zu erheben.⁴⁸

Bettine von Arnim confronted the problem of gender roles by attempting to transcend them in her quest for the whole individual. As Kay Goodman points out, “she [von Arnim] expects … nothing less than the absence of constraint in becoming all that she already is.”⁴⁹ She thereby resisted traditional definitions of masculinity and femininity.⁵⁰ While this is certainly the most progressive aspect in her confrontation with gender roles, she also redefined a concept central to romantic philosophy, namely androgyny. Sara Friedrichsmeyer has most recently questioned the emancipatory nature of romantic androgyny, as espoused by Novalis and Friedrich Schlegel, by pointing out that it perpetuated traditional and stereotypical images of what is male and what is female. She also contends that it privileged a male perspective, since Novalis' and Schlegel's quest for wholeness was inextricably linked with the longing for union with a woman, who also symbolized nature in its totality.⁵¹ Bettine von Arnim never explicitly discusses the concept of androgyny, but it surfaces in many of her works. While she relied on traditional definitions of the male and female, Bettine von Arnim strove for a true synthesis of both, without assuming that either symbolized a totality in and of itself. The synthesis would then produce something that transcended existing gender roles.

Ludwig Geiger comments on the androgynous nature of the letters between King Friedrich Wilhelm IV and von Arnim,⁵² and in her letters to family and friends, she sometimes chooses to use pronouns which do not match the gender of the person to whom she is referring or writing.⁵³ The high point of this particular practice is her correspondence with Pückler-Muskau in which, according to his own words: “Sie [Bettine] sind das männliche Prinzip in unserem Verhältnis, ich das weibliche.”⁵⁴ While this at first glance may appear to be a mere role reversal, the correspondence itself represents an attempt at a synthesis of male and female expression. The style of the two writers begins to converge, the more they gain insight into the other's gender-specific perspective. Pückler generally gives clear cues of his attempt to bridge the gender gap with direct statements, such as the one above, or with addresses such as “Lieber Mann,” while Bettine more often incorporates a somewhat more authoritative narrative style, with clearer sequences, into the imaginative content of her letters.⁵⁵ Bettine von Arnim's progressive redefinition of sexuality can therefore not be described in terms of mere role reversal, as Ingrid Strobl maintains,⁵⁶ but must be viewed as a kind of androgyny which transcends existing gender boundaries. A synthesis of the male and female in her writing, to the point of creating something that is neither, was yet another step toward the emancipation of humankind.

In all her relationships, Bettine von Arnim sought to become one with her partner: love as the means to achieving a true synthesis of the male and the female. Von Arnim's idea of absolute love is at least partially responsible for her abandonment of traditional gender roles. But it also resulted in an occasional tendency to subject herself to the cruelty of unreciprocated love, the image of which supported the traditional subordination of women.⁵⁷ Her constant references to sitting at Goethe's feet—the exact position at which she places herself in her monument to him—and also at the feet of the young Julius Döring are examples of an unreserved dedication which could border on abject glorification of these men. Especially her letters to Döring, which reveal a strong underlying erotic tone, are embarrassingly self-derogatory:

Verzeih mir Ingurd [Döring] was ich gestern Nacht schrieb. Du bist mein Genius, unter Deinem Jünglings Fuß will die Brust in Begeisterung ihren Athem aushauchen. … O sei nicht böse auf sie die zu Deinen Füssen liegt, und da will sie sich begraben wo Dein Fuß abgleitet von ihrer Brust oder von ihrer Stirne fest soll Dein Fuß stehen ganz fest auf meiner Brust. …⁵⁸

Pückler, who must have sensed this capacity in von Arnim, despite the positive moments in their correspondence, begins one of his letters to von Arnim with: “Meine treue Sklavin!”⁵⁹ Although Bettine von Arnim firmly believed that her own and her partner's genius could grow only through absolute love for and dedication to the other person, she failed to insist upon reciprocity in some of her relationships. It is not coincidental that the two men who repeatedly rejected her approaches—Goethe and Döring—were the ones toward whom she used the most subservient language, no doubt hoping to convince them of her love for them and that they would then respond in kind. In her letters to them it becomes obvious that despite her many emancipatory endeavors, she was not entirely successful in the difficult task of freeing herself from the still dominant female role of physical and intellectual subordination to men.

Such personal inconsistencies may also explain why Bettine von Arnim never addressed herself specifically to women as an oppressed group, whereas she was extremely sensitive to the needs of other such groups. As has already been mentioned, she did not participate in women's groups which were formed in the late forties to aid the poor in Berlin. She did not take notice of Louise Otto's public concern about the women of the proletariat or her “Frauenzeitung,” which first appeared in 1849. Nor did she ever refer to Louise Aston's paper, “Freischärler,” which appeared in Berlin for only a few months in 1848 and addressed political topics similar to those in which von Arnim was interested. Yet through her decidedly untraditional social and political activity and her insistence on democratic principles, she made a significant contribution to the women's cause. Ultimately, however, she failed to shed a deeply ingrained paternalism, which restricted her emancipatory development both as a Prussian Bürger and as a woman.

Before turning to Bettine von Arnim's social and political writings, it is important to know that her prominence in the cultural and political life of Berlin was also due to her stance on a number of specific political events. Her Briefwechsel mit einem Kinde revealed to those who were not already aware of it her public and financial support of Andreas Hofer and the Tyrolian struggle for independence in 1809.⁶⁰ In the late thirties and early forties von Arnim's outspoken criticism of Savigny, who was instrumental in removing the Göttinger Sieben from their university positions and banning them from the country, and her support of this group, in particular of Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, were widely known in Germany. Some of her letters to the Grimm brothers discussing the issue were published in Leipzig and Hamburg newspapers, while the liberally oriented cultural and political circles of Berlin praised her dedication to this cause and credited her, at least in part, with the fact that the Grimms were asked to return to the University of Berlin in 1841.⁶¹

Bettine von Arnim's letters to the King and to Alexander von Humboldt requesting that the Grimms be allowed to return, to which she received generally positive responses, were the primary avenue through which she was able to influence the decision.⁶² Her support of the Hungarian and Polish struggles for independence provide further evidence of her compassion for and understanding of oppressed groups. Besides making her position clear through conversations, letters and support of revolutionary figures such as Ludwig von Mieroslawski, the leader of the Polish uprising in 1846, she also used her literary skills to lend strength to these movements. The best examples of this are the brochure, “An die aufgelöste Preußische Nationalversammlung” (1848), and the poem “Petöfi dem Sonnengott,” an apotheosis of the Hungarian poet and freedom fighter Sandor Petöfi.⁶³

Bettine von Arnim's concern about the political events of 1848 in Germany and her support of the revolutionary factions were not so much reflected in her literary work as in her salon and letters. Concerning this particular time and the Arnim salon, Maxe von Arnim wrote:

Während wir [Maxe und ihre Schwester Armgart] die Köpfe hängen ließen, blickte die Mutter (und mit ihr natürlich auch Gisel [die jüngste Schwester]) rosig in die Zukunft und war Feuer und Flamme für die Revolution als einen gewaltigen Fortschritt in der Entwicklung. … Fragwürdige Gestalten von Literaten und Republikanern gingen bei der Mutter ein und aus. Das alles war für uns, die wir ganz anders empfanden und dachten, nicht leicht. … Auf die Dauer ging es aber doch nicht an, daß unsere Freunde in Bettines Saal mit den Revolutionären zusammentrafen, ohne daß Reibungen oder doch Verstimmungen drohten. …⁶⁴

This explains the introduction of two salons—one “aristocratic” and one “democratic”—into the Arnim house. Von Arnim followed the political events during this important year quite closely, as is evidenced by letters to her sons and to her friends Karl and Pauline Steinhäuser.⁶⁵ In a letter to Siegmund, Bettine von Arnim praised the courage of the people in an uprising of March 19-20, 1848.⁶⁶ A few days later her anger about the government's violent reaction found expression in a draft of a letter to Pauline Steinhäuser:

Mit Lügen wird man die Schmach zudecken wollen, mit welcher König und Regierung verräterisch sich befleckten. … Die Schlacht des Verrats am Volk! bewaffnete Soldaten gegen wehrloses Volk und es ist Sieger geblieben, moralisch und physisch. … unterdessen hat der König jede Bitte der Geistlichkeit wie des Stadtrates, dies Blutbad aufhören zu lassen, hartnäckig abgewiesen.⁶⁷

This letter is one of the few in which von Arnim directly blames the King for his activities, without attributing fault to his advisors and ministers.

In addition to, and sometimes in conjunction with, her involvement in political issues, Bettine von Arnim was eager to speak for individuals adversely affected by political and social developments. Over the years she developed a reputation for her influence in the sphere of the “private Öffentlichkeit.”⁶⁸ As Herman Grimm points out, she and Alexander von Humboldt were known for mediating causes and requests of individuals.

