[In the following essay, Waldstein examines Goethe's Correspondence with a Child and Günderode, claiming that the difficulty critics have had classifying Arnim's work is due to the experimental nature of her writing.]

Bettine von Arnim first met Goethe in April 1807 in Weimar. From her own recollection of this occasion, one cannot infer much more than naive adoration on the part of the 22-year-old. In a letter to Achim von Arnim, dated July 13, 1807, she writes: “… in Weimar a single wish of mine was granted, the four hours that I spent there, I looked into Goethe's face, who looked back at me in such a friendly way, so friendly!” (… in Weimar ward mir ein einziger Wunsch erfüllt, die vier Stunden die ich dort zubrachte, schaute ich in Goethes Antlitz, der mich wieder so freundlich ansah, so freundlich!²) In another letter to Achim a month later she describes this adoration more precisely: “When I think of him [Goethe], I would like to rove about him eternally, play with him tenderly like a cool wind in the summer heat, give him fresh water, warm and care for him in the winter, a tribute of my fulfilled heart.” (Wenn ich an diesen [Goethe] denke, so möchte ich ewig um ihn herumstreichen, ihn zart anspielen, wie kühler Wind in der Sommerhitze, ihm frisches Wasser reichen, ihn wärmen und pflegen im Winter, ein Tribut meines erfüllten Herzens.³) After the meeting in Weimar, a correspondence between the two continued for four years, characterized by Bettine's unfailing devotion and a friendly, but paternal, attitude on the part of Goethe, which served to maintain the distance he desired from his easily excitable young friend. Bettine actually visited Goethe only a few times, and in 1811 an argument between her and Goethe's wife, Christiane, ended the friendship. She did not see him again until 1824, but even then he remained cool and not interested in reestablishing contact.⁴ Bettine von Arnim's admiration, on the other hand, continued well after Goethe's death, the best expression of which was the statue of him she designed, beginning in 1823, and which Karl Steinhäuser completed as a commission in 1853.

Despite Bettine von Arnim's obsession with Goethe's personality,⁵ she was also critical of him, primarily in political matters. In 1850, reflecting on the struggles of 1848, she writes: “Schiller, in his great human striving—would have contributed to the struggle, while Goethe may have stayed at home.” (Der Schiller in seinem großen menschlichen Streben—der hätte auch mitgestritten, wo Goethe vielleicht zu Hause geblieben wäre.⁶) Bettine and Goethe would certainly have had political differences, had Goethe still been alive in the 1840s. But shared political beliefs were not the basis of their relationship, rather it was primarily von Arnim's fascination with Goethe's personality and image. While one cannot deny that Bettine von Arnim learned to recognize and appreciate extraordinary literary talents and skills through her relationship with Goethe and her familiarity with his works, Hermann Hesse's claim that her writing “would not be without him [Goethe]” is too simplistic in its implication of her complete dependency on Goethe for her own literary production.⁷ She enjoyed the stimulation he provided her and hoped that he would see “his own worth so deeply and firmly in the soul of another” (seinen eignen Wert so tief und fest in der Seele eines anderen⁸), namely in her own. This statement says something about Bettine von Arnim's belief in her own creative abilities and in the exchange of ideas and feelings as the driving force behind not only personal and political development, but also the creative process.

Bettine von Arnim's entire life and work reflect her commitment to such an exchange in the form of a dialogue. Her private life and political activities, her salon and literary works all depend on the exchange of feelings, ideas and experiences between herself and others. She never pretends to be the sole source of that which she produces, but always emphasizes in both form and content that dialogue and communication are essential.

An example of a personal relationship that, in contrast with the one with Goethe, is in fact reciprocal and successful in dialogue is Bettine von Arnim's friendship with Karoline von Günderrode. Günderrode was the second person after Clemens Brentano, Bettine's brother, through whom Bettine von Arnim became acquainted with early romantic concepts. But Günderrode's knowledge of history was the key influential factor in Bettine's cultural development. Without Günderrode's insistence that without an historical base, Bettine von Arnim's interest in contemporary issues could not be developed or transformed into constructive action, von Arnim would probably never have developed an appreciation of the importance of a knowledge of history. As it was, her tendency toward ahistoricity remained a weak point throughout her literary work.

Günderrode's interest in revealing the world of history, mythology and the writers of antiquity to Bettine von Arnim was another expression of her desire to channel Bettine's energies, as Clemens had attempted to do earlier. What distinguished Bettine von Arnim's relationship with Günderrode from the one with her brother and with Goethe was that the conscious effort of creating and developing together through dialogue was the key to their friendship. The early romantic goals of free and equal conversational exchange, the poeticization of the world, a synthesis of the rational and the emotional, and an understanding of nature without the desire to dominate it, were all better realized in their friendship. They created their own love relationship and their own “suspended religion” (Schwebereligion), whose primary principles were courageous action against injustices, “sharing life,” and developing wisdom and Poesie within oneself.⁹ Christa Wolf's description of the relationship between Bettine von Arnim and Günderrode is one of the most accurate and beautiful.

To think together out of love. … Love, to use longing as the means to knowledge; thinkingly, knowingly not having to neglect oneself; to make each other's “temples burn with hot zeal into the future”. … To play with language, to find new words to call one another. … This book [Günderode] represents an experiment into which two women have ventured, holding each other, affirming each other, learning from one another.¹⁰

The friendship between these two young women was founded upon correspondence. Through an open dialogue in letters Bettine von Arnim and Karoline von Günderrode came to understand themselves and one another.

