[In the following essay, Härtl explores the connections between Arnim's work and that of the Young Hegelians, particularly David Friedrich Strauß, and the attacks on both by the Prussian Protestant orthodoxy.]

The works of Bettina Brentano-von Arnim that earned her the greatest recognition were published in the years between 1835 and 1844. During that decade the Young Hegelians also published texts “more emancipatory and revolutionary than anything that had ever been kindled in the minds of the German bourgeoisie” (das Freisinnigste und Revolutionärste was jemals vom deutschen Bürgertum hervorgebracht wurde).¹ The year 1835 witnessed not only the publication of Brentano-von Arnim's first book (Goethe's Correspondence with a Child [Goethe's Briefwechsel mit einem Kinde]) but also that of the first work of David Friedrich Strauß, The Life of Jesus (Das Leben Jesu), a critique of the Gospels which sparked the Young Hegelian movement. After 1844 when The Spring Wreath (Clemens Brentanos Frühlingskranz) was released and the Young Hegelian movement slackened, Brentano-von Arnim's later publications received much less attention. The fact that the simultaneous notoriety of Bettina Brentano-von Arnim and the Young Hegelians was far more than a superficial coincidence shall be demonstrated in the following through the reconstruction of their relationship in the context of the times.

For this purpose the position of the Prussian Protestant orthodoxy yields the greatest insight. Its critique of Brentano-von Arnim's work stressed her intellectual relationship with Strauß and the Hegelian Left. In the Newspaper of the Protestant Church (Evangelische Kirchen-Zeitung), which was edited by the Berlin professor of theology Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Brentano-von Arnim was sharply attacked, first in 1837/1838 because of the Goethe-Book and then in 1844 because of her text The King's Book (Dies Buch gehört dem König). In 1837 she was accused of “idolatry” and of confusing “in a sad delusion Goethe with God”.² A year later, the Duisburg clergyman Johann Peter Lange, another opponent of Strauß,³ testified to her “dependence” on “the modern intellectual movement” (Weltgeist).⁴ He again accused her of “idolatry” and “worship of human beings,” called the Goethe-Book “a bad omen” for “the spread of idolatry and worship of man, particularly the worship of genius” and declared the glorification of Napoleon a further example of the “cult of genius in our time”.⁵ In 1844 the Halle historian Heinrich Leo also denounced Brentano-von Arnim in the Newspaper of the Protestant Church on account of The King's Book. As a defender of “Prussia's life breath, Law and Order,”⁶ he insinuated that she was taking a leading role against state and religion. “That horrible old hag“⁷ who, in The King's Book, “grinned at Frau Rat (Goethe's mother) from under a saddle”⁸ during the looting of the Frankfurt Arsenal, is interpreted as a warning figure masking Brentano-von Arnim herself. “Woe! And three times woe … if you let a gang of depraved minds gain wider influence, lying and infecting others more than they already have, fighting along with this old woman who grins from under a saddle.”⁹ He had already proposed the expressions “gang” and “sect” for the philosophical avant garde in 1838 in his polemic treatise “The little Hegelians” (“The Hegelingen”).¹⁰

The persistence with which the Prussian orthodoxy raised its militant voice to connect Brentano-von Arnim with the Young Hegelians corresponds to the real nature of their relationship. As early as the fall of 1838 Strauß had written an essay “The Transitory and The Enduring in Christianity” (“Vergängliches und Bleibendes im Christentum”) in which he responded to the attack against his Life of Jesus in the Newspaper of the Protestant Church. In this essay he turned the anti-Brentano-von Arnim polemic into a positive statement.

The Protestant Church Paper was quite right when it condemned the worship of the man on the Vendome column [Napoleon] and the Olympian of Weimar as a new idolatry. In fact these are gods which threaten … the God of the Protestant Church Paper. While Heine [Die Nordsee (1826) Third part. On the chroniclers of Napoleon] compared the accounts of O'Meara, Antommarchi, and Las Casas to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, how long will it be until people see a new gospel according to John in Bettina's letters? … It is the tendency of the time to worship the manifestation of God in those creative minds who have influenced and vitalized humankind. For educated human beings in these times there is only one cult which has survived the religious decay of the preceding era—lament it or praise it, but you will not be able to deny it—and that is the worship of genius.¹¹

In his essay Strauß also tried to establish a connection between reason and religion. As “the desire and ability of humans as finite beings,” reason “puts us and all that is given to us into a relationship with what is higher and highest and makes this relationship as close and real as possible so that all human thinking, feeling, and willing is in greatest harmony.” In this respect it is “nothing other than religion, and the founder of that religion is then the one who enables humanity to develop this sensibility, without which a human being cannot exist and would not conceive of culture, state, art and philosophy.”¹²

Strauß's statements about the “cult of genius,” about the identity of reason and religion, and about the dignity of the “founder of religion” can be shown to be part of the spiritual substance of Brentano-von Arnim's book Günderode (Die Günderode) also, in the discussions between Bettine and Günderrode, about the possibility of each to become a genius (for God “recreates himself as genius in the minds of human beings”),¹³ about the connection between prayer and thought (“Thinking is Praying” [“Denken ist Beten”])¹⁴ about a “floating religion” [“Schwebe-Religion”], and about the intent “to found a religion in which humanity feels whole again” (eine Religion [zu] stiften für die Menschheit, bei der's ihr wieder wohl wird).¹⁵ The homage to persons of genius in Günderode corresponded to the requirements of the Young Hegelians to focus attention on the most progressive representatives in the history of humankind. The emphasis on Mirabeau and Napoleon converged with the Young Hegelians' interest in the French Revolution. The respect with which Brentano-von Arnim describes her grandparents La Roche corresponded to the relation of the Hegelian Left to the Enlightenment. Brentano-von Arnim's critique of religion resembled that of the Young Hegelians. They agreed also that the evil of the present would have to be changed by the next generation to a better future.

However in one essential point, Brentano-von Arnim differed from the Young Hegelians. To be sure she intended, while working on Günderode to continue to proclaim the “idolatry of human beings” of which she had been accused, indeed to perfect it;¹⁶ and she also acknowledged a “great respect“¹⁷ for Strauß. But in contrast to the notion of philosophy as a science she proposed an all-inclusive and creative way of gaining knowledge. In a letter written between May 27 and May 30, 1839 she says:

What is philosophy?—The free choice of all intellectual searching and desires. Even more: everything that emanates from the basic principles of particularity, be it thought or action or simply the instinctive use of individual strengths. … Free thought generates ultimate truth.

Was ist Philosophie?—Der freie Wahlplatz aller geistigen Strebungen; ja mehr noch: alles was aus dem Urprinzip der Eigenthümlichkeit hervorgeht sei es Dencken, sei es Handeln, sei es blos instincktmässiges Üben einzelner Kräfte. … Freies Dencken ist Erzeugen der Wahrheit.¹⁸

Contradicting the author of the essay “The Transitory and The Enduring in Christianity” she argued in the same letter: “if Dr. Strauß takes miracles apart, he does something superfluous, and poets should defend themselves against this destruction of the crystals of divine power” (wenn der Docktor Strauß die Wunder wegdemonstrirt so thut er etwas überflüssiges, und die Poeten sollten sich gegen ihn wehren, daß er die Kristalle göttlicher Fähigkeiten zerstört.)¹⁹ In all probability this critique was the result of her reading the re-issue of Strauß's essay in Two Peaceful Papers (Zwei friedliche Blätter) which was published in the spring of 1839.²⁰ Brentano-von Arnim juxtaposed poetry against the discipline of philosophy, the affirmation of the miraculous against the logical dissection of miracles, feeling against detached judgment. And against thinking in systems she proposed an unsystematic worldview, a conglomerate of all realizations which the philosophical traditions had attained, and her principle that “the balance of the senses is the gate to all wisdom” (Sinnliche Gerechtigkeit ist die Pforte zu aller Weisheit).²¹ It is difficult therefore to reconstruct a philosophical discourse in the strict sense of the word between Brentano-von Arnim and the movement of the Young Hegelians. More rewarding and more illuminating as to Brentano-von Arnim's intentions is to reverse the approach and examine the opinions of the Young Hegelians about her.

An essay written by Strauß about Brentano-von Arnim in 1838 was not published, neither then nor later. Strauß had sent it to Joseph Savoye, editor of the Panorama de l'Allemagne in Paris who was to have published four volumes of this work. However, only the first one, without Strauß's essay, did in fact appear.²² The well-known positions of the Bible critic towards “Germany's undisputably foremost woman author“²³ make it patent that he did not intend to analyze her work according to philosophical or theological criteria, but he appreciated them as poetical achievements. He was convinced of the “independent poetical worth“²⁴ of the Goethe-Book and he similarly extolled the “artistic value“²⁵ of the letters in Günderode. “From a historical viewpoint“²⁶ as well as in the attempt to portray “the idea, the total picture“²⁷ of the title characters, both these books he considered better in conveying the mood of the time than the labored philological critiques of Friedrich Wilhelm Riemer and Johann Friedrich Heinrich Schlosser. These critics had tried to reduce Brentano-von Arnim's reputation as author by accusing her of fictionalizing, to which Strauß remarked “On the contrary, whenever you discredit the chronicler you must credit the poet” (Im Gegentheil! was ihr der Erzählerin nehmt, legt ihr der Dichterin zu).²⁸ Strauß had had to pay for his controversial views by retreating into private life, and when Günderode appeared he was inclined to identify with the friend of Brentano-von Arnim's youth: “I cannot imagine a lovelier girl than this Günderode, I carry her image in my innermost heart” (Ein lieblicheres weibliches Wesen als diese Günderode ist nicht zu denken; ich habe ihr Bildnis in meinem Innersten aufgestellt).²⁹ He confessed that his interest was somewhat pathological: “The flight from reality plays a part in it.”³⁰ On October 12, 1840 he wrote a letter to the author³¹ in which he gratefully acknowledged the book as a literary monument to Günderrode:

Your Highness

Have given me great surprise and joy by presenting me with your book Günderode. I had already read the book when it first appeared, and I read it so quickly and uninterruptedly that I was totally enraptured and captivated by it. Your purpose to preserve the memory of your deceased friend and to endear her to a receptive audience has been entirely successful, if I may judge by my own experience. The beautiful picture irresistibly bewitches one's mind with its gentle magnificence. The pure white light in the letters of one writer and the glow and change of rich colors in those of the other complement each other and heighten the effect. But an infinite anguish remains in the reader's mind, that such a beautiful and harmonious life had to end so early and in such harsh dissonance. And this emotional and personal interest, which transcends the purely aesthetic, makes one wish that one day circumstances might allow you to inform your readers in greater detail about your friend's tragic decision and about its motivation and gradual formation. Your charming description has made me long, too, for her likeness, and I would be very grateful if you could inform me if her portrait still exists somewhere.

I am delighted that your highness has confidence in my appreciation of your writing. Works such as your two correspondences are for me true food for the mind. The view of the world and emotional attitude represented in them and the images which they conjure up form parts of something positive which compensates for the negative which I must condemn in so much of what is sacred to others; or put differently, those new gods expel the old ones from the temple.

Searching among my things for something appropriate to present to you I find only the enclosed little book which I commend to your friendly reception. It was written during a bad time and in a depressed mood which, thank God, has now passed for me. It was beneficial to the first essay but an obstacle to the second—the last half is of no value.

Finally, kindly accept the feelings of heartfelt gratitude and sincere reverence with which I remain

Your devoted

D. F. Strauß

Stuttgart, Oct. 12, 1840

The “little book” was Two Peaceful Papers with the revised edition of the two essays on “Justinus Kerner” and on “The Transitory and The Enduring in Christianity.” The same year that saw the publication of Günderode also saw that of the first volume of Strauß's second main work Christian Doctrine (Die christliche Glaubenslehre), in which he sharply criticized church dogma and postulated a new religion based on more recent religious experiences. Brentano-von Arnim's Günderode had proclaimed such experiences and announced a non-dogmatic emancipated religion.