Man glaubte, sie [von Arnim und von Humboldt] wüssten mehr von Dingen die sich vorbereiteten, und es ständen ihnen Wege offen die Anderen verschlossen waren. Wer etwas erringen wollte, freie Bahn verlangte, sich verkannt fühlte, wandte sich an sie.⁶⁹

Consequently, von Arnim served as the spokesperson for a large number of people. In 1842 she published a booklet of songs she had composed and dedicated to Gasparo Spontini, the Italian composer and director of the Royal Opera in Berlin, in order to show her support of him after he had received a negative response from the audience and had also been suspended from his position by King Friedrich Wilhelm IV, due to remarks he had made in the “Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung.” In the same vein, she published Illius Pamphilius und die Ambrosia (1848) with the intention of using the earnings to lend financial support to Hoffmann von Fallersleben, a political poet and German professor in Breslau, who was relieved of his position in 1842 for political reasons. Another such undertaking was von Arnim's plea against the death sentence of the former Storkow mayor Tschech who had attempted to assassinate the King in 1844. She then did the same for the Polish leader Mieroslawski who was sentenced to death in 1847. The aforementioned article “Sie trägt die Schuld” is further evidence of Bettine von Arnim's fight against capital punishment and her understanding of a political climate which prompted extreme counteraction.⁷⁰ Bettine von Arnim's support of Gottfried Kinkel, the theologian and art historian who was one of the leaders of the revolutionary front in Germany and sentenced to life imprisonment for his participation in the Revolution of 1848, is perhaps the best known example of her role as an individual spokesperson. Kinkel's “lighter” sentence, around which a controversy had developed because many believed he deserved the death penalty, was due in part to von Arnim's persistent letters.⁷¹

It is difficult to determine the extent of Bettine von Arnim's success in her role as mediator and savior of the oppressed. While one should not overestimate her political leverage, it would also be a mistake to overlook the influence she was able to exert. This becomes especially apparent, if one compares her life and writings to many other prominent cultural figures of this period. Unlike her late romantic contemporaries, who took an ever stronger reactionary turn as the century progressed, von Arnim generally found more comfort and inspiration in the ideals of the 1848 Revolution. This development was effected by people as diverse as the Bauer brothers, who had contact with Karl Marx, and Clemens Brentano, who turned to Catholicism for the world's salvation.⁷² But the most significant impetus came from the ideas of the early romantic movement, as they were mediated through Karoline von Günderrode, Clemens Brentano and Friedrich Schleiermacher, among others. That such a development from early romantic to revolutionary ideals does not necessarily connote a contradiction in terms is well exemplified by Bettine von Arnim, despite the occasional inconsistencies one is bound to uncover. Ricarda Huch, who is often reluctant to give von Arnim full credit for substantive political activity, ends her chapter entitled “Romantische Politik” with a reference to von Arnim:

Es ist interessant, gerade an der Bettine, die als einer der bekanntesten typischen Vertreter der Romantik angesehen wird, zu beobachten, wie die Romantik sich mit ihrem Gegensatz verbindet, über sich hinaus geht. Vielmehr: es erhellt wieder, wie es das Ideal der Romantik war, alles zu umfassen, Nordpol und Südpol, Innen und Außen, Historisch und Radikal, und während es im Allgemeinen ihr Schicksal ist, höchst einseitig in die Vergangenheit zurückzusinken, ranken sich aus ihrem Absterben einzelne Ranken nach außen und verbinden sie von neuem mit der Zukunft.⁷³

Huch's description is accurate and explains, in general terms, how von Arnim could praise the Young Germans (and vice versa),⁷⁴ for example, while never discussing the possibility of Germany without a king. Although her world view was always future-oriented, she was not able to overcome some traditional beliefs which stood in the way of progress, even when defined in romantic terms. In this sense she at times resembled her late romantic contemporaries who, while lauding the concept of progress(ion), could not take the practical step of breaking with the status quo. When looking at the broader picture, one can, however, distinguish von Arnim from her more conservative coevals. She consistently demonstrated political concern, even at a young age, and did not, as some critics claim, undergo a transformation from chaos to clarity, from an irrational child to a political activist.⁷⁵ Through her political activity, correspondences and conversations, Bettine von Arnim synthesized the personal and political aspects of her life. The development of her personal identity depended on communication with others and simultaneously involved defining herself in political terms. Her leading role as hostess to one of the most prominent Berlin salons and her literary development were shaped by this commitment to relating self and society through oral and written exchange.

II

Published in 1843, Dies Buch gehört dem König represents a further development in the style and content of the two epistolary novels preceding it (Goethes Briefwechsel and Die Günderode). While this novel also contains autobiographical elements, it does not rely directly on actual letters and diary entries. Instead, it is in the form of conversations. This transition from the “written” to the “spoken” word reflects and indeed emphasizes von Arnim's continuing concern with communication, as she had begun to define it through her first two novels. This conversational novel, as well as its sequel, Gespräche mit Dämonen: Des Königsbuches zweiter Band, published nine years later in 1852, is characterized by a free and open exchange of ideas.⁷⁶ There is no specific narrator, nor is there any prose in the traditional sense of the novel, in that most of the book consists of direct conversational exchange. As a conversational novel, it represents a milestone not only in form but also in the way it directly incorporates social facts and issues into a work of fiction, with the purpose of raising the readers' consciousness and affecting political change. Von Arnim's first two epistolary novels had served one of their primary purposes successfully: through them she had arrived at a sense of self. To that self-awareness she was now ready to add social and political engagement. Dies Buch gehört dem König is a provocative “Zeitbuch,”⁷⁷ the first volume of which is openly dedicated and therefore addressed to King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia. It discusses, in the true sense of the word, religious, political and social issues of her time.

Von Arnim's first criticism is directed against pietism and religious orthodoxy. Frau Rat, the main character and the author's mouthpiece, fervently argues against the religious beliefs and practices of her time, represented by the priest, her first partner in discussion, because they breed intolerance and stagnation of the mind.

Nein, der Glaube soll kein stehender Sumpf werden für die Denkfähigkeiten, daß die am End drin verwesen und verdumpfen. …

Denn wer über eine Sache nachdenkt, der hat allemal ein größeres Recht an die Wahrheit, als wer sich von einem Glaubensartikel aufs Maul schlagen läßt.⁷⁸

She maintains that a passionate and devout belief in the Bible, Christian dogma and a God who after all has no meaning in this life, but only in one after death, promotes the present devastating combination of intolerance and total abnegation, even a complete lack of mental and emotional consciousness. Her own religious philosophy is defined in terms of experiencing God as a worldly, future-oriented individual and communal search for truth. Such a search involves not only faith, but more importantly, a synthesis of the senses and the intellect and of being one with nature (III, pp. 89-91).

As an alternative to pietism and orthodox Christianity, von Arnim has Frau Rat suggest her “Schwebereligion,” the main components of which had already been outlined in Die Günderode. In the Königsbuch the author draws particular attention to the worldly aspects of such a religion.

Wo soll das Göttliche sich bewähren als im Irdischen?—Ist das nicht eine Lehre, klar und deutlich, über die Ewigkeit, daß die Unsterblichkeit das Irdische überwinden wird und muß?—Suchen wir den Gott überall, doch finden wir ihn nur da, wo wir nicht uns vor ihm demütigen, sondern kraft des Göttlichen in menschlicher Natur uns als Helden fühlen—.

(III, p. 103)

Carl Streckfuß's satirical response to this novel, Ruchlosigkeit der Schrift: “Dies Buch gehört dem König”: Ein unterthäniger Fingerzeig, gewagt von Leberecht Fromm (1844), goes so far as to allude to “atheist” tendencies in the Königsbuch: “Geht die Verfasserin nicht eben so weit in ihrer Ruchlosigkeit, wie der bekannte Antichrist Ludwig Feuerbach?”⁷⁹ Von Arnim was, of course, not an atheist, as her personal correspondence and her literary works make evident, but her religious orientation was most certainly a realistic one. She was much too concerned with taking action against the ills of her society to be consoled by the belief that a just God would alleviate the misery and struggles of oppressed individuals and groups, such as the Jews, Hungarians, the poor, criminals, prisoners, etc.⁸⁰

In Frau Rat's alternative religion the emphasis is on the individual within the context of a specific environment. In an enclosure to a letter to the King around the time of the Königsbuch's publication, von Arnim expresses this religious sentiment in the following manner:

Eine Religion würde ich in mir begründen an seiner [des armen Mannes] Stelle, die alle Willkühr in mir bezwingen würde, und doch mich zum Überwältiger des ganzen Menschengeschlechts machte. Er ist, das Gewissen dem ich alle Macht in Hände gäbe, meines höheren Ichs, dieses würde ich zum Herrn in mir setzen, denn es ist das Prinzip der ganzen Menschheit. …⁸¹

