Collecting Tradition: Modernity, Material Culture, and German Poetry Anthologies, 1765-1795 A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by

Bryn Savage

This dissertation offers new way of thinking about the German poetry anthology and its development, and proposes new boundaries for the research of anthologies and other poetry collections. The period 1765-1796 is a crucial period of change for poetry collections, which offers particularly rich material for a study of their past and present. The first half of the introduction contains a description of the development of the form as well as the historiographical framework. The second half describes previous approaches to the Early Modern German poetry anthology and shows new directions for research, particularly the application of methods from book history to these sources. In the three case studies that follow, book history methodology is used to create narratives about exemplary period anthologies compiled and edited by three prolific anthologists, Karl Wilhelm Ramler (1725-1798), Christian Heinrich Schmid (1746-1800), and Karl Heinrich Jördens (1757-1835), each of whom published multiple poetry collections during the last third of the eighteenth century. This dissertation can prove the potential of such documents for the more general study of German literature and culture, which, although previously acknowledged, has remained widely untested. The case studies suggest specific ways in which book history methodologies can supplement further study of eighteenth-century German literature and literary culture. A chronological bibliography of early German poetry collections from 1624 to 1799 is also included.

Collecting Tradition: Modernity, Material Culture, and German Poetry Anthologies, 1765-1795 A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Bryn Maireadh Gafron Savage Dissertation Director: Kirk Wetters May 2012 Table of Contents Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………………..iii Acknowledgments & Dedication ...……………………………………………………………...iv Introduction I.I Reading Anthologies ……………………………………………………………….......1 I.II Previous Research on the Form ……………………………………………………….1 I.III Book History and Anthology Research..…………………………………….……......5 I.IV Book History Methods in Collecting Tradition………………………………………6 Historical & Terminological Concerns II.I Development of the Anthology Form in the Eighteenth Century……………………..9 II.II Defining the Anthology……………………………………………………………....12 II.III The Case Studies of Collecting Tradition….………………………………….…......22 Case Studies Chapter 1. Establishing Tradition: Karl Wilhelm Ramler’s Epigram Anthology Projects, 1754-1780………………………………………….25 Chapter 2. A Late Miscellany: Christian Heinrich Schmid’s Anthologie der Deutschen, 1770-1772………………………………………………………...…...49 Chapter 3. An Early Representative Epigram Anthology: Karl Heinrich Jördens’ Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte, 1789-1790……………………………..…....83 Conclusion Collecting Tradition and Historical Consciousness............................................................114 Appendices A. Chronological Bibliography of German Poetry Collections, 1624-1799………………….117 B. Works Consulted…………………………………………………………………………..130 i © 2012, 2022 Bryn Maireadh Gafron Savage All rights reserved. ii Abstract Collecting Tradition: Modernity, Material Culture, and German Poetry Anthologies, 1765-1795 Bryn Maireadh Gafron Savage 2012 This dissertation offers new way of thinking about the German poetry anthology and its development, and proposes new boundaries for the research of anthologies and other poetry collections. The period 1765-1796 is a crucial period of change for poetry collections, which offers particularly rich material for a study of their past and present. The first half of the introduction contains a description of the development of the form as well as the historiographical framework. The second half describes previous approaches to the Early Modern German poetry anthology and shows new directions for research, particularly the application of methods from book history to these sources. In the three case studies that follow, book history methodology is used to create narratives about exemplary period anthologies compiled and edited by three prolific anthologists, Karl Wilhelm Ramler (1725-1798), Christian Heinrich Schmid (1746-1800), and Karl Heinrich Jördens (1757-1835), each of whom published multiple poetry collections during the last third of the eighteenth century. This dissertation can prove the potential of such documents for the more general study of German literature and culture, which, although previously acknowledged, has remained widely untested. The case studies suggest specific ways in which book history methodologies can supplement further study of eighteenth-century German literature and literary culture. A chronological bibliography of early German poetry collections from 1624 to 1799 is also included. iii Acknowledgments & Dedication I would like to thank: Kirk Wetters, who has been a generous, kind, and encouraging adviser. My committee members, Rüdiger Campe and Brigitte Peucker at Yale for their wisdom. Achim Aurnhammer, Martin Dieter, and Stephanie Lethbridge at the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, who helped me find fresh perspectives on anthologies. Yale University and the Beinecke Library for financial and institutional support of this project and the staff of the Beinecke and the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin for their efficient assistance. My parents David and Laurie and sister Bridget for their enthusiasm whenever I talked about the happenings of eighteenth-century Germany, as well as my mother-in-law, Doris, who hosted me graciously (and deliciously!) through all my research trips to the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin. Christa Sammons, longtime curator of the German Literature Collection at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library and an excellent friend with whom I have shared many wonderful and hilarious conversations about literature, libraries, and life. My husband David, who has supported me since I began this project with his culinary and copy-editing abilities, but even more so with his good cheer, humor, and love. It is to David that I dedicate this work. Bryn Savage New Haven, Spring 2012 iv I.I Reading Anthologies Although they have received only slight critical attention, a great number of poetry collections were published in eighteenth-century Germany, particularly in the latter half of the century, following the trend of belles lettres as a whole. The number of titles falling under that category and offered for sale at the Leipzig Easter fair, the most important German book fair, increased thirteenfold between 1740 and 1800; this increase has been ascribed to a combination of population growth and increasing literacy rates (Schön 44, Gauger 39). In the sphere of literary theory, huge advances were made from the prescriptive Opitzian poetics that had reigned since the 1620s, but no substantially different approach to poetry was suggested until the 1730s, although many handbooks on poetry were written. Beginning with Gottsched, however, German poetics evolved quickly over the course of the eighteenth century and, due to Bodmer, Breitinger, Lessing and Herder, gradually allowed for the appreciation of older as well as contemporary poetry. It was during this period that the representative anthology came into being in Germany. At this time, the printed poetry collection was still a young publication genre. Editors experimented with the form, but in general we see a transition between the primacy of the miscellany to that of the representative anthology taking place between roughly 1765 and 1795. The period in which this transition took place is sharply delineated and also temporally narrow: after nearly one hundred fifty years of published German poetry collections, the miscellany was superseded in only thirty years by the representative anthology, which has been dominant ever since. This transition reflects changing understandings of poetry and why it should be brought together in a single volume, differences which are very much related to evolving concepts of authorship, scholarship, history, patriotism, and the nation. In the following pages, I offer a new way of thinking about the German poetry anthology and its development, and propose new boundaries for anthology research. This crucial period of change offers particularly rich material for a study of its past and present. In the first half of the introduction, I describe the development of the form as well as the historiographical framework I believe most useful to understand it. In the second half, I describe previous approaches to the Early Modern German poetry anthology and show how my approach builds on and, in some cases, contradicts previous approaches and their findings. In this section, I also delineate and justify my approach, which marks the first time methods from book history have been applied to these sources. In the three case studies that follow, I use this methodology to create narratives about exemplary period anthologies compiled and edited by three prolific anthologists, Karl Wilhelm Ramler (1725-1798), Christian Heinrich Schmid (1746-1800), and Karl Heinrich Jördens (1757-1835), each of whom published multiple poetry collections during the last third of the eighteenth century. I hope, of course, that this dissertation can prove the potential of such documents for the more general study of German literature and culture, which, although previously acknowledged, has remained widely untested. In addition, I hope that the case studies can suggest specific ways in which book history methodologies could supplement further study of eighteenthcentury German literature and literary culture. I.II Previous Research on the Form Early Modern collections of German poetry have received very little attention, so little, in fact, that one is inclined to stop and ask why the otherwise large and dynamic field of German Studies should not bring forth at least a few publications on the subject each decade. A few forerunners can be found in the 1930s, but scholars of both English and German literature only began to study anthologies more widely 1 in the 1950s and 1960s, when methods from Sozialgeschichte or social history began to be applied to literature.1 Reacting to earlier positivist and intellectual histories, practitioners of social history investigated broader changes to groups, rather than individuals and political moments. In that spirit, in 1969 Dietger Pforte described the types of questions the study of anthologies can answer, questions concerning the function of the anthology in the process of the production, dissemination and consumption of literature, concerning the self-conception and claim to influence (Wirkungsanspruch) of the selecting collectors and concerning the documentary value of the anthology to knowledge of the ‘literary life’ of an era.2 In the Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit, Häntzschel sketches the development of the anthology form in German-speaking lands, concluding with the elements that make anthologies compelling for Social History: “anthologies’ close ties to particular audiences, the usually transparent intention of their editors and their identifiable situational context of their reception, [...] offer reliable information about the relationship between texts, publishers and readers.” 3 Like Pforte in 1969, Häntzschel sees much to recommend the further study of anthologies, particularly in the service of discovering social events and networks. This path has not, however, proven attractive to scholars of Early Modern German literature and culture, and few have turned their attention to the anthology. Since Pforte, Germanists in both Germany and the United States have read anthologies primarily as evidence regarding canon formation over the course of the nineteenth-century as well as in the German Democratic Republic. 4 In the United States, two dissertations on early anthologies were written at mid-century, both of which create a narrative of the development of German anthologies by situating them within the context of established intellectual and literary movements: de Capua's “Development of the Lyrical Anthology from the End of the Baroque Period to the Beginning of the Sturm Und Drang” (Yale, 1953) and Bareikis’ “The German Anthology from Opitz to the Göttingen ‘Musenalmanach’” (Harvard, 1965). Beyond these two surveys, early German anthologies are treated by Wiedemann in “Vorspiel der Anthologie. Konstruktivistische, repräsentative und anthologische Sammelformen in der deutschen Literatur des 17. Jahrhunderts” and Joachim Bark in “Die religiösen Anthologien und die Erweckungsbewegung,” both of which were included in the second volume of Pforte's Deutschsprachige Anthologie (1968).5 Anthologies are also discussed in a handful of articles and occasionally as elements of larger projects on eighteenth-century canon formation and reception of earlier literature, such as Volkmar Braunbehrens' chapter on Zachariae's Auserlesene Stücke der besten deutschen Dichter in Nationalbildung und Nationalliteratur6 and Dieter Martin’s exploration of the reception of Baroque literature in anthologies in Barock um 1800 (2000).7 The Princeton Germanist and comparatist, Victor Lange (1908-1996) wrote a trailblazing work on the English anthology: “Die lyrische Anthologie im England des 18. Jahrhunderts (1670–1780)” Diss. U Leipzig. Weimar: 1935. The German Musenalmanach was also an object of study in the 1930s. 2 Pforte 1969b vii. 3 In the original: “Da A[nthologien] aufgrund ihrer engen Bindung an bestimmte Publikumskreise, ihrer meist erkennbaren Herausgeberintentionen und ihres eruierbaren situtuativen Rezeptionskontext verlässliche Auskünfte über den Zusammenhang zwischen Texten, Verlegern und Lesern bieten, sind sie prädestiniert für sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchungen” (425). 4 Häntzschel has made extensive contributions to both subfields. See also Bark’s “Zwischen Obskurität und Hochschätzung. Die Rolle der Anthologien in der Kanonbildung des 19. Jahrhunderts” (1991). 5 Bareikis did not make his dissertation available in print or microfilm, but did contribute a version to the Deutschsprachige Anthologie. 6 Full title: Nationalbildung und Nationalliteratur. Zur Rezeption der Literatur des 17. Jahrhunderts von Gottsched bis Gervinus. It is the second chapter (29-48). 7 For an introduction to the theory of reception, which is a central methodology of literary studies in Germany, see Holub. 1 2 Bibliographies of poetic collections have been created, but there is still much to be done. Bareikis begins his bibliography with the Neukirch collection and ends in 1799, while de Capua simply lists anthologies with other period sources in his dissertation bibliography. Both Bareikis and de Capua rely on short titles and omit much publication information. Martin created a bibliography with much more complete entries; however, his bibliography is narrower in scope, covering only poetry collections containing Baroque poetry and published between 1766 and 1830. Later anthologies are better documented; Joachim Bark and Dietger Pforte published a selected bibliography of approximately 2,000 entries for the period between 1800 and 1950 in the first volume of Die deutschsprachige Anthologie (1970). Häntzschel created a bibliography of German-language anthologies for the period between 1840 and 1914, which also included roughly 2,000 entries. 8 Since early 2010, Dieter Martin, Achim Aurnhammer and Klemens Bobenhausen have been at work on the Freiburger Datenbank Lyrikanthologie, an electronic database building on previous bibliographies and databases, some published, others made by scholars for their private use.9 The FDL is a resource primarily for the study of reception history; a bibliography is being created to facilitate tracing the publication history of poems rather than to bring together information on the collections as works themselves. When finished, the FDL partners estimate that it will include 75,000 poems in 170,000 publications. It is not yet evident to what degree the FDL will support research on early poetry collections. It is not only the German anthology that has been neglected. In the introduction to International Anthologies of Literature in Translation (1995), Harald Kittel wrote that too little has been done on anthologies in each European language to allow for comparison (xiv): Despite the obvious existence of intercultural analogies and cross-currents, not to forget apparent differences, a comparative history of European anthologies published since the eighteenth century still remains to be written. … there are no comprehensive histories of such anthologies and hardly any studies of the relationship between anthologies and histories of national literature. The more or less scattered data … provide an insufficient basis for systematic intracultural and intercultural comparisons and evaluations. The dearth of anthology research in traditional modes such as literary hermeneutics and philology should not be taken as a sign of actual insignificance, but as a challenge to scholars to develop productive methods to mine these documents for literary and historical data. In the 1990s, Kittel argued against normative approaches to anthology research that have dominated anthology scholarship, stating that, contrary to the central questions asked earlier in the twentieth century, “a priori normative definitions of what might constitute an anthology, and what might not, are not particularly helpful in the context of an inquiry into the history and inherent systematics of anthologies” (x). Kittel discourages the examination or setting of formal boundaries when not coupled with deeper exploration of the various contexts in which anthologies are embedded: distinguishing basic types or models of anthologies in accordance with the choice of authors and corpora of texts is a fairly mechanical procedure which does not lead very far unless the relevant historical backgrounds and contexts – linguistic, literary, aesthetic, socio-cultural, economic, political, and biographical – are taken into account (x). Here, Kittel gets at a central problem of twentieth-century scholarship on anthologies, which is also quite evident in work on early German anthologies. Instead of contributing narratives to a “cultural 8 9 Bibliographie der deutschsprachigen Lyrikanthologien 1840-1914 (1991). Information about the project concept can be found on the website of the department Neuere Deutsche Literatur at the Albrecht-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg. 3 history of literature” (x), as Kittel proposes, scholarship has remained descriptive on the surface and, below that, normative; this approach led to few new findings in the field. At the time Kittel wrote his plea for new approaches to the anthology, scholars of British literature were beginning to exploring methodological alternatives for anthology research.10 One particularly fruitful avenue of scholarship has been the application of methods from book history to English Early Modern anthologies. The immediate forbearers of book history can be found in Anglo-American descriptive bibliography and the French Annales school, particularly as practiced by Roger Chartier. Important early practitioners include D. F. McKenzie, Elizabeth L. Eisenstein and Robert Darnton. 11 German scholarship on literary culture, printing and publishing, has a long and robust tradition, known variously as Buchkunde, Buchgeschichte, Buchwissenschaft, and Geschichte des Buchwesens, and includes richly detailed studies on aspects of the publishing trade. For many years, however, it was associated not with literary studies, but with Bibliothekswesen or Buchhandelswesen, which are the study of libraries and the book trade, and, thus, it was often remote from the study of literature and literary history.12, 13 Until a few decades ago, the study of the book in Germany was largely the province of librarians rather than professors; the balance has shifted today, with professors now writing the majority of articles and books on aspects of book history. Furthermore, a handful of universities have founded centers for the study of the book (Rautenberg 2010, 4-5). Measured by the number of publications on books, reading and publishing since the advent of the new millennium, the study of the book has grown exponentially (Umlauf 606). Despite the growth of the field, no substantial introduction to book historical methodologies had been published in Germany by 2010 (Umlauf 704); a short introduction of approximately one hundred pages was published by Rautenberg and Dirk Wetzel in 2001 under the auspices of the series, “Grundlagen der Medienkommunikation” (Rautenberg 2001). Although there is little theoretical overlap, German and Anglo-American book history methodologies have been moving closer to one another since the turn of the millennium. 14 Contemporary German scholars are coming to favor approaches to books that see them as part of Kulturwissenschaft (cultural studies) and Medienwissenschaft (media studies).15, 16 In the United States, Germanists recently have begun combining Anglo-American methods from book history with German social-historical approaches to books, publishing, and literature (Rautenberg 2010, 9, 55-59; Tatlock 2-4). Also in 2010, Lynne Beginning in the early 1990s. See Korte’s introduction, “Flowers for the Picking: Anthologies of Poetry in (British) Literary and Cultural Studies,” in Anthologies of British Poetry. Critical Perspectives from Literary and Cultural Studies. 11 For an introduction to the field: The Book History Reader edited by Finkelstein and McCleery. 12 Important contributions have been made especially by Herbert Göpfert, Reinhard Wittmann and Paul Raabe, director of the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel from 1968 until 1992. The HAB long has been a rallying point for the study of the book and print culture in Germany; it is the home of the Wolfenbütteler Arbeitskreis für Bibliotheks-, Buch- und Mediengeschichte and has published the Wolfenbütteler Schriften zur Geschichte des Buchwesens and Wolfenbütteler Notizen zur Buchgeschichte since the 1970s. 13 The monumental eight-volume Lexikon des gesamten Buchwesens (1985-2010) is representative of earlier German approaches to the book. 14 See Rautenberg 2010, 9. 15 Rautenberg 2001. 16 For example: Kerlen, Dietrich and Inka Kirste, ed. Buchwissenschaft und Buchwirkungsforschung. VIII. Leipziger Hochschultage für Medien und Kommunikation (2000). Of particular interest is Kerlen’s contribution, “Buchwirkungsforschung – Vermessung eines Forschungsfeldes” (99-112). The idea to examine books as media appears to stem from work on periodicals, calendars, and so on. See for example: Fischer, Ernst, Wilhelm Haefs and York-Gothart Mix. Von Almanach bis Zeitung. Ein Handbuch der Medien in Deutschland 1700-1800. München: Beck, 1999. Interestingly, although Musenalmanache are included, other types of poetry collections are not; the editors’ exclusion of books from their examination may account for this decision. 10 4 Tatlock edited a collection of eleven essays under the title Publishing Culture and the ‘Reading Nation.’ German Book History in the Long Nineteenth Century. As Tatlock wrote, these scholars have taken impulses from book history including Darnton, William St Clair, Finkelstein, and McCleery, from cultural studies and New Historicism, as well as German literary sociology and the work of the German scholars, Reinhard Wittmann and Rudolf Schenda (2-4). 