The example of Strauß contradicts the widely held view that the Young Hegelians maintained a principled hostility to anything Romantic.³² More correctly, their relation to Romanticism in general, and to Brentano-von Arnim in particular, was divided; the manifesto by Ruge and Echtermeyer “Protestantism and the Romantic” (“Der Protestantismus und die Romantik”) which was published by the main journalistic organ of the Young Hegelians—the Halle Yearbooks for German Art and Science (Hallesche Jahrbücher für deutsche Wissenschaft und Kunst)—between October 1939 and March 1940 was not an expression of a uniformly held anti-Romantic attitude. Although polemics against the convergence of Romantic subjectivism and reactionary politics dominated the Yearbooks, the authors of several articles differentiated between Romanticism as an aesthetically legitimate expression of that which is subjective and psychological and Romanticism as a political ideology.³³ In articles not contained in the Yearbooks the generalizations of the manifesto were even attacked directly. It is significant that Eduard Meyen reproached Arnold Ruge:

Honestly speaking, you go too far in your polemic against Romanticism, for you are becoming a fanatic. Oppose Romanticism and the erroneous direction of Romanticism as much as you like, but do not entirely destroy for us Romanticism as the world of emotions and feelings. I can demonstrate as well as you do what is unclear in the works of the Romantic poets, but I love them all the same. I will not let Eichendorff, Brentano, Arnim and Tieck be taken away from me.

Aufrichtig gesagt: Sie treiben Ihre Polemik gegen die Romantik zu weit, denn Sie werden fanatisch. Bekämpfen Sie den Romantismus, die verkehrte Richtung der Romantik, soviel Sie wollen, aber töten Sie uns nicht die Romantik, die Welt der Gefühle. Ich weiß sehr gut so wie Sie nachzuweisen, was unklar ist an den Produktionen der romantischen Dichter, aber ich liebe sie darum doch, ich lasse mir Eichendorff, Brentano, Arnim, Tieck nicht rauben.³⁴

He [Meyen] claimed it was “general opinion” that the manifesto presented Romanticism in a “tendentiously significant and important way but not exhaustively and absolutely.”³⁵

Meyen himself contributed to a more balanced assessment of Romanticism. For the Halle Yearbooks he wrote a detailed and favorable review of the first volumes of Achim von Arnim's Collected Works (Sämmtliche Werke). They were published beginning in 1839 by Wihelm Grimm at Brentano-von Arnim's request.³⁶ He also defended Bettina Brentano-von Arnim and progressive Romanticism in other journals. From a letter by Karl Friedrich Köppens to Karl Marx we know that [Meyen] had allowed an open letter of hers to be published in the General Newspaper of Augsburg (Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung).³⁷ In the letter she had supported Berlin's chief music director, Spontini, who had been charged with lèse majesty: in the Berlin journal Athenäum, Meyen acknowledged Bettina Brentano-von Arnim with respect to Günderode as “a phenomenon unparalleled in its kind, and without equal in any other literature at any time” (eine Erscheinung, die einzig in ihrer Art ist, wie sie keine andere Literatur keiner Zeit aufzuweisen hat).³⁸ She seemed “in many ways to be a better representative of German Romanticism than the poets of the Romantic School themselves, because she has made herself the subject of her poetry, herself with all her fancies, her feelings, thoughts and her entire natural being” (in vieler Beziehung eine reichere Verkünderin der deutschen Romantik, wie die Dichter der romantischen Schule selbst, denn sie selbst hat sich zum Stoff des Dichtens gemacht, sie selbst mit all' ihren Neigungen, Empfindungen, Gedanken, ihrem ganzen natürlichen Sinn).³⁹ As late as 1843 he remarked that she belonged “in her basic direction to the era of Romanticism” and represented the “least clouded, clearest and most characteristic product of German Romanticism” (das ungetrübteste, reinste und eigenthümlichste Product der deutschen Romantik) while avoiding its “errors.”⁴⁰

Among the Young Hegelians an illuminating discussion arose in the Halle Yearbook (after July 1841: German Yearbook [Deutsche Jahrbücher]) about the book Günderode. It began with the publication of an article by Moriz Carrière, Brentano-von Arnim's most ardent supporter. Turning against ideologues who did not attribute any real validity to Romanticism, Carrière made the following differentiation:

Bettina's Romanticism is the Romanticism of the future, the all-pervading breath of spring's rapture. She does not live in the past: For her only the eternal prevails. It has its roots there and flowers in the present. … The Romanticism of the past looks for firm ground to anchor its own idées fixes. It turns to Catholicism in whose affirmative attitude its sensual restlessness achieves a finite external satisfaction; the Romanticism of the future constructs a floating religion from the premonitions of the heart, the experiences and thoughts of the present as a joyful temple to living beauty.

Bettina's Romantik ist die der Zukunft, der alldurchathmende Hauch der Frühlingsbegeisterung. Sie lebt nicht in der Vergangenheit: ihr gilt nur das Ewige, welches dort Wurzel gefaßt hat, daß es in der Gegenwart blühe … Die Romantik der Vergangenheit sucht das Feste, um die eigenen fixen Ideen daran anzuknüpfen, sie wendet sich zum Katholicismus, in dessen Positivität ihre sinnliche Ruhelosigkeit zu einer endlichen äußerlichen Befriedigung kommt; die Romantik der Zukunft erbaut aus den Ahnungen des eigenen Herzens, aus den Erlebnissen und Gedanken der Gegenwart eine schwebende Religion als den heitern Tempeldienst des lebendigen Schönen.⁴¹

The “main idea of this wonderful book,” Carrière declares, is”that everything in nature strives toward the infinite and finds itself in the spirit” (wie alles in der Natur zum Unendlichen strebt und im Geiste sich findet).⁴²

Arnold Ruge, along with Echtermeyer, was not only the author of the manifesto “Protestantism and Romanticism” but also the editor of the Halle Yearbook. He had some reservations about Brentano-von Arnim, “the old hag,”⁴³ but he accepted the enthusiastic review of her apologist. He wrote to Carrière that she turned out to be “somewhat lyrical” and “not to be used as basis for objective opinion; nothing gets spiled more easily than such a vain lady” (man könne darauf nicht fußen, wenn man ein objectives Urtheil haben will, und nichts ist leichter verdorben, als so ein eitles Frauenzimmer).⁴⁴ The differences among the Left about Brentano-von Arnim stemmed not only from their relation to Romanticism, but above all from personal religious convictions and the announcement of a new religion in Günderode. This was revealed in a letter which Heinrich Bernhard Oppenheim wrote to Ruge.

the whole difference between you and Carrière seems to me to be the fact that you reject Christianity as an antiquated superstition, as medieval heretics did long ago, before Montesquieu's Lettres Personnes, while he still believes in the possibility of incorporating modern culture and thereby salvaging certain concepts and feelings which he continues to describe as Christian, because an abrupt break in the development of religious consciousness among the general population is unthinkable.—Judging by your convictions you must be a pantheist, as he is, in the Hegelian manner transcending Spinoza … with all respect for her in other matters, I do not see Bettine as the canonical work of a new religion. But that it contains much of this religious pantheism, a version of which is appropriate for a strong people, like that of Schelaleddin-Ranis [Dschelaled-Din Rumi, 1207-1273, a mystic pantheistic poet] was for Persia, I cannot deny. Nor can I disagree on this with Carrière, a man of such poetic sensitivity.

scheint mir der ganze Widerspruch zwischen Ihnen und Carrière der zu sein, daß Sie das Christenthum als einen antiquirten Aberglauben verwerfen, wie das im Grunde vor Montesquieus Lettres Personnes schon manche mittelalterliche Ketzer gethan, während er die moderne Bildung noch glaubt in ein Gebiet der Vorstellung und Empfindung retten zu können, deren Gebilde er dann noch christlich nennt, weil in der Entwicklung des religiösen Bewußtseyns im Volke kein Bruch denkbar ist.—Sie sind, dem Inhalte Ihrer Überzeugungen nach, gewiß Pantheist, wie er, auf Hegel'sche Weise über Spinoza hinaus … ich halte ebenso wenig, bei aller sonstigen Verehrung, die Bettine für das canonische Buch der neuen Religion. Aber daß in ihr viel von dem Gehalt dieses religiösen Pantheismus ist, von einem Pantheismus, der für ein thatkräftiges Volk paßt, wie der Schelaleddin-Ranis [Dschelāled-Din Rumi, 1207-1273, mystisch-pantheistischer Dichter] etwa für Persien, ist, glaube ich, nicht zu läugnen oder doch einem poetischen Gemüthe, wie dem Carrière's, nicht abzusprechen.⁴⁵

Shortly after this letter the religious-philosophical reservations of the Left Hegelians against Carrière and his interpretation of Günderode became the subject of public controversy. To be sure, he was not attacked by name and the critique included Brentano-von Arnim's other interpreters. On May 23rd and 24th, 1842, Edgar Bauer's essay “Bettina as Founder of a Religion” (“Die Bettina als Religionsstifterin”), was published in the German Yearbook. It is possibly the most important contemporary statement with regard to Brentano-von Arnim and Günderode. Chronicling the events that led to the publication of this essay gives some idea of the ideological tensions of the years 1841 and 1842 in which not only the second part of Strauß's Christian Dogma was published but also Ludwig Feuerbach's The Character of Christianity (Wesen des Christetums) and Bruno Bauer's Critique of the Protestant Interpretations of the Evangelists (Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker). The significance of these works for Young Hegelians has been summarized in this way:

On the basis of Feuerbach's critique of religion and the reorientation of Hegel's doctrine to a philosophy of self-consciousness by B. Bauer, a new philosophy of emancipation was developed which was directed against the whole intellectual and political situation of the time. The radical exponents of this school became atheists and revolutionary democrats.

Insbesondere auf Grund der Feuerbachschen Religionskritik und der Umbildung der Hegelschen Lehre zur Philosophie des Selbstbewußtseins durch B. Bauer wurde eine Emanzipationsideologie geschaffen, die man gegen den gesamten geistigen und politischen Zustand der Zeit kehrte. Die radikalen Vertreter der Schule wurden Atheisten und politisch revolutionäre Demokraten.⁴⁶

In a letter written by Edgar Bauer to his brother Bruno on January 18, 1842, he relates that he first wanted to publish his essay in the Berlin Yearbook for Scientific Critique (Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik), but that the editorial board rejected it.⁴⁷ In Ruge's opinion this was typical of “straight-laced, doctrinaire Berlin attitudes, an over-intellectualized exclusive arrogance.”⁴⁸ One reason for the rejection was probably the fact that the publishers did not want to accept a review that was indirectly antithetical to the somewhat more conservative article on Günderode which had already been published in their journal by the Leipzig aesthetician Christian Hermann Weiße. Although Weiße had been sensitive in his analysis of the aesthetic qualities of Günderode, he had spoken out against its political tendencies, manifest in its dedication “To the Students” and in general against authors who “claim that their poetry and genius exempt them from the yoke of the law” (welche sich rühmen, durch Poesie und Genialität vom dem Joche des Gesetzes emancipirt zu sein).⁴⁹ Another reason, possibly the main one, for the rejection of the essay was its position on religious philosophy. Edgar Bauer told his brother Bruno of what the secretary of the editorial board, Leopold Dorotheus von Henning, had reported.