She continues with a more specific religious reference to the Holy Trinity but uses it to underline the individual's worldly personal development: “Der Sohn [Jesus] ist das Gewissen, der Geist ist der Genius des Selbstbewußtseins, der Vater ist das beide erzeugende Gefühl der Unsterblichkeit. … Selbst Gott werden das ist Religion. …”⁸²

Frau Rat's religion is future-oriented in the romantic progressive sense. Religion and God connote the process of creating a new world, a new universe. The individual, together with the rest of humankind, must make use of the intellect and the senses to aid in this eternal process. Only a synthesis of Geist and Sinnlichkeit can enable one to attain complete consciousness of the self and to experience God.⁸³ Frau Rat's discussion of the intellect and the senses is often accompanied by the two concepts of reason and fantasy.⁸⁴ The following demonstrates Bettine von Arnim's understanding of the intimate connection between all of these concepts:

Was heißt Paradies? woher verstehn wir den Ausdruck? ist es vielleicht eine Rückerinnerung unserer Opiumszeiten? hat er in der Mohnblume geherbergt so gut wie in der Rebe, und hat die Natur im Geheimnis dieser Blume die Möglichkeit der Phantasie auf unsere Denkfähigkeit übertragen? Ja, Herr Pfarrer! ist vielleicht unser Menschengeist die auf alles sinnliche Geistesleben der Natur abgezogne Quintessenz? und das Denken nicht auch ein sinnlich Werden des Geistes? und sind also unsere Gedanken nicht wieder ein sinnlicher Spiegel der Natur?

(III, p. 91)

To allow the intellect freedom of movement through the senses is one of the main demands in von Arnim's works and in her philosophy of life, and she believed it must be applied to all spheres of life, including religion.⁸⁵

Nature, the starting point of Bettine von Arnim's religious ideas, is also the basis of the political and social theories presented in the Königsbuch. Once again, the term is an all-encompassing one, assuming the general meaning of humanistic ideals. It is the embodiment of an organic entity which humankind should strive to imitate and of which it should eventually become a genuine part. But within the areas of politics and society, it becomes clear that the attainment of these ideals requires political action in all strata of society. That the author viewed this novel not only as a work of art, but also as a political act, is evident in a letter to Adolph Stahr, an enthusiastic reviewer of the Königsbuch, in which she suggests strategies for distributing her novel while evading the censors.⁸⁶ In the novel, specific political issues, such as freedom of the press and capital punishment, are addressed. It is clear that she is making a case for the abolition of “die immer sich höher bildende Zensuredikte” (III, p. 148) and of the death penalty through Frau Rat's discussions with the priest and mayor, her conversational partners: “Abwägen kannst du [der Pfarrer] sein [des Nebenmenschen] Vergehen nicht, das kann nur Gott (aber dem ist's zu langweilig), also kannst du keinem das Todesurteil zusprechen” (III, p. 137).

The underlying theme of the Königsbuch, especially in those sections not dealing with religion, is a plea for a constitutional monarchy. Von Arnim realizes the need for counterbalancing the reactionary tendencies of those in power.⁸⁷ But despite her dwindling faith in King Friedrich Wilhelm IV, which becomes particularly evident in Gespräche mit Dämonen, she is not willing to call for an end to the Prussian monarchy. Using her own city of Frankfurt as an example, Frau Rat remarks:

Wir [die freien Reichsstädter] geben ein Exempel vom schönsten Verhältnis zwischen Fürst und Untertan, Republik und Monarchie zugleich!—Daraus entspringt zweierlei Gutes. Daß wir nicht vergebens seufzen nach was wir schon besitzen, die Republik ist unser Himmelbett, die Monarchie ist unser guter Stern am Himmel.—Das zweite Gute, was draus entspringt. Das ein großer Monarch wirklich als von göttlicher Abkunft gehalten wird …

(III, pp. 57-58)

In conjunction with the King's role in a constitutional monarchy, von Arnim is concerned with educating the King. He is to be enlightened by her Königsbuch and assume his patriarchal role of “ein treuer Vater” (III, p. 14), guiding his people according to their needs and desires. In the novel, the personality of the king is the embodiment of and driving force behind an ideal state, just as nature is the organic entity at the foundation of Frau Rat's vision of a new religion. To complete such a state, however, another element is introduced into the political structure described thus far—the common people, das Volk,⁸⁸ with whom the king must have a symbiotic relationship, “[d]enn vom Fürsten will das Volk regiert sein, der die höchste Großmut aus dem Volk selbst schöpfe, und jeder andre Wille ist zu klein das Volk zu regieren” (III, p. 59). Although the king is to be the guiding force, the people must inspire him, for they are imbued with an innocence and moral strength that the nobility and bureaucrats have lost. Metaphorically summarizing this idea, von Arnim comments in a letter to King Friedrich:

Mir schwebte eine Fabel vor, wie sich der Volksgeist deutlich bezeichnen lasse, gegenüber jener Scheinmacht der Staatskunst, die zwar die Zügel lenkt, aber einen hölzernen Gaul reitet, der nicht vorwärts geht, während die Volksbegeistrung ein Flügelpferd ist, das mit seinem Feuerhuf die Wolken zerstampft, um sich Licht zu erschaffen.⁸⁹

The people's power lies in their moral conscience, whereas the king's lies in his genius. But he is powerless without their support.

Denn das Volk will erhoben sein auf den höchsten Standpunkt, wo sein Geist hinzureichen vermag, das ist sein Recht an den Fürsten, von dem ihn keine Gewalt freispricht, sondern sie bricht ihm den Stab, der diesem Recht nicht genügt, und entkleidet ihn seiner Fürstenwürde—.

(III, p. 60)

The last section of the Königsbuch, Part I, deals almost exclusively with revolution and Napoleon. From these dialogues, which are actually designed to give strength to Frau Rat's monologues, one can conclude that von Arnim supports substantial political reform. Although revolution is occasionally referred to as an alternative, this means nothing more than a peaceful revolution by means of the intellect, with the king himself leading the way (III, pp. 125-33).⁹⁰ Bettine von Arnim does not propose a revolution in the true sense of the word, for she is not willing to eliminate the most powerful and influential element under the existing conditions: the king.⁹¹

It is nonetheless important not to overlook the volatile political content in this particular novel. From the somewhat abstract, utopian base from which von Arnim allows Frau Rat to develop her arguments, a harsh critique of existing institutions and a genuine, enthusiastic attempt at change shine through. Fritz Brügel's assertion that Dies Buch gehört dem König is an important contribution to the history of socialism must be taken seriously, given the meaning of this term in the early nineteenth century.⁹² The book represents an expression of political opposition, and one must appreciate its liberal tendencies within the context of its author's generally conservative and sometimes reactionary social surroundings.⁹³ One must also keep in mind that her political ideas were expressed in the form of a novel; politics and art were deliberately fused.

The social content of the Königsbuch, which cannot be totally separated from the political, but nevertheless deserves individual attention, is the most original and radical. It was to draw the public's attention to the misery of a large social stratum and “struck the first blow against the consecrated rights of birth.”⁹⁴ Through Frau Rat's sometimes theoretical, sometimes concrete discussions of criminality and poverty, combined with the final supplemental section containing vivid descriptions of the Vogtland, Bettine von Arnim criticizes contemporary social conditions in Prussia. The reportage-like supplement is a factual account of the living conditions of the poor obtained from a Swiss acquaintance, Heinrich Grunholzer; it gives the novel the “Zeitkolorit”⁹⁵ it lacks throughout most of the main body of the book. For example, about the weavers she writes:

Der Vater webet zu Bett und Hemden und Hosen und Jacke das Zeug und wirkt Strümpfe, doch hat er selber kein Hemd. Barfuß geht er und in Lumpen gehüllt!

Die Kinder gehen nackt, sie wärmen sich einer am andern auf dem Lager von Stroh und zittern vor Frost.

Die Mutter weift Spulen vom frühsten Tag zur sinkenden Nacht. Öl und Docht verzehrt ihr Fleiß und erwirbt nicht so viel, daß sie die Kinder kann sättigen.

Abgaben fordert der Staat vom Mann, und die Miete muß er bezahlen, sonst wirft ihn der Mietherr hinaus und die Polizei steckt ihn ein. Die Kinder verhungern, und die Mutter verzweifelt.

(III, p. 227)

Bettine von Arnim is one of the first writers to connect the phenomena of need and criminality. In a discussion with the mayor and priest, Frau Rat says:

… lesen Sie diese Verse, die in Mannheim mit Rötel, aus der Mauer losgekratzt, an den Steinblock geschrieben waren, an den der Verbrecher gefesselt war,

                    Dächt jeder dran, was Cfhristus spricht,
                    Des Armen Recht vergessen nicht,
                    So würde man davon nicht wissen,
                    Daß ihr aus Not habt rauben müssen!—

(III, pp. 150-51)

Frau Rat blames the Church and the state for allowing extreme poverty to develop.