Before addressing the question of how Bettine von Arnim's relationship with Goethe and Karoline von Günderrode affected her literary writings, I will describe her works in general terms. Due to the untraditional technique of compiling and editing personal, documentary and fictional modules, literary critics have had difficulties placing von Arnim's works in established categories. Some sceptics have gone so far as to question whether or not her books can be called novels, while others, such as Waldemar Oehlke, specifically designate them as epistolary novels.¹¹ Debates over categorization limit the discussion of Bettine von Arnim's aesthetic techniques to defining and judging her works according to traditional forms. This indicates a misunderstanding of her literary intent.

To grow beyond that which exists was her personal motto, which found expression, among other places, in her experimentation with writing. Her personal letters are characterized by what appears to be sporadic punctuation, a disregard for grammatical rules, and an over-abundance of dashes and ellipses. These “experiments” in the private sphere served as the basis for the creative process of writing a fictional literary work intended for publication. The original letters were scrutinized and reworked; further experimentation finally resulted in one conversational and four epistolary novels.

None of Bettine von Arnim's novels are written in a closed form. They consist of any or all of the following modules: letters, conversations, diary entries and material from contemporary documents. Her primary interest in existing aesthetic theories and standards was to learn enough from them in order to transcend them, at which point the same process would begin to repeat itself. In her view, ideas and forms must be in a constant state of flux in order for progress to occur; rigidity will result in stagnation and possibly regression. Understanding this commitment to change and open literary forms is central to an interpretation of Bettine von Arnim's novels.

GOETHE'S CORRESPONDENCE WITH A CHILD

Bettine von Arnim's first novel, Goethe's Correspondence with a Child, appeared in 1835, four years after the death of her husband. The timing and choice of topic, namely her relationship with Goethe, are not coincidental. Despite the fact that Bettine and Achim did not live together for extended periods during their marriage and were thereby able to develop individual interests independently, Bettine devoted much of her time, as is evidenced by their correspondence, to giving moral support to her sensitive and often depressed husband. In addition, she bore primary responsibility for their seven children. At the time of Achim's death, the two youngest were four and ten.

The loss of her husband saddened Bettine deeply. Yet she appears to have experienced a kind of rebirth around this time, almost as if bereavement had allowed her to become more aware of her own life. This “coming-to-herself”¹² expressed itself in two ways, both of which gave her more recognition in the public sphere. First, she began the very practical task of working with the poor and sick. Second, she began to define and “realize” herself and her own creativity through the writing of her first novel.¹³ That she would try to take advantage of her correspondence and relationship with Goethe, the most celebrated writer of her time, makes sense.¹⁴

In the analyses of Goethe's Correspondence with a Child, critics have often accused Bettine von Arnim of arrogance in portraying a more positive relationship than the one that actually existed between her and Goethe. Others use it to point out that this novel is yet another piece of evidence to support the fact that Goethe was a legend in his own time.¹⁵ Such interpretations, because they do not accept this novel as a work of art, but rather as von Arnim's sentimental toying with old letters, overlook its central theme, structure and purpose. While von Arnim's love for Goethe appears to be the focal point of the fictional correspondence, she herself made it clear that the emphasis was on “love” and not on Goethe: “I was not even so especially in love with Goethe; I just needed someone to whom I could vent my thoughts, etc.” (So außerordentlich war ich gar nicht in Goethe verliebt; ich mußte nur jemand haben, an dem ich meine Gedanken usw. auslassen konnte.¹⁶ And this is precisely what she does in this novel. She comes to terms with her own self through the relationship with Goethe, which, while it had its origins in a real friendship, is ultimately fictitious. A fusion of the real and the fantastic for the purpose of articulating her own creativity is the goal of this love. In a letter to Clemens she describes the nature of the book in the following manner:

… but precisely that which you criticize, that is the true foundation of everything holy and heavenly in this exquisite book, here the innocent soul does not need to hide, it can freely pronounce what is its greatest bliss, and it does not need to make the entire public believe that that which is true is not true. I, an eighteen-year-old child (for that I was a child, as I am today, you know very well), sat on Goethe's lap and immediately, out of blissful peace, fell asleep at his heart and wrote it in drunken joy to Goethe's mother, and that's it; what would there be to lie about?—I want to tell you that the root of the entire trunk is full of magnificent blossoms … without this occurence, my spirit would not have blossomed through this love.

… aber just was Du tadelst, das ist das wahre Fundament alles Heiligen und Himmlischen in diesem wunderschönen Buch, hier braucht die unschuldige Seele sich nicht zu verbergen, sie kann unbefangen aussprechen, was ihre höchste Seligkeit ist und braucht dem ganzen Publikum nicht weis zu machen das was wahr ist sei unwahr. Ich 18jähriges Kind (denn daß ich ein Kind war wie heute weißt Du wohl) hab auf Goethes Schoß gesessen und bin gleich an seinem Herzen eingeschlafen vor seliger Ruh und habs in trunkener Freude an Goethes Mutter geschrieben, und dabei bleibts; was wäre dabei zu verleugnen?—ich will Dir sagen, daß dies die Wurzel des ganzen Stammes ist voll herrlicher Blüten, der sich Leben, ohne dies Ereignis würde mein Geist nicht geblüht haben durch diese Liebe.¹⁷

The significance of this love lies primarily in its direct relationship to Bettine von Arnim's definition of herself in her creative capacities. She is, on the one hand, genuinely concerned with developing her self as a distinct entity, while at the same time viewing this process as one which is most productive through exchange and reflection. She learned well from the Romantic Movement in her attempt to transcend individuation, but the novel is also filled with mirror motifs, a literary device signaling Bettine's self-reflexiveness. The spontaneity of this creative process, which is simultaneously a self-definition, strikes the reader throughout the novel and is the result of von Arnim's concern with the construction of one's identity through a love relationship based on reciprocity.