17 I.III Book History and Anthology Research As a young, heterogeneous and interdisciplinary field, book history encompasses a variety of techniques that share a stake in the physicality or material existence of texts, whether by predicating the presentation and transmission of the text prior to its production or by informing its reception afterward. By examining the material elements of an anthology, such as the format, frontispiece, organization, and physical evidence of readership, with the same care as texts, book historians have uncovered evidence that improves our knowledge of literary history and the functions of literature in this critical era. As Darnton wrote, “books do not merely recount history; they make it” (22). Both researchers who practice social history and those who practice book history share an interest in the contexts of a given text, but book historians have more tools at their disposal for the extra-textual investigation of poetry collections, that is, for the study of their medial presence, including the study of the poetry collection as a genre of publication and a type of reading technology. Looking at poetry collections as a manner of sequencing and couching texts in peripheral texts and design elements which respond to and influence our reading of those texts rather than as textual bodies themselves, one sees that they must necessarily resist the intra- and intertextual methods that are conventionally applied to literary sources. The main reason for the neglect of poetry collections until recently is, in fact, the prime argument for their usefulness. Since poetry collections are not literature in the emphatic sense but rather interpretive documents reproducing and reframing pre-existing literary texts, they can do things that primary texts cannot – among other things, they reveal how individuals read specific texts and genres and prepared them for reading by others through their presentation in a new and unique setting. The anthology read as an interpretation of literature that exists or could exist independent of the anthology provides the key to unlocking the anthology's potential contributions to the study of literature, literary history, and themes in history beyond the literary arena. For these reasons, Anglo-American anthology research accelerated in the mid-1990s after the establishment of the field of book history in the preceding fifteen or so years. The first to dedicate a monograph to Early Modern British anthologies using methods from book history was Barbara M. Benedict, who researched and analyzed anthologies from the Restoration through the eighteenth century in her book Making the Modern Reader: Cultural Mediation in Early Modern Literary Anthologies (1996). As the title suggests, Benedict focuses on the effect of the anthology form on the reader’s experience of the texts and on literature more broadly. Michael F. Suarez, S. J., editor of the critical edition of the famous Dodsley miscellany (1997), takes issue with Benedict’s decision to focus on reception and readership, rather than on the production of anthologies (Suarez 1999, 285). 18 He argues 17 18 A rare example of German-American collaboration can be found in Buchkulturen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Literaturvermittlung. Festschrift für Reinhard Wittmann (2005), edited by Monika Estermann, Ernst Fischer, and Ute Schneider, which contains essays and congratulations from German, French, English (David Paisley) and U.S. book historians (Robert Darnton, John A. McCarthy). Suarez, also co-editor of fifth volume of The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain (2009) and Director of the Rare Book School at the University of Virginia, has written several essays on literary collections, in which he draws upon his 5 that this decision leads to the exclusion of key factors in the creation of anthologies, particularly profit motives and copyright restrictions. In Suarez’s words, “the absence of rigorous bibliographical analysis further impoverishes what might have been an exceptionally valuable and engaging study” (285). While also pointing out Benedict’s “lack of scholarly precision” and “methodological problems,” Suarez does acknowledge that Benedict “hit upon an unaccountably neglected yet important subject of great promise” (284-285). Benedict’s study proved to be an important step towards realizing the anthology’s potential as an object of study. In the intervening years, several interesting monographs have appeared. In The Anthology and the Rise of the Novel from Richardson to George Eliot (2000), Leah Price successfully challenges accepted narratives of the origin of the modern novel by combining book historical methods with narrative theory. In Tradition and the Individual Poem. An Inquiry into Anthologies (2001), Anne Ferry examines the anthology as an agent of canonization, but also delves into the innate differences between the work of compiling anthologies in comparison to single-author collections, designating a typology of editorial interventions, such as “titling” “polishing, improving, modernizing” and “restructuring and reinterpreting” (69-87). In 2009, Chantel M. Lavoie, published a monograph entitled Collecting Women: Poetry and Lives, 1700-1780, which examines anthologies and biographical collections that include women and their poetry, showing how societal expectations shaped both genres. These projects, among others, demonstrate that, despite the unique challenges anthologies present to conventional methods of literary analysis, anthologies can teach us things about literature and the literary world that can be discovered nowhere else. English anthologies are not the only ones to profit from the recent trend toward book-historical methods in the Anglo-American sphere; in 2004, David Stern, a professor of Classical Hebrew Literature at the University of Pennsylvania and historian of the book in the Jewish context, edited The Anthology in the Jewish Tradition, a collection of essays that examine specific Jewish anthologies in the context of their creation and reception. Like Benedict and others, Stern comments on the dearth of research on anthologies, while affirming the significance of anthologies for cultural mediation (4). I.IV Book History Methods in Collecting Tradition Kittel has pointed out how very little we actually know about poetry anthologies and the perspectives that shaped their creation. As he elaborates, “the historical poetics of anthologies, which may be gleaned from explicit discourses on anthologies and deduced from inherent principles, are virtual terra incognita” (xvi). Kittel rightly suggests that research into these materials might give us new perspectives on the anthologies themselves as well as their historical contexts (xiv): Yet, statements by anthologists themselves – once they have been collected and systematized – may provide insights in the conditions which they believed affected their principles of text selection and organization. Together with utterances by contemporary commentators … concerning poetics and literary theory, such statements reflect the conscious or normative increment of literary concepts valid at a certain time and place in history. The immanent poetics, i.e. ideas and concepts inherent in anthologies, may cast light on issues not discussed in prefaces and are, therefore, as important as the explicit poetics. In this dissertation, I use a variety of kinds of evidence – bibliography, the texts framing the anthologized poems, the poetry selections, quantitative evidence of the types of poems included, the physical aspects of the books themselves, contemporary reviews, correspondence, biographical bibliographic expertise. 6 information and the publishing programs of various publishing houses – to begin to answer questions like the one Kittel points out concerning anthologies’ poetics. I employ a number of methods from the toolbox of the book historian, including establishing narratives about the process of the anthologies' publication, reception history and its younger cousin, the history of reading. I also draw on the material dimension of these texts as books, as well as biography and intellectual history. In my analysis of paratexts, I bring together the theoretical work of Gérard Genette with methodologies from the history of reading, which frame paratexts both as the formalized response of a single reader and also as catalysts for further reader response. 19 I have structured my case studies around individuals and their process of anthologizing, topics Stern in particular has identified as significant; as he writes, asking who, why, and how poetry collections came into being gives us insight into the “politics of anthologizing,” which in turn can inform our understanding of literary culture in a specific context (6). Benedict and Price set important precedents for examining anthologies as evidence of readership. Price, for one, has shown that readers respond not only to texts, but also to their contexts. Her approach brings reception history together with narrative theory to explore what new literary genres, and new uses for old ones, have emerged from the endeavors of professional readers – editors, publishers, teachers, critics – to predict or prescribe or proscribe the reading of others. 20 By creating a narrative about each discrete anthology projects, I hope to synthesize these diverse types of evidence into texts that can go more deeply into the mindset of an era than a statistical analysis could or, at any rate, has been able to do. A book historical examination of any topic must draw on research from a number of subfields, but especially historical studies on the various aspects of the production and consumption of texts. In regard to Germany, there are many overview works on different aspects of the literary world including reading and reception, as well as publication and distribution channels, but fewer in-depth studies for the eighteenth century than for later centuries. Little information is available about individual eighteenthcentury publishers beyond what was recorded in fair catalogues and can be gleaned from letters. 21 In most cases, only correspondence between publishers and literary figures have been preserved; we do not have many publishing house archives from before 1800 and, of those that remain, most have not been thoroughly treated by scholars. Articles and monographs have been written about only a handful of publishers, chiefly those of significant literary works such as Friedrich Nicolai in Berlin and Philipp Erasmus Reich in Leipzig.22 On the bright side, more work has been done on publishing in eighteenthcentury Germany since the 1980s “due to intensifying interest in the Enlightenment as a foil to the emergent present.”23 These approaches have been theorized by Snead in “The Work of Abridgements: Readers, Editors and Expectations” and Matthews in “Reading and the Visual Dimensions of the Book: The Popular Cold War Fictions of Helen MacInnes,” both published in Reading in History: New Methodologies from the Anglo-American Tradition (2010, ed. Bonnie Gunzenhauser). 20 Leah Price 2000, 12. 21 Estermann: “Buchhandel, Buchhandelsgeschichte und Verlagsgeschichtsschreibung vom 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart. Ein Überblick über Quellenlage und Forschungsliteratur.” (2010). Here, 273-278. 22 Estermann 2010. Selwyn: Everyday Life in the German Book Trade: Friedrich Nicolai as Bookseller and Publisher in the Age of Enlightenment, 1750-1810 (2000). Rosenstrauch: Buchhandelsmanufaktur und Aufklärung. Die Reformen des Buchhändlers und Verlegers Ph. E. Reich (1717-1787). Sozialgeschichtliche Studie zur Entwicklung des literarischen Marktes (1986). 23 Estermann. In the original: “Die Beschäftigung mit der Geschichte von Verlagen des 18. Jahrhunters hat seit den 1980er Jahren von dem intensivierten Interest an der Aufklärung als Folie einer aufstrebenden Gegenwart profitiert” (276). 19 7 An innovation of this work on poetry collections is the substantial use of contemporary reviews to evaluate the standards and success of German anthologies. I approach these reviews as documentation of individual reading experiences and as attempts to mediate between the anthology in question and a tertiary figure, the imagined reader.24 These texts present the opportunity to examine the anthologies through the eyes of contemporary readers, albeit particularly practiced ones. Although they are not without their own methodological difficulties, reviews can tell us which issues readers found worthy of debate, which assumptions they made and which they did not. In short, reviews help the contemporary reader avoid assuming that the twenty-first-century mind thinks like the eighteenth-century mind. Beyond the use of reader responses, I advocate for a methodology that takes into account two additional theses. Regardless of whether or not one also considers the poetry collection to be a literary genre, 25 one should consider the poetry collection simultaneously as a publication genre and a reading technology. These extra-literary categories, which I will investigate here, both fall under media-studies conceptions of the book as a “cultural technology.”26 Examined as a publication genre, the poetry collection can tell us something about the conditions of its creation, while its examination as a reading technology can help us understand the public’s interaction with it. Only by recognizing these extra-textual aspects of the poetry collection can we fully explore its cultural, historical and literary value. In the following case studies, I often treat poetry collections as a reading technology. Texts may be immaterial, but they live material lives, existing within technology, and are, in fact, quite literally embodied by reading technologies. The text’s physical embodiment is not simply its ‘house.’ Examples of how reading and writing technologies set the boundaries for how we can create, use and think about texts are as numerous and varied as the technologies themselves. Scholars have identified early modern examples, among them Hamlet’s erasable tablets, indexes in rhetorical collections and page margins. 27, 28, 29 As previous researchers have noted, there is substantial room for improvement in the bibliographic record.30 This awareness prompted me to create a chronological bibliography of Early Modern German anthologies from the first known anthology in 1624 through 1799 (Appendix A). The problems I encountered in selecting entries for the bibliography led, in turn, to a critical examination of the boundaries of the form and thus, of the definition of the anthology put forth in previous scholarship, which I have already touched upon. As with letters and diaries, we deal with self-reported content. We often cannot ascertain what stake the author of a review had in the success or failure of the anthology. An additional difficulty is presented by the fact that reviews were published anonymously. Anonymity has been lifted in many, but not all cases. 25 Both Stern (6) and Benedict consider the poetry collection to be a literary genre (Benedict 2003, 232). 26 See, for example, Stöckmann. 27 Stallybrass 2004: “Hamlet's Tables and the Technologies of Writing in Renaissance England.” 28 Cahn wrote: “diese gedruckten Indizes, die strukturell vom Buchdruck abhängig sind, die besten Indikatoren für einen weitverbreiteten sammelnden Umgang mit Texten … Während ein mittelalterliches Floriligium einen ersatzweisen und ökonomischen Zugang zu einem exzerpierten Werk bot, werden die (alphabetisch oder nach Topoi) geordneten Sammlungen der Renaissance zu Formen der Informationsverarbeitung, die ihr Material einer strukturierten Wiederverwertung anbieten, wie sie auch das Original selbst nicht bieten könnte. Diese Indizes reduzieren die Masse der gedruckten Information auf das rhetorisch verwertbare Material, indem sie es in ein alphabetisches oder topisches Findesystem einarbeiten” (74-75). 29 Richards 2010: “Introduction: The Textuality and Materiality of Reading in Early Modern England.” 30 Wiedemann 3; Kittel ix-x; Häntzschel 2005, 422-425. 24 8 II.I Development of the Anthology Form in Eighteenth-Century Germany The late eighteenth century has long been recognized as an era of dramatic change in the Western world and in Germany specifically. This view was given even greater weight by Reinhard Koselleck’s thesis that modernity began not with the Renaissance but the Enlightenment. Koselleck defines the transition to modernity as taking place in the ‘saddle period,’ between 1750 and 1850. 31 A discussion of Koselleck’s theories of modernity might seem superfluous to a work concentrating on a literary apparition that has been virtually ignored by students of German literature and culture; however, the rise of the German poetry anthology between 1750 and 1850 does not merely coincide temporally with this era of decisive literary, cultural, social and political transformation. Instead, the evolution of the German poetry collections is deeply characteristic of those changes, being both predicated on the transformation of underlying historical structures and itself contributing to those structural changes. Since the 1970s, it also has been firmly established that poetry collections are “a staple of literary mediation and cultural mediation” (Korte 5). The mediative quality of poetry collections makes them ideal candidates for a study of the advent of modernity. In the poetry collections of the late eighteenth century, the “epochal threshold”32 to modernity, we can observe modernity’s nascent components in full; it is precisely the marginal nature of the anthology that allows us unique access to these well-known phenomena. These poetry collections preserve within themselves the concrete traces of the tools of early Germanists, presenting a key not only to literary history but also to historical consciousness at this critical juncture. For this reason, period poetry collections offer particularly promising material with which to examine the characteristics that Koselleck suggests define modernity. At the heart of Koselleck’s argument is the new relationship of the present to the past; as Peter Osborne wrote, Koselleck pinpoints “historiographic consciousness” as the factor leading to a new “social consciousness” (30). The six factors that define modernity in Koselleck’s view are: 33 1. acceleration of technological and social change 2. the idea that change is to be expected as time passes: “open future” 3. use of the term “centuries” (saecula or Jahrhunderte) to talk about the past, which gradually become “coherent units loaded with meaning” used for “epochal organization” of the past and, eventually, the present. 4. The “nonsimultaneity of diverse, but, in a chronological sense, simultaneous histories,” which is to say that the development of different societies for the first time can be and actually begins to be compared and evaluated against one another in terms of time (ahead of the times, behind the times, backward, etc.). Koselleck, Reinhart. “Das 18. Jahrhundert als Beginn der Neuzeit.” Epochenschwelle und Epochenbewußtsein. Ed. Reinhart Herzog & Reinhart Kosellek. München: Fink, 1987. 269-82. Published in English as “The Eighteenth Century as the Beginning of Modernity” (154-169, trans. Todd Samuel Presner) in The Practice of Conceptual History. Timing History, Spacing Concepts (2002). Also germane to my work is Futures Past (1985 and 2004). In English phrasing of Koselleck's German terminology, I follow Presner's translation. 32 Presner’s translation. In the original: Epochenschwelle (Koselleck 2002, 155). 33 Koselleck 2002, 165-168. 31 9 5. development of historical perspective, 6. experiencing one’s own era as a period of transition All of Koselleck’s markers of ‘new time’ appear in relation to the poetry collections of the period; as I will show in the following case studies, the eighteenth-century poetry collection proves itself to be a sensitive barometer for historical consciousness. At this point, I will simply touch on a few central ways in which these poetry collections embody the advent of modernity. Two phenomena related to Koselleck’s ‘acceleration’ predicate the rise of the anthology as an important type of literary publication. These phenomena are the revolutionary technological advancement of Gutenberg's movable type and the restructuring of society through the ascent of mercantilism, the intersection of which caused major shifts in political dynamics, literacy and publishing rates, and even in the basic understanding of national and personal identity. These two phenomena converge in the Early Modern period, accelerating as the centuries passed and culminating in an explosion in reading, writing and publishing in the eighteenth century. Printed collections of short texts, including poems, sayings (Sprüche), short stories, excerpts and so on, are the result of the invention of the printing press, not only in that they themselves are printed, but in that the reproductive possibilities of the printing press led to the publication of vastly greater quantities of material to read and thus, from whence to excerpt. 34 At the same time, the “book trade, writers and the reading public were in constant interaction” during the latter half of the eighteenth century.35 As a result, poetry collections took on many forms as editors experimented with various models, which must be interpreted within the context of a literary culture that was constantly changing. It is toward the completion of this socio-economic transformation that Germans began to reevaluate older literature. During this period, literature played an important role as a rallying point for the unification of a cultural nationalism based on language. 36 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, famous philosopher and scientist, wrote an essay on this topic some sixty years after Opitz published the Buch von der Deutschen Poeterey, the seminal German poetics of 1624, in which he explained the necessity of German literary production for which Opitz had first called. In Ermahnung an die Deutschen von deutscher Sprache, Leibnitz argues that the care of language and literature belong to the duties shared by all: eines jeden Sicherheit auf die gemeine Ruhe sich gründe, deren Störung einem großen Erdbeben oder Orkan gleicht, darin alles über und über geht [...]. Gleichwie aber das gemeine Unglück unsere Gefahr, also ist hingegen des Vaterlands Wohlstand unsere Vergnügung.37 34 35 36 37 As Cahn summarizes, “die sammelnden Formen des Textumgangs [sind] … als Reaktionen auf bestimmte mediale Voraussetzungen der gedruckten Kommunikation” zu erklären and (67, 71). Wittmann 1991, 111. In the original: [stood] in “Buchhandel, Schriftstellertum und Lesepublikum […] [standen] in ständiger Wechselwirkung. The term Kulturnation was coined by Friedrich Meinecke in Die Entstehung des Historismus (1936); however, during the 200 years in question, one commonly finds references in writings on literature to a linguistically defined “German nation.” Well known examples include Martin Opitz's Buch der deutschen Poeterey (1624) and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s posthumously published essays on the use of German at universities, the“Ermahnung an die Deutschen, ihren Verstand und ihre Sprache besser zu üben, samt beigefugtem Vorschlag einer deutschgesinnten Gesellschaft” (ca. 1682, first published in 1868) and “Unvorgreifliche Gedanken, betreffend die Ausübung und Verbesserung der deutschen Sprache” (ca. 1797, first published in 1717). Leibnitz 3. Trans.: “the safety of any individual is based on the general calm, the interuption of which is comparable to a large earthquake or a hurricane, in which everything tumbles over and over […]. In the same way as common [shared] misery is our danger, the prosperity of the fatherland is our pleasure.” 10 Because each individual is a member of “dieses bürgerlichen Körpers” everyone feels “Kräfte von dessen Gesundheit” and everything that “ihn angeht, durch eine sonderbare Verordnung Gottes.” 38 Leibnitz draws on the New Testament metaphor of the Church community to describe the nation: “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.” 39 Thus, an interest in the national is a wholesome interest in the welfare of oneself and other members through the care of the whole. Patriotism plays a central role in the anthology discourse of the eighteenth century, as the collecting of poetry is a kind of service to the nation, which the individual performs for the German Kulturnation and which the individual owes it. The idea of a ‘nation’ based on a common culture, itself rooted in a shared language, was made possible by the rapidly increasing urbanization and literacy in German-speaking territories, which is directly related to Koselleck’s first condition for modernity. Unlike other European linguistic groups, Early Modern Germans did not find among themselves a figure like Dante or Shakespeare, who could embody for them the spirit of their literature. Until the second third of the eighteenth century, each generation of Germans rejected the literary heroes of previous generations, but as the eighteenth century progressed, Germans began a reevaluation of their literature. For the first time, Germans were occupied on a large scale with an intensive reevaluating the poetic fruits of previous eras of German literature. This process was, in great part, motivated by the desire to create a literary canon of which their linguistically defined “German nation” could be proud, and took place in conjunction with the rise of historical perspective in poetics, which has been shown to come into its own in the latter half of the eighteenth century (Pizer 74). The vernacular poetry collection was an early arena for critical examination of the topic, as each anthologist, as a matter of course, evaluated German poetry for inclusion in the collection at hand and reviewers commented on their selections. In eighteenth-century discourse on anthologization, two words, Ernte and Auslese reflect the driving concerns of German anthologists during the period between 1765 and 1795. Ernte and Auslese are both agriculturally derived: Ernte denotes the harvest or the entire yield, while Auslese refers to the process of selection or to the result of that process, the best of a particular category, such as wine grapes. 