Ihr [der Pfarrer und Bürgermeister] wollt den Armen an den Boden fesseln seiner Geburt … verdammt ihn zu Fronen, Wachten und Abgaben ohne Einnahme … und dann seht ihr in ihm einen Vagabonden, der sich eingerichtet hat auf Diebstahl und Raubmord.

(II, p. 148)

Bettine von Arnim has plans for a colony of the poor in which state subsidization and guidance would enable the people living there to establish a base upon which to develop financially, emotionally, and intellectually (III, p. 152). She blames the state for the criminal element in society: “Der Verbrecher ist des Staates eigenstes Verbrechen!—” (III, p. 164). Frau Rat advocates rehabilitation instead of punishment and a conscientious attempt by the ruling class at taking preventative measures and educating the victims of social and economic oppression (III, pp. 174-75).⁹⁶ But she realizes that a mere change in attitude will not suffice and, therefore, advocates that the state, the Church and the wealthy take financial responsibility for the poor—a radical suggestion for most anyone at this time, especially for someone in aristocratic circles: “… sein Sommerpläsier, die english cottage, mach er zur deutschen Hütte, worin deutsche Armut sich erholt; den englischen Rasen teil er aus zu Feldern für Kartoffel und Brot, und er ist Edelmann …” (III, pp. 227-28). The social statement made in Dies Buch gehört dem König is direct and courageous. It not only assumes that all individuals have equal rights, but it also gives evidence to Bettine von Arnim's awareness of the class-oriented character of Prussia and the resulting injustices. Although the king is again to initiate the social reform described, which weakens some of the arguments in this novel, the critical and constructive commentary on this aspect of early-nineteenth-century Germany is one of the major contributions of the book.

Despite Bettine von Arnim's concern about many oppressed groups, she does not specifically address the plight of women.⁹⁷ It is, however, a woman who represents the possibility of change in this novel. Through Frau Rat, von Arnim introduces sensual pleasure, love, fantasy and art as counter-elements to the unfeeling, self-centered characteristics of an increasingly capitalistic society. But it is not clear that she views these concepts as being gender-specific. As a matter of fact, she specifically longs for a patriarchal figure who would incorporate into his reign these qualities that are traditionally associated with the female. At most one can argue that Bettine von Arnim views equality of the sexes as a prerequisite for social change, but she places much more emphasis on social reform apart from women's emancipation.

In the Königsbuch's portrayal of the ideal state the use of fantastic elements deserves special attention. In Gespräche mit Dämonen von Arnim employs dreams and a variety of spirits, as the title itself indicates, to express her political philosophy. In Dies Buch gehört dem König the fantastic is emphasized through the use of several images (dream, sleep, darkness, night, fog), all of which are primarily employed when a utopian vision is presented and discussed. A conversation between Frau Rat and the priest revolving around the necessary qualities of a good leader indicates fantasy's role in bringing about change: “Ihnen nachzukommen, Frau Rat, bei der großen Reizbarkeit Ihrer Phantasie ist unmöglich, bald mein ich, Sie reden im Traum, bald scheinen Sie ordentlich in die Zukunft zu wittern. …” To this Frau Rat replies: “Was Sie als Traum und reizbare Phantasie achten, das sind wahrscheinlich Offenbarungen, die Ihren Vorurteilen entgegen erleuchten, was Sie freilich nicht begreifen” (III, p. 76). Through the integration of fantasy, von Arnim hopes to attain a balance between soul and intellect. In another discussion with her two conversational partners about the rehabilitation of criminals, the exchange reveals Frau Rat's qualitatively different vision:

Statt eurer [des Pfarrers und Bürgermeisters] hoffnungslosen einsamen Einsperrungen laßt sie [die Verbrecher] ein phantastisch Reich betreten des schaffenden Genusses, vielleicht führt dieser Weg zur Quelle der Magie, wo sie Dichter, Schöpfer, Künstler, Genien werden.
PFARRER.
Das können sie nur im Traum werden!
FR. Rat.
Im Wachsen fesselt oft der bleirne Schlaf Seelenreize, die im Traume wach werden und Wirkungen des Erhabenen hervorbringen. … Vermag nun auch der Verbrecher im Träumen sich über sein schwer Geschick zu erheben, vollendet ein ihm innewohnendes Wesen das Erlösungswerk, das ihn höher empfinden lehrt. … Warum nicht durch Wissenschaften, Künste, durch alles, was die Sinne in ein Zauberreich des Selbstschaffens führt, ihn mit seinem Selbst vertrauter machen, in den echten Besitz seines Ichs setzen, von dem er dann erst Rechenschaft zu geben vermag?

(III, p. 169)

The senses, the soul, dreams, reality, the sciences, the arts and magic are all part of the search for the self and vitally important to the restructuring of society. Through the characters' discussions and debates Bettine von Arnim develops as an alternative perspective of the world a synthesis of the ideal and the real that is intended to counteract the prevailing dichotomization. It is this element above all that distinguishes her political and social critique.

The conversational format of the Königsbuch as well as Bettine von Arnim's disregard for rules of grammar and punctuation have often been understood as proof of her inadequacy as a writer of prose. A closer examination of this novel, however, makes it apparent that she planned the book quite carefully and deviated intentionally from accepted modes of writing. The titles of the individual sections demonstrate a deliberate attempt at creating immediacy through a conversational atmosphere: “Der Erinnerung abgelauschte Gespräche, 1807,” “Zweites Gespräch,” etc. These headings are then followed by conversations between Frau Rat, the priest and the mayor, with occasional interjections by a young, fictional Bettine. Each person can be identified by a distinct manner of speaking. Frau Rat, who together with Bettine is most sympathetic toward the needs of the common people, characteristically speaks in a Frankfurt dialect. The priest, who is most lacking in his understanding of and contact with worldly problems speaks High German, and the mayor uses a slightly colloquialized version of the priest's very correct German. Bettine's rare appearances are characterized by a not overly correct High German which incorporates some colloquial expressions.⁹⁸ Although her remarks at times appear to be more radical than Frau Rat's, her style neutralizes the effect they could have, and thus she appears to mediate between the novel and the reader.

This role, however, should not be overemphasized, since the conversational form tends to involve the reader directly and hardly requires a mediator. Although the conversations around single issues are sometimes long and tedious, the open literary form gives the characters a vitality and the topics an element of immediacy, which invites the reader to participate in both an aesthetic experience and a discussion of contemporary political and social issues. The reader is not only to receive that which is presented, but also to take part in the production of the work through the act of reading. Of course this occurs in all forms of literature, since a work does not begin to exist until it is read by someone,⁹⁹ but the conversational novel, with its loose associations and inherent diversions, stimulates the reader more than does a closed literary work. The reader is confronted with the task of synthesizing the aesthetic, philosophical, religious, political and social content of the Königsbuch.¹⁰⁰ Social communication, a prerequisite for social change, occurs both internally among the characters and externally with the reader.

III

A further work, although not fictional, which deals extensively with the specific social issue of poverty is Bettine von Arnim's Armenbuch. In this unfinished collection of empirical documentation and essayistic analysis of the misery of the Silesian weavers, the significance of political communication, as reflected in narrative stance, again becomes apparent. This time, however, the author's concern with dialogic interaction manifests itself in a failed attempt at writing an objective piece on the issue of poverty.

The first part of the Königsbuch had appeared in 1843, only one year after Bettine von Arnim had begun to examine more closely the issue of poverty in response to a prize-question posed by the Potsdam government about the nature of poverty and possible solutions to it. In 1844 she continued this research and began making plans for its compilation and analysis in what Varnhagen calls her Armenbuch.¹⁰¹ Unfortunately, this work never appeared as a completed book, and it was not until 1962 that Werner Vordtriede published several manuscripts dealing with the issue of poverty, most of which, he postulates, were to be incorporated into Bettine von Arnim's Armenbuch.¹⁰²

Since the publication of the Armenbuch, there has been much speculation about why Bettine von Arnim never finished this work and why none of it was published during her life. The two primary arguments are that she held it back for fear of censorship, and secondly, that she simply lacked the historical, social and economic depth of knowledge to deal adequately with such a complex issue. While both of these explanations are relevant to varying degrees,¹⁰³ little analysis has been made of the form and narrative stance of the Armenbuch in comparison with von Arnim's other books, in particular both volumes of the Königsbuch, and the difficulty the narration of poverty appears to have caused her in the creative process of writing this work.