Yes, the human being has a conscience, it reminds him that he should not fear anything, nor neglect that which the heart asks of him. Passion is the single key to the world, through it the spirit becomes familiar with and feels everything, how else shall he [the spirit] come into it?—And thus I feel that I have just been born into the spirit through love to him [Goethe]. …

Ja, der Mensch hat ein Gewissen, es mahnt ihn, er soll nichts fürchten, und soll nichts versäumen, was das Herz von ihm fordert. Die Leidenschaft ist ja der einzige Schlüssel zur Welt, durch die lernt der Geist alles kennen und fühlen, wie soll er denn sonst in sie hineinkommen?—Und da fühl ich, daß ich durch die Liebe zu Ihm [Goethe] erst in den Geist geboren bin. …¹⁸

To love is to know and to feel, to have greater insight into oneself and the world. As a result of this at least two-sided and reflexive view of the world and herself, Bettine von Arnim was able to write a novel whose purpose was to express the ideal of authentic communication and mutual creative inspiration. For not only was von Arnim discovering herself through her aesthetic creations, but she was also hoping to inspire Goethe, as her many monologues, on which Goethe reflects, indicate. Mutual reflection is the key to the communication between the “I” and “you” in this novel.¹⁹

The manner in which reflection and communication between the two correspondents is portrayed, gives practical validity to the theoretical conception of communication and creative spirit (Geist), as defined by Goethe, his mother, and Bettine, in the novel. Ideas, experiences and feelings take on a variety of tones and perspectives, depending on the particular context and location of the discussion in progress. Not only do the correspondents' moods change, but so do the places (Frankfurt, Kassel, Munich, Landshut) and the time (1807-1832). Everythings is in flux and constantly undergoing reevaluation. The form of the novel itself is regularly transformed. Its superstructure consists of three main parts. First, the correspondence between Goethe's mother and Bettine, followed by the correspondence between Goethe and Bettine, and then Bettine's diary. According to these divisions, it may at first appear as though only two forms of communication were employed, namely the written dialogue typical of letters and the inner monologue which characterizes diary entries. The novel, however, uses a much broader range of communicative techniques. In the first two parts, one finds not only dialogue, but music, poetry (often by Goethe), tales, many of which are told by Frau Rat Goethe and then retold by Bettine (II, 274-75), and the partners' stream of consciousness.

A good example of this literary technique is the exchange of letters between July 24 and August 3, 1808. Between July 24 and 27 Bettine writes to Goethe every day, and on August 3 Goethe responds (II, 127-33). The central topic of discussion is music, and, more generally, aesthetics. In the letter of July 24 Bettine disagrees with comments made by Goethe. At the beginning of this epistolary sequence the correspondents, as well as the reader, are involved in several conversations: first, the written exchange of letters between Goethe and Bettine; second, earlier conversations which had taken place between Johann Friedrich Heinrich Schlosser (the nephew of Goethe's brother-in-law), Goethe and Bettine and, third, Bettine's reflection on her own series of five letters (before sending them to Goethe). The exchange of ideas does not end here, but is expanded to include the retelling of a conversation between Bettine and Goethe's mother, followed by an account of a walk along the Rhine by moonlight, which von Arnim transforms into a very poetic tale. Interjected between the retelling of conversations, anecdotes and experiences are dreams which are related in such a way as to add yet another quality to von Arnim's unique style—namely an enchanted, fairytale-like aura. Finally, after many reflections on music and aesthetics, Bettine writes five measures of music with lyrics to wish Goethe a good night.

Although logical arguments are not lacking in these letters (see, for example, the first quarter of the July 24 letter, on page 127), Bettine, as a partner in an exchange of ideas, is concerned with becoming conscious of, and expressing, the more intangible components of human experience. To experience life in the full sense of the word is the goal of the Bettine portrayed in this novel, and the letters are proof of this. As Goethe writes relatively early in the correspondence: “Two letters from you, dear Bettine, so rich in experience, just arrived one after the other. …” (Zwei Briefe von Dir, liebe Bettine, so reich am Erlebtem, sind mir kurz nacheinander zugekommen …, II, 120). This bombardment with letters full of “experience” is maintained throughout the novel to the extent that sometimes even Goethe feels he must read them differently than one normally reads letters, in order to be able to respond to her.

I must forgo answering you, dear Bettine; an entire picture book gracefully runs through your fingers; skimming over it, one recognizes treasures, and one knows what one has before one can master the content. I use the best hours to become more thoroughly familiar with them and encourage myself to withstand the electrical shocks of your enthusiasms. At this moment I have barely read the first half of your letter and am too moved to continue.

Ich muß ganz darauf verzichten, Dir zu antworten, liebe Bettine; Du läßt ein ganzes Bilderbuch zierlich durch die Finger laufen; man erkennt im Flug die Schätze, und man weiß, was man hat, noch eh man sich des Inhalts bemächtigen kann. Die besten Stunden benütze ich dazu, um näher mit ihnen vertraut zu werden, und ermutige mich, die elektrischen Schläge Deiner Begeistrungen auszuhalten. In diesem Augenblick hab ich kaum die erste Hälfte Deines Briefs gelesen und bin zu bewegt um fortzufahren.