40 These words appear frequently in eighteenth-century discussions of the anthology, with the anthologist of German-language literature owing the ‘nation’ a contribution consisting of both collecting (Ernte) and selecting (Auslese). The anthologists and educated anthology readers41 of the last third of the eighteenth century were newly and heavily preoccupied with the concepts of ernten and auslesen in the service of cultural patriotism, which simultaneously reflects a changing relationship to historical time. As agricultural concepts, Ernte and Auslese are intrinsically temporal; they require the cultivation of natural products, the ripening of the crops and the intervention of the farmer who brings in the yield. At the same time, the use of these words implicitly provides a special role for the anthologist, who harvests the field of German literature. In this way, the discourse of the poetry collection quite literally contains the seeds of the Koselleck’s ‘historiographic consciousness,’ which would help created the necessary conditions for constructing narratives of German literary history around 1800. Over the period in question, one sees the development of historical perspective in anthologists’ approaches both to older literature and their own present, which began to be seen as a historical moment as well. Throughout the period, anthologists frequently refer to their imagined readership. As the century Leibnitz 3. 1 Corinthians 12:26, New International Version. 40 Duden: Ernte 1, Auslese 1. 41 Readers’ perceptions as represented by the opinions expressed by reviewers in contemporary literary periodicals. Please see section II.I in the second half of the introduction for a discussion of this methodology. 38 39 11 passes, references to readers of the future and to how their selection will be judged by this future audience come into play as well (see the second case study). Here, one sees proof of the development of both a historical perspective and the perception of one’s one age as an era of transition, supporting Koselleck’s thesis that toward the end of the eighteenth century, “history becomes temporalized in the sense that, by virtue of the passing of time, it changes at each given present, and with growing distance, it also changes in the past” (167). II.II Defining the Anthology As previously noted, anthologies, which are poetry collections that claim to represent the best or most characteristic elements of a literary tradition, first appear in the latter half of the eighteenth century, following a period of more than 100 years during which printed collections of poetry generally fit the miscellany model, with no claim to representativity. Over the course of the last third of the eighteenth century, the representative anthology rapidly supersedes the miscellany. Although the definition of the anthology has remained constant since the era under discussion, terminology has played a decisive role in the scholarly evaluation of Early Modern poetry collections, as I will outline briefly here and then in more detail in the latter half of the introduction. Just as we do, eighteenth-century scholars traced the anthology back to the ancient world; in 1732 Zedler’s dictionary contained an entry for “Anthologia,” in which its origins are described: welches dem Namen nach so viel, als eine Blumenlese, von […] ich lese zusammen, bedeutet, ist insonderheit ein Werk des Maximi Plaunudis, eines gelehrten Mönchs von Constantinopel, welcher im Jahr Christi 1380 gelebet, und in VII Büchern die sonderbaren Epigrammata der alten und mittlern Griechischen Poeten zusammen gelesen.42 Slightly later definitions of the anthology echo Zedler without specifically mentioning the Anthologia Graeca, as he did. Adelung’s Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Hochdeutschen Mundart of 1774, does not include “Anthologia” or “Anthologie,” but does include “Blumenlese,” which is defined as the “Sammlung auserlesener Wahrheiten, Redensarten, und die Schrift, welche solche enthält.” 43 The 1793 edition, however, does include “Anthologie,” which is described as follows: “aus dem Griech. und Lat. Anthologia, welches eigentlich eine Sammlung von Blumen bedeutet, eine Sammlung von auserlesenen Gedichten, oder auch der besten Stellen aus einem oder mehrern Schriftstellern; im Deutschen zuweilen auch die Blumenlese.”44 In the same dictionary, “Blumenlese” is described as well: “[e]igentlich die Sammlung der Blumen; […] figürlich, die Sammlung auserlesener Wahrheiten, Redensarten und Aufsätze, ingleichen die Schrift, welche solche enthält; die Anthologie.” 45 In 1807, Joachim Heinrich Campe calls the “Blumenlese” 42 43 44 45 Zedler, Johann Heinrich, ed. “Anthologia.” Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschafften und Künste. Vol. 2. Halle und Leipzig: Verlegts Johann Heinrich Zedler, 1732. 1605. Trans.: “which, in accordance with the name, means a collection of flowers, from […] I bring together, is specifically a work of Maximilian Plaunudis, a learned monk of Constantinople, who lived in A. D. 1380, and who brought together [a selection] of the curious epigrams of the ancient and later Greek poets in seven books.” Adelung, Johann Christoph. “Blumenlese.” Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Hochdeutschen Mundart. Vol. 1. 1774. 978. Trans.: “collection of selected maxims [literally, truths], sayings, and the text that contains such a collection.” ---. Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Hochdeutschen Mundart. Vol. 1. 1793. 392. Trans.: “from the Greek and Latin Anthologia, which actually means a collection of flowers, a collection of selected poems, or also the best parts of one or more authors; in German sometimes also Blumenlese.” ---. “Blumenlese.” Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Hochdeutschen Mundart. Vol. 1. 1793. Trans.: “[a]ctually a collection of flowers; […] figuratively, a collection of selected maxims [literally, truths], sayings and essays, also the text, which contains them; an anthology.” 12 Sammlung der Blumen; […] Uneigentlich die Sammlung des Schönsten und Vorzüglichsten an einzelnen Redensarten, Einfällen, Gedanken, Aufsätzen, rc. besonders aus den Schriften eines oder mehrerer Schriftsteller; dann die Schrift, welche eine solche Sammlung enthält (Anthologie). Eine gedichtliche Blümenlese [sic], eine Sammlung einzelner, zerstreuter vorzüglicher Gedichte.46 In the Wörterbuch zur Erklärung und Verdeutschung der unserer Sprache aufgedrungenen fremden Ausdrücke (1801), Campe had simply written that the “Anthologie” is “eine Auswahl kleiner Gedichte. Wir haben Blumenlese dafür.”47 Similarly, Karl Philipp Moritz wrote in 1793, “Anthologie: Blumenlese” to which he could not prevent himself from adding “Von einem deutschen Buch heißt der Titel: griechische Anthologie; warum nicht griechische Blumenlese.” 48 Recent scholars subscribe to the same definitions. The most recent article on Early Modern German anthologies is an entry by Günter Häntzschel in the Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit (2005). Häntzschel, the leading scholar of the nineteenthcentury German poetry anthology, describes the contents of the anthology as follows: “Darin kommt der als hochwertig und musterhaft eingeschätzte Charakter der ausgewählten Texte zum Ausdruck, der für die A[nthologien] des griech[ischen] und röm[ischen] Altertums prägend war.” 49 As Barbara Korte wrote in her introduction to Anthologies of British Poetry: Critical Perspectives from Literary and Cultural Studies, “it is selectiveness, the picking of flowers from available sources, which defines the anthology” (3). Taken together, these excerpts should be sufficient to show that the words “Anthologie” and “Blumenlese” were synonymous during the period and that the common understanding of the term “Anthologie” has not shifted in the German-speaking realm in the intervening two hundred years. 50 Furthermore, from the early dictionary entries we can see a development in the perception of the anthology over the course of the eighteenth century. In Zedler’s dictionary entry of 1732, the focus is on the Anthologia Graeca, the specific, original text; later dictionaries describe a textual genre, which is defined both structurally, as a collection of texts, usually poetic, but also qualitatively, as texts that are auserlesen or selected. The evidence from these dictionary entries parallels the historical record of publication of collected poetry, which show that representative anthologies of German poetry were not printed until the latter half of the eighteenth century. This supports the thesis put forward by previous scholars such as Robert P. Bareikis, Angelo George de Capua and Conrad Wiedemann that the anthology (as defined in these entries) gained prominence among the various forms of German poetic collections over the course of the eighteenth century. The entry continues, “2) Die Blumenlese der Bienen, wenn sie aus den Blumen eintragen, zum Unterschiede von der Blätterlese.” 46 “Blumenlese. Definition 1.” Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Vol. 1. Braunschweig: In der Schulbuchhandlung, 1807. 574. Trans.: “collection of flowers; […] figuratively the collection of the most beautiful and most exquisite of individual sayings, ideas, thoughts, essays, etc., especially from the writings of one or more authors; then the text, which contains such a collection (anthology). A poetic collection of flowers, a collection of individual, scattered excellent poems.” 47 Wörterbuch zur Erklärung und Verdeutschung der unserer Sprache aufgedrungenen fremden Ausdrücke. Vol 1. Braunschweig: In der Schulbuchhandlung, 1801. 156. Trans.: “a selection of shorter poems. We have Blumenlese for that.” 48 Moritz. Grammatisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Vol. 1. Berlin: Ernst Felisch, 1793. 124. Trans.: “one German book has this title: greek anthology; why not greek collection of flowers.” 49 Häntzschel 2005, 422. Trans.: “In it [an anthology], the character of the selected texts, as texts considered to be highquality and exemplary is expressed, which was decisive [literally, formative] for the anthologies of Greek and Roman antiquity.” 50 In his dictionary of 1691, Kaspar Stieler includes the following definitions: under “Leser,” “Blumenleser / sic poěticè vocantur apes, flores libantes. Blumenleserinn / aliàs est puella corollas, & ferta ex floribus vinciens” and “Lesung” “Blumenlesung / florum collectio” (1165). 13 Later scholars have noted that many Early Modern German poetry collections cannot be considered anthologies according to the definitions of Zedler, Campe, Häntzschel, et al. For clarity’s sake, I will call the anthology as defined in the preceding paragraphs a representative anthology, a term that has been easy enough to find in the subtitles of various literary collections since at least the 1960s. 51 Despite this recognition, previous research into early German poetry collections has been preoccupied with defining the boundaries of the representative anthology, distinguishing sharply between it and other types.52 The exact terminology differs from scholar to scholar; in place of “representative anthology,” one finds “genuine anthology,” “true anthology” or “anthology in the modern understanding.” 53 De Capua calls the second, less preferred type a “compilation” (de Capua 1955, 202). No matter how the divisions are articulated, scholars invariably privilege the representative anthology in these calculations. In fact, the main thrust of the research on German anthologies prior to 1800 has focused on defining the literary genre of the “anthology” and comparing existing poetry collections with this definition. In the 1960s, Bareikis proscribed a number of strict limits for any poetic collection to be considered an anthology, including, for example, a lower limit of five poets and additional critical texts not comprising more than twenty-five percent of the total volume.54 Other limits on length, content, style and intention have been suggested over the years, but each has excluded works that might well be evaluated with the others. Häntzschel, too, distinguishes between the representative anthology and other “Sammelveröffentlichungen” like the Musenalmanache and “literarische Taschenbücher,” recognizing, however that the boundaries are fluid and subjective: “Doch ist dies nur eine idealtypische Abgrenzung; wie die Bezeichnungen gehen auch die Inhalte ineinander über” (423). The privileging of the representative anthology has presented a considerable challenge to scholarship on poetry collections, given that collections of German poetry have been printed since at least 1624, but ones that could be classified as representative do not appear until the last decade of the eighteenth century.55,56 This dissonance between the actual production of printed poetry collections and what scholars consider worthy of study suggests that scholars have drawn the wrong parameters around the field. While it is true that the representative anthology is the dominant anthological form in our own age, it was not always so. Put plainly, previous scholarly definitions of German poetry collections as anthologies are anachronistic for the Early Modern Period. In the appended “Chronological Bibliography of German Poetry Collections to 1799” (Appendix 1), one gets an idea of the quantity and range of poetry collections created before the first representative collections. I contend that it is not the role of the literary historian to weigh forms against each other in search of the intrinsically most valuable; furthermore, by retroactively applying the modern definition of the anthology to older For example: American Literature: A Representative Anthology of American Writing from Colonial Times to the Present. Ed. Geoffrey Moore. Faber and Faber, 1964. 52 Robert P. Bareikis: “The German Anthology from Opitz to the Göttingen Musenalmanach” (Harvard, 1965). 53 See de Capua 1957, 337; Bareikis 1-17; Wiedemann 18. 54 Bareikis cited in Wiedemann. 55 The anthology has its origins in the history of collecting excerpts for educational purposes and, since the end of the sixteenth century, particularly of humanist neo-Latin poetry (Häntzschel 2005, 424). 56 The rare works that incorporate anthologies as supporting evidence on other projects have escaped the methodological difficulties of projects that focus exclusively on the anthology. For example, in Barock um 1800, Martin remains silent on anthologistic subgenres, choosing instead to adopt an implicit, radically ecumenical standard of the anthology, in which all poetic collections except “Reihenwerke” and “Liedersammlungen” are considered under the term “Anthologie” (6672). Martin’s catagorization glosses over the fact that many Liedersammlungen and Reihenwerke, particularly Zachariä’s Auserlesene Stücke, have been analyzed as anthologies. In context, Martin’s taxonomy makes sense: he is concerned primarily with differences in the treatment of Baroque poems he finds along these divisions, but it is possible to imagine many cases in which it would be useful to continue analyzing these works within the anthological genre. 51 14 collections of poetry, scholars have disregarded most Early Modern poetry collections and left unexamined the variety of historically and culturally specific functions they served. 57 It seems to me that much previous anthology research has taken a teleological view of literary history, assuming that the anthology is an improved or more perfect poetry collection. To combat this temptation in my own research, I have chosen to examine poetry collections in terms of their ‘functionality’ or, put differently, according to the ways in which they were used in the eighteenth century. In 1969, Wiedemann pointed out that anthologies “functionalize” literature (2). From there, it is a short leap to asking how functions might shape poetry collections. Functional analysis helps clarify why certain types of anthologies predominate in particular contexts. To begin this examination, we must go back to the Baroque. At the outset of her influential monograph on English anthologies, Price argues that “extracts underwrite the discipline of literary criticism.”58 Examining theory and praxis as two sides of the same coin is essential to an understanding of the development of poetic collections in Germany. In the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, collections made up only of German poetry tend to be defined in practical terms (although not theoretical ones) as miscellanies. I would argue against Bareikis and others that German literature does not witness a delay in the development of a representative anthology form, but rather a prior functional fulfillment through Baroque poetics, which are called Handbücher.59, 60 The commonplace is that these Handbücher provided a kind of how-to, an “instructional poetics [Anweisungspoetik]” through doctrina or descriptive and prescriptive texts, and exempla or the texts (or text snippets) that embody them (Jung 55, Stöckmann 245). In 2001, Ingo Stöckmann suggested that the Handbücher should be interpreted as “technologies of communication” and more specifically as technologies of “storage, management and access” (235, 5). Stöckmann terms the Handbücher “Baroque databases,” which provided for the storage and didactic use of canon of poetry as “‘cases’ of rules that can in principle be reconstructed and prescriptive directives for writing […], which then make possible a technically correct imitation.”61 In Reformpoetik. Kodifizierte Genustheorie des Barock und alternative Normenbildung in poetologischen Paratexten (2008), Stefanie Stockhorst describes the evolution of Handbücher and the poems which appear in them as “specimen texts [Mustertexte]” showing that the poetics and the exemplary poems became more and more codified over time into “scholastic [schulmäßige] compilations,” which had become “standards” (409-410). It is my view that the Handbücher, which preceded the representative anthology in Germany, take the place This is not the only ahistorical criterion for adjudicating the value of various poetry collections; a number of other ahistorical judgments play into the reasons for rejecting early German poetry anthologies such as the insistence that all poems in a collection be original, rather than translations, or that some arbitrary number of contributors be included (5, in the case of Bareikis). Works created for schools or young people have often been excluded from studies of the anthology. I will address these issues as they come up in the case studies. 58 Price 2000, 2; also cited by Judith Pascoe in a review (462). 59 Wiedemann also notes the “kleine Beispielanthologien” within the Handbücher, writing “Die belangvolleren Beispiele der Gattung weisen durchaus anthologische Züge auf, wenngleich der Sammlungscharakter vorherrschend bleibt (10-11). Although I consider Wiedemann’s essay the best work to date on early poetry collections, it seems that in this case, his analysis does not do justice to the structural and functional significance of the Handbücher as a forum for the poetry collection. 60 In his review of the third edition of Ticht-Kunst: Deutsche Barockpoetik und rhetorische Tradition, Joachim Dyck’s seminal work on interpreting Baroque poetics, Reinhart points out that although Dyck had succeeded in bringing rhetoric back to the forefront of the discussion of Baroque poetics, Dyck and those who followed his lead, have not been able to incorporate his second central point, historical context, into scholarly discourse on Baroque poetics (853-854). Perhaps these remarks can provide a very modest contribution to the latter element. 61 Stöckmann 5, 235-236. In the original: “>Fälle< prinzipiell rekonstruierbarer Regeln und präskriptiver Schreibanweisungen […], die dann einen sachlich-richtigen >>Nachtrab<< ermöglichen.” ‘Nachtrab’ is an seldom-used word for the troops bringing up the rear of a military formation. 57 15 the representative anthology would have occupied from Opitz’s Buch von der Deutschen Poeterey (1624) through the mid-eighteenth century through their function as poetic databases of a literary canon. The Baroque Handbuch brought together and displayed an ideal selection of German literature, of texts representative of their genres and thus the German literary corpus. Of course, there are several restrictions on the argument that Handbücher were the anthologies of their day. Not every Handbuch included entire poems, which restricts the degree to which the form can be considered a functional equivalent. Nonetheless, many Handbücher did include complete poems and of those that did not, many referred back to familiar poems and poets, the remembrance of which would have resulted in what one might term a virtual anthology of recollection. Secondly, the authors of these handbooks and their readers defined the boundaries of that corpus differently; between the two eras we see a shift from a formal evaluation of literature to one that is historical. Thirdly, the creators and readers of these two forms had different uses in mind; in the case of the Handbuch, we know that readers were expected to go out and apply what they had learned from reading the Handbuch by writing poetry themselves. This focus on writing poetry (imitatio) necessitates the combination of the doctrina with exempla; the Baroque reader required the combination of the theoretical concept of the ideal form in with the real, the individual, the manifold execution. To summarize, in the era of the miscellany German normative poetics or Handbücher (handbooks) delineated the boundaries and potential of German poetry, while poetry collectors describe their chief function in terms of preserving fugitive work (see the case study of Schmid). Period miscellanies do not evince an editorial concept of the German canon; but rather a normative and collective view of poetry, in which it is acceptable for editors to take significant liberties with the works of others from unauthorized reprinting (Schmid) to “improving” texts by rewriting them (Ramler). As the century progressed, the miscellany model fit less and less well with contemporary concepts of authorship and a complex array of conflicts arose around later miscellanies because of these evolving norms. During the same period as Schmid’s miscellany – the misleadingly titled Anthologie der Deutschen – was published, we see the rise of the representative anthology. This phenomenon is in sync with the decline of normative poetics in favor of descriptive poetics and the concept of individual poetic genius. Where the poetics formerly delineated the boundaries and potential of German poetry, the representative anthology now did, participating in canon building for the sake of a German cultural and linguistic proto-nationalism. The representative anthology relies on an implicit poetics, just as a poetics implies a body of texts – an anthology. Selective-representative anthologies did not come into being across all genres at the same time. Instead, the genre anthology, rather than the general anthology is the first to show evidence of a historical perspective. In keeping with Koselleck’s third and fifth theses on the advent of modernity, over the course of the eighteenth century, “epochal organization” and “historical perspective” were in the early stages of development, and, thus, a stable narrative had not yet been established for German literary history as a whole. Such a narrative is, of course, a precondition for anthologies that claim to represent the body of German poetry through history. Although poetry collections including diverse genres contain the seeds of Koselleck’s ‘historiographic consciousness,’ they did not embody a literary canon, as the canon represents a fully formed concept of poetic development over the course of history, which had not yet been established. In the German-speaking world, most of the early representative anthologies are genre anthologies, specifically epigram anthologies. The narrow scope of the genre anthology seems to have been more conducive to the development of historical perspective, but, of the genre anthologies, it is the epigram anthology that first came to include a historical perspective. There are several reasons for this. For one, the epigram was the most often collected genre by far. The epigram's dual potential as both serious literature and entertainment contributed to the large number of epigram anthologies 16 published during the eighteenth century. For another, as Thomas Althaus wrote, the “epigrammatic appears as the archetype of writing poetry” in Opitz’s Teutsche Poemata, and that the epigram maintained this centrality throughout the Baroque period. 