According to Vordtriede, the following manuscripts which he found would have comprised Bettine von Arnim's Armenbuch: 1) reportage-like lists, compiled by the Silesian manufacturer Friedrich Schloeffel, that describe in concrete detail the social and personal condition of the weavers, 2) an analysis of this malaise in an essay by Schloeffel following the lists, 3) a piece on industrialization and poverty, which consists of excerpts from a book by the Swedish academic Georg Svederus, 4) a short manuscript, whose author is unknown, that sings the praises of the worker and voices the need for the political mobilization of the proletariat, 5) an excerpt of an article from the “Breslauer Zeitung” by von Arnim herself dealing with prison reform, 6) an essayistic text by Bettine von Arnim which argues that the poor should participate in public affairs and be represented in government, and 7) a text by von Arnim which was to have been the afterword to the Armenbuch and which analyzes the issue of poverty.

Taking a closer look at these texts in terms of narration, one finds a common thread, despite the fact that various genres are represented and that the texts originate from different authors. They are all written from an objectifying point of view. They attempt to either describe existing circumstances as fact or to present a perspective as having absolute value. No real dialogue takes place within an individual manuscript or among any of the pieces. In all the texts, the subjectivity of the author is either denied or masked, which is reflected in the nearly complete absence of an “I” in any of them. Three texts approach a dialogic tone but do not maintain it in form. The first is the one that praises the workers. It is a call to political action and appears to be making an emotional appeal.

Arbeit!—

Armut unter dem Schutz der Arbeiter!

Ausbreitung der Macht, welche in den Arbeitskräften liegt, die schwere Frage der einreißenden Armut allein aufzulösen durch Veredlung der Arbeiter in ihrer Uneigennützlichkeit, Selbstverleugnung, ihr Mut, die Zukunft durch eigne Kräfte zu bewältigen, habt dies Vermächtnis des Elends, was sich mit jedem Tag vermehrt. Kraft, Heldencharacter zu entwickeln in dem Besitzlosen.

(Armenbuch, p. 52)

Because the author does not use the first or second person, however, it is unclear who is making the plea and who is the intended receiver of this message. The second is the essay by von Arnim herself, in which she makes her arguments concerning the poor by addressing a “Du.” But the references to this person, as well as those to herself, are minimal. This lack is all the more accentuated when one knows that the material in this essay was later used in letters to the King. Even in the letter, a genre which encourages the exchange of subjective information, the “I” and the “you” are obviously absent. A similar phenomenon occurs in the afterword, where an occasional “Ihr” and “unser” appear, suggesting a dialogue between the author and an intended audience, but, for the most part, it is an essay in which Bettine von Arnim's attempt to eliminate herself from the text is made obvious by the existing revisions, in which she gradually crosses out all personal references and all “I'”s.¹⁰⁴

Considering the fact that Bettine von Arnim was working in large part from documentation gathered and essays written by others, rather than from correspondence and conversations in which she herself had been involved (as was the case in all her fictional works), it is not surprising that the Armenbuch was never completed. In the process of writing and revising, she was ultimately unable to write herself out of the text. Moreover, she was not able to eliminate the voice of the poor in an analysis of them. With the material she had, Bettine von Arnim could not create a conversational genre that combined the political and the personal in such a way as to reflect authentically the situation of the underclass.

What distinguishes the Königsbuch from the Armenbuch is the explicit incorporation of both objective and subjective information. In it, von Arnim allows for a multi-faceted description of the poor that consists of both concrete detail (the size of the living quarter, the condition and quantity of clothing, the amount of money earned, the physical makeup of the work place, etc.), and the workers' as well as the author's subjective response to these conditions. That such a subjective element is necessary to a true portrayal of objective reality has been argued by a number of writers and critics for some time. As Alexander Abusch points out, for the writer, erkennen and gestalten form a dialectical unity which is determined by the dialectic relationship between art and reality.¹⁰⁵ Or as Christa Wolf explains, it is precisely the subjective element, which results when the mediation between objective reality and the writer takes place, that gives the literary work a realistic quality and makes it meaningful and significant to the reader.¹⁰⁶ Thus, one can maintain that Bettine von Arnim's Königsbuch provides a more authentic portrayal of poverty than does the Armenbuch, and it also makes it difficult for the reader to deal with the issue in the abstract, as a problem devoid of real individuals in a particular context. The reader is encouraged, if not forced, to consider the issue of poverty on a number of levels and from a variety of perspectives. Personal experience informs socio-political analysis, and a voice is given to those without enough power to gain access to a public forum through which to mobilize themselves politically.

One channel through which this “subjective authenticity”¹⁰⁷ finds expression in the Königsbuch is the narrative stance. For example, the gatherer of the information presented in the supplement does not limit himself to reporting what he sees; he goes on to express his thoughts and feelings about it. In addition, he puts together his information in a form resembling a travelogue. He uses the first person to tell the reader about his visits from one family to the next. Moreover, he includes in his text conversations among people in their homes.¹⁰⁸

In the sections that precede the supplement the voices of those discussing the issues of poverty also speak directly to the reader. Proposals for alleviating the workers' misery arise through conversations among several characters. While the author projects her own subjectivity onto each of the characters, which at times makes the conversations seem somewhat contrived, she also develops them as individuals who speak for themselves. Her control over them is weaker than in traditional literary prose where the narrator constructs the characters, according to his or her perspective. That Bettine von Arnim uses a real person, Frau Rat, as the main character also indicates that this character, in particular, is created by a synthesis of the author's subjective fantasy and fact. Von Arnim writes herself into the text very directly by creating a fictional version of herself in the novel.

While Gespräche mit Dämonen: Des Königsbuches zweiter Band did not appear until 1852, the discussion of poverty is continued in this volume. And not surprisingly, the form is again a very different one from that of the Armenbuch. It begins with what appears to be traditional prose written in the first person but is quickly transformed to a dialogue between a sleeping king and his spirit. It soon becomes clear that the narrator of the prose, the spirit, Frau Rat and the author are making much the same arguments, concerning the issue of poverty, as were articulated in the first volume, but the king himself is more harshly criticized. Toward the end of the Dämonenbuch, the conversation is expanded to include a number of other spirits and emblematic characters who represent different segments of society, including the proletariat, and also different countries. Again, there is no narrator, and each character speaks directly and for him or herself. The element of subjectivity is also emphasized again, since abstract intellectual, social and political categories are given a human face through the conversational form. These are “people” talking with one another, despite the fact that they have names like “Genius,” “Volksgeist,” “Polengeist,” “Magyar,” “Germane,” “Proletariat,” etc. The author is making yet another plea for the integration of subjectivity into the discussion of political and social issues. In the first volume we are presented with individuals who subjectively discuss political and social issues, and in the second we see these issues transformed into personalities.

Besides the two volumes of the Königsbuch, another shorter literary work must be mentioned in conjunction with the topic of the narration of poverty. Werner Vordtriede includes “Die Erzählung vom Heckebeutel” in his book because he found it among the other Armenbuch manuscripts, but he notes that it was written a year later and was not intended to be part of the Armenbuch. This short story about a poor, old woman who must support and raise her grandchildren under the direst of circumstances contrasts sharply with the text of the Armenbuch. The difference lies in form, however, not in content. The message is a familiar one: the poor are a virtuous people, victimized by social circumstances, and it is the compassionate duty of the upper classes and the state to aid them. Formally, Bettine von Arnim returns to the style and narration that suits her best, namely to subjective, conversational prose.

The story begins with an introduction by the author, written in the first person, in which the background information to the story about the old woman is presented. Apparently the entire text has its origin in an actual communication between Bettine von Arnim and the Prince of Prussia. Following this introduction, the actual story begins, and it, too, is told in the first person. The narrator is clearly von Arnim herself, but the first-person narration occasionally shifts to the old woman and then back again, signaling the identification of the author with the main character. The general lack of quotation marks has the same effect in that the boundaries between writer, narrator and subject of the narration are blurred. In addition, most of the story consists of dialogue, and the gift of conversation is one of the main themes. As the old woman repeats again and again, it is the quality of Beredsamkeit that allows her to accumulate enough money to survive (see Armenbuch, pp. 117, 118, 121, 122).

In conclusion, a comparison of the three works in which Bettine von Arnim deals most emphatically with the issue of poverty brings to light how important genre and narrative stance were to her. One can even go so far as to conclude that in the Armenbuch she ventured into more objective genres for the purpose of dealing with a very specific social problem, only to discover that she could not and did not want to write in a totally objective style. Because it deviates dramatically in form from both volumes of the Königsbuch and from “Die Erzählung des Heckebeutels,” while maintaining a significant continuity of content, the unfinished nature of the Armenbuch reflects Bettine von Arnim's resistance to writing in traditional forms. The literary reportage and the conversational novel and short story, which lack a distanced and distancing narrator, are the forms in which she most successfully allows herself and her characters to discuss social and political issues.

Notes

1. H. Lilienfein, Bettina: Dichtung und Wahrheit ihres Lebens (München: F. Brackmann, 1949), p. 63; Helga Haberland and Wolfgang Pehnt, eds., Frauen der Goethezeit in Briefen, Dokumenten und Bildern: Von der Gottschedin bis zu Bettina von Arnim (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1960), pp. 24-25. Concerning von Arnim's political activities, neither of these books appears to have been very well researched.