(II, 133)

Bettine von Arnim chose to portray the epistolary exchange between the characters in Goethe's Correspondence with a Child in an untraditional manner for the purpose of highlighting her concept of authentic communication. The open form and interest in articulating a range of experiences encourages simultaneous self-definition, reflection and discussion with others, both internally and externally. That is to say that not only the characters in the novel, but also the reader are enabled to perceive, feel and understand a spectrum of thoughts, opinions, emotions and attitudes associated with the “primary” information conveyed.

The third part of the novel, the “diary,” is much more staid than the two preceeding it. Its tone is introduced in the last letter of the second part in which Bettine, in great detail, describes her sketches of the monument she hopes to have built in honor of Goethe.

Goethe … deviates from the straight path of the sculptor, for he bends imperceptibly to that side where the crown of laurel, which has been neglected in a moment of excitement, rests in a limp hand. The soul, controlled by a higher power, implores the muse with outpourings of love, while childlike Psyche proclaims through the lyre the secret of his soul, her small feet find no other place, she must use your foot to climb to a higher site. … The small geniuses in the niches along the edge of the chair … all are working for you, they tread wine-grapes for you, they light fires for you and prepare the sacrifice. … Mignon, at the moment on your right side, where she resigns (oh to proclaim this song a thousand times and to sadly soothe the soul which again and again becomes agitated), this allow, that I give up my love so that this apotheosis may take its place.

Der Goethe … weicht schon vom graden Weg der Bildhauer ab, denn er sinkt sich unmerklich nach jener Seite, wo die im Augenblick der Begeistrung vernachlässigte Lorbeerkrone in der losen Hand ruht. Die Seele von höherer Macht beherrscht, die Muse in Liebesergüssen beschwörend, während die kindliche Psyche das Geheimnis seiner Seele durch die Leier ausspricht, ihr Füßchen findet keinen andern Platz, sie muß sich auf dem Deinen den höheren Standpunkt erklettern. … Die kleinen Genien in den Nischen am Rande des Sessels … haben ein jeder ein Geschäft für Dich, sie keltern Dir den Wein, sie zünden Die Feuer an und bereiten das Opfer. … Mignon an Deiner rechten Seite im Augenblick, wo sie entsagt (ach so tausendmal dies Lied aussprechen und die immer wieder aufs neue erregte Seele wehmütig beschwichtigend), dies erlaube, daß ich dieser meiner Liebe zur Apotheose den Platz gegeben. …

(II, 299-300)

While it is certainly true that Bettine von Arnim was more resistant and uncompromising in her search for a creative identity than her fictional counterpart, the Mignon of Goethe's Wilhelm Meister,²⁰ the passivity and loss of sense of self that this character represents in Goethe's novel cannot be overlooked. The sacrificing of the self in order to glorify Goethe becomes obvious in the last sentence of the above quotation. Love, the central theme of Goethe's Correspondence with a Child up to this point, is now replaced by apotheosis. In addition, dialogue, as a form of reciprocity, has disappeared. Although signs of communication, as defined in the first two parts, exist in the third, the diary form eliminates the partner's direct response. Despite the fact that the informal “du”-form of address is regularly used, and some entries are even labelled as letters, Part III of Goethe's Correspondence with a Child consists almost entirely of a monologue in praise of Goethe. Not only are conversational partners eliminated, but also less and less self-reflection occurs, in spite of the first sentence of this part which appears to continue the discussion of love, contemplation, the intellect, etc.: “In this book I would like to write about mysterious thinking in lonely hours of the night, about the maturation of the spirit, as a result of love, as well as of the noon sun.” (In dieses Buch möcht ich gern schreiben von dem geheimnisvollen Denken einsamer Stunden der Nacht, von dem Reifen des Geistes an der Liebe wie an der Mittagssonne, II, 305). Concern with the self gradually diminishes, and an adoration of Goethe takes its place. While the diary can be an effective aesthetic medium for portraying the struggle with, or the development of, oneself, it loses its potential impact in this novel. By substituting the epistolary form with the diary, the theme of mutual love is transformed into Bettine's declaration of her love for Goethe, which culminates in a recollection of the Goethe monument described earlier: “a radiant product of my [Bettine's] love, an apotheosis of my enthusiasm and his [Goethe's] fame. …” (… ein verklärtes Erzeugnis meiner [Bettines] Liebe, eine Apotheose meiner Begeistrung und seines [Goethes] Ruhms … II, 404).

Communication and love have been flawed, because the epistolary partners are not on equal footing. An indication of this is already apparent in the title, despite the many positive connotations of Bettine von Arnim's reference to herself as a child.²¹ With each part of the novel, this discrepancy becomes greater. The exchanges between Bettine and Frau Rat Goethe are fairly regular and although Bettine's letters are almost always longer, Frau Rat also responds at length. Their styles are quite similar in that both employ simple and loosely coordinated compound sentences to express their thoughts.²² In the second part, the styles are quite different in that Goethe's is much more traditional, formal and distancing. Of significance, too, is the fact that Bettine's letters predominate, since this reflects Goethe's disinterest in responding. Finally, in the third part, epistolary or conversational exchanges have entirely disappeared, with the exception of references to earlier conversations and letters.

In order to explain the discrepancy between the first two and the last part of Goethe's Correspondence, one must look to the actual correspondence between Goethe and Bettine von Arnim. Because Goethe did not respond as she would have liked, mutual love and true communication became impossible. Thus, von Arnim created a fictional relationship which corresponded more to what she envisioned, but was unable to transcend the fetters of reality entirely. Therefore, her concept of communication becomes increasingly flawed. This is not to say, however, that the entire novel is nothing more than a prosaic ode to Goethe. As has already been pointed out, the general intention and message of the book is far more complex. The content originated from a personal relationship, and personal, too, was Bettine von Arnim's need to “come to herself” through the process of creative writing. In the public sphere, her synthesis of art and life was reflected not only through the publication of the novel, but also through the parallel activity of hosting a salon where music, aesthetics, creativity and many other themes which appear in Goethe's Correspondence with a Child were discussed. The novel and von Arnim's salon illustrate her concept of communication and the creative process: mutually inspiring communication which develops both the soul and the intellect for the purpose of establishing and articulating a creative identity.