Unfortunately, he said, the decision is negative, because this article contains the same theological views as the “other” works of your brother. The board must therefore explain that it cannot associate itself with these. … Now they have returned it to me after having taken quite some trouble with it. Several of the most controversial places are marked. But they were so intent on their efforts that they included in this some of Bettina's own words which I had copied without quotation marks. I have now rewritten the essay and sent it to Ruge.⁵⁰

Edgar Bauer turned against Brentano-von Arnim's “burdensome champions”⁵¹ in his essay. He accused them of “transforming simple nature poetry into dogma, … simple naive poetry into religion, an author who as such belongs to all humankind, into the founder of a religion and thereby making her a welcome object for theologians.” They had “put Arnim into a sphere … in which she did not belong. They had intended to honor her, but had dishonored her instead. They had intended to elevate her, but had denigrated her instead.”⁵² While Carrière and others—particularly Theodor Mundt⁵³—had praised Brentano-von Arnim as the prophet of a new religion, Bauer claimed her book “renounced all religion.”⁵⁴ At the same time his essay was a basic affirmation of the idea that religious fantasies had to be overcome through the emancipation of human beings themselves: “These fools have not realized that humanity is striving to rid itself of all dogmatic fetters and remove all religious restrictions” (Die Thoren bedachten nicht, daß die Menschheit dahin strebe, sich überhaupt dogmatischen Fesseln, aller religiösen Beschränkung zu entkleiden).⁵⁵ According to Bauer, religion sanctioned “original sin” itself, the “dichotomy between nature and mind, finiteness and infinity, word and flesh” something he saw as a “transition only,” to a new union of these.⁵⁶ Human beings must achieve this goal through intellectual autonomy and activity. Bauer described the approach which Brentano-von Arnim had taken in connection with an interpretation of her views.

Only the genius in us, if we allow it free reign, gives us divine freedom; only when it lives in us, do we live in a divine element. This genius has no need of a mediating revelation, it speaks to us in everything, in the bloom and scent of the rose, in moonshine and the gurgling brook, in the rustling treetops. And the gospel with which the western wind fans the violets is the true gospel of the spirit to our spirit. Therefore the life of nature which explores wild abysses, ignorant of divine genius but not denying it either, is not what is objectionable. It is the cultivated life of virtue which is objectionable when it shuts out genius and practices virtue in its own wisdom. Self discipline means to subject oneself trustingly to genius. Yield to the care of nature's genius, expel all fear of nature from your mind, and it will nourish you lovingly. The bee has lost its sting and the snake its poison. That is what Bettine teaches. … You, and the genius in you, have to free yourself from the selfish “I” by following your inner voice. Find your own self and you will shed all fetters. … “At night, all alone in the open, it seems as if Nature were a spirit which seeks redemption from humanity.” And there you have it, what shall be redeemed in this new religion. Not human beings because they can redeem themselves, but Nature, which cannot. A religion for the world of plants and stones and animals. As the Christian religion sends a human-god down to earth to redeem humanity, so Bettine asks the natural human or human nature, to once again reconcile nature and humanity. It is not a new religion for human beings or an exclusive prophesy. Everyone redeems himself and nature. The “I” shall not transpose its God into another world again, to Heaven, so that the word may descend from there and become flesh. No, genius shall evolve from nature, flesh will become spirit.

Nur der Genius in uns, wenn wir ihn ungehemmt herrschen lassen, bietet uns göttliche Freiheit; nur wenn er in uns lebt, leben wir im göttlichen Element. Dieser Genius aber bedarf keiner vermittelnden Offenbarung; aus Allem spricht er uns an: aus dem Blühen und Duften der Rose, aus dem Schein des Mondes, aus dem Murmeln des Baches und aus den rauschenden Wipfeln des Baumes. Und das Evangelium, welches der Westwind den Veilchen zufächelt, ist das wahre Evangelium des Geistes an den Geist. Darum ist nicht das Verwerflichste jenes Naturleben, welches durch wilde Abgründe schweift, den göttlichen Genius nicht kennend, aber ihn auch nicht verläugnend; jenes cultivirte Tugendleben ist verwerflich, welches den Genius von sich ausschließt und Tugend übt aus eigner Weisheit. Und das ist Selbstbeherrschung, wenn Du Dich vertrauensvoll dem Genius unterwirfst. Ueberliefere Dich der Pflege, welche der Genius der Natur an Dir übt, verbanne alle Furcht vor der Natur aus Deinem Geiste, und sie wird liebend Dich nähren, und die Biene hat ihren Stachel, die Schlange ihr Gift verloren. Solches lehrt Bettine. … Du selbst, der Genius in Dir, sollst Dich freimachen von Deinem eignen selbstischen Ich, und zwar indem Du nur der Stimme in Dir folgst. Finde Dich selbst und Du bist aller Fesseln ledig. … 'Wenn man so einsam Nachts in der freien Natur steht, da ist's, als ob sie ein Geist wär', der den Menschen um Erlösung bäte.' Da haben wir ja, was in der neuen Religion erlöst werden soll. Nicht der Mensch, denn er erlöst sich selber. Die Natur ist es, denn sie kann sich nicht selbst erlösen. Eine Religion für Pflanzen, für Steine, für Thiere! Und wie die christliche Religion einen Gottmenschen auf Erden sendet, die Menschheit zu erlösen, so fordert Bettine den reinen Naturmenschen oder die reine Menschennatur, um die Natur zum versöhnenden Bunde mit der Menschheit zurückzuführen. Also keine neue Religion für Menschen, keine exclusive Prophetie. Jeder Mensch ist Erlöser, seiner selbst und der Natur. Nicht von Neuem soll das Ich seinen Gott ins Jenseits, in den Himmel versetzen, damit von dort erst das Wort herabsteige und Fleisch werde. Nein, aus der Natur heraus soll sich der Genius entwickeln, das Fleisch soll Geist werden.⁵⁷

Edgar Bauer's interpretation of Brentano-von Arnim's natural philosophy was unique among his contemporaries. And even later his insight has never been equaled. Only Turgeniev came close in his view that Brentano-von Arnim, through her “compassion” with nature which humanity had abandoned, removed the differences between them.⁵⁸ In agreement with Strauß Bauer acknowledged Günderode as an extraordinary poetic achievement. He however surpassed Strauß in one respect; he emphasized Brentano-von Arnim's poetic competence as well as distanced himself from her “immediacy.”⁵⁹ This immediacy he thought difficult for other people, who had to reach “by means of philosophy” what was “immediate” for her.⁶⁰

Bettine does not need these concepts and she is therefore free to ask of us that we trust our instincts, the genial natural desires. … Bettine may claim that … all this history is not useful to her. But the rest of us who can only live in history because we are rooted in it, we cannot simply dispose of the external world, this ‘facticity,’ in so ingenious a manner, we do not even know anything which we have not assimilated through learning.

Die Bettine ist des Begriffes nicht bedürftig, und es steht ihr daher frei, uns aufzufordern, daß wir uns dem Instincte, dem genialen Naturtriebe anvertrauen. … Die Bettine mag behaupten, daß die … ganze Geschichte ihr nichts nütz sei. Wir aber, die wir allerdings nur daduch, daß wir auf der Geschichte fußen, in der Geschichte leben können, wir dürfen uns freilich nicht mit dieser Genialität über die Außenwelt, über die “Facticität” hinwegsetzen. Wir wissen einmal nichts, als was wir uns durch Lernen gegeben.⁶¹

Another Young Hegelian response to Brentano-von Arnim's work varied the themes of Edgar Bauer's essay. Franz Szeliga Zychlin von Zychlinski, who later became a Prussian general, versified Brentano-von Arnim's gospel—that humans find realization in continual exchange with nature—in a poetic contribution to The Spring Wreath (1844). Zychlinski's poem, constructed as a dialogue between the main characters of The Spring Wreath, “Bettine” and “Clemens,” is a “poetic recapitulation of the work” (dichterische Rekapitulation der Dichtung).⁶² However he distances himself from Brentano-von Arnim's enthusiasm for nature. “Clemens” not only regrets that he does not feel qualified to share in this, he also objects to the claim of exclusivity that it is “nature that heals all wounds” (Natur, die alle Wunden heilen soll)⁶³ and to the carefree way in which his sister affirms her immediate appreciation of reality and rejects the philosophical. “What you disdain as useless, the thinker regards as the permanent and eternal” (Was Du den Rest verächtlich nennst, begreift / Als Bleibendes und Ewiges der Denker).⁶⁴ As representative of modern awareness, Clemens was conscious only of doubts: “Can I be happy in this knowledge? No, I am rather sad, because it remains a mystery to me, where it's going to take me” (Kann ich heiter sein / Mit dem Bewußtsein? Nein mir ist recht traurig, / Daß mir ein Räthsel bleibt, wohin mich/s treibt).⁶⁵ Zychlinski's ambivalent relation to Brentano-von Arnim becomes clearer in a prose introduction to his poem. It is actually the second part of a discourse with her of which the first has to do with The King's Book. That part also recapitulates and quotes essential themes of Brentano-von Arnim's work. He programmatically defines poetic imagination as “reason itself in one of its sensual forms” (Vernunft selbst in einer ihrer sinnlichen Formen).⁶⁶ It is recognized as a legitimate, but not an autonomous means of knowing. At the end of the first part he openly admits that Brentano-von Arnim's imagination was suspect to her interpreter: “The previous century had the quick and excited pulse of a child and adolescent. Now it is time for calm and reflection” (Das vorige Jahrhundert hatte den schnellen, aufgeregten Puls des Kindes und Jünglings. Es ist Zeit, daß wir zur Ruhe und Besonnenheit kommen).⁶⁷ Since this disclaimer occurs at a significant point of the prose text and directly ahead of the poem, the dominance of Brentano-von Arnim's views are therefore decidedly qualified. Zychlinsky's line of action must have been motivated by literary politics. The consensus with Brentano-von Arnim was essentially meant for outsiders; at the same time the initiated were to be made aware of his distance from her. Zychlinsky's views were published in the North German Journal for Criticism, Literature and Entertainment (Norddeutsche Blätter für Kritik, Literatur und Unterhaltung) edited by the brothers Bruno and Edgar Bauer. They therefore also represented the basic position of the editors who dominated the radical Young Hegelians among the so-called Liberated in Berlin. The dependence of Zychlinsky's contribution on the position Edgar Bauer had developed in his essay is as evident as his epigonic approach to intellectual and poetic matters in general.

Eduard Meyen, another member of the Liberated, published a critique of The King's Book in 1843 in which he was much more argumentative than Zychlinsky concerning Brentano-von Arnim's relative proximity and distance to the Young Hegelian positions. While she defended “the natural right to free emotions” (das Naturrecht der freien Empfindung) the radical theoreticians regarded “self-awareness … the complete emancipation of the mind” (das Selbstbewußtsein … die vollendete Freiheit des Geistes).⁶⁸ She touched, he said, “the principles of the new philosophy without getting a real grip on it.”⁶⁹ Meyen limited Edgar Bauer's position on the “renunciation of all religion” decisively. Brentano-von Arnim, he said, professed a “beautiful and lovable Pantheism but nowhere near the highest truth and freedom” (einen schöne[n], liebenswerthe[n] Pantheismus, wenn auch noch lange nicht die höchste Wahrheit und Freiheit).⁷⁰ In contrast to Bauer's retrenchment from Brentano-von Arnim's immediate relation to nature, Meyen found a need to mediate between this and the philosophy of self-esteem. Through their idealism, Brentano-von Arnim and the women of her time had to be credited with having “served philosophy and prepared a way for it … [their idealism led philosophy] to its reunion with nature.”⁷¹ On the other hand he noted that Brentano-von Arnim had been influenced by the “spirit of radicalism born of the most recent trends in German philosophy.”⁷² Brentano-von Arnim had been “touched” by it and through a combination of her “enthusiasm for nature” and the “recognition of ultimate spiritual freedom” she had reached a new rung in her development: “She had transformed herself into a democrat” (Sie hat sich zur Demokratin umgestaltet).⁷³ In Meyen's review therefore the exploration of the differences between the views of the Young Hegelians and those of Brentano-von Arnim was connected to an understanding of their mutual rapport and influence which, they confessed, had been relevant and educational in their development. Meyen also occupied a middle position with regard to the political motivations of The King's Book. To be sure, he declared Brentano-von Arnim's hope for a “political Christ” to be “an error” compared to the Young Hegelian alternative that “people need to emancipate themselves by becoming intellectually free and then letting the awareness of this freedom be the highest authority” (dass das Volk sich selbst befreien müsse, indem es sich geistig frei macht, und das Bewusstseyn seiner Freiheit zur Herrschaft erhebt).⁷⁴ Still, Meyen supported Brentano-von Arnim with a Captatio benevolentiae in her plea to the king, that “he above all has need of true knowledge of his time and the unveiled description of the condition of his people,” for knowing that the monarch knows all is also “progress for the people.”⁷⁵