2. Hans von Arnim, Bettina von Arnim (Berlin: Haude & Spenersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1963), p. 86.

3. Ludwig Geiger, ed., Bettine von Arnim und Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: Ungedruckte Briefe und Aktenstücke (Frankfurt: Rütten & Loening, 1902), p. 75.

4. Irmgard Tanneberger, Die Frauen der Romantik und das soziale Problem, Forschungen zur Literatur-, Theater- und Zeitungswissenschaft, Vol. IV (Oldenburg: Rudolf Schwarz, 1928), pp. 78, 81.)

5. Karl-Heinz Hahn, Bettina von Arnim in ihrem Verhältnis zu Staat und Politik (Weimar: Böhlau, 1959), p. 46.

6. See, for example, Bettine's letter to Siegmund, 19-20 March 1848, Hahn, p. 69. See also Ursula Püschel, “Weibliches und Unweibliches der Bettina von Arnim,” in Mit allen Sinnen: Frauen in der Literatur (Halle-Leipzig: Mitteldeutscher Verlag, 1980), pp. 48-82, in which Püschel repeatedly emphasizes von Arnim's knowledge of current events.

7. “To Friedrich Karl von Savigny,” postmarked 3 May 1809, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, ed. Joachim Müller (Frechen: Bartmann, 1961), V, 278.

8. Friedrich Engels, “Retrograde Zeichen der Zeit,” in Über Kunst und Literatur, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels (Berlin: Dietz, 1968), II, 425: “Unsere Salons sind geschmückt, Stühle, Tische, Schränke und Sofas im style de la renaissance, und es fehlte nur noch, daß man Heinen eine Perücke aufsetzte und Bettinen in einen Reifrock preßte, um das siècle vollständig wiederherzustellen.” Although Engels was critical of salon society, it is well known that he was also a great admirer of Heine. He was more critical of Bettine von Arnim than of Heine, but the pairing up of these two is not coincidental and speaks for their common democratic goals (despite the fact that they manifested themselves to different degrees and in different forms). In defense of both Heine and von Arnim, one must add that their contribution to the romantic salon was the fact that neither allowed themselves to be restricted by the traditional “wig” and “crinoline.”

9. Hahn, p. 9.

10. Quoted from Christa Wolf, “Nun ja! Das nächste Leben geht aber heute an,” Sinn und Form. 2 (März/April 1980), p. 400.

11. Hahn, p. 41.

12. Bettina von Arnim, “Sie trägt die Schuld,” in Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, ed. Gustav Konrad (Frechen: Bartmann, 1963), IV, 151-52. Although this article appeared anonymously, evidence indicates that it was written by Bettine von Arnim. To support this claim see Gustav Konrad's notes following the piece, p. 170, and Gertrud Meyer-Hepner, “Das Bettina von Arnim Archiv,” Sinn und Form, 6, (1954), p. 599.

13. Hahn describes and quotes from letters to von Arnim's son, Friedmund, the child who most shared his mother's political views, in which von Arnim outlines her plans. Unfortunately not all of these letters have been published but are available in the Goethe-Schiller-Archiv of the GDR. Hahn, as well as Ingeborg Drewitz, contends that Bettine von Arnim was influenced in such ideas by utopian socialist contemporaries. While Hahn refers to letters to Friedmund, Drewitz, who goes so far as to mention the St. Simonists specifically, does not document this hypothesis, except by pointing out overlapping ideas. Hahn, p. 46; Ingeborg Drewitz, Bettina von Arnim: Romantik, Revolution, Utopie (Köln: Diederichs, 1969), p. 169.

14. Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, I, Frühlingskranz, p. 92. See also Bettine von Arnim's draft of a letter to Kronprinz Karl von Württemberg, 1841, Hahn, p. 64.

15. Despite her critique of the “altem verrosteten Adel” (“To Lulu Jordis,” geb. Brentano, 1808, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, V, p. 419), von Arnim wanted her children to marry within their own noble class.

16. K. A. Varnhagen von Ense, Tagebücher (1865; rpt. Bern: H. Lang, 1972) 13 October 1840, I, p. 228.

17. “To Friedrich Wilhelm IV,” 11/12 April 1843, Letter 4, Geiger, Bettine von Arnim, pp. 21-26.

18. “To Kronprinz Karl von Württemberg,” [1841] [draft], Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, V, p. 387.

19. “To Bettine von Arnim,” 31 July 1849, Geiger, Bettine von Arnim, p. 171.

20. “To Friedrich Wilhelm IV,” 3 August 1849, Letter 23, Geiger, Bettine von Arnim, p. 176.

21. Ibid., p. 177.

22. Varnhagen von Ense, Tagebücher, 9 October 1858, XIV, p. 414.

23. “To Friedmund von Arnim,” 27 October 1841, Hahn, p. 28.

24. Compare von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, I, Frühlingskranz, pp. 92-93 to her description of the boredom and senselessness of the nuns' activities at the cloister at Fritzlar. Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, Vol. III, Gespräche mit Dämonen, p. 263.

25. Gisela Kähler, Bettine: Eine Auswahl aus den Schriften und Briefen der Bettina von Arnim-Brentano (Berlin: Verlag der Nation, 1952), p. 32.

26. See “To Wolfgang von Goethe,” March 1808, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, V, p. 22.

27. Compare Ricarda Huch's characterization of von Arnim's desire to bring about change in which Huch discredits von Arnim's political activity, because it was “limited” to poor Jews, beggars and craftsmen, Huch, p. 190.

28. “To Karl August Varnhagen von Ense,” 2 June 1848, Aus dem Nachlaß Varnhagen's von Ense: Briefe von Stägemann, Metternich, Heine und Bettina von Arnim nebst Briefen, Anmerkungen und Notizen von Varnhagen von Ense (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1865), p. 361. See also “To Friedmund von Arnim,” 1847, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, V, 406.

29. For von Arnim's own account of the publication of Clemens Brentanos Frühlingskranz, see “To Alexander von Humboldt,” Letter 1, 3 June 1844; Letter 2, 5 June 1844; Letter 3, n.d., Aus dem Nachlaß Varnhagen's von Ense: Briefe an Stägemann, Metternich, Heine und Bettina von Arnim, nebst Briefen, Anmerkungen und Notizen von Varnhagen von Ense (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1865), pp. 358-67.

30. “To Alexander von Humboldt,” Letter 3, n.d., Aus dem Nachlaß Varnhagen's von Ense, p. 367.

31. Drewitz, p. 166.

32. “To Carl Stahr,” 29 April 1844, Aus Adoph Stahrs Nachlaß, ed. Ludwig Geiger (Oldenburg: Schulzesche Hofbuchhandlung, 1903), 88.

33. See, for example, Haberland/Pehnt, pp. 24-25 and Günther von Freiberg, “Bettinas Ekstasen: Persönliche Erinnerungen von Günther von Freiberg,” Vossische Zeitung, April 28, 1912, p. 29.

34. “To Alexander von Humboldt,” Letter 57, 22 June 1844, Aus dem Nachlaß Varnhagen's von Ense, p. 372.

35. Ursula Püschel, “Bettina von Arnims politische Schriften,” Diss. Humboldt Universität 1965, pp. 311-13. “Auszug aus dem Entwurf eines Berichts Bettinas über Schlöffel, der für den König bestimmt war.”

36. Varnhagen von Ense, Tagebücher, 19 June 1844, II, p. 314.

37. “To Berlin Magistrate,” Letter 4, 19 February 1847, Gertrud Meyer-Hepner, Der Magistratsprozeß der Bettina von Arnim (Weimar: Arion Verlag, 1960), p. 38.

38. Luce d'Eramo, “La Germania rillege il romanticismo: E Bettina von Arnim,” il manifest, January 27, 1980, p. 3.

39. Dischner, p. 63.

40. Tanneberger, p. 79.

41. Jutta Menschik, Gleichberechtigung oder Emanzipation?: Die Frau im Erwerbsleben der Bundesrepublik (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch, 1971), p. 52.

42. Margit Twellmann, Die deutsche Frauenbewegung im Spiegel repräsentativer Frauenzeitschriften: Ihre Anfänge und erste Entwicklung, 1843-1889, I (Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain, 1972), 16.

43. Wolf, p. 399.

44. Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, I, Die Günderode, p. 331.

45. Huch, p. 184.

46. “To Friedrich Karl von Savigny,” October 1804, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, V, p. 251.

47. For further comments by Bettine von Arnim about gender roles see “To Achim von Arnim,” August 1807, pp. 151-52 and “To Friedrich Karl and Gunda Savigny,” around New Year 1832, 296-97, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, V; a letter “aus einem Notizheft vom Jahre 1841” (addressee unknown) in Püschel, p. 299; “To Achim von Arnim,” September 1820, Achim und Bettina in ihren Briefen, I, p. 213.