Goethe's ultimately distanced attitude toward Bettine von Arnim must be interpreted as a kind of rejection of both her and her work, despite the lengths to which she went to view their relationship as a productive one, and despite the positive effect it did indeed have on her writing. One wonders whether this might not, at least in part, have led to the fact that Bettine von Arnim turned to her friendship with Karoline von Günderrode for the source of her second novel. These two women shared the common struggle to affirm themselves as women writers in cultural circles for which Goethe shaped the standard for literary production.

GüNDERODE

In 1840 Bettine von Arnim published her second epistolary novel, Günderode. In general, she followed the same form she had used in Goethe's Correspondence. Actual letters von Arnim and the young writer Karoline von Günderrode exchanged between 1802 and 1806 served as the basis of this novel. Self-reflection and self-definition through the establishment of harmony with others is at its center as well.

Isn't it the purpose of human nature to learn to produce itself. … Think about it, Caroline—am I not right, I have vaguely in my mind that out of the spirit of one, the rebirth of all others must proceed.

Ist's nicht der Zweck der menschlichen Natur, daß sie lerne sich selbst erzeugen. … Besinn Dich [Caroline]—hab ich nicht recht, es schwebt mir so dunkel vor, als ob aus dem Geist des einen die Wiedergeburt aller hervorgehen müsse.²³

Both characters attempt to come to terms with themselves and the world in which they live. Bettine's tendency to praise the one she loves is apparent.

You [Caroline] are simply the echo through which my [Bettine's] earthly life perceives the spirit that lives in me, otherwise I would not have, otherwise I would not know, if I did not proclaim it before you.

Du [Caroline] bist der Widerhall nur, durch den mein [Bettines] irdisch Leben den Geist vernimmt, der in mir lebt, sonst hätt ich nicht, sonst wüßt ich nicht, wenn ich's vor Dir nicht ausspräch.

(I, 299)

And yet there is reciprocation, a reflection in the other, in this case expressed as an echo. Bettine's praise of Caroline is not an apotheosis. Günderode is not beyond the reach of Bettine, and the two exchange opinions, experiences and emotions much more equally than the correspondents in Goethe's Correspondence with a Child. Love between the two is presumed, and not thematized and tested to the extent it is in Goethe's Correspondence. As a result, the epistolary dialogue between von Arnim and Günderrode serves the purpose of constructing new concepts appropriate to their experiences. In their search for a creative identity they sketch alternative concepts of history, reality and the individual.

Of primary significance in Günderode, especially in conjunction with von Arnim's later works, is the development of a philosophy of history. This would not have been possible without a character like Caroline, who provides the impetus for Bettine's initiation into thinking in historical terms. That the author, von Arnim, as well as the character, Bettine, openly disdain the study of history in favor of acting in the present becomes evident through anachronisms in the novel²⁴ and statements such as the following:

When the teacher [history teacher] opens his mouth I see into it as though it were a boundless gorge which spews out mammoth bones from the past and all kinds of petrified stuff that no longer wants to sprout, to bloom, a place where sun and rain are not worth it.—Meanwhile the earth burns under my feet for the present, which I would like to court, without first having to lay myself on the anvil of the past and allow myself to be hammered flat.

Tut der Lehrer [Geschichtslehrer] den Mund auf, so sehe ich [Bettine] hinein wie in einen unabsehbaren Schlund, der die Mamutsknochen der Vergangeheit ausspeit und allerlei versteinert Zeug, das nicht keimen, nicht blühen mehr will, wo Sonn und Regen nicht lohnt.—Indes brennt mir der Boden unter den Füßen um die Gegenwart, um die ich mich bewerben möcht, ohne mich grad erst der Vergangenheit auf dem Amboß zu legen und plattschlagen zu lassen.

(I, 297)

However, due to her respect for Caroline's opinions, Bettine agrees to study not only recent history, but also the ancients and even philosophy. As she incorporates historical and philosophical discussions into the novel, Bettine von Arnim's ties to romantic philosophers become apparent.

As Gisela Dischner has pointed out, von Arnim's philosophy of history, as presented in Günderode, is closely related to ideas found in the writings of Novalis, Franz von Baader and Friedrich Schlegel.²⁵ She follows the early romantic tradition. While the past is a significant component of the philosophy of history described in the novel, a dialectic relationship exists between past, present and future. Caroline's and Bettine's reflection on the past leads to an appropriation of mythology and history with an orientation toward the present and future. This complex of ideas dealing with the path of history is introduced through Caroline's concept of a prehistoric world (I, 225), a primordial world of chaos, subconscious desires, dreams and, above all, unity.²⁶ In her first letter to Bettine, the young writer includes a fictional dialogue. Entitled “The Manes,” it is a conversation between teacher and pupil about the relationship between past, present and future. Near the end of the dialogue the teacher summarizes the insights derived from it:

From this capacity of the senses to perceive connections, which others, whose spiritual eye is closed, do not understand, originates the prophetic gift of connecting the present and past with the future, of seeing the necessary connection between causes and effects. Prophecy is a sense of the future.