In the chapter of his book A complete History of Party Fights in the Years 1842-1846 (Vollständige Geschichte der Partheikämpfe in Deutschland während der Jahre 1842-1846) which is called “The Autocrat” (“Der Selbstherrscher”), Bruno Bauer returned in 1847 to the main expectations of liberals and democrats at the time of The King's Book. They had thought reforms by the king and more direct relations between him and others could lead to solutions of acute political problems. Brentano-von Arnim had given this “naive hope” a more “concrete form” by stating that the king had “no will of his own” but followed “outside influences,” be they those of his entourage or those of his good fairy.”⁷⁶ The politically radical Young Hegelians rejected the notion of a constitutional monarchy, which becomes evident from contemporary journalistic responses to The King's Book and Brentano-von Arnim's reactions to these as constituting essential issues of her book.⁷⁷ However not all Young Hegelians shared the positions of Eduard Meyen and Bruno Bauer. Adolf Stahr, for instance, who early on confessed to liberal views, even propagated the idea of a constitutional monarchy in his pamphlet “Bettina and her King's Book.” And even among the positions of the radicals a clash between praxis and theory was imminent as seen in Meyen's postulate on the intellectual self-emancipation of the people.

The political differences between Brentano-von Arnim and the radical Young Hegelians become evident also in the connection between her enthusiasm for revolution in The Spring Wreath and corresponding statements of Edgar Bauer. While she praised the Girondists and stylized Mirabeau into a popular hero, he despised the “Girondist types,”⁷⁸ whom he confronted, as his brother Bruno did, by taking a positive stand for the Jacobins. He cautioned against regarding Mirabeau, who held the people in contempt, “as a saint.”⁷⁹ This warning can be found in the second of the series of pamphlets published by the brothers Bauer in 1843-1844 and entitled Memoirs of the History of modern Times since the French Revolution (Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte der neueren Zeit seit der Französischen Revolution). In the copies preserved in the Brentano-von Arnim library in Weimar a few underlined parts and marginal notes coincide with views expressed in The Spring Wreath. To be sure the handwriting is that of Brentano-von Arnim's son Friedmund, who was friendly with the brothers Bauer, but the similarities between the parts of Memoirs and The Spring Wreath are so pronounced that it can be assumed that Brentano-von Arnim was aware of them. They make it clear that she and Edgar Bauer, while disagreeing on Mirabeau and the Girondists, shared views on other aspects of the French Revolution.⁸⁰

For the study of Brentano-von Arnim's reception a similar case of proximity as well as distance is significant in Max Stirner's The Individual and his Property (Der Einzige und sein Eigentum). In it quotations from The King's Book were re-interpreted as anarchistic, because she laid the cause for criminality on the state itself. He described Brentano-von Arnim as “benevolent enough to think of the state as sick only and hoping for its recovery” (guthmütig genug, den Staat nur für krank zu halten und auf seine Genesung zu hoffen).⁸¹, but Stirner's individual remains “an inveterate criminal in the state.”⁸² It was precisely these passages about criminals in The King's Book that influenced German anarchism. The reception of this idea follows a direct line of descent from Stirner to Gustav Landauer, who counted Brentano-von Arnim “and many other women” among the “colleagues” on his journal The Socialist (Der Sozialist)⁸³ in which he published excerpts from The King's Book under the title “The Criminals” (“Die Verbrecher”).

While previous scholars had attributed a review of Stirner's book to Brentano-von Arnim, later research has proved that it was her son Friedmund's.⁸⁴ It is not documented whether she was familiar with The Individual and his Property and, with one exception, it is not known if she read any of the systematically theoretical treatises of the Young Hegelians. The exception, Bruno Bauer's three volumes Critique of the Protestant Interpretation of the Gospels (Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker) 1841-1842, she was said “to have read … in part.”⁸⁵ Her remarks, though, leave room for doubt that she seriously appropriated its contents. These remarks were addressed provocatively to Heinrich Bernhard Oppenheim, who had doubts about Bauer's teachings and who found his book “too learned for quick perusal” (zum Durchlesen zu gelehrt). To this Brentano-von Arnim replied that she had read it with her daughters “from beginning to end” and they

found it very interesting particularly since they had commented previously on all the parts from the bible and had admitted freely that they had disposed of all that already in connection with their confirmation but had not wanted to rile anyone with their views.

durchaus lebhaft intressant war um so mehr da sie jede Bibelstelle schon im voraus comentirten und frei eingestanden daß sie bei ihren [!] Confirmation dies alles schon beseitigt hatten, aber niemand mit ihrer Ansicht Aergerniß geben wollte.⁸⁶

So far it has only been possible to make assumptions about Brentano-von Arnim's borrowing from Bauer's ideas in his theoretical works, and some congruences have been pointed out,⁸⁷ but direct dependence cannot be shown. More detailed comparisons have to be made to obtain any certainty. As long as no positive proof is available, one will have to take Brentano-von Arnim's assurance on face value, when she states that the “sensual complexion” of her “mind” does not allow her “a study of philosophy” (“sinnliche Complexion” ihres “Geistes” verbiete ihr “das Studium der Philosophie”).⁸⁸ She preferred theological and philosophical discussions with authors to scientific scrutiny of their works. Her account of mutual inspiration from her conversations with Schleiermacher at the start of the 1830s represents the best known testimony of intellectual exchange through discourse. Several visitors to “Mrs. von Arnim's Sibylline cave” (Frau von Arnims sibyllinischer Höhle)⁸⁹ gave witness to it around 1840.

The theoretical head of the Young Hegelians, Bruno Bauer, was Brentano-von Arnim's favorite discussion partner. He belonged to the radical Berlin group of the Liberated, as did his brother Edgar and Meyen and Stirner. Brentano-von Arnim became personally acquainted with him at the beginning of October 1841 through Karl Varnhagen von Ense from whom she had asked an introduction⁹⁰ and to whom she then reported “with great joy“⁹¹ about the new acquaintance. Shortly after that she spent a “whole hour [exchanging ideas] about present and future” with Bruno Bauer.⁹² “His whole personality” had become “especially dear to her” and she stated that “such respectability was seldom if ever accompanied by such modesty” (Er war ihr “seinem Wesen nach ungemein lieb geworden,” und sie fand, “daß sich selten, vielleicht nie eine so freie Sittlichkeit mit Bescheidenheit vermählte).⁹³ In November and December of 1841 she defended Bruno Bauer against Oppenheim's accusation that Bauer refuted without enthusiasm existing educational patterns and the The Moral Stature of Jesus Christ (Sittliche Grösse von Christus).⁹⁴ On the contrary, she stated, Bruno Bauer “contributes to the effort of our times, bringing the Truth to light with childlike devotion” (an dem Werk unserer Tage, die Wahrheit ins Licht zu stellen mit dem Eifer einer naiven unbedingten Hingebung).⁹⁵ He represents, she argued, the “libertine principle” (das befreiende Prinzip)⁹⁶ and shakes “the massive pillars of superstition in the sweat of his brow” (und rüttele “im Schweiß seines Angesichts an den gewaltigen Pfeilern des Afterglaubens).⁹⁷ To Oppenheim's complaint that Bruno Bauer did not want “to recognize … the freedom of the individual,”⁹⁸ Brentano-von Arnim, whose values were founded on the belief in individual freedom, responded with a historical challenge to Christianity.

Humanity and its ethical moral relationships have existed longer than Christendom which has put them into words. But it has not respected … individual freedom, rather it made itself into a snare for this individuality and hitched it in pairs to a cart full of the state's refuse which was to be spread as fertilizer for the growth and glory of the royal throne.

Das Menschengeschlecht und die Reinheit seiner moralischen Beziehungen bestehen länger als das Christenthum in dem sie ausgesprochen sind, aber es hat die freie Individualität … nicht respecktirt sich immer noch zum Netzgarn brauchen lassen diese Individualität zu paaren zu treiben, und in Karren gespannt den Staatsdünger auszubreiten für des Thrones ausgepolsterte Herrlichkeit.⁹⁹

The critique of Christianity as state religion which hindered the development of free individualism is evident in Brentano-von Arnim's statement as is its proximity to the most avant-garde positions of her contemporaries regarding the critique of religion and society, and in particular those of Bruno Bauer in whose defense it was written and with whom she had intensive communication while she so decisively and completely denounced Christian religion.¹⁰⁰

Particularly in 1843 when The King's Book was published there was much mention of her friendly relation to Bruno Bauer. She was said to hold him “in great regard”¹⁰¹ and he did not seek anyone's company “except Bettina's …, and with her he is good friends.”¹⁰² “Bettina and Bauer are given to philosophizing,” the young Swiss Heinrich Grunholzer wrote in his diary.¹⁰³ A confidante reported that “because she defended Bruno Bauer's views on religion [she had gotten] into conflict” with her relatives in Frankfurt.¹⁰⁴ Another confidential report even mentioned that two acquaintances had found “whole pages” in The King's Book “which her intimate friend Bruno Bauer had dictated to her.”¹⁰⁵ Brentano-von Arnim herself declared though that “the philosophy in it … did not come from Bruno Bauer … but from Günderode. She does not want to have anything to do with B. Bauer's” (die Philosophie darin … gehöre nicht Bruno Bauer …, sondern der Günderode zu. Von der des B. Bauer will sie nichts wissen).¹⁰⁶ Only occasionally is a particular topic recorded.

It is not long ago that he [Bruno Bauer] had a conversation with her about the immortality of the soul. To his claim, that he did not believe in immortality, Bettina replied mischievously: she did not know what would happen to his, but about her own she was quite convinced.

Nicht lange ist's, was [!] er [Bruno Bauer] mit ihr ein Gespräch über die Seelenunsterblichkeit hatte; auf seinen Ausspruch, er glaube nicht an die Unsterblichkeit, meinte Bettina boshaft: Wie es mit seiner Unsterblichkeit stehe, wisse sie nicht, von ihrer Unsterblichkeit jedoch sei sie vollkommen überzeugt.¹⁰⁷

The assumption that Brentano-von Arnim preferred controversial discussions with Bruno Bauer about immortality is indirectly supported by central passages from a text by Friedmund von Arnim published in 1843 under the title Good Things about the Soul (Die gute Sache der Seele). It was dedicated to Bruno Bauer who deserved “greatest respect.”¹⁰⁸ Bauer's “stubborn refutation of God and personal immortality”¹⁰⁹ had given rise to this text, which aimed to question this negation. According to Friedmund von Arnim, in the course of history, individual bliss continued beyond death and did not end for the good of the species. Doubtlessly Brentano-von Arnim agreed with her son on this point. Disregard of death and belief in immortality were tenets in which she had long believed. Although Achim von Arnim (1831) Goethe (1832) and Schleiermacher (1834) were dead, none had died for her in a higher sense. In her view they had simply reached a different form of existence which made genuine intercourse with them “a truer and deeper communion than was possible while they lived” (eine wahre, tiefere Gemeinschaft, als die das Leben erlaube).¹¹⁰ In The King's Book immortality is a Leitmotif¹¹¹ about which she talked not only with Bruno Bauer at the time of its publication. She said to Grunholzer:

I am of the opinion that after death our bodies evolve differently. We experience a new world of the senses. I do not therefore believe in crude physical resurrection, but there exist spirits.