62 Then, in the last third of the seventeenth century, the epigram took on a paradigmatic role in the battle of the nations for cultural dominance; the first salvo was offered by Dominique Bouhours in 1671 in his Entretiens d'Artiste et d'Eugène (Bohnen 91). This long and intense concentration on the epigram provided the necessary theoretical and historical framework for a historical perspective on the epigram by the end of the Baroque period. This, in turn, led to the earlier development of selective-representative anthologies of epigrams – by the middle of the eighteenth century, the period during which Germans began a general retrospective evaluation of their culture, we can speak of selective-representative epigram anthologies. Due to the fact that the epigram as a form has since fallen into obscurity, and their distance from modern critical approaches, these anthologies have been largely disregarded and even attacked by modern critics; however, the popularity and centrality of the epigram in the seventeenth century contributed to the early development of historical perspective in such collections. Two books that embody the close relationship between the Handbücher and the genesis of poetry collections: a late Baroque Handbuch, Christian Gottfried Rose’s Richtiger Unterricht nach welchen die bey Hohen und Gelehrten jetzt beliebte Teutsche Inscriptiones wie auch der hohe und tiefsinnige Teutsche Stylus füglich einzurichten. Alles in kurtzen Regeln und vielen Exempeln ordentlich entworfen (1716) and the first German-language epigram collection, Friedrich Andreas Hallbauer’s Sammlung teutscher auserlesener sinnreicher Inscriptionen (1725, 2nd ed. 1732).63 In the Inscriptionen, Hallbauer places the anthologized poems in a historical context by way of a “historische Nachricht” on the epigram in the preface (which he also advertised on the title page, fig. 1) at a time when the “primary reception period” of Baroque literature had not yet passed and thus prefigures later selective-representative anthologies.64, 65 Despite the innovation of creating the first German epigram anthology, Hallbauer’s approach remains deeply indebted to Baroque thinking about epigrams and poetry in the Handbücher, such as the expectation that poetry collections be both useful and entertaining, and that readers will use the example poems as models for their own writing. 66 Althaus 348. In the original: “In Opitz’ ,,Teutschen Poemata” erscheint das Epigrammatische als Archetyp des Dichtens im Barock. 63 Hallbauer, Friedrich Andreas (1692-1750). Sammlung teutscher auserlesener sinnreicher Inscriptionen nebst einer Vorrede darinne von den teutschen Inscriptionen überhaupt eine historische Nachricht ertheilet wird. Jena: im Waysenhause Druckts und verlegts Christian Franciscus Buch, 1725. A second editon, with superficial changes to the introduction appeared in 1732. I was only able to access the 1732 edition, a copy of which is held at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library and which is also available as a digital facsimile through Google Books. 64 Hallbauer points out that he is the first in the introduction, but claims that this is the result of German scholars favoring Latin over German when writing epigrams: “weil die Gelehrten meist aus obigen widerlegten Vorurtheilen wenig Teutsche sinnreiche Inscriptionen verfertiget haben.” (Hallbauer 1732, “Vorrede” §. 11). 65 In the original: “primäre Rezeptionszeit” (Martin 575). 66 Hallbauer 1732, “Vorrede,” §. 2. Hallbauer concludes the introduction with a series of twenty rules for the writing of epigrams (§. 56). 62 17 Figs. 1. The title pages of Hallbauer’s Inscriptionen (courtesy of the SB Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz). The relationship between Rose’s Richtiger Unterricht and Hallbauer’s Inscriptionen is a specific example of the relationship between the Baroque Handbücher and the anthologies of the eighteenth century more generally. The Richtiger Unterricht was the only poetic Handbuch solely on the writing of German inscriptions and Rose himself had planned to compile an anthology, the Gesammelte Früchte zu Teutschen Inscriptionibus, which he mentions in the Richtiger Unterricht, but never published it.67 Rose’s Richtiger Unterricht acted as a template for Hallbauer’s Inscriptionen; Hallbauer took up Rose’s anthology idea ten years after the publication of the Richtiger Unterricht, using many sources suggested in it, and following Rose’s choice to provide historical context in the introduction. 68, 69 Hallbauer builds on Rose’s late-Baroque project, but the Inscriptionen also represents a transition between the Baroque and the Early Enlightenment. Whereas Rose’s work represents the culmination of Baroque epigram Thomas Neukirchen has written on the development of the relationship between Rose and Hallbauer’s work. In Neukirchen, see particularly “Systematisierungsversuche: Rhetorik, Poetik und Praxis der Schafsinnigen Inschriften bis zu Hallbauers Sammlung >Teutscher sinnreicher Inscriptionen< (1725/32).” 202-226. Here, 224. 68 Neukirchen 224. 69 Hallbauer 1732, “Vorrede” §43-44. Hallbauer includes volumes by individual poets such as Harsdörffer, Menander and “Knauths miscellaneis.” (With the expression “Knauths miscellaneis,” Hallbauer refers to Johann Christian Knauth’s collections of German and Latin poems, Pythagorae carmen aurerum published in 1720) . Hallbauer’s use of “miscellaneis” underscores the vagueness of German terminology for poetry collections. Hallbauer also includes poetical and rhetorical Handbücher such as Erdmann Uhse’s Wohlinformierter Redner (first edition: 1709), Christian Weise’s Politischer Redner (first edition: 1677), and Magnus Daniel Omeis’s Gründliche Anleitung zur teutschen accuraten Reimund Dichtkunst (1704). 67 18 theory; Hallbauer already suggests the new direction the epigram form would take during the Enlightenment. Hallbauer’s Inscriptionen was created at a moment when the very definition of the epigram form was in transition. The Baroque definition of the epigram differs substantially from the definitions of the epigram developed in the later eighteenth century. Baroque authors call the epigram a scharfsinnige Inschrift (“witty inscription”) or Inscriptio arguta and do not consider the inscription to be only or necessarily a poetic form, but also a rhetorical form. In fact, a variety of theories were held on whether an inscription was poetry, prose or somewhere between the two. Furthermore, Baroque epigrammatic wit came from the development of sophistic rhetorical arguments or argutia. After 1700, the definition of epigrammatic wit shifted away from this type of word play toward arguments based on ratio or logic, a change brought about by the Early Enlightenment (Neukirchen 227). The definition of the genre continued to be much discussed in the following decades, with both Lessing and Herder (1744-1803) making important contributions to German discourse on the topic after the mid-century arguments of Gottsched, Bodmer and Batteux. 70 Two types took precedence: the lyrical and more fluidly-formed Grecian and the Martial, which has a more peppery tone and two distinct movements, which Lessing called the Erwartung and the Aufschluß.71 Lessing presents the Martial form as the ideal and the Grecian as a necessary developmental stage of the genre prior to that. Herder’s work on the epigram was a direct reaction to Lessing’s Zerstreute Anmerkungen; he counters that Lessing’s interpretation is too extreme and attempts to revive interest in the Grecian form. Hallbauer’s work expresses elements of both Baroque and Enlightenment thinking – he compiled Baroque Inscriptio arguta, while also suggesting that epigrammatists write epigrams based on ratio or reason rather than arguta or arguments (Neukirchen 224-225). At the outset of his “historische Nachricht” or historical notice Hallbauer promises to describe the “origin,” the “progress” or development, and particular “occurrences” of the German epigram, but his text is not what a later reader might expect. 72 Whereas Jördens, whose lateeighteenth-century epigram anthology is discussed in the third case study, attempts to characterize the German epigrammatists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Hallbauer merely lists names, without attempting to create a chronology or narrative about the development of the previous hundred years (§48-49). Instead, Hallbauer returns on broader themes from Baroque Handbücher, such as the antiquity of the German language, beginning with the origin of the Germanic peoples and the German language (§. 14-21). Only after establishing the great age of the language in spoken form, does he come to the question of when the German language began to be written (§. 22). Hallbauer attempts to disprove the thesis that Germans did not write before the time of Charlemagne, tracing the German epigram tradition from runic pagan inscriptions to ones from after the spread of Christianity in Latin script on sacred and profane buildings as well as on headstones, coins, and other objects (§40-41). 73 At this point, Hallbauer finally comes to terminological differences between “gemeine” or common inscriptions und “scharfsinnige” or “sinnreiche” (witty) inscriptions and very briefly posits that the scharfsinnige are a later development: “Also müssen wir die sinnreiche Inscriptionen in den neueren Zeiten, da man die Teutsche Oratorie mehr zu treiben angefangen, suchen.” 74 Despite substantial differences between his Herder, Johann Gottfried. “Anmerkungen über die Anthologie der Griechen, besonders über das griechische Epigramm.” Zerstreute Blätter. II. 1785. 71 Lessing’s epigram theory appeared in “Zerstreute Anmerkungen über das Epigramm und einige der vornehmsten Epigrammatisten.” First published in his Vermischte Schriften (1777). 72 Hallbauer 1732, “Vorrede” §. 13. In the original: “Ursprung” “Fortgange” and “Begebenheiten.” 73 The modern language historians consider it likely that Charlemagne’s Kulturpolitik provided an important impetus for writing German (Bär 3). 74 §48, §43. Trans.: “So we must seek the witty inscriptions in more recent times, as German oratory began to be practiced 70 19 and later epigram anthologies, Hallbauer’s act of defining the genre, creating a narrative of its origin and uniting this narrative with a selection of examples, gave later authors an initial position from which to frame their own approaches. Another early example of the interrelation of the two forms and the small conceptual step from the poetics to the anthology is evident in Ramler’s work. From letters, it is clear that Ramler had the idea to create a representative anthology of epigrams as a result of his translation of Batteux’s poetics in the 1750s. I will analyze the nature and consequences of this translation in detail in the first case study. The Handbuch was the vehicle for representative anthologization in Early Modern Germany, and the decline of the Handbuch in the second quarter of the eighteenth century contributed to the rise of the representative anthology as a freestanding genre. Once the function of the representative anthology was no longer fulfilled by Handbücher, a functional gap arose in the latter part of the eighteenth century. The poetic schoolbook served as a transitional form between the Baroque Handbuch and the representative anthology. In the 1950s, A. G. de Capua made mention of schoolbooks as important forerunners of the representative anthology in his article, “Early Poetical Anthologies for Schools: A Contribution to the History of the Lyrical Anthology in Germany before 1770” (1957); however, de Capua argued that poetry collections designed for use in schools were the descendants of “journal-like … series collections” like the Neukirch-Sammlung (337). In his view, “the anthology as a school text was at first an offshoot of the series collection, abandoning both its serial character and its function as an organ for new verse exclusively” (ibid). Like de Capua, I see the schoolbooks as an important step in the direction of the representative anthology; however, I posit a lineage from the Handbücher to the schoolbooks and then to the representative anthology. De Capua himself gives evidence of another direct link between the Handbücher and the anthologies – from him we learn that Gottsched exhorted his advanced readers to create their own pedagogical poetry collections as early as the 1730 edition of the Versuch einer Critischen Dichtkunst (347). My argument avoids the complication of insisting, as de Capua does, that the form abandons both its publication genre and the type of verse included in its transformation into the schoolbook. This does not, of course, rule out a relationship between schoolbooks and earlier series collections, but rather suggests that the schoolbooks are more closely related to the Handbücher, which themselves were essentially pedagogical. These schoolbook-descendants of the Handbücher provided a central vehicle for the discussion of poetry and poetic forms through the end of the eighteenth century and are a natural product of the Enlightenment in Germany: pedagogy was an “unerläßliche Voraussetzung” or indispensable prerequisite for the Enlightenment goal of encouraging intellectual autonomy (Hammerstein 1-2). The shift from pre-modern to modern forms of collecting poetry for publication, which has so often been shown to take place over the course of the eighteenth century is thus a product of the Enlightenment. Although it has not yet done so, this recognition should awaken interest in a broader audience, because it shows how the Enlightenment reshaped a very basic, even fundamental kind of thinking – thinking about the relationship of the present to the past and of ourselves as actors in that relationship. The collecting of poetry is especially significant to eighteenth-century national identity because of the central role poetry played among the various elements that make up the concept of Kultur or culture during the period and because of Germany’s well-known sense of inferiority in comparison to other countries’ literary achievements during this period. In this way, the anthologists of the Enlightenment participated in narrative self-fashioning on a national level at a significant point in German history, while those of the Romantic period adopted, adapted, and extended an extant project. more.” 20 It seems likely that the teaching of German literature in schools hastened the development of representative anthologies by creating more readers of German poetry and as well as by creating demand for structural treatments of German literature and literary forms by teachers for use in classrooms. Johann Joachim Eschenburg’s dual poetics and anthology, the Entwurf einer Theorie und Literatur der schönen Wissenschaften. Zur Grundlage bey Vorlesungen (also 1783) and the Beispielsammlung zur Theorie und Literatur der schönen Wissenschaften (8 vols., 1788-1795) demonstrate admirably the interrelation of classroom poetics and the representative anthology published by the Aufklärer, or supporters of the Enlightenment. Belonging to the last generation of scholars to subscribe to the scholarly ideal of the Universalgelehrter or polymath, Eschenburg concentrated on the “organization of knowledge transfer and public discussion” (Baasner). His Entwurf encompasses aesthetics, poetics, and rhetoric; the Beispielsammlung includes poetry, dramatic works, and prose in six languages (Latin, Greek, French, Italian, English and German) and has been called the “most important anthology of world literature spawned about by the German Enlightenment.” 75 The basis of Eschenburg’s project is a neoclassical conception of literature, in which German literature was seen as the latest to develop into greatness (after the literatures of the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Italians, the French, and the English) and reflects a belief in the necessity of imitation rather than genius to create great works. 76 The combination of Early Modern polymathy with Eschenburg’s imperative to structure and disseminate information, which was inflected by the Late Enlightenment, and his experience as a teacher made Eschenburg uniquely qualified to attempt the project of a dual poetics and comparative anthology in the pedagogical mode.77, 78 In his introduction, Eschenburg described the genesis of the Entwurf out of his lectures at the Collegium Carolinum, an institution founded in 1745, which bridged the gap between secondary and university-level education.79, 80 Eschenburg initially provided bibliographic references to potential examples, rather than embedding poems within his poetics; the Beispielsammlung is a revision to his original plan as expressed in the introduction to the Entwurf. Through this experience, Eschenburg wrote, he came to believe that one cannot teach by theory alone: “Verbindung der Literatur mit der Theorie scheint mir nothwendiges Bedürfniß des ersten Unterrichts in den schönen Wissenschaften.” 81 Indeed, he wrote, the “Lesung, Erklärung und Anwendung der besten Muster” has more of an effect on “Geist und Geschmack” or “spirit and taste” than all the rules. 82 In the introduction to the revised edition Mauerer 343. In the original: “bedeutendste Anthologie der Weltliteratur, welche die deutsche Aufklärung hervorgebracht hat.” 76 Mauerer points out that, in a series of articles, Eschenburg defined this new era in German literature as beginning with the conclusion of the Seven Years War in 1763: “Gründzüge eines Gemäldes der deutschen Literatur und Geschmacksbildung während der drey letzten Jahrzehenden. In Briefen,” published in 1795 in Archenhotz’s journal, Minerva (340 ff.). 77 Eschenburg (1743-1820) was an industrious author, especially of textbooks including the Entwurf discussed here and the Lehrbuch der Wissenschaftskunde. Ein Grundriß encyklopädischer Vorlesungen (1792, 1800). He was also professor at the Collegio Carolinium in Braunschweig and Lessing's “most important friend” during the latter’s time in Wolfenbüttel, even becoming executor of his literary estate (Mann 983). 78 See Niekerk 2003 for a recent discussion of the German Late Enlightenment as a literary historical periodization for the last two decades of the eighteenth century. 79 Vorrede, n. p. 80 Today, the Collegium Carolinum survives as the Technische Universität Braunschweig. 81 Eschenburg 1783, n.p. Trans.: “Connecting literature with theory seems to be an essential necessity for initial instruction in belles lettres.” 82 Trans.: “Reading, explaining, and applying the best examples.” “Vorbericht zu dieser neuen Ausgabe.” Entwurf einer Theorie und Litteratur der schönen Wissenschaften. Zur Grundlage bei Vorlesungen. Neue, umgearbeitete Ausgabe. Berlin und Stettin: bey Friedrich Nicolai, 1789. n.p. Fittingly, the title page of the first volume of the Beispielsammlung (1788) is decorated with Seneca’s famous pronouncement, Longum iter est per praecepta; breve et efficax per exempla. 75 21 of the Entwurf, Eschenburg underscores the interdependency of Entwurf and Beispielsammlung for didactic use. In doing so, Eschenburg also underscores the mutually reflexive relationship of the two forms, of poetics and the poetry collection. Eschenburg’s project is characteristic of period poetry collections in that it marries high-minded ideals with practical concerns. At the same time, Eschenburg’s dual poetics and anthology act as a transitional form between the schoolbook-poetics and the representative anthologies soon to come. II.III The Case Studies of Collecting Tradition I have chosen to examine a limited number of anthologies, rather than the survey approach of Benedict, Bareikis, and de Capua; given how little we know about the field of eighteenth-century German poetry collections as a whole, it has seemed a worthy project to create detailed narratives about a few, specific anthologists and their collections. Each case study concentrates on a different aspect of German literary history that can be illuminated from an application of book-historical methods to that particular project. In each case study, I ask why and for whom these collections were created and which issues were raised by others in response to their publication. The desire to create richer narratives has naturally limited the scope of the project. I will be the first to admit that this dissertation does not address many important aspects of anthology publication, even concerning the specific case studies. For one, the scope of this project did not include reception history of specific poems in any of the anthologies or, for another, examinations of the particular theoretical texts, which Jördens includes in his Blumenlese (in the third case study). Nonetheless, I hope to begin addressing some intriguing questions not only about these specific works and their creation, but also about eighteenth-century German poetry collections more generally and how they relate to other aspects of contemporary German literature and culture. In the first case study, I investigate multiple incarnations of an early collection of Baroque epigrams, the second examines a contemporary miscellany, and the third case study analyzes the first representative anthology of German epigrams, which also went through two, substantially different incarnations. I have chosen projects that I believe to be suggestive of the larger narrative of change concerning modernity and the definitions of and expectations on poetry collections. My selection is based on a combination of factors. For one, I chose editors who compiled more than one volume of the particular anthology or work with the genre. This has made it easier to precisely identify the editors’ intentions and contemporary responses to them, as their work and reception are recorded at different points over the life of the project. Anthologists also responded to criticism over the course of their projects, either in the paratexts to the volumes or through changes to the scope and design of the project over time. Another important factor in my selection of case studies was whether or not the anthologist included older works. Although this restricted my selection, I only discuss poetry collections that feature at least some older works. By doing so, I have the opportunity to investigate the editors’ handling of literary reception and paths of influence as well as the development of historical perspective. Historical perspective has proven itself to be an underlying feature of the modern understanding of the anthology (which is the representative anthology). The juxtaposition of these elements over the course of the slow evolution of the epigram anthologies illuminates these divergent approaches to literature, which illustrate Koselleck’s hypothesis concerning historical time in the eighteenth century. A final factor unites the anthologies and is, in some ways, a result of the other factors mentioned here. All of the anthologists discussed in the case studies react in one way or another to Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, a central literary figure of the German Enlightenment. Lessing (1729-1781) was one of the most important Trans.: “The journey is long through precepts, but short and direct through examples” (Edward 89). 22 influences on the reception of earlier literature in Germany, as an early advocate for historical perspective in literary criticism.83 Prominent from the late 1740s until many years after his death in 1780, Lessing dominated the emerging field of “older literature;” today, as a forerunner of historical perspective in literary studies, Lessing is a key figure in the development of modernity. In addition, Lessing was a proponent of anthologies. He never published an anthology himself, although he came close (as we will see in the first case study), and he considered the creation of poetry anthologies to be important work necessary to the strengthening of the German literary tradition. In short, Lessing was both central to eighteenth-century German literary culture and innovative in his approach to earlier literature. The unique confluence of his popularity with his new approach, make possible a project that traces both the changes in a narrow field, that of the poetry anthology, as well as the early development of concepts that have come to define our own era. The three anthologists discussed in this work each respond in different ways to Lessing and in doing so each demonstrates a different aspect of the development of German literature. Lessing wrote and published a poetic theory of the epigram as well as a collection of his own epigrams; as a result, the epigram anthologists respond to Lessing’s thoughts on older literature. In keeping with the popularity and the earlier development of historical perspective in them as well as the other factors mentioned here, I have chosen two collections of epigrams. I then selected a contemporary miscellany that includes many types of poetry as a counterpoint to these narratives. In the first case study, we see how the earliest of the selected anthologists, Karl Wilhelm Ramler, began to compile a representative anthology in the service of a national literary tradition. Although new in purpose, this project reflects a, in Koselleckian terms, pre-modern way of interacting with literature, in that Ramler relies on a single standard of perfection to which all poetry from any era can be compared. To do so, I reconstruct the prepublication history, particularly the flux and evolution of Ramler’s approach to older literature, over that period through secondary theoretical works, letters, and paratexts. Ramler, was a personal friend of Lessing and collaborated with him, particularly toward the beginning of their careers, in Berlin. The two anthologies of Baroque epigrams that Ramler published are predicated on Ramler’s collaboration with Lessing during the 1750s and his translation of Batteux’s poetics. Both Ramler and, to a degree, Lessing navigate the reception of older literature over the evolution of the anthology project, but Ramler’s prescriptive stance was at odds with Lessing’s protorelativism. Ramler’s reaction to Lessing’s approach is contained in his Baroque epigram anthologies, the Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte der deutschen Poeten. Theil 1 (1766) and Christian Wernickens Ueberschriften. Nebst Opitzens, Tschernings, Andreas Gryphius und Adam Olearius epigrammatischen Gedichten (1780). The only poetry collection in this study that is not an epigram anthology is a series collection edited by Christian Heinrich Schmid, the Anthologie der Deutschen (3 vols.; 1770, 1771 and 1772), which I discuss in the second case study. I included this series for several reasons. First, this project represents a different kind of poetry collection, which was popular in the eighteenth century, but is now obsolete. This provides depth to the overarching narrative as well as contrast and context for the patriotic, pedagogical projects of Ramler and Jördens. At the same time, Schmid’s collections raise completely different questions of influence than the others – the question of English influence, as well as celebrity and personal relationships on German poetry collections. Schmid demonstrated a complete indifference to older literature and the literary history, creating what in English would be considered a miscellany. The precocious young editor attempted to profit from Lessing’s celebrity by reprinting in whole two of 83 For example, Barner. 