Aus dieser Sinnenfähigkeit, Verbindungen wahrzunehmen, die andere, deren Geistesauge verschlossen ist, nicht fassen, entsteht die prophetische Gabe, Gegenwart und Vergangenheit mit der Zukunft zu verbinden, den notwendigen Zusammenhang der Ursachen und Wirkungen zu sehen. Prophezeiung ist Sinn für die Zukunft.

(I, 227)

And later Caroline addresses Bettine directly:

… history seemed important to me to freshen up the languid plant life of your [Bettine's] thought, in it lies the strong power of all education—the past propels forward, all seeds of development in us are sown by her hand. She is one of two eternal worlds which surge in the human spirit, the other is the future, from the one originates each wave of thought, and to the other it rushes. … Your genius is indeed eternal in nature, but it comes to you through the past, which rushes into the future in order to make it fruitful; that is the present, the actual life; each moment that is not permeated by the past as it grows into the future is lost time which we must justify. Justification is nothing more than taking back the past, a means to reintegrate that which was lost, for with the recognition of loss, the dew falls on the neglected acre of the past and invigorates the seeds to grow into the future.

… [mir] schien die Geschichte wesentlich, um das träge Pflanzenleben Deiner [Bettines] Gedanken aufzufrischen, in ihr liegt die starke Gewalt aller Bildung—die Vergangenheit treibt vorwärts, alle Keime der Entwicklung in uns sind von ihrer Hand gesäet. Sie ist die eine der beiden Welten der Ewigkeit, die in dem Menschengeist wogt, die andre ist die Zukunft, daher kommt jede Gedankenwelle, und dorthin eilt sie. … Dein Genius ist von Ewigkeit zwar, doch schreitet er zu Dir heran durch die Vergangenheit, die eilt in die Zukunft hinüber, sie zu befruchten; das ist Gegenwart, das eigentliche Leben; jeder Moment, der nicht von ihr durchdrungen in die Zukunft hineinwächst, ist verlorne Zeit, von der wir Rechenschaft zu geben haben. Rechenschaft ist nichts anders als Zurückholen des Vergangenen, ein Mittel, das Verlorne wieder einzubringen, denn mit dem Erkennen des Versäumten fällt der Tau auf den vernachlässigten Acker der Vergangenheit und belebt die Keime, noch in die Zukunft zu wachsen.

(I, 295)

As the novel continues, the concept of change, which involves progression and transcendence, becomes the dominant factor in the two women's discussion of history and the individual's role in it.

… in him [the human being] … also lies time, and the work of creation is nothing other than transforming time into eternity, but he who does not transform time into eternity or who pulls eternity down into time, is doing something evil, for all that ends is evil.

… in ihm [dem Menschen] … liegt auch die Zeit, und es ist das Werk des Erschaffens nichts anders als die Zeit umwandeln in die Ewigkeit, wer aber die Zeit nicht umwandelt in die Ewigkeit oder die Ewigkeit herabzieht in die Zeit, der wirkt Böses, denn alles was ein Ende nimmt, das ist böse.

(I, 239)

Through the interaction of Caroline and Bettine, von Arnim creates an alternative philosophy of history in which past and present, dream and reality, and mythology and history are synthesized for the purpose of giving the future a qualitatively different direction. As Christa Wolf has described it, present and future reality are perceived and articulated from a viewpoint based not only on classical sources, but also on more archaic, and sometimes matriarchal, patterns. Teachings from India, Asia and the Middle East made possible for Caroline and Bettine a new reading of “mythology.”

Eurocentrism has been infringed upon, with it the absolute sovereignty of consciousness. Unconscious powers, which search for expression in drives, desires, dreams, are perceived in these letters, described, recognized. Thereby the circle of experience, and the circle of that which is experienced as reality, is enlarged.²⁷

Connected with Bettine's and Caroline's romantic philosophy of history is a world view which incorporates non-rational elements. For this reason, qualities such as child-like naiveté, innocence, the ability to display emotions, the desire to become one with nature and sensitivity are regarded as highly as the ability to reason, to enlighten, to think or to be objective. In an essay, which Bettine includes in a letter to Caroline, the younger friend articulates her thoughts about the nature of humankind. This essay explains in some detail the interaction of faith, thought, intellect and “being” in the individual. Due to the intangible nature of such concepts, discourses like this one are somewhat excursive but reflect an attempt at articulating spheres of existence and experience which are traditionally viewed as inexpressible. In the process Bettine creates a phrase that sums up the state she is describing, “unconscious consciousness” (bewußtlose Bewußtheit, I, 230).

Just as Bettine acquires a certain level of historical consciousness through her friendship with Caroline, so does the latter become more aware of “a new life … in which the soul may no longer deny its higher characteristics. …” (ein neues Leben … in dem die Seele ihre höheren Eigenschaften nicht mehr verleugnen darf … I, 318). The two women develop together and, to a certain extent, realize, an utopian vision in which body and soul, sensuality and intellect, Poesie and “a higher life of action” (ein höheres Tatenleben) coexist in a harmoniously functioning organism (I, 318-19). Their concept of history and reality, one which incorporates dreams and fantasy, has obvious implications for their concept of the individual. The ideal individual is one who can both reason and fantasize at the same time.

One of the most important reasons for Bettine von Arnim's success at painting such an alternative picture for her readers is that she portrays two characters who not only discuss, but also, more importantly, embody the romantic concept of Poesie. As Christa Wolf, somewhat enviously, writes:

Should I keep silent the fact that something in me contracts in envy and sorrow when I read and imagine how full of innocence—which does not mean: casually and unencumbered—two young women … deal with one another; for Poesie, the actual humanity, flourishes only among the innocent; they had that; we have poems, but Poesie as a form of social interaction is not possible for us. …²⁸

Von Arnim rejects the aesthetic norms passed down to her from the eighteenth century. Neither her characters nor the literary construct into which she places them adhere to existing systems and theories. The mixture of genres (poetry, tales, essays, letters, conversations) and the formlessness of this novel enable her to relate a panorama of experiences. In this sense there exist clear similarities to Goethe's Correspondence with a Child, and the influence of the early Romantic Movement is also quite evident.