Ich bin nämlich der Ansicht, daß wir uns nach dem Tode körperlich anders entfalten; eine neue Sinnenwelt geht uns auf. Ich glaube deswegen nicht an eine plumpe Auferstehung des Leibes. Aber Geister gibt es.¹¹²

With David Friedrich Strauß, too, Brentano-von Arnim discussed her favorite topic on the occasion of a visit in Sontheim on January 10, 1843. This visit is documented vividly in a picturesque letter of Strauß's.

Last Tuesday between light and dark, in the worst storm and rain—did you have horrible storms too? We could hardly sleep for several nights and I wondered whether your high chimney had held up—just then, at dusk, Bettina arrived here en route to Stuttgart. Imagine our surprise! She could stay only a little while because her carriage was waiting downstairs, but it was interesting enough for us to make her acquaintance—a little person like quicksilver not really pretty but again not ugly, with the most intelligent eyes. She talks incessantly and vivaciously, often full of wit, often confused. She challenged me on the issue of immortality of which she is fervently convinced, fell in love with my wife, and drove off again in the midst of the most ghastly weather.

Vorigen Dienstag zwischen Licht und Dunkel im gräulichsten Sturm und Regen—ei habt Ihr auch so gräßliche Stürme gehabt? wir konnten mehrere Nächte kaum schlafen, ich dachte, ob's Euer hohes Kamin nicht mitgenommen?—fuhr Bettina bei uns an auf einer Reise nach Stuttgart,—denkt Euch unsere Überraschung! Sie konnte sich nur kurz verweilen, weil der Wagen unten hielt, doch war es uns interessant genug, sie kennen zu lernen—ein kleines Figürchen wie Quecksilber, keineswegs hübsch, aber auch nicht widrig, höchst geistvolle Augen. Spricht unendlich viel und lebhaft, oft geistreich, oft confus. Nahm mich wegen der Unsterblichkeit auf's Korn, die sie eifrig glaubt, verliebte sich in meine Frau, und fuhr im gräßlichsten Wetter wieder davon.¹¹³

Brentano-von Arnim shared with Strauß a conviction in human perfectibility beyond death. It can be assumed that she was impressed with his opposition to the chief dogma of Christianity, that the deeds on earth are rewarded in the next world, and therefore sought discourse with him.

So you do not believe in immortality? Forget the malevolent consequences. I do not deny them, but I base them on something totally different from the need for reward or retribution … the more I renew and purify my strength at this moment, the more I prepare for a similarly liberating development in the future and thereby joy and bliss. … For the apostles afterlife represented retribution, for us it is a continuation.

Also läugnest du die Unsterblichkeit? / O stille mit den böswilligen Consequenzen! Ich läugne sie nicht; aber ich begründe sie auf etwas ganz Anderes, als auf die Nothwendigkeit einer Vergeltung … je frischer und reiner ich meine Kraft in jedem Augenblicke entwickle, desto mehr bereite ich mir auch für die Zukunft eine ähnliche freie Entfaltung derselben, und damit Lust und Glückseligkeit, vor. … Den Aposteln war das andere Leben Vergeltungszustand: uns ist es Fortentwickelung.¹¹⁴

Apart from the issue of immortality there is no exact record of Brentano-von Arnim's conversations with Young Hegelians. Outsiders only report that they had similar opinions. Overriding was certainly their common basic opposition to the intellectual and socio-political situation in Germany. Differences on concrete questions pale in comparison to this fundamental agreement. In the content and form of The King's Book this intellectual proximity is probably more generally reflected rather than exhibiting concrete cases of influence. Compared to Brentano-von Arnim's earlier works, the abstract philosophical passages became longer and dialogue determined their structure. It is remarkable that even contemporary reviews of The King's Book dispensed with proofs of direct dependence in favor of emphasizing more general correspondences. The best example is Eduard Meyen's review. However the influence of the Young Hegelians on Brentano-von Arnim also had negative consequences for The King's Book. The liberal commerce with the philosophy of self-awareness diminished its poetic sensuality. Particularly significant was Strauß's disappointment: it was

an unfortunate text …, a tendentious work with a laudable intent … ; but the preaching and philosophizing never befitted the author, even in her earlier works; here it becomes the main thing and the colorful, magically illuminated images from the inner and outer world which were the charm of those earlier letters are totally lost.

ein verunglücktes Produkt …, ein Tendenzbuch, die Tendenz zwar ganz löblich … ; aber das Doziren und Philosophiren stand der Verfasserin schon in ihren früheren Werken schlecht—hier ist es zur Hauptsache geworden und die farbigen, magisch beleuchteten Bilder aus der inneren und äußeren Welt, worin der Zauber jener früheren Briefe bestand, fallen ganz weg.¹¹⁵

Brentano-von Arnim was not only interested in the oppositional ideas of the Young Hegelians, she also sympathized with them as oppositional and social outsiders. A person's thoughts and his or her personality formed a unit for her. The unconventionality and originality of an intellectual/physical individual constituted for her essential criteria for the image of a whole person. Whosoever did not conform to the prevalent norm fitted into hers. And when rulers attacked outsiders, she came to their defense. The greater the injustice and need they suffered, the greater her support. Among the Young Hegelians she particularly wanted to help the brothers Bauer. In 1843, immediately after their publication, the Prussian police interdicted Edgar Bauer's The Critics' Conflict with Church and State (Streit der Kritik mit Kirche und Staat) as well the first volume of Bruno Bauer's History of Politics, Culture and Enlightenment of the Eighteenth Century (Geschichte der Politik, Kultur und Aufklärung des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts). The publisher of these books, another brother Egbert Bauer, was also discredited. Although they could not revoke his license they intended “to get his new publishing house in another way soon.”¹¹⁶ At the turn of the year 1843-1844 Brentano-von Arnim parted with her fourth publisher Eduard Heinrich Schröder who had printed The King's Book. On April 29th Adolf Stahr related:

Bettina socializes a lot with the Bauers nowadays. She praised their courage in their conflict with the censor, spoke highly of Bruno B.'s new book on the history of the 18th century and told me that she would let the brothers publish her new books. The police chief, who watches “subversive” writers very carefully here, had made a vain attempt at warning her of the morals of her new protégés. She did not believe him, she had answered … The boys really are somewhat wild morally—they are the genuine enfants perdus of the German social and intellectual revolution—the true Sansculottes.

Bettina verkehrt jetzt sehr viel mit den Bauer'n; sie rühmte deren Tapferkeit im Kampfe mit der Censur, pries Bruno B.'s neustes Buch über die Geschichte des XVIIIten Jahrhunderts und sagte mir, daß sie den Brüdern ihre neuen Bücher in Verlag geben wolle. Vergebens hat ihr der Polizeipräsident, der die ‘subversiven’ Literaten hier sehr genau bevigilirt, Mittheilungen über die Sittlichkeit ihrer neuen Schätzlinge gemacht. Sie glaube das nicht, hat sie ihm geantwortet … Sittlich verwildert aber sind die Burschen sicher—es sind die ächten enfants perdus der Deutschen sozialen und geistigen Revolution—ächte Sanscülloten.¹¹⁷

Not only did Brentano-von Arnim let the Charlottenburg house of Egbert Bauer publish her new book The Spring Wreath in May 1844, but in October of the same year she also published there a text by the Swede Georg Svederus “On Industrialism and Poverty” (“Über Industrialismus und Armuth”) which belonged to her Poor Book (Armenbuch) project. Furthermore she entrusted the brothers Bruno, Edgar and Egbert Bauer with the remainders of her previous works as well as the Collected Works of Achim von Arnim; and they obligated themselves loyally to take over her affairs and sales on commission. The Spring Wreath, she said, she gave to Egbert Bauer “for no other reason than to support communism where it is not advocated senselessly but founded on a moral sentiment” (aus keinem andern Grund, als um den Communismus zu unterstützen da wo er nicht albern angebracht ist sondern auf sittliches Gefühl gegründet ist).¹¹⁸ Less noteworthy than the use of a current political slogan—of whose theoretical basis of which Brentano-von Arnim could have had only a vague conception three years before the Communist Manifesto—is the remark about the ethical basis for politics and theory. In a more detailed explanation for her aid she argued from a moral viewpoint without minimizing the political discrimination. Her support for a publisher “who was trying to get through waste and morass on two crude, awkward stilts and getting stuck every minute” (der auf zwei groben ungeschickten Stelzen durch sein Koth und Morastland sich durcharbeitet, und jeden Augenblick stecken bleibt)¹¹⁹ was linked to an accusation against the lack of solidarity exhibited by his colleagues.

The other publishers just look on and reassure each other he won't get through … and it does not occur to any of these gentlemen that they could do something to prevent it. I do not dispute their claim to a sense of honor in spite of their preoccupation with their earthly prosperity. But here, where they could manifest this sense of honor in a way beneficial to general sentiment and opinion, they remain obstinate.

Die anderen Herrn Buchhändler sehen zu! und versichern einander: Er wird nicht durchkommen! … und keinem von diesen Herrn fällt es ein, irgend etwas zu thun um es zu verhindern. Obschon sie noch ausser für den irdischen Wohlstand noch Gefühl für Ehre zu haben behaupten, und ich will ihnen diese auch garnicht abschneiden. Aber hier wo sie ihr Ehrgefühl manifestiren könnten auf eine der allgemeinen Tendenz und Gesinnung so heilsame Weise, sind sie widerwillig!¹²⁰

The absurd measures to censor The Spring Wreath in May and June 1844 were in reality directed at the publisher and at Brentano-von Arnim's defense of the brothers Bauer—“as a revenge for extending a helping hand so they could build an existence as honest citizens of the state” (Aus Rachegeist daß man ihnen emporhelfe damit sie doch als honnete Bürger im Staate ihre Existenz begründen können).¹²¹ Brentano-von Arnim could only guess at all this, but the Prussian minister of the interior made it very clear to his king

that the confict ‘en question’ was not between Bettina and the censor but between the police and the notorious publisher Edgar [should actually have been Egbert] Bauer. Bettina must have a particular predilection for the regulars of her salon, the well known Bruno Bauer, Egbert [actually Edgar] and the third of these little clover leaves, Edgar [actually Egbert] whom she chose as publisher of her masterworks. (Egbert [actually Edgar] Bauer came out of a pub in a drunken state the other day and fell into the gutter. He was picked up by kind passersby and taken to the police station whence his honorable brother took him home.) [If she associates with people like this] she will have to suffer the consequences … nothing like that has ever happened to an honest book seller.

der Kampf en question nicht zwischen der Censur und Bettina sondern zwischen der Polizei und dem berüchtigten Buchhändler Edgar [richtig: Egbert] Bauer stattfindet. … Wenn Bettina aus besonderer Vorliebe für die habitués ihres Salons (Bruno Bauer, wohlbekannt, Egbert [richtig: Edgar] Bauer, der neulich aus einer Branntweinschenke betrunken in den vorüberfließenden Rinnstein fiel, von mildherzigen Vorübergehenden auf der Polizey abgeliefert und dort durch seinen schätzbaren Bruder abgeholt wurde) das dritte Blättlein dieser Kleepflanze, Edgar [richtig: Egbert] Bauer, zum Verleger ihrer Geisteswerke auswählt, so muß sie sich schon die folgen gefallen lassen … einem honnetten Buchhändler ist dergleichen noch nie begegnet.¹²²