23 Lessing’s early plays. Schmid’s boldness unleashed a fascinating discussion of authors’ rights long before copyright had been established in Germany. Through the uproar evident in letters, reviews of the anthology, as well as evidence from later publication history and Schmid’s subsequent prefaces, we can trace the literary community’s navigation of authorial ‘property’ and fair use before the advent of copyright as well as the personal consequences for the editor responsible for the transgression. In the final case study, I examine Karl Heinrich Jördens’ Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte (2 vols., 1789 and 1790) as an early example of a comprehensive, representative anthology. Approximately ten years after Lessing’s death, Karl Heinrich Jördens attempted to assimilate Lessing’s theory of the epigram with the one formulated by Herder in the preface of his Blumenlese and in his selection of texts. The Blumenlese is an early example, likely the first example, of a representative genre anthology in the German tradition. Just a few months prior to the publication of the Blumenlese, Jördens had published another epigram anthology, the Epigrammenlese oder Sammlung von Sinngedichten aus den vorzüglichsten älteren und neueren Epigrammatisten der Deutschen nebst einem Anhange über das Epigramm (1789), with which he was very dissatisfied, and which might be considered a miscellany rather than a representative anthology. By comparing the two projects and reviews of them, we see the ideal of representative anthology came into focus in the late eighteenth century and, thus, learn how the anthology came to be defined as it is today. 24 III. Establishing Tradition: Karl Wilhelm Ramler’s Epigram Anthology Projects, 1754-1780 Karl Wilhelm Ramler was the most prolific creator of German-language anthologies in the eighteenth century, compiling more than fifteen volumes. Ramler’s anthologies span three genres – lieder, fables, and epigrams – and he returned again and again to these collections, reworking and republishing them. 84 Unlike his other projects, Ramler drew only on seventeenth-century poets in the published epigram projects. During the mid-eighteenth century, German-language collections containing only seventeenthcentury poets were exceedingly rare, which would seem to make Ramler’s epigram anthologies a compelling subject for scholarship. This has hardly been the case, and what attention he has received has not been flattering. In this case study, I will reconstruct Ramler’s earliest anthology concepts and compare them to the printed incarnations of Ramler’s epigram project, particularly the 1759 Logau edition, which was a collaboration with Lessing, and the first published collection, the Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte der deutschen Poeten. Theil 1 (1766). I will address similarities and differences between Ramler and Lessing’s approach to seventeenth-century poetry by way of the Logau edition, which is also the only one of the projects to have received substantial scholarly attention. This comparison may also shed new light on the Logau edition by pointing out the relationship between it and Ramler’s epigram anthologies. I will also analyze scholarly criticism of Ramler and compare it to contemporary responses to his work, with the intention to show that, although not as stunning or as familiar as Lessing, Ramler, too, made a positive contribution to the early reception of Baroque poetry. Ramler’s interest in the epigram lasted some forty years; his long preoccupation with the epigram resulted in four publications. The first of these was a selected edition of poems by the Baroque epigrammatist, Friedrich von Logau (1604-1655) in 1759, which was a collaborative effort with Lessing, which he republished in 84 De Capua is of the opinion that his many publications even could be said to be only three different anthologies in various editions, volumes and guises (de Capua 1956, 355-356). 25 revised format in 1790.85 In 1766, Ramler published an anthology of seventeenth-century epigrams called the Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte der deutschen Poeten. Theil 1.86 Ramler included poems by Martin Opitz, Martin Zeiller, Adam Olearius, Tscherning, Paul Fleming, Andreas Gryphius, Christian Gryphius.87 Although the Sammlung did not receive widespread attention from reviewers, those who did review it praised it, particularly Ramler’s focus on earlier poets. Despite this praise, Ramler did not undertake further volumes that would have covered the epigrams of later authors, but instead reworked, expanded, and republished the first volume of the Sammlung under the title Christian Wernickens Ueberschriften. Nebst Opitzens, Tschernings, Andreas Gryphius und Adam Olearius epigrammatischen Gedichten (1780).88 In this version, Ramler blends the forms of epigram anthology and selected works into a single volume, attempting to synthesize the best qualities of each. At four hundred thirty-six pages, Wernickens Ueberschriften is nearly twice as long as the Sammlung with slightly more than half the volume dedicated to Wernicke, whom Bodmer had rediscovered and republished in the 1740s and the rest split between Opitz, Tscherning, Andreas Gryphius and Olearius. 89 Paul Fleming and Christian Gryphius are no longer included, although the younger Gryphius is mentioned under his father’s name: Fig. 2. Frontispiece and title page of Wernickens Ueberschriften (courtesy of the SB Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz). Logau, Friedrich von. Sinngedichte; Zwölf Bücher; Mit Anmerkungen über die Sprache des Dichters. Leipzig: In der Weidmannischen Buchhandlung, 1759. 86 [Ramler, Karl Wilhelm, ed]. Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte der deutschen Poeten. Th[ei]l 1. Riga: Hartknoch, 1766. Octav, 224 pages. 87 Opitz (1597-1639), Zeiller (1589-1661), Olearius (1599-1671), Tscherning (1611-1659), Fleming (1609-1640), A. Gryphius (1616-1664), C. Gryphius (1649-1706). 88 Ramler, Karl Wilhelm, ed. Wernickens Überschriften. Nebst Opitzens, Tschernings, A. Gryphius und A. Olearius epigrammatischen Gedichten. Leipzig: Weidmann & Reich, 1780. 89 Wernicke, Christian. Wernicke’s Poetische Versuche in Ueberschriften: wie auch in Helden- und Schäfergedichten. Ed. J. J. Bodmer. Zürich: bey David Geßner, Gebrüdere, 1749. 85 26 “Man muss ihn [A. Gryphius] von seinem Sohne Christian Gryphius Wohl unterscheiden, welcher sich gleichfalls durch Gedichte bekannt gemacht hat, aber nicht mehr unter die guten Dichter Schlesiens gerechnet werden kann” (394). Finally, in 1787, Ramler published a selected edition of Martial in Latin and German with translations by various authors.90 Before any of these were published, Ramler created two other distinct concepts for an epigram anthology that did not reach print, which I will be discussing in detail in this case study. Ramler in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries As mentioned above, critical reception of Ramler has been overwhelmingly negative until recently. As a result of his early rejection, the literature on Ramler is thin in comparison to canonical contemporaries. In 1886, Carl Schüddekopf wrote a dissertation on Ramler's early life. Aside from Angelo George de Capua's article, “Karl Wilhelm Ramler: Anthologist und Editor” (1956) and Alfred Anger's afterword to the facsimile of Ramler's 1766 anthology, Lieder der Deutschen (1966), Ramler’s editorial work was not treated independently until 2003, when, under the aegis of the Gleimhaus in Halberstadt, Laurenz Lütteken, Ute Pott, and Carsten Zelle edited Urbanität als Aufklärung. Karl Wilhelm Ramler und die Kultur des 18. Jahrhunderts. Despite this, Ramler has not really made a comeback in German studies. Ramler's letters, aside from his correspondence with Gleim, have never been collected, although he corresponded both extensively and intensively with numerous figures at the center of contemporary German literary life. Some of Ramler’s letters can be found in a collection of his correspondence with Gleim up until 1759, created, again, by Schüddekopf and scattered in the collected correspondence of contemporaries such as Lessing, Herder, Wieland, etc., but also largely unpublished in archives. 91 It seems that Ramler's diminished status after his death has obscured his importance in his own day, discouraging scholars from attempting the extremely valuable project of collecting his letters, which could shed considerable light on transmission, publication, editorial practices and literary networks. In regard to his epigram projects, very little has been written, as they were only barely touched on by Klaus Bohnen in Urbanität als Aufklärung. For example, the only twentieth-century scholar to write an article on Ramler, de Capua, called his epigram anthology of 1766 a “pitiful remnant of the old epigram project,” which “failed” because of his mania for “improving” original texts and because “he had no true picture of poetical development and subjected everything mercilessly to the critical standards of his time and of his peculiar personality” (de Capua 1956: 360, 363). The root of all this, de Capua added, was Ramler’s “ignorance of the literary history of the preceding century” and his deficient “critical stature and vision,” which prevented him from properly evaluating “the then largely unfamiliar mass” of older poetry (363). Nonetheless, Ramler’s concentration on seventeenth-century poets makes them particularly useful for examining the development of central aspects of modern literary studies, specifically the concepts of objectivity and historical distance, canonization processes, as well as authorship and authorial sovereignty, and the valuation of originality. An examination of this case is made particularly fruitful by the fact that Lessing collaborated with Ramler during the critical years 1758 and 1759, which gives us the opportunity to directly compare the attitudes and practices concerning older literature of two very different epochal figures. For twentieth-century scholars, two 90 Marcus Valerius Martialis: [Epigramme] in einem Auszuge, lateinisch und deutsch. Aus den poetischen Übersetzungen verschiedener Verfasser gesammelt. [5 vols.] Leipzig: 1787-1790. This work is also a mixed publication form; according to Martin only the first volume contains translations by many authors; the later volumes contain only Ramler’s translations (Martin 586). 91 Lee is compiling a new critical edition of the correspondence of Gleim and Ramler, which will undoubtedly be a wonderful resource, but regretably is not yet finished. See Lee. 27 factors decided critical evaluation of the Sammlung. First, the question of whether or not Ramler changed the texts. The answer to the question is yes – Ramler certainly did rewrite the poems, changing individual words and phrases, even the essential meaning of poems. Secondly, the question whether Ramler selected poets for his anthology who are now considered representative; the answer to which is no. Ramler’s editing of the seventeenth-century texts and his selection of poets has resulted in the Sammlung being judged a complete failure – a “totally subjective, unhistorical performance” – by de Capua (1956, 364). These questions are fraught with problems, as they themselves embody anachronistic expectations, dismissing Ramler for putting his methods, which can be shown to be reasonable by eighteenth-century standards, into practice. In effect, twentieth-century critics did to Ramler what Ramler does to the poets of the seventeenth century. I hope to show that it is more fruitful to examine the Sammlung as a window onto the process by which standard thinking about poetry became historically framed. If modern commentators strive to reach an objective stance that places literature into its historical context and maintain or even increase historical distance from the events of the past, Ramler himself must be allowed his historical moment. Ramler played a role in the development of historicity and historical distance in that moment, concepts that have become part of the modern paradigm for reading literature; his influence was both intentional – through his attempt to mediate older literature – and unintentional, in that he was often used as a negative model. Considering this, the questions we should be asking are not the ones above, but rather how and to what degree his approach to selection and emendation differed from that of his contemporaries, particularly the contemporaries who have been credited with shaping present-day thinking and what Ramler hoped to achieve with his method. Ramler’s Epigram Project Ramler was both active and influential in German literary life, earning a small but steady income teaching philosophy and rhetoric at the Prussian Kadettenschule – first as a teacher, then as “maitre” or professor from 1748 until 1790. From about 1750 on, Ramler was a mainstay of the Berlin literary scene as an active member of a variety of clubs and contributor to the weekly Critische Nachrichten, which he even edited for a few months. Ramler also wrote literary criticism, edited others’ work and made translations in German from Latin and French. 92 Like Lessing, Ramler had a longstanding interest in the epigram, a form which played a paradigmatic role in the Early Modern culture wars, as mentioned in the discussion of the case studies (in section II.III). Writing about Ramler’s Batteux translation, Klaus Bohnen traced Lessing and Ramler’s interest in the epigram back to a mutual desire to “create a German tradition equal to the overwhelming foreign models against which contemporary poets could measure and orient themselves” and argued that Ramler's engagement with epigrams represents an essential aspect of his contribution to German literature (84). Bareikis suggested that Lessing rather than Ramler might be due the credit for creating the Sammlung; however, Ramler’s extensive correspondence with 92 Ramler was born into a well-to-do family on 9 Feb. 1725. His birthplace was Kolberg, a hanseatic town in Hinterpommern on the Baltic Sea, which was then a part of Prussia and is now Kołobrzeg, Poland. After attending schools in Kolberg and Stettin, Ramler finishing finished his preparation for university study at the Hallenser Waisenhaus in 1742. At the insistence of his father, he studied theology at the Fridericiana in Halle, despite his own preference for literature and aesthetics. After three years of half-hearted study, Ramler was called home by his parents for a time due to his lackluster performance; he was sent back to Halle at the beginning of 1745, this time to attempt a degree in medicine. His route, however, went through Berlin and he decided not to complete a degree, but instead to remain there. His newfound mentor, the poet Johann Wilhelm Ludwig Gleim (1719-1803), helped him meet like-minded people and secured him a position as a tutor with his sister, who lived near Berlin. From 1745 on, Ramler lived in or near Berlin (see Schüddekopf, H. Dewitz, Kertscher). 28 his close friend and mentor, Johann Wilhelm Ludwig Gleim (1719-1803), suggests that the idea began with Ramler’s translation of Charles Batteux's Cours de belles lettres (1747-1750), which appeared under the title Einleitung in die schönen Wissenschaften (1756-58).93 There are several distinct stages in the evolution of Ramler’s engagement with the epigram and the theoretical influences that contributed to it over time. After taking theoretical impulses from Batteux, he took completely different impulses from Lessing. As a result, we can observe normative poetics and historical perspective both in conflict and in harmony with one another in Ramler’s work on the epigram. Ramler’s interest in the project was sparked by the process of translating Charles Batteux's Cours de belles lettres in the 1750s.94 The Cours de belles lettres is a handbook providing a collection of ideal generic models as well as prescriptive theoretical underpinnings of those models, the origin of which, in Batteux’s view, is always the mimesis of beautiful nature. Although “progress in historical consciousness” can be shown in the Cours de belles lettres in comparison to Baroque Handbücher and Gottsched’s Versuch einer kritischen Dichtkunst für die Deutschen, commonly known as the Critische Dichtkunst (Critical Ars Poetica) of 1730, Batteux’s poetics was still very much a normative work (Pizer 74). Ramler’s translation was published between 1756 and 1758 as the Einleitung in die Schönen Wissenschaften.95 Ramler replaced many of the French examples with German ones and changed Batteux’s text, as Moses Mendelssohn described it, in order to make the translation “brauchbar und nützlich” or “useful and valuable” for the German language (342). In his translation, Ramler took part in the theoretical debate about the epigram in a characteristically roundabout way: Ramler replaced all examples and redacted Batteux’s argument that only the French language is up to the challenge of the form, writing instead, “Nichts hängt von so geringen Umständen ab, als ein witziger Einfall. Und wie viele hat nicht ein jedes Volk, deren Feinheit Ausländern entgeht?”96 On December 28, 1756, Ramler wrote Gleim who had helped Ramler find his work and enter literary life in Berlin, that he was in the process of compiling genre anthologies using poems he had collected for the translation:97 Jetzt habe ich alle Odendichter gelesen, welches eine sehr unnütze Arbeit war, weil ich schon alle Stücke wuste, die sich zu meinem Batteux paßten. Indeßen habe ich sie doch gelesen und es kan einmal dazu dienen, einen Band von allen guten Oden und Liedern der Deutschen zusammenzubringen. […] Oden, Fabeln, Satyren und Lehrgedichte, Epigrammen werden vier gute Bände ausmachen.98 Ramler established that he had begun with the collection of epigrams and was already nearly finished with that project: “Mit den Epigrammatischen Gedichten will ich bald fertig werden, mit den Fabeln auch bald.”99 Just six weeks later, Ramler reported completing the epigram anthology, although he admits he had not read all he had hoped, writing: “die Epigrammatisten sind schon gesammlet [sic] und auf den Sommer werde ich mich mit Herrn Reich bereden, wie sauber er sie drucken soll.” 100 Ramler’s See Bareikis, “Die deutschen Lyriksammlungen des 18. Jahrhunderts,” 98-99. The original Cours de belles lettres was published between 1747 and 1750. 95 4 vols. Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben und Reich. 96 Cited in Bohnen 92-93. Trans.: “Nothing depends on such minor differences [literally, circumstances], as a witty idea. And how many [of these] does any people have, the subtlety of which escapes foreigners?” 97 Contemporary correspondence gives a clear picture of the genesis of the epigram anthologies. Carl Schüddekopf edited both the Briefwechsel zwischen Gleim und Uz (henceforth GU) and the Briefwechsel zwischen Gleim und Ramler (henceforth GR). Letters to and from Lessing are cited as found in Briefe von und an Lessing 1743-1770 (henceforth LB). 98 28 Dec. 1756; GR 260-261. Trans.: “Now I have read all the poets who wrote odes, which was a senseless task, since I already knew all the pieces suitable for my Batteux. But now I have read them all and it can serve to make a volume of all the good odes and songs of the Germans. […] Odes, fables, satires and didactic poems, epigrams will make up four good volumes.” 99 28 Dec. 1756; GR 261. Trans.: “I want to finish the epigrammatic poems soon, also the fables.” 100 9 Feb. 1757; GR 279. Trans.: “the epigrammatists have already been collected and when summer comes I will talk with 93 94 29 well received Batteux translation had been published by the successful and influential Leipzig publisher, Philipp Erasmus Reich, and Ramler appears confident that Reich would be interested in the genre anthologies Ramler was planning (Titel 289-290). Before the Batteux, Ramler had published two well received volumes of Lieder or songs, the Oden mit Melodien (1753, 1755), in collaboration with Gottlieb Christian Krause, which meant that he was already experienced in the process of compiling poetry for a published collection. However, as a transcultural process that set the German literary tradition in direct comparison to the French, translating the Cours de belles lettres gave the subsequent anthologies he published a different patriotic impetus. In the letter quoted above, Ramler named the poets he planned to include: Diejenigen die ich habe ausziehen laßen sind: Wernicke, Opitz, Flemming, Hagedorn, Kästner, Lessing. Auch Drollinger […] und Götz […] Meine beyden Freunde [probably Gleim and Ewald Christian von Kleist] […] An Herrn Ewald muß ich auch schreiben daß er seine bereits von ihm verbeßerten Sinngedichte herausgiebt, damit ich sie plündern kan.101 Ramler also listed authors whose poems he plans to read for possible inclusion, casting his net widely: Nun muß ich noch den Beßer, Dach, Brockes, König, Werlhof und einige neuere durchblättern, ja wol gar die Gryphier, den Abschatz, den Wentzel, den erhabenen Lohenstein, den frommen Amthor, den natürlichen Neukirch, Poeten deren Nahmen ich in zwölf Jahren nicht in den Mund genommen haben.102 As these lists show, Ramler did not restrict his search to contemporary poets, but hoped instead to include a wealth of seventeenth- and early-eighteenth-century authors. At the same time, he also excluded poets from both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: “Hofmanswaldau hat nichts für uns. Unser Canitz auch nicht.”103 At this point, Ramler’s intention was to include poets from the beginning to the end of what was then considered the productive period of German literature. The decision to include material from Opitz to the present reveals culturally patriotic aims: Ramler hoped to demonstrate a German tradition to support the project he had begun with his translation of the Einleitung in die Schönen Wissenschaften. As Anger wrote, for Ramler the anthologist, “it was never about preserving the individual traits of a poet,” and that he was not preoccupied with the “conservation of historical patina,” as it was “for him […] always only about the exemplary fulfillment of specific generic rules, about linguistic and metrical correctness and purity of rhyme” (Anger 6*). Furthermore, Anger recognized that Ramler was “still completely bound to the poetics of the Renaissance” in his approach to poetry. 104 Anger’s characterization of Ramler touches on the normative poetics that formed the foundation of all his endeavors. This theoretical foundation is most visible in Ramler’s efforts to anthologize older poets, when the underlying relationship to time that is a central feature of normative poetics is finally visible. Mr. Reich about how carefully [cleanly] he should print them.” 9 Feb. 1757; GR 279-280. Trans.: “The ones from which I have taken texts are Wernicke, Opitz, Flemming, Hagedorn, Kästner, Lessing. And Drollinger […] and Götz […] My two friends [probably Gleim and Ewald Christian von Kleist] […] I also still have to write Mr. Ewald that he publish his epigrams, which he has already revised, so that I can plunder them.” 102 9 Feb. 1757; GR 279-280. Trans.: “Now I have to leaf through Beßer, Dach, Brockes, König, Werlhof and some newer ones, even Andreas and Christian Gryphius, Abschatz, Wentzel, sublime Lohenstein, pious Amthor, natural Neukirch, poets whose names I have not even said in twelve years.” 