What distinguishes Günderode from both von Arnim's earlier work and from other romantic literature, is the intense conversational nature of this second novel. “The spirit of talk who dwells in my [Bettine's] breast has always chatted with you [Caroline]. …” (Der Plaudergeist in meiner [Bettines] Brust hat immerfort geschwätzt mit Dir [Caroline] … I, 223). Thus begins the novel, and on the third page the letter is already replaced with conversational poetry, Caroline's “The Manes.” Many of Karoline von Günderrode's writings are interspersed throughout the letters, and while much of this “fiction” within the novel is in the form of traditional poetry, pieces of conversational poetry are also included (See, for example, “The Wanderer's Descent” (360-63), and “The Franconian in Egypt” (534-36). Even the more conventional poetry is filled with the pronouns “I” and “you,” which emphasize the interpersonal nature of her literary works, despite the occasional absence of the conversational partner in the poem itself.

Beyond the use of art forms as vehicles of conversational exchange, the letters also contain recorded conversations with third parties, which one woman wants to share with the other. Bettine, for example, had a conversation with her friend, the Jewish teacher Ephraim, and it functions as the basis for her own reflection, which manifests itself in one letter to Caroline as a conversation with herself on the interconnection between body, spirit and intellect (I, 498-500). This interior dialogue, in which the imaginary conversational partner are the stars, is sufficiently developed to provide the impetus for Caroline's response in the following letter. Similarily, letters from and to third parties are recounted. This self-perpetuating and vibrant conversational tone, in conjunction with the open form, allows the two main characters, as well as the reader, to participate in emotional and intellectual growth, a response which is determined and defined communally:

It almost seems too crazy, dear Bettine, that you so solemnly declare yourself my student, I could just as well consider myself to be yours, but it makes me very happy, and there is some truth in it when a teacher is inspired by the student, so I can, with good reason, call myself yours.

Es kommt mir bald zu närrisch vor, liebe Bettine, daß Du Dich so feierlich für meinen Schüler erklärst, ebenso könnte ich mich für Deinen halten wollen, doch macht es mir viele Freude, und es ist auch etwas Wahres daran, wenn ein Lehrer durch den Schüler angeregt wird, so kann ich mit Fug mich den Deinen nennen.

(I, 230)

Such cooperation, mutual respect and reciprocal enrichment characterize the relationship between these two women and distinguishes it from all other friendships portrayed in Bettine von Arnim's novels. The two women reflect on themselves, each other, and they find themselves reflected in each other.²⁹ Christa Wolf goes so far as to suggest it may be unique in all of German literature.³⁰ The love that surfaces through the letters and poetry in Günderode comprises a distinct sense of community, self-awareness and spiritual growth.³¹

Although this novel did not enjoy as much popularity as Goethe's Correspondence with a Child, it was widely read by students, the younger generation to whom it was dedicated. It was an alternative to traditional works of literature, an experiment with a truly dialogic mode of perception and expression. Compared with her other epistolary novels, in particular Goethe's Correspondence, it is the most successful in reaching von Arnim's goal of authentic communication. The epistolary partners are women, and in that sense equal. They construct viable identities for themselves that are based in dialogue; they reciprocally affirm their artistic creativity and explore the means by which to construct alternatives to the society in which they live.

In both Goethe's Correspondence with a Child and Günderode Bettine von Arnim breaks with literary tradition. That the voice which emerges in all of her works is the result of gender-specific experiences becomes clear when one considers that she did not begin to write any of her novels until she was relieved of her “duties” as wife and mother, that is until after her husband had died and most of her seven children were grown. Moreover, she is most successful at fulfilling her own goals in writing when her partner in conversation is a woman. Both the form and the content of her novels are determined by close friendships. Karoline von Günderrode did not reject Bettine von Arnim, as Goethe did, and von Arnim could therefore include her concept of authentic communication in a novel based on this reciprocal relationship. Bettine von Arnim appears to have first looked to Goethe for aesthetic guidance but then ultimately created her own aesthetic which is driven by reciprocity in friendship and conversation. The best example of this aesthetic put into practice is Günderrode. Deviation from the standard, while simultaneously invoking the name of the standard bearer of modern German literature (Goethe), was certainly enough to deny Bettine von Arnim entry into the literary canon of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Her comeback over the course of the last fifteen years is long overdue and most welcome.

Notes

1. This article is a revised version of parts of Chapter III in my book Bettine von Arnim and the Politics of Romantic Conversation (Columbia, SC, Camden House: 1988). All translations are mine. As much as possible, I have retained the grammatical irregularities that are characteristic of some of the writers I quote.

2. “To Achim von Arnim,” 13 July 1807, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, ed. Joachim Müller (Frechen: Bartmann, 1961), V, 149.

3. “To Achim von Arnim,” August 1807, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, V, 151.

4. Even as late as 1830 Goethe writes in his diary (August 7): “Refused Frau von Arnim's importunity.” (Frau von Arnims Zudringlichkeit abgewiesen.) Quoted from Gisela Kähler, Bettine: Eine Auswahl aus den Schriften und Briefen der Bettina von Arnim-Brentano (Berlin: Verlag der Nation, 1952), 16.