Among these consequences was the fact that after the book was finally released Friedrich Wilhelm IV warned Brentano-von Arnim on June 23, 1844: “Today is the summer solstice, a good time to draw water from a well. … Maybe you have already done that. But I am asking you kindly, do not pour this noble liquid into the trough of peasants [word play on the name Bauer, which means peasant]” (Eben ist Johannis-Nacht. Da ist gut Wasser schöpfen. … Nun, Sie werden es wohl schon gethan haben; aber dann bitt' ich gar schön: gießen Sie halt die edle Flut nicht in unedler “Bauern” Gefäße!).¹²³ In an entry in Karl August Varnhagen von Ense's diary the negative effect of the royal letter on Brentano-von Arnim is noted. It appears that she took the allusion to be a “misunderstanding of poor folk” (Mißkennen des armen Volkes) and a warning not to publish her Poor Book (Armenbuch) after the riot of the Silesian weavers.¹²⁴ However it must have been clear to her what he meant with the “peasants.” This assumption becomes more credible since in the following year Brentano-von Arnim apparently interceded with Friedrich Wilhelm IV in favor of the brothers. On May 9, 1845, Edgar Bauer was apprehended after three consecutive lawsuits. At first he was accused of subversive tendencies in his book, The Critics' Conflict with Church and State, then of its publication in Bern by the publisher Jenni and Son, and lastly of the publication of papers pertaining to the first suit by the same Swiss publishing house.¹²⁵ He was taken into custody not “for security reasons,” as Brentano-von Arnim knew, but “as a punishment for not taking the hint to leave the state!” (sondern gleichsam zur Strafe, daß er die Winke zum Davongehen nicht benutzt habe!).¹²⁶ The reason was “that they naturally wanted to get rid of him and in the process claim that he had been afraid of the government and fled. But that did not come off” (man wünschte natürlich ihn loszuwerden, und dabei ihm die Blamage anzuhängen daß er sich vor der Regierung fürchte und ausreisse. Aber daraus ward nichts).¹²⁷ On August 14, Rudolf Baier, Brentano-von Arnim's young assistant, quoted a letter in his diary which she had written to Klara Mundt on August 4 and in which she had expressed her sympathy with Friedrich Wilhelm IV and alluded to the dangers from his entourage “but with infinite delicacy and cleverness; she had done this to show the king ‘look here this is what I think and this is how I defend your interests’ but she did it only to help Edgar Bauer” (aber unendlich fein und klug; sie hatte das gethan, um dem König damit zu zeigen: Sieh' so denke ich und so vertrete ich dich! und das namentlich war geschehen um von ihm etwas für Edgar Bauer zu erlangen).¹²⁸ The content of the letter became “known” and those “on top were strongly inclined to favor her.”¹²⁹ Neither the letter¹³⁰ nor the extant draft¹³¹ show any evidence of an intercession on behalf of the prisoner. However two undated documents have also been preserved which had previously not been recognized as drafts for a letter to Friedrich Wilhelm IV. One of them has a handwritten note¹³² which had been omitted in the printed version, “To the king about Bauer;”¹³³ the other is more explicit.

How many malicious insults and accusations!—did they not denigrate me to the king because I chose as publisher the brother of a man who has been hunted by the police? Why I did that I will herewith explain, first because the pursuit of an honorable civil occupation is not contrary to the interest of the state and because the government nevertheless tried to suppress this business in a way which would be difficult to justify … for a start they confiscated, quite illegally, all the books that appeared with this publisher for months, indeed for half a year, thereby damaging him greatly. Secondly, again quite illegally, they even prevented the tobacconist from plying his trade on Sundays in Charlottenburg when that is his best time for making a profit and while all his neighbors were allowed to keep their shops open. It was done under the pretext that he also had a publishing firm and therefore could not open his tobacco shop on Sundays, and this was the only source of income for a family of five small children and also the subsidy for his publishing enterprise, which was not yet making a profit but which was intended to support his brothers and his father.

Wie vielen muthwilligen Beleidigungen wie viele Anschwärzungen!—hat man nicht mich bei dem König verkleinert weil ich den Bruder eines von der Polizei verfolgten Schriftstellers zum Buchhändler nahm?—Warum ich aber dies gethan habe will ich hier darlegen weil erstens ein ehrenvolles Bürgerliches Gewerk zu unternehmen gar nichts dem Staate zu wider laufendes ist, weil aber dennoch die Regierung diesen Buchhandel unterdrückte auf eine Weise die zu rechtfertigen eine sehr schwürige Sache sein würde … fürs erste hat man dieser Buchhandlung alle Bücher die in ihrem Verlag herausgekommen ganz widerrechtlich, Monatelang ja halbe Jahre lang confiscirt wodurch man die Buchhandlung sehr bedrängte fürs zweite hat man widerrechtlich in diesem Augenblick sogar den Tabackshändler verboten am Sonntag in Charlottenburg wo er doch allein die größte Einnahme hat, während alle Nachbarn ihren Handel treiben können, unter dem Vorwande daß weil er auch einen Buchverlag habe, so dürfe er am Sonntag das Tabacksgeschäft nicht treiben! Hiervon aber ernährt er eine Familie von 5 kleinen Kindern, und hiermit unterstützt er seinen bis jezt nur Kosten machenden Buchhandel, von dem seine Brüder und Vater leben sollten.¹³⁴

The draft ends at this point. Thus Brentano-von Arnim stood up for the whole Bauer family. Whether and how she argued for Edgar Bauer in particular remains unclear. It does not appear that she accomplished much for him, possibly some relief while he was in custody. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment. On August 26 Brentano-von Arnim informed her son Friedmund that Edgar Bauer had been brought to Magdeburg under “abhorrent” circumstances, on foot, at first, accompanied by two police officers, then on a wagon “together with a thief and another criminal! That is deeply insulting to any decent citizen.” (mit einem Dieb, und noch einem andern Verbrecher!—So etwas muß einen bürgerlichen Charakter sehr tief kränken).¹³⁵ In Magdeburg he was relatively well treated, his brother Bruno related, “he was able to spend most of his day in the open and … work there diligently” (er könne den ganzen Tag im Freien sein und … soll dort fleißig arbeiten).¹³⁶ Edgar Bauer remained in jail until the revolution in March 1848.

At the end of 1845 the publishing business became the cause for a falling-out between the brothers Bauer and Brentano-von Arnim, who had had conflicts with all her other publishers also. Her “generosity to the persecuted Bauer” (Hochherzigkeit für den verfolgten Bauer)¹³⁷ had resulted in financial losses for her. Egbert Bauer seemed to have owed her “about 1506 Thaler;”¹³⁸ according to another letter it was “at least 1500 Thaler.”¹³⁹ Working on commission did not seem profitable either for him or his brothers. “Could he not simply have acted straightforwardly and confessed that he regretted taking on my work on commission, rather than making snide remarks about how hard he had to work for nothing?” (Konnte er nicht besser einfach gehandelt haben, und mir aufrichig bekennen daß die Übernahme meiner Commission ihn nachträglich reut, als immer mit Bemerkungen kommen wie sehr er sich umsonst anstrengen müsse?), Brentano-von Arnim asked.¹⁴⁰ She claimed that Egbert Bauer accused her “of having tried to fleece them” (schindermäßig ihnen die Haut über die Ohren ziehen zu wollen) and make them work for nothing.¹⁴¹ She wrote to Bruno Bauer:

When I began to take an interest in your publishing enterprise it was your views in particular which you had made known to me and the principles with which you intended to conduct your business that made it desirable for me to enter into the relationship. I counted on a stable situation which would save me anxiety and effort and also give me the necessary moral backing for my … position. I also held the firm belief that such a valuable and rich branch of literature … would substantially contribute to the success of your enterprise, in spite of all the aggravating circumstances, and would therefore be doubly important for a business which was not yet solidly connected. It was therefore all the more unpleasant and disappointing that your brother raised these belated objections, after the fact and beyond the course of all honorable practice.

Als ich darauf einging mich für Ihr Buchhändlerisches Unternehmen zu intressiren, waren es grade Ihre mit mitgetheilten Ansichten und Grundsätze nach welchen Sie das Geschäft zu leiten gedachten, welche mir dies Verhältniß wünschenswerth machten, weil ich dabei auf eine gesicherte Stellung rechnete die mir Verdruß und Bermühung erspare und die nothwendige moralische Garantie gewähre für welche ich … selbst einzustehen habe. Auch hatte ich den Glauben, daß ein so werthvoller und reichhaltiger Zweig der Literatur … trotz allen erschwerenden Umständen, sehr wesentlich zum Gelingen Ihres Unternehmens beitragen könne und die daher Ihnen noch nicht consolidirten Geschäftsverbindungen doppelt wichig sein mußten. Um so mehr haben diese nachträglichen, über alle Gebühr eines aufrichtigen Verfahrens, verspäteten Einwendungen Ihres Bruders mich unangenehm überrascht.¹⁴²

Brentano-von Arnim was especially annoyed that the “activities of the Bauers' publishing business” prevented Achim von Arnim's Collected Works from appearing on schedule, something “which caused incalculable damage and confusion, and gave cause to insufferable troubles every day” (woraus ein nicht zu berechnender Schade und Verwirrung entstanden und unerträgliche Mißhelligkeiten noch täglich daraus hervorgehen).¹⁴³ Edgar Bauer's “plan to discount the net worth of 22,000 volumes for 12,000 Thaler,” which she could not expect for another five years did not seem realistic to her.¹⁴⁴ Further details of her conflict with the brothers Bauer is illuminated in the draft of a letter written around 1847 or 1848 by P. L. Jenatz who was then in charge of Brentano-von Arnim's affairs. It was addressed to the president of the superior court, Heinrich Leopold von Strampff:

Several unpleasant circumstances have obliged Mrs. von Arnim to terminate the contract which had been made with the hon. Edg. Bauer. This happened in February 1846; in April 1846 Bauer delivered everything he held for her and at the same time gave her a final account. … This account was audited and … approved. In the second year, 1847, Mr. Bauer was obligated by contract to account for the copies that were sent to him in between January and April 1846 and for those at his disposal in 1846. When none of this took place, and after several reminders, proceedings were instituted against him. He was taken to court, and he declared then that the contract which he himself had drawn up and signed was quite wrong and, according to a new one which he had just written, he owed nothing more, indeed, he actually had money coming back to him.

Mehrere mißliche Umstände mußten Frau v Arnim veranlassen, den mit H. Egb. Bauer geschlossenen Commissions-Vertrag zu kündigen. Dies geschah im Februar 1846; im April 1846 lieferte Bauer alles bei ihm Vorräthige ab und übergab gleichzeitig einen ‘Haupt Abschluß’ … Dieser Hauptabschluß wurde … geprüft und für richtig befunden. Im zweiten Jahre—1847—sollte H. Bauer nach dem geschlossenen Contrakte für die vom Jan[uar] April 1846 versandten und ihm im Jahre 1846 zur Disposition gestellten Ex[em]pl[a]re aufkommen. Nachdem Herr Bauer nach mehrmaligen vorhergegangenen Mahnungen dies nicht that, wurde man klagbar gegen ihn. Vors Gericht gefordert, erklärte er nun, der ganz von ihm abgefaßte und durch seine Unterschrift vollzogene Abschluß sei unrichtig, er habe nach einem neuen Abschlusse, den er jetzt angefertigt, nichts mehr zu zahlen, im Gegentheile bekäme er noch Geld heraus.¹⁴⁵

Brentano-von Arnim then asked for the immediate return of all books which had been consigned to Bauer on commission as well as, perhaps, two-thirds of their list price. Her claim was rejected by the city court of Charlottenburg on November 18.¹⁴⁶

At the time of these difficulties in the book trade the brothers Bauer had not been able to develop their radical views from the early 1840s any further. Bruno Bauer distanced himself from the common people, disappointed that his critical theories received no resonance among them, and Edgar Bauer concentrated on non-philosophical journalism, inasmuch as he was able to publish at all. It was not surprising therefore that from the mid 1840s on Brentano-von Arnim no longer exhibited an interest for the intellectual achievements of the brothers Bauer. In spite of the fact that they became intellectually independent from one another and in spite of the business disagreements they had had, she remained loyal to them in a manner that became evident in a later lawsuit. Brentano-von Arnim had started her own publishing business in the summer of 1846, the “Expedition des v. Arnimschen Verlags.” But while she was suing Egbert Bauer, she became implicated in a suit by the Berlin magistrate because she was carrying on a business there without having acquired Berlin citizenship.¹⁴⁷ She took it upon herself to make this dispute public and in the course thereof she proclaimed her story and made the magistrate look ridiculous. She was a master of indiscretion when it was a matter of broadcasting her convictions, but she was equally a master of discretion when it came to protecting the less well-respected from public opinion. To her contemporaries and even to researchers of later years the controversy with the book business of the Bauers remained a secret by Brentano-von Arnim's own directive: “So much prejudice exists against the Bauers and it would become a very painful experience for me if this affair were to increase it” (Es ist so viel Vorurtheil gegen die Bauers und es würde mir eine der schmerzlichsten Erfahrungen sein wenn dem durch diese Sache Vorschub geleistet würde).¹⁴⁸

Notes

1. Heinz and Ingrid Pepperle, eds., Introduction, Die Hegelsche Linke: Dokumente zur Philosophie und Politik im deutschen Vormärz (Leipzig: Reclam, 1985) 25.