103 9 Feb. 1757; GR 280. Trans.: “Hofmanswaldau doesn’t have anything for us. Neither does our Canitz.” 104 Anger 6*. In the original: “Dem Sammler Ramler ging es nie um die Bewahrung der individuellen Züge eines Dichters oder um die Erhaltung historischer Patina, es ging ihm – darin noch vollkommen der Renaissance-Poetik verhaftet – stets nur um die musterhafte Erfüllung bestimmter Gattungsregeln, ums sprachliche und metrische Korrektheit und Reinheit des Reims.” 101 30 When not tested by older literature, normative poetics appear timeless; however, when confronted by poetry from an earlier era, this otherwise obscured characteristic of the normative poetics becomes visible. In short, despite the appearance of timelessness, a strict temporality underlies any normative poetics. A normative poetics belies its temporality by claiming that it sets eternal standards, but the results of applying it to literature from before its own creation are unsatisfactory. Indeed, the temporality of a normative poetics is not eternity, but in fact its own present, the moment of its creation. Obviously, this quality of the normative poetics is invisible until it is put into practice on poetry that bears the marks of another era, which is, of course, always the poetry of the past. As Anger points out, Ramler is in the difficult position of attempting to apply normative standards to poetry created before those standards. Most interesting for us is the idea that translating the Cours de belles letters influenced Ramler’s thinking in a particularly important way. Even before Ramler began work on the anthology the poet Johann Peter Uz (1720-1796) had expressed concern that Ramler’s approach “läßt den PersonalCharackter des Dichters, den er verbessert, aus den Augen.” 105 This tendency obviously is strengthened and legitimized by an approach oriented on normative poetics, as the normative theoretician dislocates the poem from the original context into a matrix of theory, thus diminishing the ties of that poem to the rest of its author’s work. This dislocation not only hides the specificity of the poem’s origin in the works of an individual poet, but also hides the poem’s relationship to a particular time and place and, thus, also of periodicity, of the relationship of the poem to movements and eras. Beyond this, the representative status of an individual poem as an ideal generic model in a normative poetics intensifies the tendency to abstract the individual poem from all other contexts. If the item is the stand-in for the ideal it cannot be seen as a unique possibility of individual self-expression, as for the Romantics and later generations. The tensions between the concepts of the unique product of a single genius and the representative, formally perfect and disembodied poem, become exceptionally clear in Ramler’s anthologies. Ramler did not let such criticism dissuade him; he simply redefined the terms in a way favorable to his intentions. In a letter to Gleim, Ramler described the relationship of Genie to Geschmack, characteristically manipulating the definitions to support his argument that emendation by a second hand is a necessary element of the poetic process: “Freylich ist Genie und Geschmack zweyerley. Das erste ist fast bloßer Instinct, das große Tugenden und Laster hat. Der andre ist klahrsehend und kan die Fehler alle ausmertzen, die das Genie begangen hat.” 106 Ascribing “great vices” as well as “great virtues” to genius, in his argument Ramler found a way to subordinate genius, which he defined as the central quality of the poet, to his own strength, taste, and he thus claims the justness, even the necessity of his approach. In the epigram anthologies, he also made substantial changes to the poems – in part in accordance with his general approach to poetry, and in part for reasons specific to the subject of the anthologies. In the following section, I will show the motivation behind these emendations as well as other important theoretical considerations for the structure and expression of the epigram anthologies. Anger’s thesis that Ramler is only concerned with “exemplary fulfillment of specific generic rules” is borne out by the first concept for an epigram anthology (Anger 6*). As Ramler’s first letter about the genre anthologies shows, he concentrated on bringing together “einen Band von allen guten Oden und Liedern der Deutschen,” rather than of poems by canonical authors. 107 This suggests that while Ramler 12 Mar. 1756; GU 267. Trans.: “loses sight of the personal character of the poet, whom he edits [literally, improves].” 5 Dec. 1755; GR 225. Trans.: “Genius and taste are indeed two different things. The former is almost pure instinct, which has great virtues and vices. The other is clear eyed and can expunge all the mistakes, which the genius has made.” “Genius” is an important topic for German literature in the eighteenth century, but a closer analysis of the concept falls outside the scope of this dissertation. See for example, Jochen Schmidt’s classic, Geschichte des Genie-Gedankens in der deutschen Literatur, Philosophie und Politik, 1750-1945. 2 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985. 107 28 Dec. 1756; GR 260. Trans.: “a volume of all good odes and songs of the Germans.” 105 106 31 was planning a culturally patriotic anthology, which would have to include poets from earlier eras if it were to be ideologically successful, his original plan relied upon the idea that individual poems can be representative and exemplary. This decision reveals that, like a normative poetics, the original concept of Ramler’s epigram anthology, which lasted from at least 1756 until August 1758, was centered on the exemplary value of the individual poem independent of authorship, rather than on the idea of the canonical poet, whose genius is represented by selected poems. As part of this poemcentric approach, the epigram anthology was to include material from all of the then-accepted periods of German literature, that is, from Opitz to the eighteenth century. Ramler’s plan foreshadows the representative anthology, which was to become standard in conjunction with the rise of historical perspective as a cognitive paradigm, but, perhaps ironically, his approach stems from the older, normative view of literature in combination with the cultural patriotism, which was very much a part of his particular experience as a Prussian poet in mid-eighteenth-century Berlin. In preparing his materials, Ramler began by compiling poems by new poets and older ones who had been republished, including Opitz (1745, 1746), Wernicke (1749), and Fleming (1725), before attempting to round out his anthology with less accessible older poets. Although Ramler wanted to create an anthology beginning with Opitz, he was not on familiar ground when searching among the poets of the last century; as Ramler himself said, he had not so much as said the names of many of the Baroque poets “in twelve years,” which would mean since leaving the university in Halle (280). Ramler requested Gleim’s assistance in searching for epigrams: “Meine Bitte an Sie ist, daß wenn Ihnen einer von diesen Herren in die Hände fällt, sie ihn fragen mögen, ob er ein erträgliches Epigram gemacht hat.”108 Preparations for the epigram anthology, including both the acquisition of older materials and the examination of those texts, took longer than Ramler expected. Almost a year later, his search for poems continued, suggesting that he had not been able to gain access to many of the older poets whom he had wanted to consider for inclusion. In January 1758, Ramler wrote Gleim that he wished to spend a few weeks reading the older poets in Gleim’s library himself: Ich möchte wohl einmahl wieder einige Wochen in Ihrer Bibliothec zubringen und zusehen ob ich nicht des v. Golau Sammlung von Sinngedichten darin finden könte, um Auszüge daraus zu machen; imgleichen den Owen von Löbern, den Morhof, Rist, Sieber, Tscherning, welche Gottsched in seiner Dichtkunst als Epigrammatisten anführt. Mich deucht Sie besaßen dergleichen rar gewordene Alten von unsern Deutschen.109 The poets Ramler mentions by name are Logau, Owen von Löbern, Morhof, Rist, Sieber, and Tscherning, all of whose names Ramler reported to have found in Gottsched’s Critische Dichtkunst, but whose works he had not been able to access (GR 309).110 A few weeks later, Gleim answered: “Die alten Poeten, wornach sie gefragt haben, habe ich nicht; ich will alle aufsuchen, und ihnen nennen. Dach ist da, und etwas von Rist. Golau fehlt. Herr Leßing hat ihn gewiß.”111 In his response, Ramler asked Gleim either to bring the books he has or to copy the poems and send them on to him: “Wenn Sie den Rist und 14 Jan. 1758; GR 309. Trans.: “My request to you is, if one of these gentlemen should fall into your hands, please ask him if he has written a tolerable epigram.” 109 14 Jan. 1758; GR 309. Trans.: I would like to spend a few weeks in your library once again and see if I couldn’t find von Golau [Logau’s] collection of epigrams in it in order to copy down some excerpts; the same goes for Owen von Löbern, Morhof, Rist, Sieber, Tscherning, whom [pl.] Gottsched mentions as epigrammatists in his Critical Ars Poetica. I seem to remember that you possessed such rare, old German poets.” 110 First edition 1730, revised editions published in 1737, 1742 and 1751. 111 9 Feb. 1758; GR 320. Trans.: “I do not have the old poets, whom you asked after; I will find all of them [that I have] and send you their names. Dach is there and some things by Rist. Not Golau [Logau]. Mr. Lessing is sure to have him.” 108 32 Dach mitbringen, so will ich mir die Sinngedichte, die ich finde, ausschreiben: Wollen Sie mir diese Mühe selbst über sich nehmen: so ist es mir noch lieber; aber Sie müsten eben nicht gar zu strenge seyn.”112 The repeated requests to Gleim along with the publication delay suggest that Ramler was unwilling to complete the project without a substantial selection of older poets; the project stalled until Lessing’s return to Berlin over a year later, in early May 1758. When Lessing returned to Berlin, he rented an apartment at Heiliger-Geist-Straße 52, close enough to Ramler's own quarters on the Spandauerstraße that they could call and wave to one another from their windows (Daunicht 154). Ramler quickly signed Lessing on as coeditor of the planned epigram anthology and both Lessing and Ramler began to correspond individually with Gleim about the project, which gives a unique window onto their creative process. On June 26, Ramler wrote, “Mit diesem [Lessing] bringe ich manche Stunden mit Projecten zu, wovon wir auch bisweilen eines auszuführen Anstalt machen.” 113 Just ten days later Lessing wrote, “Sie haben es erraten: Herr Ramler und ich, machen Projecte über Projecte. Warten Sie nur noch ein Vierteljahrhundert, und Sie sollen erstaunen, was wir alles werden geschrieben haben. Besonders ich!”114 It was in this letter that Lessing first mentions the epigram anthology: “Mit unsrer Sammlung auserlesener Epigrammen, werden wir nun bald hervorrücken.” 115 Within two months, Lessing was acting as an intermediary between Ramler and Gleim on the project Ramler had begun, gently repeating requests Ramler had made months before, such as asking Gleim to send his own epigrams for inclusion as well as suitable examples from older poets (LB 293). Lessing gently teases Gleim that it will be his own fault if it takes much longer to publish the anthology: Wenn es sich unterdessen noch etwas verziehn möchte, so hat niemand daran Schuld, als ein sichrer Freund in Halberstadt, der uns seine Epigrammen verändert einzuschicken versprochen hat. Er hat auch versprochen, seine alten deutschen Dichter nachzusehen, und was uns nützlich sein könnte, daraus mitzuteilen.116 Ramler had spent approximately two years on the epigram anthology before Lessing joined in, but within six weeks of his involvement, they set aside the idea of a culturally patriotic epigram anthology that would emphasize a legacy of German epigrams from Opitz to the present. It cannot be said with certainty why Ramler and Lessing changed course, but given the correspondence with Gleim, it seems plausible that limited access to older authors contributed to their reconception of the project. Lessing’s desire to work more intensely with particular older authors may also have played a decisive role. On August 16, Ramler wrote Gleim of the new plan: “Ich […] arbeite […] mit unserm Herrn Leßing an der Ausgabe eines alten Poeten, wobey wir mehr schreiben, als dencken dürfen,” referring to the selected edition of Logau Ramler and Lessing would publish the following spring. 117 The poems came from the second edition of Logau’s epigrams. Logau had originally published his epigrams under the pseudonym Salomon von Golaw as Erstes [-andres] hundert teutscher Reimen-Sprüche118 in 1638 and in revised 17 or 18 Feb. 1758; GR 322. Trans.: “If you bring Rist and Dach with you, I want to write down the epigrams I find in them: If you want to take on this task yourself: I would like it even more; but you must not be too strict.” 113 26 Jun. 1758; GR 330. Trans.: “I am spending some hours working on projects with him [Lessing], of which we want to begin on one of them.” 114 8 Jul. 1758; LB 293. Trans.: “You have guessed it: Mr. Ramler and I are planning project after project! Just wait a quarter of a century and you will be astounded at all we have written. Especially what I have written!” 115 8 Jul. 1758; LB 293. Trans.: “We will soon move forward with our collection of selected epigrams.” 116 8 Jul. 1758; LB 293. Trans.: “If it should take somewhat longer in the meantime, no one is at fault except a true friend in Halberstadt, who promised to send us his revised poems. He also promised to look through his old German poets and to share whatever could be useful with us.” 117 16 Aug. 1758; GR 334. “I am working with our Mr. Lessing on an edition of an old poet; in doing, so we must write more than think.” 118 Bresslaw: In Verlegung David Müllers Buchhandel: seel: Erben, 1638. 112 33 and extended form in 1654 as Deutscher Sinn-Gedichte drey tausend.119 Lessing owned the 1754 edition and Logau, as an early but powerful example, could singlehandedly suggest a tradition of German strength in the genre. From the letters, it is clear that Lessing and Ramler had not yet fully abandoned the plan to collect multiple authors, which was the essence of Ramler’s epigram anthology, in favor of Logau, as has sometimes been suggested. Ramler and Lessing’s correspondence with Gleim shows that the two had planned to continue their work on seventeenth-century poets together, but they rethought the collection as a series of selected editions of seventeenth-century poets : “Sobald wir aber mit unserm Logau fertig sind, soll es mit vereinten Kräften über den Tscherning hergehen.”120 In effect, this was the same concept as Friedrich Wilhelm Zachariä’s multi-volume Auserlesene Stücke von Martin Opitz bis auf gegenwärtige Zeiten. Mit historischen Nachrichten und kritischen Anmerkungen versehen (1766, 1771, 1778), and which de Capua called the “only real attempt at a historical anthology survey in the eighteenth century” (de Capua 1956, 363). Zachariä published two volumes – a selected edition of Opitz (1766) and a selected edition of Fleming with some poems by Andreas Scultus (1771). Eschenburg, who would later compile the Beispielsammlung discussed in the introduction (II.I), published a third volume, which included poems by Weckerlin, Tscherning, Zincgref, Stieler, and Homburg, in 1778 after Zachariä’s death.121 Shortly before Lessing and Ramler finished the Logau edition, Gleim campaigned for Opitz to be featured as the next selected edition as he felt that Opitz’s poetry was a good match for the current political climate (during the Seven Years’ War) and also that Opitz would be a good candidate for one of Lessing’s Rettungen or polemical defenses of attacked personalities: “Der fürtreffl. und zu unserer Schande nicht genug gelesene Opitz wird dadurch vielleicht hervorgezogen.” 122 Writing Lessing in mid-November 1758, Gleim says, Ich will Ihnen doch geschwind noch verraten, daß ich Willens gewesen bin Opitzens Lobgesang des Krieges Gottes und die vier Bücher der Trostgedichte, die so fürtreffl. auf unsere Zeit passen, besonders herauszugeben, mit einer Vorrede über Opitz. Aber Zeit, Zeit! Tun sie es doch oder lassen es Ramler tun. 123 A few weeks later, Gleim wrote Ramler a very similar message: Gar zu gern hätte ich selbst seine Vier Bücher Trostgedichte und Lob des Krieges Gottes, absonderlich jene die so schön auf unsere Zeit paßen, besonders herausgegeben. Mir lagen schon allerley gute Sachen zu einer nützlichen Vorrede im Kopfe.124 In the letter to Ramler, however, Gleim cautions Ramler not to edit Opitz’s poetry: “Wenn sie damit fertig sind, so machen sie sich doch an unsern fürtreflichen [sic] Opitz, aber wenn ich rathen darf, so Bresslaw: In Verlegung Caspar Klossmanns, gedruckt in der Baumannischen Druckerey durch Gottfried Gründern [1654]. LB 319. Trans.: “But as soon as we are finished with our Logau, we plan to turn our united forces to Tscherning.” 121 As Eschenburg wrote in a comment on his correspondence with Lessing, the third volume of the Auserlesene Stücke was not a success, which is why he did not publish any more volumes. In the original: “Die ziemlich kalte Aufnahme des Publicums erlaubte mir nur, dieser Sammlung noch einen dritten Band beyzufügen.” (Lessing 1794, 70). 122 22 Nov. 1758; LB 304. Trans.: “Opitz, who is excellent and, to our shame, not read often enough, might be revived by that.” 123 22 Nov. 1758; LB 304. Trans.: “I quickly want to confess to you as well that I wanted to publish separately Opitz praise song to the god of war [ “Lob des Krieges-Gottes” (1628)] and the four books of the consolation poems [Trostgedichte in Widerwãrtigkeit des Krieges (1633)], which suit our time so excellently, with an introduction about Opitz. But time, time! Do it or allow Ramler to do it.” 124 2 Dec. 1758; GR 342. Trans.: ““I would have liked so much to create a separate edition of his four books of consolation poems and the praise of the god of war, particularly those that fit our own times so well. I already had all kinds of good things for a useful introduction in mind.” 119 120 34 ändern sie nichts.”125 Approximately six weeks before the publication of the Logau edition, Lessing rebuffed Gleim on the grounds that Opitz had been reprinted too recently: “Mit der vorgeschlagenen Ausgabe des Opitz, liebster Freund, möchte es wohl nichts sein. Die Schweitzerische und Trillersche Ausgabe liegen noch allzuhäufig in den Läden, als daß sich ein Buchhändler damit abgeben dürfte.” 126 Nonetheless, Lessing wrote that Ramler and he had another selected edition in mind; Lessing and Ramler planned a new edition of Andreas Tscherning: “Sobald wir aber mit unserm Logau fertig sind, soll es mit vereinten Kräften über den Tscherning hergehen.”127 Tscherning (1611-1659) had not been republished since 1724 and shared Logau and Opitz’s Silesian heritage, which Lessing greatly admired. The reason for Lessing’s interest in the Silesian dialect is documented in the introduction to the Logau edition, where he contends that the Silesian dialect was most worthy of critical attention due to the great number of seventeenth-century poets from Silesia. As result of this engagement, since 1758, Lessing had been preparing glossaries of authors he admired with an eye toward creating a German dictionary: Wie groß unsere Hochachtung für diese seine alte Sprache ist wird man aus unsern Anmerkungen darüber, die wir in Gestalt eines Wörterbuchs dem Werke beygefüget haben, deutlich genug erkennen. Aehnliche Wörterbücher über alle unsere guten Schriftsteller, würden, ohne Zweifel, der erste nähere Schritt zu einem allgemeinen Wörterbuche unsrer Sprache seyn.128 Lessing went so far as to begin gathering collaborators for the dictionaries, Gleim and Ramler among them. In a letter to Gleim during the Logau edition, Lessing wrote: “Und Sie werden es sich schwerlich träumen lassen, was wir auch sonst noch für ein großes Project haben. Wir werden Sie auch mit anspannen.”129 Lessing and Ramler worked on the Logau edition from August 1758 to May 1759. 130 As he sometimes did, about six months after the publication of the Logau edition, Lessing abruptly changed direction, leaving Berlin for new adventures in Breslau; Ramler and Lessing never completed the Tscherning edition, the dictionary, or any other collaborative project. Although he preserves the Lehrbuch-like compendium approach in the title of the first published version of the epigram anthology, the Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte der deutschen Poeten. Thl 1 of 1766, Ramler had changed course after working with Lessing on the Logau edition of 1759 (fig. 3). In creating the Sammlung, Ramler rethought his original intention to collect only individual ‘best’ poems, choosing instead to showcase a larger sampling from fewer authors. In that regard, the structure of the Sammlung represents a compromise between a normative concept and a historically conditioned one. Ramler chooses only poets 2 Dec. 1758; GR 341-432. Trans.: “When you are done, beginn on our excellent Opitz, but if I am offer some advice, change nothing.” 126 31 Mar. 1759; LB 319. Trans.: “Nothing can come of the suggested edition of Opitz, dearest friend. The editions by the Swiss and Triller are still too often to be found in stores that bookseller would have anything to do with it.” 127 LB 319. Trans.: “As soon as we are done with our Logau, we plan to put our united powers to use on Tscherning.” 128 From Lessing’s introduction to the Logau edition (xii-xiii). Trans.: “How great our respect is for this, his antique language, will be clear enough from our commentary on it, which we have included in the form of a dictionary. Similar dictionaries of all our good writers would be, without a doubt, the first step toward a universal dictionary of our language.” 129 LB 319. Trans.: “And you can hardly imagine what other big project we have planned. We will also put you to work on that.” Lessing continues, “Und Sie werden es sich schwerlich träumen lassen, was wir auch sonst noch für ein großes Project haben. Wir werden Sie auch mit anspannen” (LB 319). It is extremely likely that he is referring to the German dictionary mentioned in the preface of the Logau edition (xii-xiii). 130 Lessing wrote Gleim: “Nun sind wir, Gott sei Dank, mit unserm Logau ganz fertig, und künftige Wochen hoffen wir, Ihnen Exemplare davon schicken zu können” (12 May 1759; LB 321). 125 35 Fig. 3. Frontispiece and title page of the 1759 Logau edition (courtesy of the SB Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz). active during the seventeenth century, which allows the poems to be compared with others of similar vintage.131 Furthermore, the Sammlung contained works by only seven poets and shares an important and until now unrecognized characteristic with the Logau and Wernicke editions: it is not an anthology containing only one or two poems per author for a multitude of authors, but rather a collection of abbreviated selected works from a small group of authors. The authorial model is an organizational concept that requires the identification with a unique organizing principle – the individual – that is associated with concepts outside of the formal or genre-framework, such as the historical moment and personal style. By sharing a substantial number of poems by each author, Ramler makes an important break with the normative poetics of Batteux and those before him, as the inclusion of many poems by each author increases the likelihood that one will see the author as a unique entity. The publication history of the Sammlung supports the thesis that it was an experiment in a number of ways. Unlike most of his anthologies, which Ramler published with Voss in Berlin or with Weidmann in Leipzig, Ramler chose Hartknoch in Riga to print the Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte der deutschen Poeten. Thl 1.132, 133The Prussian soldier, secretary and poet, Johann Georg Scheffner was responsible 131 132 Ramler published the Sammlung anonymously, like the Lieder anthologies. See Anett Lütteken's Ramler bibliography in Urbanität als Aufklärung. 435-507. 36 for bringing Ramler together with appropriate collaborators in East Prussia. Ramler and Scheffner met during the period Scheffner spent in Berlin after the end of the Seven Years’ War in 1763. During this period, Scheffner sought contact to the literati of Berlin and specifically Ramler. 