48. Tanneberger, p. 81.

49. Kay Goodman, “Spinoza's (Grand) Daughter,” paper presented at the meeting of the Modern Language Association, Chicago, December 30, 1985.

50. That Bettine von Arnim exhibited this quality in her appearance is reflected in a physical description of her by Caroline Schlegel-Schelling: She looked “weder wie ein Männlein noch ein Fräulein.” Eckart Kleßmann, Caroline: Das Leben der Caroline Michaelis-Böhmer-Schlegel-Schelling 1763-1809 (München: Paul List, 1975), p. 271.

51. Sara Friedrichsmeyer, “The Subversive Androgyne,” in Women in German Yearbook 3: Feminist Studies and German Culture, eds. Marianne Burkhard and Edith Waldstein (Lanham, New York, London: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 63-74.

52. Geiger, Bettine von Arnim, p. 2.

53. See, for example, “To Friedrich Karl von Savigny,” ca. 15 July 1805, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, V, p. 257 and October 1806, p. 262.

54. “To Bettine von Arnim,” Letter 3, 26 February 1832, Frauenbriefe von und an Hermann Fürsten Pückler-Muskau, ed. Heinrich Conrad (München: Georg Müller, 1912), p. 8.

55. See in particular, “To Bettine von Arnim,” Letter 3, 26 February 1832; Letter 4, 27 February 1832; “To Hermann von Pückler-Muskau,” Letter 5, n.d.: “To Bettine von Arnim,” Letter 10, 22 July 1832, Pückler-Muskau Frauenbriefe.

56. See Ingrid Strobl, “Romantik und Revolte,” Emma, 7 (Juli 1980), p. 42.

57. Gisela Dischner overlooks this fact in attempting to explain why von Arnim did not address the woman question of her time: “… sie [Bettine von Arnim] fühlt sich nie als Werkzeug für das Genie des Mannes. … Bettina gehört eher in den Zusammenhang der selbständig-politischen Frauen. …” While this is generally true, one cannot ignore the exceptions to the rule, especially when searching for an explanation of von Arnim's negligence in coming to terms with specific discriminatory practices. Dischner, p. 12.

58. “To Julius Döring,” 9/17 May 1839, Werner Vordtriede, “Bettina von Arnims Briefe an Julius Döring,” Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts (1963), 379-80.

59. “To Bettine von Arnim,” Letter 10, 22 July 1832, Pückler-Muskau Frauenbriefe, p. 25.

60. For a detailed account of this and the controversy surrounding Bettine von Arnim's participation in the writing of I. L. S. Bartholdy's Der Krieg der Tiroler Landleute im Jahre 1809, see Geiger, Bettine von Arnim, pp. 206-14 and Waldemar Oehlke, Bettina von Arnims Briefromane, Palaestra, Vol. XLI (Berlin: Mayer und Müller, 1905), pp. 104-48. Compare Irmgard Tanneberger, who incorrectly states that only one reference to this war exists in von Arnim's letters and that she did not develop her own position on this issue, but adopted Bartholdy's ideas. As Geiger and Oehlke prove, this matter is considerably more complicated.

61. See Niebuhr's comments to Dahlmann, as cited in Drewitz, p. 179 and Cornillus Wendeler, ed., Briefwechsel des Freiherrn Karl Hartwig Gregor von Meusebach mit Jakob und Wilhelm Grimm (Heilbronn: Gebr. Henninger, 1880), pp. 266-67. The recent publication of the correspondence between the Grimm brothers and Bettine von Arnim completely substantiates her public support of the Grimms and the important role she played in the struggle to have them reappointed. Bettine von Arnim, Der Briefwechsel Bettine von Arnims mit den Brüdern Grimm: 1838-1841, ed. Hartwig Schultz (Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1985).

62. See “To Kronprinz Friedrich Wilhelm,” Letter 1, April 1840, Geiger Bettine von Arnim, p. 5; “To Bettine von Arnim,” Letter 4, 20 April 1840, p. 291; Letter 7, 15 May 1840, p. 293; Letter 10, 21 November 1840 (?), pp. 195-96, Meusebach-Grimm Briefwechsel.

63. See also Kertbeny, “To K. M. Kertbeny,” Letter 1, 4 October 1849, p. 103; Letter 5, 2 June 1850, p. 109.

64. Johannes Werner, ed., Maxe von Arnim: Tochter Bettinas/Gräfin von Oriola, 1818-1894 (Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1937), pp. 173-74.

65. In addition to the letters to her son mentioned earlier, see Bettine von Arnim's letter to Pauline Steinhäuser, Letter 5, 13 May 1848, Karl Obser, “Bettina von Arnim und ihr Briefwechsel mit Pauline Steinhäuser,” Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher, 12 (1903), pp. 106, 110.

66. “To Siegmund von Arnim,” 19-20 March 1848, Hahn, pp. 68-70.

67. “To Pauline Steinhäuser, 21 or 24 March 1848” (draft), Hilde Wyss, “Bettina von Arnims Stellung zwischen der Romantik und dem Jungen Deutschland,” Diss. Bern 1935, p. 15. For an expression of von Arnim's general frustration with the political developments around 1848, see also “To Pauline Steinhäuser,” Letter 5, 13 May 1848, Bettina von Arnim und ihr Briefwechsel mit Pauline Steinhäuser, p. 110 and “To Friedmund von Arnim,” 10 July 1848, Hahn, p. 40.

68. Herman Grimm, “Bettina von Arnim,” Goethe-Jahrbuch, Vol. I. ed. Ludwig Geiger (Frankfurt am Main: Rütten und Loening, 1880), p. 9.

69. Ibid.

70. Varnhagen reports that Bettine von Arnim also intended to write the King concerning this matter. Varnhagen von Ense, Tagebücher, 22 May 1850, VII, pp. 190-92.

71. See Geiger, Bettine von Arnim, “To King Friedrich Wilhelm IV,” 29 July 1849, pp. 161-69; “To Bettine von Arnim,” 31 July 1849, pp. 171-73; “To King Friedrich Wilhelm IV,” 3 August 1849, pp. 176-78 and 8 August 1849, p. 184.

72. Bettine von Arnim seems to have known Marx, but his influence must have been minimal, for she nowhere mentions him. See Gertrud Meyer-Hepner, “Das Bettina von Arnim Archiv,” pp. 599-600 and Bettine von Arnim: 1785-1859, Catalogue to the exhibit of the Freies Deutsches Hochstift, Frankfurter Museum, 1985, p. 151.

73. Huch, p. 321.

74. See “To Friedrich Karl von Savigny,” 4 November 1839, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, V, pp. 318-19 and Drewitz, p. 168 (excerpts from Gutzkow and Wienbarg's request that von Arnim work with them on the “Deutsche Revue”).

75. See d'Eramo, p. 3, col. 3. Compare Lilienfein, p. 151, who draws a line precisely at the year 1840 and claims that before this year von Arnim was romantic and thereafter political. By oversimplifying her political development he not only discredits her beliefs and any effect they may have had, but he also implies that a dichotomy exists between romanticism and politics. For examples of political awareness early in Bettine von Arnim's life, see: 1) her defense of Mirabeau in a letter to Clemens, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, I, Frühlingskranz, pp. 53-54; 2) an account of governmental spying activities in a letter to Achim, November 1818, Letter 100, Achim und Bettina in ihren Briefen, ed. Werner Vordtriede (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1961), I, 178; 3) an explanation of why she must stay in Berlin while fighting is going on there against Napoleon in 1813, “To Gunda Savigny,” 13 July 1813, von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, V, p. 284.

76. Although many of the themes of the first volume are continued in the second volume of the Königsbuch, most literary critics have dealt with them as two separate works. The primary reasons for this are most likely the fact that a period of nine years (and a revolution) lie between their publications and also that the first volume enjoyed considerably more popularity than Gespräche mit Dämonen. Von Arnim herself was somewhat disappointed with this final novel. (See K. A. Varnhagen von Ense, Tagebücher, 22 April [p. 146], 16 May [p. 170], 5 June 1850 [p. 120], VII; 17 May [p. 176], 21 September 1851 [pp. 343-44], VIII.)

77. Wilhelm Frels, “Bettina von Arnims Königsbuch: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte ihres Lebens und ihrer Zeit,” Diss. Rostock 1912, p. 35.

78. Gustav Konrad, ed., Dies Buch gehört dem König, Vol. III, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, p. 27. Subsequent references to this edition of Dies Buch gehört dem König will be included in the text in parentheses.