2. “Menschenvergötterung,” Evangelische Kirchen-Zeitung 30 [Berlin] 15 Apr. 1837: col. 237.

3. A[dolph] Hausrath, David Friedrich Strauß und die Theologie seiner Zeit vol. 1 (Heidelberg: Bassermann, 1876) 298-304.

4. [Johann Peter Lange], “Bettine,” Evangelische Kirchen-Zeitung 27-29 [Berlin] 4,7, 11 Apr. 1838; col. 210. Cp. concerning the question of authorship: Bettine von Arnim. Clemens Brentano's Frühlingskranz. Die Günderode, ed. Walter Schmitz (Frankfurt a. M.: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1986) 941-943; 945-964, 995-997, 1005-1007, 1024-1033, 1119-1121 contain sources and information about the relationship between Bettina and the Young Hegelians.

5. [Lange] 214, 217, 229, 231.

6. H[einrich] L[eo], rev. of Dies Buch gehört dem König, by Bettina von Arnim, Evangelische Kirchen-Zeitung 35, 36 [Berlin] 1 May and 4 May 1844: col. 286. Concerning the question of authorship see: Anneliese Krige, “Geschichte der Evangelischen Kirchen-Zeitung unter der Redaktion Ernst-Wilhelm Hengstenbergs (vom 1. Juli 1827 bis zum 1. Juni 1869): Ein Beitrag zur Kirchengeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts,” part 2, diss., Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 1958, 60.

7. Bettina von Arnim, Dies Buch gehört dem König (Berlin: E. H. Schroeder, 1843) 326; L[eo], Review, col. 284.

8. Arnim 325.

9. L[eo], review, col. 285.

10. Heinrich Leo, Die Hegelingen: Actenstücke und Belege zu der s.g. Denunciation der ewigen Wahrheit zusammengestelt (Halle: Anton, 1838).

11. David Friedrich Strauß, Zwei friedliche Blätter: Vermehrter und verbesserter Abdruck der beiden Aufsätze Ueber Justinus Kerner und Ueber Vergängliches und Bleibendes im Christenthum (Altona: Hammerich, 1839) 99-101.

12. Strauß 108.

13. Bettina von Arnim, Die Günderode. Clemens Brentanos Frühlingskranz, ed. Heinz Härtl (Berlin and Weimar: Aufbau Verlag, 1989) 174.

14. Arnim 167.

15. Arnim 166, 162.

16. Reinhold Steig, “Ein Besuch bei Frau Bettina von Arnim [1839],” Vossische Zeitung [Berlin] No. 385. 19 Aug. 1909.

17. “An einen unbekannten Empfänger”, 10 September 1839. Manuscript in Varnhagen von Ense Archive. Biblioteka Jagiellońska, Kraków. It will be referred to as BJ.

18. Werner Vordtriede, ed. “An Julius Döring.” In “Bettina von Arnims Briefe an Julius Döring,” Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts (1963): 393.

19. Werner Vordtriede 393.

20. Strauß 84: “how often is wine created most naturally from a vessel in which water was once found …

    I see wine created later from a vessel that was once filled with water: must therefore the water have been changed into wine, and only it perhaps remained unnoticed by me, how the water was poured out and the wine poured in?” And Bettina to Döring, 27-30 May 1839; Vordtriede, “Bettina von Arnim's letters to Julius Döring,” p. 393 ff.: Strauß “could certainly have said, that it is no miracle, that Christ could walk on water, that it was no miracle, that he could change water to wine; because the Philistines also change wine to water … You also have changed water to wine, my lips have tasted it and my senses tested its spirit.”

    wie oft wird aus einem Gefäße, in dem früher Wasser sich befunden hatte, später auf die natürlichste Weise Wein geschöpft … Ich sehe aus einem früher mit Wasser gefüllten Krug nachmals Wein schöpfen: muß darum das Wasser in Wein verwandelt worden sein, und blieb mir nicht vielleicht nur unbemerkt, wie das Wasser aus-, und der Wein eingegossen wurde? Und Bettina an Döring, 27.-30. Mai 1839; Vordtriede, “Bettina von Arnim's Briefe an Julius Döring,” p. 393 f/: Strauß “hätte freilich sagen können es giebt kein Wunder, denn Christus konnte auf den Wassern gehn, das war kein Wunder, er konnte Wasser in Wein verwandlen; denn die Philister verwandlen ja auch Wein in Wasser … Du auch hast Wasser in Wein verwandelt, und meine Lippe hat ihn gekostet, und meine Sinne haben seinen Geist geprobt.”

21. Werner Vordtriede, ed., 364.

22. Cp. Heinrich Heine, Heinrich Heine: Säkularausgabe, vol. 25 (Berlin and Paris: Akademie-Verlag, Editions du CNRS, 1974) 169, 201.

23. [David Friedrich] Strauß, review. Mittheilungen über Goethe: Aus mündlichen und schriftlichen, gedruckten und ungedruckten Quellen, by Dr. Friedich Wilhelm Riemer, Deutsche Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Kunst 25, 30 July 1841, 98.

24. Strauß, Deutsche Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Kunst 98.

25. “To Wilhelm Strauß,” 6 Dec. 1840, Ausgewählte Briefe von David Friedrich Strauß, ed. Eduard Zeller (Bonn: Strauß, 1895) 95.

26. Strauß, Deutsche Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Kunst 98.

27. Strauß, Deutsche Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Kunst 98.

28. Strauß, Deutsche Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Kunst 98.

29. Adolph Rapp, ed., “To Ernst Rapp,” 9 Sept. 1840, Briefwechsel zwischen Strauß und Vischer, vol. 1 (Stuttgart: Klett, 1952) 298.

30. Rapp, ed., “To Ernst Rapp,” 12 June 1841, 298; ibidem.

31. An einen unbekannten Empfänger. Ms. in BJ.

32. Cp. Karl Heinz Bohrer, Die Kritik der Romantik: Der Verdacht der Philosophie gegen die literarische Moderne (Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1989) 182-202.

33. Cp. Else von Eck, Die Literaturkritik in den Hallischen und Deutschen Jahrbüchern (1838-1842): Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft (Berlin: Ebering, 1925) 48.

34. May 1840; Heinz and Ingrid Pepperle, eds. 799-800.

35. Heinz and Ingrid Pepperle, eds. 801.

36. Cp. E[duard] Meyen, “Achim von Arnims sämmtliche Werke,” ed. Wilhelm Grimm, vol. 1 and 2, Hallische Jahrbücher für deutsche Wissenschaft und Kunst [Leipzig] (1839): 31 Oct., No. 261; 1 Nov., No. 262, cols. 2081-2086, 2094-2096.

37. June 1841; MEGA², vol. 1, Berlin 1975, 361. Cp. Allgemeine Zeitung [Augsburg] 19 May 1841, No. 139, p. 1108.

38. Ed[uard] Meyen, “Die neueste belletristische Literatur,” Athenäum: Zeitschrift für das gebildete Deutschland No. 2 [Berlin] 9 Jan. 1841: 29.

39. Meyen, Athenäum: Zeitschrift für das gebildete Deutschland.

40. Eduard Meyen, “Bettina's Politik: Dies Buch gehört dem Könige,” Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (Ergänzungsblätter) [Halle] November 1843; No. 98 and 99, cols. 778-779. Concerning authorship: Articles which appeared in the “Rhein Newspaper” in 1842 were likewise signed “E. M.” by Meyen. (Zur Verfasserschaft: Ebenfalls mit “E. M.” zeichnete Meyen seine 1842 in der “rheinischen Zeitung” erschienenen Beiträge.) Cp. Wilhelm Klutentreter, Die Rheinische Zeitung von 1842/43 in der politischen und geistigen Bewegung des Vormärz. [Teil 2.] Dokumente. Dortmund 1967, S. 215 (Dortmunder Beiträge zur Zeitungsforschung, vol. 10, part 2).

41. Moritz [!] Carrière, review, Die Günderode, Hallische Jahrbücher für deutsche Wissenschaft und Kunst (1841): 283-284. [Leipzig] 24 and 25 March 1841, No. 71 and 72. Quoted page 283 ff. Reprint in Moriz Carriere, “Achim von Arnim und die Romantik. Die Günderrode.” Studien für eine Geschichte des Deutschen Geistes 1 (Grünberg: W. Levysohn, 1841) 28-44.

42. Carrière, review. 287.

43. Paul Nerrlich, ed., “To Adolf Stahr,” 5 May 1840, Arnold Ruges Briefwechsel und Tagebuchblätter aus den Jahren 1825-1880 vol. 1 (Berlin, 1886) 205.

44. Paul Nerrlich, ed., “To Adolf Stahr,” 10 Mar. 1841, 225.

45. 1 May 1842. Ursula Püschel, ed., “… und mehr als einmal nachts im Thiergarten.” Bettina von Arnim und Heinrich Bernhard Oppenheim. Briefe 1891-1848., Bettina von Arnim Studien, vol. 1, ed. Ursula Püschel (Berlin: FSP-Fotosatz und Spezielle EDV-Programme GMBH, 1990).

46. Heinz and Ingrid Pepperle 899.

47. Cp. Briefwechsel zwischen Bruno Bauer und Edgar Bauer während der Jahre 1839-1842 aus Bonn und Berlin (Charlottenburg: E. Bauer, 1844) 166-168.

48. Arnold Ruge, Introduction for 1841 edition of the Deutsche Jahrbücher. Heinz and Ingrid Pepperle, eds., 225.

49. [Christian Hermann] Weiße, rev., Die Günderode, Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, vol. 2 [Berlin] (1840), No. 96-98, cols. 800-824.

50. Briefwechsel zwischen Bruno Bauer und Edgar Bauer während der Jahre 1839-1842 aus Bonn und Berlin 167-168.

51. Edgar Bauer, “Die Bettine als Religionsstifterin,” Deutsche Jahrbücher für Wissenschaft und Kunst [Leipzig] 23 and 24 May 1842, No. 122 and 123, (1842): 484.

52. Bauer 484.

53. Cp. Theodor Mundt, “Bettina und der Cultus des Genius,” Der Freihafen: Galerie von Unterhaltungsbildern aus den Kreisen der Literatur, Gesellschaft und Wissenschaft [Altona: Hammerich] No. 2 (1841): 319-329.

54. Bauer 484.

55. Bauer 484.

56. Bauer 484.

57. Bauer 486-487.

58. I. S. Turgénev, “To Bettina,” The end of 1840 or beginning of 1841 Polnoe sobranje sočinenje i pisem, Pisma, vol. 1 (Moscow and Leningrad: Chudožest v. Literatury, 1961) 213-214.