134 His efforts were successful and they remained in contact after Scheffner left Berlin for Königsberg, where he became “Sekretär an der Kriegs- und Domänenkammer.”135 From Königsberg, Scheffner helped Ramler find a publisher for the Sammlung, Johann Jakob Kanter (1738-1786), and eventually Hartknoch, after Ramler expressed displeasure at the development of the project with Kanter (Plehwe 31-32). Ramler did not actually write the paratexts himself. Instead, the most obvious element meant to guide and shape the reader’s experience are the biographies by Johann Gotthold Lindner (1729-1776), professor of poetic arts (Dichtkunst) in Königsberg and a well-connected author of plays and textbooks on literary theory. Lindner was a close friend of both Hamann and Kant and was acquainted with Herder and Hartknoch from Riga, from whence he had come to Königsberg just two years previously and where he had served as principal of the Domschule.136 Nineteenth- and twentieth-century commentators have criticized the biographies in the Sammlung (Schüddekopf 53; de Capua, 1956 361; Bareikis 99). Lindner’s biographies are quite brief and have been criticized by Bareikis and de Capua as unoriginal, but were praised by at least one reviewer, who appreciated the inclusion of both a brief biography and that the anthologist “seinen Charakter als Poet kurz aber bündig geschildert,” citing the description of Opitz as an example:137 Er kannte die schöne Natur besser als viele seiner Nachfolger, er schrieb flüßig und rein, nach der Cultur der Sprache seiner Zeit. Er hat oft Gedanken von ehrlichen deutschen Schrot und Korne, sie haben aber Geist. Seine Bilder sind malerisch, und verrathen das poetische Genie, welches er wirklich besaß. Sein Geschmack war gut und neuer als seiner Zeitgenossen: jedoch bey den ersten Reimen der Dichtkunst arbeitete seine Genie noch unter den Banden der Zeiten, gleich einem Bach, der unter Eisrinden forschleicht, die der Anbruch des Frühlings noch nicht völlig geschmolzen. Er war nicht Homer: so frühzeitig giebt nicht der Himmel Geister vom ersten Range gleich bey der Wiege der Künste: aber er war mehr als Ennius.138 In any case, the Sammlung was realized only in part; it was intended to be a series anthology beginning with Martin Opitz and continuing to the present. Reviewers seemed to take the title seriously. One wrote that he was looking forward to the next volume.139 In a letter from 1770, Lessing asks Ramler to edit his epigrams and offers to help him obtain material for the next installment of the Sammlung: As in the case of Schmid's poetry anthologies, the publisher, Johann Friedrich Hartknoch (1740-1789), was in his midtwenties and not yet completely established, as he had gone into business for himself only the year before the Sammlung was published; Hartknoch was a student of Kant and later became a publisher of Kant, Hamann and Herder. He had completed both a university degree and an apprenticeship as a Verlagsbuchhändler in Riga, then a Russian city dominated by Baltic Germans (see Caygill’s Kant dictionary). 134 5 Jan. 1763. Scheffner 4: 282, also cited by Plehwe 18 (see also letters 15, 19, 21, 25, 26 in the same volume). 135 The Kriegs- und Domänenkammer was a finance office in the Prussian government. 136 Beck 348-52. Kuehn 361. 137 NBSWFK 3.2 (1767). 322. Trans.: “portays his [each author’s] character as a poet briefly but succinctly.” 138 Ramler 1766 n.p. Cited in NBSWFK 3.2 (1767). 322. Trans.: “He knew beautiful nature better than his successors, he wrote fluidly and purely according to the linguistic culture of his time. He often had honest German thoughts, but they have spirit. His images are painterly, and betray that poetic genius, which he truly possessed. His taste was good and newer than his contemporaries; nonetheless, at the first rhymes of poetry his genius still worked under the bonds of the times, like a stream, that creeps forward under rinds of ice, which are not fully melted at the advent of spring. He was not Homer: heaven does not give spirits of the first order so early, right in the cradle of the arts: but he was more than Ennius [who is called the father of Roman literature].” 139 Kriebel 322. In the original: “Wir sehen einer Fortsetzung mit Verlangen entgegen.” 133 37 Ich verlasse mich darauf, liebster Freund, daß Sie sich dieser Anfoderung [sic] auf keine Weise entziehen. Die Zeit, die Sie darüber verlieren, will ich Ihnen auf eine andere Art wieder einbringen: z. E. durch Beyträge zu dem zweyten Theil Ihrer gesammelten Sinngedichte, die gewiß nicht schlecht sind, und sich zum Theil von Dichtern herschreiben, die itzt völlig unbekannt sind.140 This letter confirms that Ramler had intended the work to continue into multiple volumes and suggests that he had not yet abandoned the idea of a second volume of epigrams by 1770. The decision to create a series anthology, despite not being carried out, allowed for more numerous selections from each author and for each author to be grouped with a smaller cohort of authors from his age. Lessing and Ramler divided project tasks for the Logau edition along the inherent break between their approaches to literature. Lessing wrote the introduction and a glossary of Logau’s Baroque vocabulary, while Ramler chose and edited the poems to be included in the edition. 141 The Logau edition has long been recognized as one of Lessing’s Rettungen or vindications, a unique genre he developed in his early polemical literary-historical writings contained in the Schrifften of 1753 and 1754.142 Lessing developed the genre out of the Latin vindicatio, which entailed the defense of some concept or person; his genre of Rettungen intensified the vindicatio’s polemical tendencies through strong rhetorical structure and a seemingly “provocative” stance (see Fick 114-121). In his Rettungen, Lessing “defends personalities, who have been attacked, by illuminating anew, or creating a new perspective on, the points in question.”143 In the introduction to the Logau edition, Lessing characterizes it as a direct intervention into literary history by arguing polemically for its worthiness on the basis of literary value, writing that Logau had “es in dieser geringern Gattung so weit gebracht, als man es nur immer bringen kann, und es ist unwidersprechlich, daß wir in ihm allein einen Martial, einen Catull und Dionysius Cato besitzen.” 144 As Wilfried Barner puts it, “the Rettung, at the center of which stand the disclosure and destruction of praejudicia, particularly of defamation, is directed – not only in Lessing’s work – as a matter of principle at figures who can no longer defend themselves.” 145 Although historical in perspective, the concerns of Lessing’s own age always play a central role in his Rettungen, which take place “im Blick auf die Gegenwart,” meaning that while tthe subject of the Rettungen were always in the past, Lessing was concerned with their reception by his contemporaries and the further ramifications of a changed reception (Fick 117). In order to vindicate and popularize Logau, Lessing takes a two-pronged approach, correcting the perception of his work in the introduction by creating a historical context by way of the introduction and by suggesting definitions of individual words in the glossary. Lessing thereby builds up a paratextual frame around the primary text to mediate between Logau and the imagined contemporary audience; this mediation is a dual interpretation, both diminishing and emphasizing the distance of Logau and his poetic style from Lessing’s own age by increasing awareness of that distance and also readers’ familiarity with his language. By calling attention to the distance between Logau’s time and his 16 Dec. 1770; Lessing 1794, 38. Trans.: “I trust that you, dearest friend, will not fail to fulfill this request in any way. I will give you back the time that you lose by doing it: for example, through contributions to the second volume of your collected epigrams, [contributions] which are certainly not bad, and which come, in part, from poets who are completely unknown at present.” 141 See Ramler’s introduction to the 1790 edition of Loga and Heuschkel 3. 142 For example, by Heuschkel in his 1901 dissertation (1). 143 Fick 116. In the original: “nimmt […] Partei für angegriffene Persönlichkeiten, indem er die strittigen Punkte neu beleuchtet, neu perspektiviert.” 144 Logau viii. Trans.: Logau “achieved as much one possibly can in this slight genre, and it is indisputable that in him alone we possess a Martial, a Catullus and a Dionysis Cato.” 145 Barner 2005, 13. In the original: “[d]ie Rettung, in deren Zentrum die Aufdeckung und Destruktion von praejudicia, besonders von Verleumdungen steht, richtet sich – nicht nur bei Lessing – grundsätzlich auf historische Figuren, die sich nicht mehr verteidigen können.” 140 38 own, Lessing also mediates the foreignness of Logau’s style in a physical and textual space external to Logau’s own text. Lessing's approach to Logau springs from and embodies an impulse, which, although not yet a fully articulated historical perspective as by Herder and Hamann, is a precondition for both the genre of the historically representative anthology and the formation of a stable literary canon; however, Lessing agreed to a certain amount of emendation to Logau’s epigrams. In the introduction, Lessing explicitly addresses the way in which Logau’s epigrams were edited, although specific changes (and Ramler’s role) are not discussed: Es ist uns ein Exemplar unsers Dichters zu Händen gekommen, […] in welchem hier und da eine unnatürliche, harte Wortfügung mit der Feder geändert worden war. Der Zug der Schrift wäre alt genug, es für die eigene Hand des Herrn von Logau zu halten. Doch dazu gehören stärkere Beweise, und wir wollen es also nicht behaupten. Unterdessen haben wir doch für gut befunden, einige von diesen Aenderungen anzunehmen, und einige, ihnen zu Folge, selbst zu wagen. Der Leser stößt nirgends so ungern an, als in einem Sinngedichte, welches allzu kurz ist, daß man die Unebenheiten darinn übersehen könnte. Wir sind uns bewußt, daß wir durch diese wenigen und geringen Veränderungen den alten Dichter nicht im geringsten moderner gemacht haben; wir sind ihm nur da ein wenig zu Hülfe gekommen, wo wir ihn allzuweit unter seiner eignen reinen Leichtigkeit fanden; und haben es alsdann in dem Geiste seiner eignen Sprache zu thun gesucht.146 Lessing suggests that Logau might have made changes to his own works after publication, and that he and Ramler had simply followed Logau’s lead in this regard, making changes not in order to modernize the language, but rather to improve the epigrams in the “spirit of his own style.” This passage shows that Lessing was not opposed to the editing of earlier poets’ works on principal, which is consistent with his own willingness to allow Ramler to edit some of his own plays and poems, as well as his defense of Ramler’s emendations in other contexts. In general, however, in the case of the Logau edition, Lessing’s contribution is based on an interest in narrating and contextualizing historical facts, which makes those facts more valuable to his audience; Lessing contextualizes the poet, poems, language and the connections he draws and the arguments he makes create a way for Logau to be understood without being forced into the mold of another age. It is harder to discern Ramler’s motives and position as, unlike Lessing, Ramler’s contribution to the Logau edition is not paratextual, that is, located outside the literary text, but rather immediately present within Logau’s text. In this way, his work is invisible, but also impossible to separate from the reading of Logau’s poems in this edition, both at the level of the individual poem and of the arrangement of those texts within the edition. Heuschkel noted in his comparison of the original Logau epigrams that Ramler’s emendations evince a conflict between Lessing’s preference that nothing be modernized and Ramler’s own sense that the “Veraltete und Anstößige” or “antiquated and objectionable” must be done away with (Heuschkel 3). Through his selection and modification of the poems, Ramler stages a fundamental intervention into the interaction between Logau and his readers, exercising control over Logau's image in the eyes of his contemporaries. Both Ramler and Lessing share the intention to make Logau understood by a contemporary audience, but their approaches diverge in that Lessing attempts to 146 Logau ix-x. Trans.: “A copy of this poet fell into our hands, in which here and there an unnatural, hard construction was changed with the quill. The writing style was old enough to be taken for Mr. von Logau’s own hand. Stronger proof would be needed, of course, and we do not want to assert it. In the meantime though, we have thought it good to adopt some of these changes, and following his lead, to dare some ourselves. The reader never is as displeased to be jolted as in an epigram, which is too short that one could overlook roughness in it. We are aware that we have not made the old poet the least bit more modern through these few and slight changes; we only helped him a little, where we found him too far below his own pure effortlessness; and have tried to do it [make the changes] in the spirit of his own style [literally, language]. ” 39 change the reception of Logau by changing the audience, whereas Ramler intends to change the reception by changing Logau. Ramler’s treatment of Logau’s epigrams is consistent with his editorial practices in the Sammlung and Wernickens Ueberschriften and, accordingly, the effect of his emendation of others’ texts was debated by contemporary critics of the various epigram publications. Do his changes result in the disintegration of the author’s original textual construction, both at the level of the individual poem and of the arrangement of those texts within the edition? Or are his changes an acceptable concession to evolving (and improving) taste? Ramler’s Contemporaries on the Epigram Anthologies In the twenty-first century, the standard expectation is that historical perspective is not only valid, but indispensable and, thus, the expectation that difference between the products and thinking of our own age and those of earlier ages will be preserved or even maximized is taken for granted. This expectation is omnipresent in twentieth-century evaluations of Ramler, but as the reviews of the Sammlung and the Ueberschriften will show, most eighteenth-century critics did not share this perspective. Instead, they generally thought that historical difference should be reduced if not as much as possible, then at least some. To the confusion of modern-day scholars, however, the conviction that older poetry should be preserved was becoming more widespread during the same period. Eighteenth-century justifications for the preservation of older texts diverges substantially from those of the twenty-first, twentieth and even nineteenth centuries; whereas later generations take it for granted that earlier poetry be preserved for historiographical and aesthetic reasons as well as cultural pride, the primary motivation for preservation as seen by members of the eighteenth-century literary world is to serve culturally patriotic aims. Given this, it was rather unusual that Gleim expressed reservations about Ramler revising poetry by Opitz in the potential new edition. The reviews of the Sammlung and its second incarnation as the Ueberschriften bear out the assertion that emendation of seventeenth-century poets was considered not only acceptable but preferable to reading them in the original. In these reviews, contemporary critics evaluated Ramler’s treatment of earlier poetry very positively. Taken together, the epigram anthologies were a moderate critical success, netting at least six reviews in the better known journals, only one of which was negative. 147 The Neue critische Nachrichten,148 the Neue Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften und freyen Künste,149 and the Deutsche Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften150 published anonymous reviews of the Sammlung. It can be shown that August Johann Kriebel (1735-1818), principal of the Stadtschule in Greifswald, wrote the NCN review, but no records exist connecting authors to reviews written for the NBSWFK or the DBSW. Wernickens Ueberschriften, on the other hand, can be shown to have been reviewed by Abraham Gotthelf Kästner (1719-1800) and Eschenburg; Kästner’s review for the Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen is short and neutral in tone, but Eschenburg dedicated more than 2,500 words of praise to the Ueberschriften in the NBSWFK. Eschenburg’s review appeared in shortened form in the Allgemeine All of the reviews were published anonymously, as was customary. Edited by Johann Carl Dähnert and August Johann Kriebel under the aegis of the Universität Greifswald (1765-1774). In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, which was under Swedish rule from the Thirty Years War until 1815. 149 One of the most important German literary and cultural journals of the eighteenth century; an Enlightenment perspective and European scope. Originally started in 1756 by F. Nicolai und Moses Mendelssohn with Lessing’s support and edited by Christian Felix Weiße (1757-1805) from 1759 to 1783; contributors were a tightly knit group “characterized by personal connections and shared views” (McCarthy 178). In the original: “charakterisiert durch persönliche Verbindungen und gemeinsame Anschauungen.” 150 The DBSW was published from 1767 to 1771 and edited by Christian Adolph Klotz (1738-1771), a professor in Halle and bitter enemy of Lessing. 147 148 40 Deutsche Bibliothek two years later.151 Almost all reviewers address Ramler’s emendation of the texts. In his review of the Ueberschriften, Kästner, himself a famous epigrammatist as well as mathematics professor in Göttingen, focused most of his review on evaluating Ramler’s emendations to the seventeenth-century texts, but he seems to have been satisfied with the changes. As he noted, “Man wird sich leicht vorstellen, daß er hie und da Verbesserungen gemacht, die aber nicht so weit gegangen sind, daß diese Gedichte gewissermassen des Herausgebers geworden wären.” 152 In doing so, Kästner did not praise or condemn the act of emendation per se, but rather examined the individual cases of Wernicke and Olearius, finding that they were, for the most part, acceptable: Wernicke, he writes, is “aber immer noch der Dichter geblieben, den man mehr wegen seiner Gedanken, als wegen des Wohlklanges schätzen muß.”153 Other reviewers found that Ramler’s emendations were in fact a necessity; in his review of the Sammlung for the NCN, Kriebel asserted that Ramler deserves the “Dank […] , den ein jeder Liebhaber der Wissenschaften und Kenner verdient, wenn er uns die Männer in dem vortheilhaftesten Lichte zeigt, welche in dem Zeitpunkt schon blendende Strahlen um sich trugen, wo die Kunst noch in der Dunkelheit lag.”154 This “most favorable light” refers to Ramler’s decision to publish only a selection of each poet and to emend their poems. Kriebel’s review shows us that readers were not unaware that he was making textual changes to older authors and that at least some contemporaries saw Ramler’s work as a valuable independent contribution, a recognition that deflates later attacks against Ramler that insinuate that he is corrupting the originals. In what must be seen as a defense of Ramler against those who decried his emendations, Kriebel, like Lessing in the Lichtwer scandal (which will be discussed presently), pointed out that Ramler’s emendations were not destructive to the original texts: “Es bleibt uns dabei immer noch die Freyheit übrig, zu den vollständigen Werken dieser Männer zurück zu gehen, um sie mit allen ihren Fehlern kennen zu lernen.” 155 Kriebel calls upon the critically acclaimed Logau edition, in which Lessing and Ramler had “cleansed Logau of his dross,”156 to justify the approach of the Sammlung: “Herr Rammler und Herr Leßing haben schon vor einigen Jahren eine Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte des Logau herausgeben, der bey der Menge seiner Epigrammen eben das von ihnen hätte sagen können, was Martial von den seinigen sagte: sunt quaedam mediocria, sunt mala plura, quae legis hic.”157 In his review, Kriebel makes a direct [Eschenburg, J. J.]. Rev. of Christian Wernickens Ueberschriften. Nebst Opitzens, Tschernings, Andreas Gryphius und Adam Olearius epigrammatischen Gedichten Ed. Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Neue Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften und freyen Künste 25.1 (1780): 100-122. The authorship of this review of Wernike's Ueberschriften cannot be determined with absolute certainty as no records remain that link authors to particular NBSWFK articles. Despite this, it seems quite likely that Eschenburg wrote it as Eschenburg is known to have contributed to both journals (see Wilke 1978b, 80) and Eschenburg has been linked definitively to the ADB review. Unless Eschenburg plagiarized the NBdsW for the ADB in 1782, he is the author of both. (“Fr.” [Eschenburg, Johann Joachim]. Rev. of Christian Wernickens Ueberschriften. Nebst Opitzens, Tschernings, Andreas Gryphius und Adam Olearius epigrammatischen Gedichten ed. Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek 50.2 (1782): 330-343.) 152 Kästner 461. Trans.: ““One can easily imagine that he made improvements here and there, but they did not go so far that these poems effectively became the editor’s.” 153 Kästner 461. Trans.: “he has remained the poet, whom one must treasure more for his thoughts than his melodiousness.” Kästner does, however, end with a specific case in which Ramler changed a poem by Olearius resulting in changes to meaning. 154 Kriebel 233. Trans.: “thanks […], which is due to any lover of the sciences and connoisseur, who shows us in the most favorable light men, who already carried blinding beams of light about themselve in a time during which art was still in darkness.” 155 Kriebel 233. Trans.: “We are still free to return to the complete works of these men, in order to become familiar to them with all their imperfections.” 156 Kriebel 234. In the original: “ihn [Logau] indessen von seinen Schlacken gereinigt.” 157 Kriebel 233-234. Trans.: “Mr. Ramler and Mr. Lessing published a collection of the best epigrams of Logau a few years ago, who with the quantity of his epigrams could say the same thing of them that Martial said of his: what you read here, 151 41 correlation between the “cleansing” of Logau and that of poets presented in the Sammlung: “Eben dies hat der Herausgeber dieser Sammlung gethan. Wir finden darinn die beßten Sinngedichte.” 158 In his Lyrische Blumenlese of 1778, Ramler used a similar metaphor to explain the changes that happen to language over time: “allein wir haben keines gewählt, wo die neue und übliche Sprache sich unter dem Rost der alten versteckt” (xxiv). Like Ramler, Eschenburg had an interest in older texts and practical experience with the historically-oriented anthology, having edited the last volume of Zachariä’s Auserlesene Stücke just two years earlier. In his review of the Ueberschriften, Eschenburg goes even further in his support of Ramler’s emendations, writing that the literary “resurrection” of Wernicke and other earlier authors was hindered by inevitable historical distance. This is interesting because it demonstrates the Koselleckian advent of historical perspective during its development. On the one hand, Eschenburg clearly sees the world as one changing over time and the individual as a product of his temporal condition: “Weder der Mensch noch der Schriftsteller wird sich jemals ganz über sein Zeitalter erheben können, beides seine Thaten und seine Schriften werden das Gepräge desselben noch immer merklich genug an sich tragen.”159 On the other hand, Eschenburg argues that the standards of his own present age are valid even in relation to the poetry of the past; of Wernicke, Eschenburg wrote that his efforts did not reach the level of the “verfeinerte[...] Gefühle und genauer[e] Sprachregeln unsers Zeitalters.”160 Eschenburg also employs the metaphorical language of sleep to describe the reception status of earlier poets. Ramler and those like him, such as Bodmer and Lessing, awake the “schlummerndes Verdienst” or “slumbering merit” of forgotten poets. According to Eschenburg, this historical difference was inevitable, but had to be transcended by editorial alchemy, “eine Art von dichterischer Verklärung.”161 This metaphor soon takes on religious overtones: the Ueberschriften are an “Auferweckung” or resurrection of Wernicke's poems. 162 Beyond the question of emendation, twentieth-century critics thoroughly lambasted Ramler's selection, particularly in the Sammlung – Bareikis wrote, that one senses “when comparing the text with Zachariä’s Auserlesenen Stücke, a certain tendency not just to repeat the competing anthology,” 163 while de Capua puts it more plainly: “The choice of poets and the importance he gives to each reveal that Ramler is groping in the dark” (de Capua 361). Additionally, de Capua condemns the Sammlung for its minimal paratextual framing and Ramler’s selection of poets. Although most eighteenth-century critics prefer “cleansed” early poetry, they were nonetheless quite pleased to see it published. All of the reviewers of the Sammlung and Wernickens Ueberschriften praise Ramler for creating a collection of seventeenth-century epigrammatists. Even Christian Adolph Klotz, a well-known and bitter opponent of Lessing and his friends, who intentionally opposed the opinions expressed in the ADB (and who will play an important role in second case study), agreed that the concept was quite good: “Der Vorsatz des Herausgebers ist recht gut: aber seine Wahl ist nicht strenge genug. Er hätte noch verschiedene Sinngedichte, die er seiner Sammlung einverleibt hat, weglassen sollen.” 