5. Bettine von Arnim denied any support of the existing Goethe cult. See “To K. M. Kertbeny,” 16 June 1850, Letter 6; Markgraf, 1861, I, 109-10. But she contributed to it independently (and somewhat belatedly), rather than through group adoration, as was the case in Rahel Varnhagen's salon, for example.

6. Ibid., 111.

7. Hermann Hesse, “Goethe und Bettina,” Gesammelte Werke, (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1970), XII, 193.

8. “To Achim von Arnim,” 7 March 1808, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, V, 134.

9. Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, ed. Gustav Konrad, Die Günderode (Frechen: Bartmann, 1959), I, 331-32.

10. Christa Wolf, “Nun ja! Das nächste Leben geht aber heute an,” Sinn und Form, 2 (März/April 1980), 414.

11. Waldemar Oehlke, Bettina von Arnims Briefromane, ed. Alois Randle, Gustav Roethe and Erich Schmidt. Palaestra: Untersuchungen und Texte aus der deutschen und englischen Philologie, No. 41 (Berlin: Mayer und Müller, 1905).

12. “This coming-to-oneself—what is it?” (Was ist das: Dieses Zusich-selber-Kommen des Menschen?) is a quotation from Johannes R. Becher which Christa Wolf uses to introduce her novel The Quest for Christa T. and which very accurately expresses Bettine von Arnim's search for self-actualization at this point in her life. Christa Wolf, The Quest for Christa T. (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1970). That a parallel can be drawn between these two writers is substantiated by Christa Wolf's interest in Bettine von Arnim as an individual and as a writer. See Wolf, “Nun ja!”, 392-419 and the edition of von Arnim's second novel to which Wolf wrote the afterword, Bettina von Arnim, Die Günderode: Briefroman (Frankfurt: Insel Verlag, 1981). In her biography of Bettine von Arnim, Ingeborg Drewitz also alludes to this subjective interest in the chapter entitled “The I Bettine” (Das Ich Bettine). Ingeborg Drewitz, Bettine von Arnim: Romantik, Revolution, Utopie (Düsseldorf: Diederichs, 1969), 150-64.

13. It is interesting to note that this process parallels what Hélène Cixous calls écriture féminine. Cixous points to the interconnectedness of the female writing process and the search for self-identity. See Hélène Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” in New French Feminisms, ed. Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1980), 245. For an analysis of the connection between Cixous' theory and Bettine von Arnim's Günderode see Elke Frederiksen and Monika Shafi, “‘Sich im Unbekannten suchen gehen’: Bettina von Arnims ‘Die Günderode’ als weibliche Utopie,” in Inge Stephan and Carl Pietzcker (eds.), Frauensprache—Frauenliteratur?: Für und Wider einer Psychoanalyse literarischer Werke (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1986), 54-61.

14. In April 1832, after Goethe's death, Bettine von Arnim asked for her letters to Goethe from Kanzler von Müller of Weimar. See Drewitz, 147.

15. See, for example, Hans von Arnim, Bettina von Arnim (Berlin: Haude und Spenersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1963), 78-81, and Ina Seidel, Drei Dichter der Romantik: Clemens Brentano, Bettina, Achim von Arnim (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1944), 158, 178-79.

16. Camillus Wendeler, ed., Briefwechsel des Freiherrn Karl Hartwig Gregor von Meusebach mit Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm (1880; reprint Wallut bei Wiesbaden: Dr. Martin Sändig oHG, 1974), 406.

17. “To Clemens Brentano,” n. d., [End of January 1834], Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, V, 179.

18. Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, II, 127-33. Subsequent references to this edition of Goethes Correspondence with a Child (Goethes Briefwechsel mit einem Kinde) are included in the text in parentheses.

19. See Konrad, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, II, 715.

20. See Konstanze Bäumer's analysis of Bettine von Arnim's relationship to this character in Bäumer's book “Bettine, Psyche, Mignon”: Bettina von Arnim und Goethe (Verlag Hans-Dieter Heinz: Stuttgart, 1986), 118-44.

21. Ibid.

22. Oehlke, 304-05.

23. Gustav Konrad, ed., Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, Die Günderode, I, 374. Subsequent references to this edition of Die Günderode will be included in the text in parentheses.

24. See Gustav Konrad's discussion of a specific case. Konrad, Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe, I, 55-57.

25. Gisela Dischner, Bettine von Arnim: Eine weibliche Sozialbiographie aus dem 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Wagenbach, 1978), 133-35.

26. For an example of how the individual senses and experiences this world, see Caroline's poem “The Wanderer's Descent” (Des Wanderers Niederfahrt), included in a letter to Bettine. Die Günderode, I, 360-63.

27. See Christa Wolf, “Der Schatten eines Traumes (Karoline von Günderrode, 1978)” in Christa Wolf, Fortgesetzter Versuch: Aufsätze Gespräche, Essays (Leipzig: Reclam, 1979), 321-22 and Gisela Dischner, Bettina von Arnim, 142.

28. Wolf, “Nun ja!”, 411.

29. For a contemporary feminist discussion of the role of reflection in the search for oneself and in the establishment of female friendship, see Elisabeth Lenk, “Die sich selbst verdoppelnde Frau,” Ästhetik und Kommunikation 25 (September 1976), 87.

30. Wolf, “Nun ja!”, 414. Although Wolf does not cite it, the passage from which she quotes Die Günderode is in the aforementioned edition, page 259.

31. See, for example, Caroline's letter to Bettine, in which “this organic meshing” of the two women is articulated in a letter and a poem. Die Günderode, I, 241-44.