59. Bauer 487.

60. Bauer 487.

61. Bauer 488.

62. Bettine von Arnim, Clemens Brentanos Frühlingskranz. Die Günderode. 1024.

63. Szeliga [Franz Szeliga Zychlin von Zychlinski], “I. Dies Buch gehört dem König. II. Clemens Brentano's Frühlingskranz,” Norddeutsche Blätter für Kritik, Literatur und Unterhaltung No. 2 (1844): 14.

64. Szeliga 14.

65. Szeliga 18.

66. Szeliga 1.

67. Szeliga 10.

68. Meyen, “Bettina's Politik: Dies Buch gehört dem Könige,” Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (Ergänzungsblätter) col. 784.

69. Meyen, “Bettina's Politik: Dies Buch gehört dem Könige,” Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (Ergänzungsblätter) col. 784.

70. Meyen, “Bettina's Politik: Dies Buch gehört dem Könige,” Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (Ergänzungsblätter) col. 783.

71. Meyen, “Bettina's Politik: Dies Buch gehört dem Könige,” Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (Ergänzungsblätter) col. 778.

72. Meyen, “Bettina's Politik: Dies Buch gehört dem Könige,” Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (Ergänzungsblätter) col. 781.

73. Meyen, “Bettina's Politik: Dies Buch gehört dem Könige,” Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (Ergänzungsblätter) col. 781.

74. Meyen, “Bettina's Politik: Dies Buch gehört dem Könige,” Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (Ergänzungsblätter) col. 786.

75. Meyen, “Bettina's Politik: Dies Buch gehört dem Könige,” Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (Ergänzungsblätter) col. 791.

76. Bruno Bauer, Vollständige Geschichte der Partheikämpfe in Deutschland während der Jahre 1842-1846, vol. 2 (Charlottenburg, 1847) 11-12.

77. Cp. Heinz Härtl, “Die zeitgenossische publizistische Rezeption des Königs-Buches,” Bettina von Arnim-Studien, vol. 2, 1992.

78. Edgar Bauer, “To Bruno Bauer,” 18 Jan. 1842, Briefwechsel zwischen Bruno Bauer und Edgar Bauer während der Jahre 1839-1842 aus Bonn und Berlin (Charlottenburg: E. Bauer, 1844) 170.

79. Edgar Bauer, Frankreich vom Juli bis zum October 1789, oder die ersten Kämpfe des constitutionellen Princips mit dem Königsthum und der Volksparthei. Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte der neuern Zeit seit der Französischen Revolution (Charlottenburg: E. Bauer, 1843) 42. Based on sources and original memoirs edited by Bruno and Edgar Bauer. 2.

80. Cp. Heinz Härtl, “Mirabeau im Frühlingskranz,” Germanica Wratislavensia 80 (1990), 137-147.

81. Max Stirner, Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum (Leipzig: Wigand, 1845) 263.

82. Stirner 263.

83. Gustav Landauer, “To Ernst Joel,” 24 Dec. 1915, Sein Lebensgang in Briefen, ed. Martin Buber, vol. 2 (Frankfurt a.M.: Insel, 1929) 114.

84. Gertrud Meyer-Hepner, “Ein fälschlich Bettina zugeschriebener Aufsatz,” Weimarer Beiträge 6.1 (1960): 132-134.

85. Undated and unaddressed letter draft to Heinrich Bernhard Oppenheim, 28 Dec. 1841. Ursula Püschel,”Bettina von Arnim. Werke und Briefe,” diss., Freie Universität Berlin, 1965, 298. Cp. the dated continuation of this letter in Bettina von Arnim. Werke und Briefe, ed. Joachim Müller. (Frechen: Bartmann, 1961) 496-498.

86. Püschel 299.

87. G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, “Bettina von Arnim en Bruno Bauer,” Godsdienstwetenschappelijke Studien 9 (1951): 36, 40.

88. “To Hermann Karl von Leonhardi,” 24 Nov. 1838. Heinz Härtl, “Zwei Briefe Bettina von Arnims an Hermann Karl von Leonhardi,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. Geisteswissenschaftliche Reihe, 41, No. 1 (1992) 10.

89. Bilder aus Karl Sievekings Leben: 1787-1847. Part 2 of Vol. 2 of Bilder aus vergangener Zeit nach Mittheilungen aus großentheils ungedruckten Familienpapieren, ms., (Hamburg: Agentur des Rauhen Hauses, 1887) 183.

90. Cp. Tagebücher: Aus dem Nachlaß Varnhagens von Ense, ed. Ludmilla Assing, vol. 1 (Berlin: Brockhaus, 1861) 340-341.

91. Tagebücher: Aus dem Nachlaß Varnhagens von Ense 346.

92. “To Julius von Hardegg,” 12 Oct. 1841, ms. located in Deutsches Literaturarchiv im Schiller-Nationalmuseum, Marbach.

93. “To Friedmund von Arnim,” 27 Oct. 1841.” Karl-Heinz Hahn, Bettina von Arnim in ihrem Verhältnis zu Staat und Politik, (Weimar: Böhlau, 1959) 33.

94. Püschel 298.

95. Püschel 296.

96. Püschel 296.

97. Püschel 297.

98. Püschel 299.

99. Püschel 299.

100. Ursula Püschel, “Bettina von Arnim und Friedrich Wilhelm IV,” Internationales Jahrbuch der Bettina-von-Arnim-Gesellschaft 3 (1989) 102.

101. Cp. Heinrich Grunholzer, Tagebuch (26 Feb. 1843) ms., Paul Kläui-Bibliothek, Uster, Switzerland.

102. Franz Thomas Bratranek to Ignác Jan Hanuš, 2 Dec 1843. Jaromir Loužil, “Franz Thomas Bratranek—ein Vermittler der deutschen Philosophie im böhmischen Vormärz,” Ost und West in der Geschichte des Denkens und der kulturellen Beziehungen: Festschrift für Eduard Winter zum 70. Geburtstag (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960) 604.

103. Grunholzer (10 Aug. 1843).

104. Karl Glossy, ed., “26 September 1842,” Literarische Geheimberichte aus dem Vormärz part 1 (Vienna, 1912) 319.

105. approx. 1843; see Püschel, 43. Endnote 45.

106. Martha Becker, ed. Anton Schindler der Freund Beethovens: Sein Tagebuch aus den Jahren 1841-43 (Frankfurt a.M.: Kramer, 1939) 100 (3 August 1843).

107. Loužil 604.

108. [Friedmund von Arnim], Die gute Sache der Seele, ihre eigenen Angelegenheiten und die aus dem Menschen und der Vergangenheit entwickelte Geschichtszukunft (Braunschweig: Otto, 1843) 3.

109. Friedmund von Arnim 3.

110. Alfred Dove, ed., “Leopold von Ranke an Heinrich und Selma Ranke, 24 März 1831,” Leopold von Rankes Sämmtliche Werke vol. 53/54 (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1890) 250.

111. Cp. [von Arnim], Dies Buch gehört dem König 27, 32, 33, 38, 64, 83, 84, 92, 101, 112-114, 145, 194, 230, 233-235, 241-242, 257, 258, 285, 369, 394, 401, 405-407, 427, 431, 451, 520-522.

112. Grunholzer (18 May 1843).

113. To Wilhelm Strauss, 16 Jan. 1843. Strauß, Ausgewählte Briefe von David Friedrich Strauß 145. Cp. Emma von Niendorf, [Emma von Suckow], Aus der Gegenwart (Berlin: Alexander Duncker, 1844) 147.

114. Strauß, Zwei friedliche Blätter 65-69.

115. “To Ernst Rapp,” 29 Sept. 1943. Strauß, Ausgewählte Briefe von David Friedrich Strauß 153-154.

116. Tagebücher: Aus dem Nachlaß Varnhagens von Ense vol.2 (Berlin: Brockhaus, 1861). 208. (20 August 1843)

117. Ludwig Geiger, ed., “An Carl Stahr, 29. April 1844,” Aus Adolf Stahrs Nachlaß. Briefe von Stahr nebst Briefen an ihn von Bettine von Arnim [u.a.] (Oldenburg: Schulze, 1903) 88.

118. Kurt Gassen, ed., “An Rudolf Baier, 9. Oktober 1845,” Bettina von Arnim und Rudolf Baier: Univeröffentlichte Briefe und Tagebuchaufzeichnungen. Aus den Schätzen der Universitätsbibliothek zu Greifswald 11 (Greifswald: Bamberg, 1937) 61-62. Cp. Otto Mallon, “Bettinas Buchhändlerepistel: Ein bisher unbekannter Brief,” Zeitschrift für Bücherfreunde 38.3 (1934): 2-4.

119. “To Baier,” 9 Oct. 1845. Gassen, ed. 62.

120. Gassen, ed. 62.

121. Ludwig Geiger, ed., “An Adolf Stahr, Ende Mai 1844,” Bettine von Arnim und Friedrich Wilhelm IV: Ungedruckte Briefe und Aktenstücke (Frankfurt a.M.: Rütten & Loening, 1902) 61.

122. Adolf Heinrich Graf von Arnim-Boitzenburg to Friedrich Wilhelm IV, 6 June 1844. Geiger, ed. Bettine von Arnim und Friedrich Wilhelm IV: Ungedruckte Briefe und Aktenstücke 58-59.

123. Manuscript. Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv der Stiftung Weimarer Klassik, Arnim-Nachlaß Sign. 350a. (will be referred to as GSA)

124. Tagebücher: Aus dem Nachlaß Varnhagens von Ense vol. 2 315. (24 June 1844)

125. Cp. Erik Gamby and Edgar Bauer, Junghegelianer, Publizist und Polizeiagent: Mit Bibliographie der E. Bauer-Texte und Dokumentenanhang. Schriften aus dem Karl-Marx-Haus Trier 23 (Trier: Karl-Marx-Haus, 1985) 21-23.

126. Tagebücher: Aus dem Nachlaß Varnhagens von Ense 73.

127. “Bettina an Friedmund von Arnim,” date unknown, ms., GSA 386.

128. Gassen, ed. 36-37.

129. “Bettina an Siegmund von Arnim,” 5 Oct. 1845, ms., GSA 388.

130. ms., Freies Deutsches Hochstift—Frankfurter Goethe-Museum, sign. 13265.

131. Manuscript. GSA 472a.

132. GSA 422.

133. Bettina von Arnim, Werke und Briefe vol. 5 (Frankfurt a.M.: Frechen and Köln, 1986) 498-499.

134. GSA 422.

135. Manuscript. GSA 386.

136. Manuscript. GSA 386.

137. Baier to Bettina, 9 Oct. 1845, ms., GSA 413.

138. “Bettine an Friedrich Klein, ms., GSA 423.

139. Bettine an Friedmund von Arnim,” ms., GSA 386.

140. To Baier, Dec. 1845. Gassen, ed. 79.

141. Gassen, ed. 80.

142. Undated letter to an unknown recipient, Dec. 1845, ms., Biblioteka Jagiellońska, Kraków.

143. Undated letter to an unknown recipient, approx 1846. GSA 455, 5.

144. Undated letter to an unknown recipient,” Dec. 1845, ms., Biblioteka Jagiellońska, Kraków.

145. Manuscript, GSA 455, 5.

146. Cp. GSA 455, 5.

147. Cp. Gertrud Meyer-Hepner, Der Magistratsprozeß der Bettina von Arnim (Weimar: Arion Verlag, 1960).

148. “Bettine an Rudloff,” 15 Feb. 1846, ms., Biblioteka Jagiellońska, Kraków.

This chapter was translated from the German by Dorothee E. Krahn.

A shorter German version of this article was presented at the German Studies Association Conference in Milwaukee on 6 October, 1989. Since the article contains a large number of quotes, the German original is given only if the quote is by Bettina Brentano-von Arnim or if it is important for the context. Since the list of notes is extensive a works cited list was not added.