79. Carl Streckfuß, [Leberecht Fromm], Ruchlosigkeit der Schrift: Dies Buch gehört dem König: Ein unterthäniger Fingerzeig. Zwickau: Druck und Verlag von Jenni, Sohn, 1926 (Faks.-Druck der 1844 ersch. Ausg.), pp. 22-23. About the author's intent, Streckfuß also writes: “Dies Buch lehrt, daß die Bestimmung des Menschen in diesem Leben selber liege, daß die Bestimmung des Menschen und alles Seins die sei, seinen Naturgesetzen frei nachzuleben: also ist ihre [von Arnims] Religion ein solches Leben selbst.” (p. 14)

80. Two major sections of the Königsbuch, one in the first volume and one in the second, specifically address the problems of criminals and the Jewish people: 1) “Sokratie der Frau Rat (Bruchstück, Die Verbrecher),” pp. 137-210. 2) “Die Klosterbeere: Zum Andenken an die Frankfurter Judengasse,” which begins on p. 263. (Because there are no divisions after this heading and because the theme runs throughout Gespräche mit Dämonen, it is only worth noting that the beginning pages address the Jewish problem more specifically than later in the novel.) For a discussion of von Arnim's relationship with the Hungarian author Kertbeny and its impact on her treatment of the Hungarian struggle for independence in Gespräche mit Dämonen, see József Turóczi-Trostler, “Bettina von Arnim: Ungarn und Petöfi,” Acta Litteraria, 4 (1961), 80-81.

81. “To King Friedrich Wilhelm IV,” 15 April 1843, Bettine von Arnim und Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: Ungedruckte Briefe und Aktenstücke, ed. Ludwig Geiger (Frankfurt a. M.: Rütten und Loening, 1902), 32-33.

82. Ibid., p. 33.

83. Von Arnim appears to have been more influenced by Friedrich Schleiermacher with regard to the concepts of Geist and Sinnlichkeit than by Plato's writings, as Luise Zurlinden suggests. Luise Zurlinden, Gedanken Platos in der deutschen Romantik, ed. Oskar F. Walzel, Untersuchungen zur neueren Sprach- und Literaturgeschichte, No. 8 (1910; rpt. Hildesheim: Verlag Dr. H. A. Gerstenberg, 1976), pp. 272-84. For a critique of Zurlinden, see Frels, pp. 120, 125-27.

84. See, for example, Frau Rat's argument against the validity and value of the Bible's history of creation which, despite superficial moments, is quite logical and rational. (Königsbuch, III, pp. 31-45) Compare Frels, who places more emphasis on the irrationality of Frau Rat's arguments. Frels, p. 66.

85. Bettine von Arnim was influenced by the radical views of Bruno Bauer, who frequented the Arnim salon in the early 1840's. See her letter, the addressee of which is not evident, found in a “Notizheft” of 1841, in which she supports Bauer against attacks by the addressee. Ursula Püschel, “Bettina von Arnims politische Schriften,” Diss. Berlin (Ost), 1965, p. 296.

86. Stahr's review was confiscated on November 21, 1843, the same day von Arnim wrote this letter to him. “To Adolph Stahr,” 21 November 1843, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, V, p. 403.

87. See, for example, Frau Rat's harsh criticism of the “Staatsbeamten.” (Königsbuch, III, pp. 20-22).

88. Irmgard Tanneberger argues that von Arnim's Volk corresponds at least in part to Marx's proletariat.

89. “To King Friedrich Wilhelm IV,” July or August 1843, Letter 6, Geiger, Bettine von Arnim, pp. 40-41.

90. This aspect of Bettine von Arnim's political philosophy was prevalent among many romantic writers. In particular one should mention Novalis' essay, “Glauben und Liebe,” in Novalis, Werke und Briefe, ed. Alfred Kelletat (München: Winkler-Verlag, 1968), pp. 371-88. For a discussion of this tendency in other romantic writers, see Russell Berman et al., “Reaktion oder Fortschritt: Die deutschen Romantiker und das Ende der Aristokratie,” Zeitgeschichte, 9/10, (Juni/Juli 1977), 320-30.

91. See Turóczi-Trostler, who specifically discusses the concept of revolution in Gespräche mit Dämonen. Turóczi-Trostler, pp. 58, 80.

92. Fritz Brügel, “Vorbemerkung,” Carl Streckfuß, Ruchlosigkeit der Schrift, p. 1.

93. One need only recall the nationalistic and antisemitic political leanings of her brother and husband, the founders of the ultra-conservative Christlich Teutsche Tischgesellschaft, as well as those of the Minister of the Interior, Graf Adolf Heinrich von Arnim-Boitzenburg and Friedrich Karl von Savigny, director of the Ministerium für Gesetzesrevision.

94. Helge Pross, “A Romantic Socialist in Prussia,” German Quarterly, 27 (1954), 99.

95. Compare Luise Zurlinden's critique of the lack of “Zeitkolorit” in the Königsbuch, p. 257.

96. Concerning specific prison reforms, von Arnim was most likely influenced by Dr. Julius, a philanthropist from Hamburg who lectured on prison reform in Berlin, after working with the poor in Hamburg and studying the English prison system.

97. Bettine von Arnim rarely concerns herself with women as an oppressed group in any of her works. Two exceptions are: 1) occasional discussions of gender difference and societal expectations in Clemens Brentanos Frühlingskranz and 2) the suggestion of a women's community as an alternative to existing society in Das Leben der Hochgräfin Gritta von Rattenzuhausbeiuns, which von Arnim co-authored with her daughter Gisela. For a more detailed analysis of the former, see Goodman, “Spinoza's (Grand) Daughter,” and of the latter, see Edith Waldstein, “Romantic Revolution and Female Collectivity: Bettine and Gisela von Arnim's ‘Gritta,’” in Women in German Yearbook 3, pp. 90-99.

98. For a detailed summary of each character's speech patterns, see Frels, pp. 109-18.

99. This assumption is central to reception theory and has been articulated in two primary works: Wolfgang Iser, “Die Appellstruktur der Texte: Unbestimmtheit als Wirkungsbedingung literarischer Prosa,” in Rezeptionsästhetik: Theorie und Praxis, ed. Rainer Warning (München: Fink, 1975) and Hans Robert Jauß, Literaturgeschichte als Provokation (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1973).

100. See Dischner, Bettina von Arnim, pp. 16-17.

101. Varnhagen von Ense, Tagebücher, 24 June 1844, II, p. 315.

102. Subsequent references to this work will be based on the following edition and included in the text in parentheses. Werner Vordtriede, ed., Bettina von Arnims Armenbuch (Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1969).

103. The first explanation can be substantiated by one of Bettine von Arnim's own letters (“To Alexander von Humboldt,” Letter 3, n.d., Aus dem Nachlaß Varnhagen's von Ense, p. 367), while the second one is considerably more difficult to prove, given the fact that von Arnim was more knowledgeable about such issues than literary critics have generally given her credit for.

104. See Vordtriede, pp. 88-90.

105. Alexander Abusch, “Erkennen und Gestalung,” in Klaus Jarmatz, ed., Kritik in der Zeit: Der Sozialismus, seine Literatur, ihre Entwicklung (Halle: Mitteldeutscher Verlag, 1970), p. 711.

106. Christa Wolf, Lesen und Schreiben: Aufsätze und Prosastücke (Darmstadt and Neuwied: Luchterhand, 1972), pp. 198-99.

107. This term was coined by Christa Wolf in Hans Kaufmann, “Gespräch mit Christa Wolf,” Weimarer Beiträge, 6 (1974), p. 95.

108. Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, III, Königsbuch, pp. 250-52.

Works Cited

Dischner, Gisela. Bettina von Arnim: Eine weibliche Sozialbiographie aus dem 19. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Wagenbach, 1978.

———. Caroline und der Jenaer Kreis: Ein Leben zwischen bürgerlicher Vereinzelung und romantischer Geselligkeit. Berlin: Wagenbach, 1979.

———. “Der ‘neue Charakter’—Rebell gegen die Tauschgesellschaft,” in L'Invitation au Voyage zu Alfred Sohn-Rethel, eds. Bettina Wassmann and Joachim Müller. Bremen: Wassmann, 1979, 1-31.

d'Eramo, Luce. “La Germania rillege il romanticismo: E Bettina von Arnim.” il manifest, January 27, 1980.

Goodman, Kay. “Spinoza's (Grand) Daughter.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Modern Language Association, Chicago, December 30, 1985.

Huch, Ricarda. Die Romantik. 2 vols. Leipzig: Haessel, 1920.

Kertbeny, K. M. Silhouetten und Reliquien. Vol. I. Wien: Rober und Markgraf, 1861.

Meyer-Hepner, Gertrud. “Das Bettina von Arnim Archiv.” Sinn und Form. 6 (1954), 594-611.

Varnhagen von Ense, K. A. Aus dem Nachlaß Varnhagen's von Ense: Briefe von Stägemann, Metternich, Heine und Bettina von Arnim nebst Briefen, Anmerkungen und Notizen von Varnhagen von Ense. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1865.

Vordtriede, Werner. “Der Berliner Saint-Simonismus,” Heine-Jahrbuch, 14 (1975), 93-110.