164 Most also praise his a few are good, some are mediocre, and most are bad.” Kriebel 234. Trans.: “The editor of this collection did exactly the same thing. In it we find the best epigrams.” 159 Eschenburg 1780, 112. Trans.: “Neither the man nor the author will ever be able to completely rise above his age, both his deeds and his writings will still carry its imprint distinctly enough.” 160 Kästner 112. Trans.: “refined feelings and more precise linguistic rules of our age.” 161 Kästner 112. Trans.: “a kind of poetic transfiguration.” 162 Eschenburg 1780, 101 and 111. 163 Bareikis 99. In the original: “bei einem Textvergleich mit AS [Zachariäs Auserlesenen Stücken] eine gewisse Tendenz, die konkurrierende Anthologie nicht einfach zu wiederholen.” 164 Klotz 1767b, 162. Trans.: “The editor’s intention is very good: but his selection is not rigorous enough. He should have left out various epigrams included in his collection.” 158 42 selection. In the NBSWFK, the reviewer praises the anthologist's taste, whose quality, he argues, was demonstrated by the variety of poems: “Es scheint uns kein geringer Geschmack zu einer guten Wahl von Sinngedichten zu gehören, da der Geschmack selbst darinnen sehr verschieden ist. [...] Der Hr. V.[erfasser] hat eine Wahl für alle veranstaltet.” 165 The NBSWFK reviewer also praises two aspects of the Sammlung, which are related to historical thinking: the decision to showcase seventeenth-century poets and the situation of the anthologized poets within a historical context through the paratexts. He points out that the concept of a seventeenth-century collection owes something to Bodmer and Lessing: the editor “führt uns wieder auf die Verdienste unserer ältern Dichter zurück, die wir beynahe zu verkennen angefangen haben.”166 The discussion of Ramler’s selection and emendation of these authors in both the Sammlung and the Ueberschriften is rooted in the present moment, of course. Both Eschenburg and Ramler treat the issue of editions of older poets as an issue of cultural patriotism. Eschenburg sets the scene for his examination of the Ueberschriften by comparing the German’s “sorglose Gleichgültigkeit” or “carefree indifference” toward earlier German poetry to the attitude of other European nations, particularly the English and the French. He wrote that those nations “sich um die Wette bemühen, die Geschichte ihrer Nationalliteratur durch glänzende Sammlungen oder wiederholte Ausgaben ihrer frühern Dichter zu beleben und aufzufrischen.” 167 It is germane to a discussion of cultural patriotism that much, if not most, of Ramler’s selection for the Sammlung is made up of translations – not only, as one might expect, from ancient Greek and Latin – but rather also from modern Latin, Dutch, English, and Italian, as well as medieval Persian and Arabic. Of the poems by Opitz, only eight poems are not explicitly marked as translations, while all poems by Zeiller were under the heading of translations, as are all poems by Olearius and most by Tscherning. In the case of Christian Gryphius, of the twenty-seven poems, two are marked as translations, but none of the seventyfour poems by Andreas Gryphius, and the four by Fleming are marked as translations. As Kittel noted, translations in anthologies are often “intended to provide new impulses to the target literature” (Kittel xv). At the historical moment in which Ramler was working, this approach was vitally connected to the project and process of literary history and the reevaluation of older texts. The presence of translations is an essential difference between the Sammlung and the anthologies that have since become typical; this difference may have contributed to the underestimation of the Sammlung and the Ueberschriften. Beyond cultural patriotism, we also find a discussion of Ramler’s mid- to late-eighteenth-century audience and their historical perspective. Reviewers agree that the contemporary public is not able to appreciate seventeenth-century poetry without emendation and that it is historically predicated stylistic differences that present a stumbling block to contemporary appreciation of older poetry. Reviewers such as Kriebel, the NBSWFK reviewer, and Eschenburg point out that there are connoisseurs, who are versed in older poetry and able to appreciate it in the original form, praising Ramler for paving the way to broader appreciation. Kriebel, for example, uses the idea of the “Kenner” or connoisseur as a foil for the audience. Kriebel aligns neither himself nor his readers with the this figure, whom he describes as the NBSWFK 318. Trans.: “It seems to us that no small amount of taste belongs to a good selection of epigrams, as the taste of the same is very diverse. […] The editor has put together a selection for all.” 166 NBSWFK 3.2 (1767). 318. Trans.: “leads us back to the merits of our older poets, whom we had almost begun to forget.” 167 Eschenburg 1780, 100. Trans.: ““compete with each other to revitalize and refresh the history of their national literature through resplendent collections or repeated editions of their earlier poets.” The original in context: “Wenn man sieht, wie Engländer und Franzosen sich um die Wette bemühen, die Geschichte ihrer Nationalliteratur durch glänzende Sammlungen oder wiederholte Ausgaben ihrer frühern Dichter zu beleben und aufzufrischen; so muß die sorglose Gleichgültigkeit, mit welcher wir Deutschen den ältern Zierden der unsrigen begegnen, für gute Köpfe eben so niederschlagend seyn, als sie geschickt ist bey Ausländern nicht eben das günstigte Vorurtheil für die Verbreitung eines verfeinerten Geschmacks zu erregen.” 165 43 “Kunstverständige und der Mann vom Geschmack.”168 Instead, he ascribes the role of the literati to the “gegenwärtige[r] Sammler” or present collector.169 Given the problem of historical difference compounded by the fickleness, laziness and forgetfulness of the reading public, Eschenburg asks, “Was sollte ein Herausgeber hierbey thun?”170 Should he reproduce Wernicke's poems exactly – “Wernike mit allen seinen Fehlern und Schönheiten, alles wie er es vor sich fand, getreulich und sonder Gefährde abdrucken”?171 Like so many of the anthologists and reviewers discussed in this dissertation, Eschenburg differentiates between contemporary types of readers. In this case, Eschenburg suggests that it would be easy,172 but foolish to preserve Wernicke and the other authors in the original, given the state of the reading public: “aber bey einem Publikum wie das unsrige, gewiß auch der sicherste Weg den Dichter, anstatt ihn hervorzuziehen, noch tiefer in Vergessenheit zu stoßen.” 173 Eschenburg argues that there are few in 1780, who can admire older poetry in its original form: Der wärmern kritischen Liebhaber unsrer Sprache und Dichtkunst, welche durch Härten, fremdes Ansehn, und oft scheinbar verzogene Züge sich zu den Genuß “zerstreuter” eigenthümlicher Schönheiten durchzuarbeiten gewöhnt sind, dieser giebt es ja so wenige, daß es für sie gewiß keiner neuen Ausgabe des Dichters bedürft hätte.174 Eschenburg offers two alternatives to preserving Wernicke’s text as is, which he argues would be impractical if not impossible, given the tastes of the reading public. The editor could either create a very slim volume of selected poems that would please modern sensibilities or revise Wernicke's poems: entweder ein Paar Bogen unserm Geschmack und Ohre in ihrer ursprünglichen Gestalt ziemlich unanstößiger Gedichte heraus zu heben, und den Rest, trotz seines innern Werthes einer gänzlichen Vergessenheit aufzuopfern, oder aber sich der undankbaren Mühe zu unterziehen, seinen Dichter Zeile für Zeile vorzunehmen, auszustreichen und fallen zu lassen, was sich durch keine Behandlung hervorheben läßt, mittelmäßigen Gedanken wenigstens durch untadelhaften Ausdruck zu Hülfe zu kommen, gemein gewordne Redarten mit edleren zu vertauschen, veraltete gehaltlose Wörter in gangbare umzusetzen, Härten des mechanischen Versbaues zu mildern, den verschobenen Wohllaut wieder herzustellen. 175 Obviously, Eschenburg endorses the latter path. His justification is strikingly familiar, coming, it seems from Lessing and Ramler’s Logau edition: “das zu thun, was Wernike selbst thun würde, wenn er jetzt Kriebel 233. Trans.: “adept [or knower of art] and the man of taste.” Ibid. 170 Eschenburg 1780, 112. Trans.: “What should an editor do in this case?” 171 Eschenburg 1780, 112. Trans.: “print Wernicke with all his imperfections and beauties, everything as he found it, faithfully and regardless of the dangers?” 172 Eschenburg 1780, 112. In the original: “ohne Zweifel der leichteste Weg.” 173 Eschenburg 1780, 112. Trans.: “but with a public such as ours, certainly also the surest way to shove the poet more deeply into oblivion rather than to rescue him from it.” 174 Eschenburg 1780, 112. Trans.: “There are so few of the more enthusiastic [literally, warmer] critical fanciers of our language and poetry, who are used to working through roughness, unfamiliar appearances, and often seemingly distorted lines, to the pleasure of scattered, idiosyncratic beauties, that for them [alone] there certainly would have been no need for a new edition of this poet.” 175 Eschenburg 1780, 113. Trans.: “either choose a few signatures for our taste and ear of relatively unobjectional poems in their original form and sacrifice the rest to total oblivion despite their intrinsic value or subject oneself to the thankless task of reading the poet line by line, cutting and omitting that which does not allow itself to be rescued by any treatment, assisting mediocre ideas at least through blameless expression, exchanging expressions that have become base with more noble ones, converting trivial antiquated words into acceptable ones, softening roughness in the mechanical versification, reconstructing skewed melodiousness.” 168 169 44 wieder auf der Bühne unsrer Litteratur auftreten sollte.”176 Rhetorically, the stage metaphor supports Eschenburg’s appeal to pragmatism and the recognition of the state of the reading public. Ramler’s Editorial Style The discussion about Ramler’s emendation of Wernicke and the other seventeenth century authors of the Sammlung differed dramatically from the discussion of Ramler’s editorial practices in regard to living authors. Ramler became known as a master of form early in his career and many poets including Lessing and Klopstock sent him their work for ‘correction.’ Ramler, however, had no qualms about changing the work of writers living and dead to his own satisfaction without their permission, a practice that often went far beyond what the poets themselves and their allies found acceptable. Ramler’s activity was possible due to the absence of copyright, which would have provided the legal structures to determine access and use of third-party materials (as I will discuss in the second case study). The degree to which people were upset by Ramler’s emendations was not equal in every case; changes to authors long dead were generally less contentious than those to living writers, but his practice often polarized his contemporaries (see Kertscher). Some, such as Lessing, defended Ramler’s practice in the case of living authors. In 1761, Ramler had created an unauthorized new, revised edition of Lichtwer’s fables; Lessing defended Ramler on the grounds that living authors could still defend their work. In Lessing’s words, Lichtwer “[hat] selbst noch immer die Freyheit […], die ihm angebotene Veränderungen nach Belieben anzunehmen, oder zu verwerfen.”177 By the end of the 1760s, Lessing had changed his opinion, at least in the case of the reprinting of his own work, but that will be discussed in the second case study. Others rejected the idea that Ramler was justified in making whatever changes were necessary to arrive at the ‘best’ final text; especially the younger generation came down on the side of authorial sovereignty, which would eventually win out not only in the court of public opinion, but also in the creation of legal protections for authors in the nineteenth century. At the core of the rejection of Ramler’s normative poetics was the idea of the poem as the output of a particular individual that cannot be perfected by anyone else. Although the idea has been ascribed to the younger generation of poets, older authors, such as Uz and eventually Gleim, also subscribed to a prohibition on changing others’ texts, in many cases as a direct reaction to Ramler’s unprecedented intrusions into the texts of others. As Uz, a friend of Gleim’s from his university days in Halle, explained, “So viel Einsicht und Geschmack andere Personen haben, so muß doch der Verfasser seinen Plan immer beßer, als jene, kennen, und daher der letzte Richter aller vorgeschlagenen Verbesserungen bleiben.” 178 Some ten years later, Ramler was still busily publishing ‘corrected’ texts and Uz was still annoyed: “Der Autor muß allezeit der letzte Richter seiner Arbeit seyn, und nur das Publicum ist über ihm, und doch kann auch das ihn nicht zwingen, eine Zeile zu ändern, wenn er nicht will.”179 For his part, Gleim extricated himself from his decades-long friendship with Ramler shortly before the publication of the Sammlung in 1766, due in large part, to Ramler’s emendation practices (see Lee). Writing Uz, he announced in February of 1766, “Ramler ist nicht mehr mein Freund, oder vielmehr ich bin sein Freund nicht mehr.” 180 At the heart of the rift were Eschenburg 113. Trans.: “to do that, which Wernicke himself would do, if he were to return to the stage of our literature now.” 177 Briefe, die neueste Literatur betreffend 271-272. 178 17 Nov. 1755; GU 256. Trans.: “No matter how much intelligence and taste as other people have, the author must always know his own plan better than they and for that reason must remain the final judge of all suggested corrections.” 179 3 Dec. 1765; GU 364. Trans: “The author must always remain the last judge of his work, and only the public is superior to him, and even so, they cannot force him to change one line, if he does not want to.” 180 13 Feb. 1766; GU 368. Trans.: “Ramler is no longer my friend or rather I am no longer his.” 176 45 the emendations Ramler had made to the poems in their late, mutual friend Ewald von Kleist's Sämtliche Werke (1760): Herr Ramler und Herr Leßing haben sie, ohne mein Zuthun, besorgt; vermuthlich, weil ich der Meinung war, daß keine eigenmächtige Veränderungen in manchen Stellen vorgenommen werden müßten, wie der seel. Freund selbst sich desfalls gegen mich erkläret hatte. Ob nicht demohngeachtet eine oder die andere eingefloßen, kan ich nicht sagen; Herr Ramler hat sich darüber nicht deutlich erklären wollen. 181 Despite his dismay at the emendations of Kleist’s poetry when he was certain Kleist would not have wanted it, Gleim found that in other instances, Ramler’s changes often improved the texts. Speaking of the Lieder der Deutschen, he wrote: “Man muß die Wahrheit sagen, einige Lieder insonderheit von Herr Weiß sind so sehr verschönert, daß man es ihm Danck wißen muß; wenn gleich der Autor nicht um Rath gefraget ist,”182 to which Uz replied drolly, “er hat einiges verbessert, aber gewiß mehr verschlimmert.”183 After the break with Ramler, Gleim complained colorfully to Uz about his emendations: Was sagen sie zu den Liedern der Deutschen? Warum nicht lauter Originale, wenn sie diesen Titul führen solten? Sind sie mit Ramlers Correctur zufrieden? Er ist doch wahrhaftig nichts anders, als unser Rector, der uns die Exercitia corrigiret, oder er dünckt sich es zu seyn. Wie? Wenn ein Ramler zu Rom mit Catull und Horaz so umgegangen wäre? 184 while Uz simply observed, “Ein seltsamer Charakter, immer anderer Leüte Arbeiten corrigiren zu wollen!”185 Whereas Ramler’s other anthologies are contemporary in focus, the Sammlung and the Ueberschriften are restricted to historical material and thus not in need of the kind of social finessing necessary to maintain relationships with living, writing authors, who might turn on one, particularly if one were undertaking the kind of aggressive intrusions into their work for which Ramler was known. This advantage to working with earlier poets did not escape the notice of Ramler's contemporaries. Concerning an unauthorized revision and reprinting of a contemporary’s work, which Ramler published anonymously in May 1761,186 Moses Mendelssohn half-joked in a letter to Lessing: “So stille, als Logau und Kleist, wird doch der noch atmende Lichtwehr gewiß nicht herhalten.” 187 In the edition of Ramler’ collected works published just after his death, Ramler’s editor, Leopold Friedrich Günther von 181 31 Aug. 1765; GU 362. Trans.: “Mr. Ramler and Mr. Lessing took care of it without my assistance; presumably because I was of the opinion that no unauthorized changes should be made in some places, as the blessed [late] friend himself told me he did not want them. Whether one change or the other slipped in despite that, I cannot say. Mr. Ramler did not want to explicitly explain [his choices] concerning that.” 182 13 Feb. 1766; GU 369. Trans.: “To tell the truth, a few songs, especially by Mr. Weiß, are so much better, that one must thank him, even if he did not ask the author’s opinion.” 183 2 Nov. 1767; GU 378. Trans.: “He improved a few things, but he certainly made more things worse.” 184 4 May 1766; GU 369. In this passage, Gleim asks Uz for his opinion of Ramler’s latest Lieder anthology and points out in no uncertain terms that he believes Ramler’s emendations go beyond acceptable editorial practices. Trans.: “What do you have to say about [Ramler’s anthology] Lieder der Deutschen? Why not all originals, if they are supposed to bear that title? Are you content with Ramler’s corrections? He is really nothing more as our schoolmaster, who corrects our exercises, or at least he thinks he is. Why? What if a Ramler in Rome had treated Catullus and Horace that way?” 185 Uz to Gleim on 3 Jul. 1766 (GU 370). Trans.: “A strange character, always wanting to correct other people’s work!” 186 Ramler published his revision of Magnus Gottfried Lichtwer’s fables under the title Auserlesene verbesserte Fabeln und Erzählungen. Understandably, the ‘improvements’ incensed Lichtwer (1719-1788). 187 “Zweite Hälfte Mai 1761” or the “second half of May.” LB 370-371. Trans.: “Lichtwer, who is still breathing, will certainly not stay as quiet as Logau and Kleist.” 46 Göckingk, argued that Ramler’s pedagogic-patriotic intentions for the Batteux translation first led him to edit the works of others, a habit that became irresistible: Beim Aufsuchen der in seine Uebersetzung des Batteux aufgenommenen Beispiele, las Ramler die deutschen Dichter mit beurtheilendem Nachdenken durch. […] Er wollte, daß die anzuführenden Beispiele in einem Lehrbuche, das zur richtigen Bildung des Geschmacks besonders bestimmt war, ganz vollkommen seyn sollten. Wenn er also, selbst bei den besten Dichtern, zuweilen Nachläßigkeiten im Ausdrucke oder in den Gedanken fand, so verbesserte er sie mit derselben Treue, die er seinen eigenen Werken widmete […] Er gewann nach und nach immer mehr Geschmack am Verbessern fremder Arbeit […].188 Göckingk presented an interesting middle point between Ramler’s perspective and a later nineteenthcentury scholarly perspective that would oppose changing texts by others, as Göckingk was sympathetic toward Ramler’s aims, even suggesting that his changes were generally an improvement, while at the same time disavowing his methods. Jördens, who will be discussed in the final case study, cited Göckingk some ten years later to support his own claim that Ramler’s “Fehltritte als Kritiker,” particularly in regards to emendation (which Jördens also wrote were responsible for his sullied reputation), were due to preparing the German translation of Batteux. 189 Conclusion: Karl Wilhelm Ramler, Patriot Anthologist De Capua argued that Ramler’s initial plan “to select according to epigram rather than to poet,” would have “lost all focus and critical value,” becoming an “encyclopedic compendium” if it had been carried out (1956, 362). De Capua's argument is based on the assumption that the author is the organizing principle for poetry and that without the author, poems lose their significance for German literary history, becoming, in some way, unreadable. At different points in time, of course, the principle of the author has been considered more or less significant to the reception of a work; however, to de Capua it is the only principle that can adequately structure critical engagement with poetry. De Capua is, of course, not alone in this thinking, but rather himself the product of a historical movement centered on the idea of the author. This rise of the author can be documented in the editorial controversies surrounding Ramler, in the development of copyright law, in the intense efforts of nineteenth-century scholars to connect authorial identities to Medieval texts such as the Nibelungenlied, and, most relevant for our discussion, in the establishment of the definition of a standard anthology as a representative anthology based on a canon of authors whose works are privileged above the works of others. These various projects are part of a continuum of interest in authorship, the most extreme aspects of which seem to have waned since the 1950s, having come under attack from various corners, including, of course, Roland Barthes in the “The Death of the Author” and Michel Foucault in “What is an Author?,” and, in recent years, through the rise of digital media technologies that allow for more layers of categorization through metadata and thus reduce the author to only one organizing principle among many alternatives. Obviously, Ramler’s editorial practices are antithetical to modern practice, but a judgment of Ramler that ends there is anachronistic at best. All of Ramler’s epigram projects were critical successes and, in Göckingk, “Ramlers Leben” in Ramlers Poëtische Werke (1801). 312-313. Trans.: “While searching for examples for his Batteux translation, Ramler read through the German poets with evaluative contemplation. […] He wanted the examples included in a textbook, which was expressly intended to correctly educate the Taste, to be completely perfect. Thus, when he occasionally found, even in the best poets, carelessness in expression or in the concepts, he corrected them with the same loyalty, which he dedicated to his own works. […] Over time, he enjoyed the improvement of others’ work more and more […].” Also cited in Jördens 4: 274. 189 Lexikon 4: 268, 272-274. 188 47 terms of his attitude toward seventeenth-century poets, Ramler was a man of his age, who did his best to popularize earlier work that he himself could not fully appreciate, for the good of the present and the future of German literature. A comparison with contemporary efforts on behalf of medieval poetry shows the accuracy of this statement. In 1757, the Nibelungenlied was published for the first time; which had been rediscovered in manuscript form just two years previously. The editor, Johann Jakob Bodmer cut the work substantially to read like a dramatic tale focusing on the central female character, Chriemhild, and published it under the title, Chriemhilden Rache. As I have pointed out elsewhere, Bodmer’s introduction to the first edition is an attempt to integrate the Nibelungenlied into a framework of contemporary poetic norms as well as the cultural patriotism of his age (Savage 2011). In doing so, Bodmer dramatically trimmed the original epic to suit contemporary norms: Alle diese Stüke habe ich abgeschnitten, und ich glaube mit demselben Rechte, mit welchem Homer die Entführung der Helena, die Aufopferung der Iphigenia, und alle Begegnisse der zehn Jahre, die vor dem Zwiste zwischen Achilles und Agamemnon vorgergegangen sind, weglassen hat, auf die er nur bey Gelegenheiten sich als auf bekannte Sachen beziehet.190 As this passage suggests, it was Bodmer's appreciation for the text that led him to emend the Nibelungenlied; however, in doing so, Bodmer was more than an editor of another’s work; he became an active collaborator through his intervention into the text and thus contributing directly to the interpretation and reception of the epic (Savage 2011). Ramler’s efforts on behalf of seventeenth-century poetry can and should be interpreted in the same way as Bodmer’s work on the Nibelungenlied; like Bodmer, Ramler changed texts, and, like Bodmer, he did it within a framework of normative poetics combined with cultural patriotism. This intellectual framework excludes a genuinely historical perspective, which would allow for the appreciation of older literary texts in their original state, but at the same time, it was conducive to the reception of older works in the eighteenth century in that it asked after the origins of contemporary German poetry and actively attempted to create a German literary tradition. Ramler’s contribution to the reception of seventeenth-century poetry should be seen as an early contribution to renewed interest in Baroque poetry prior to widespread recognition of its beauty. Ramler belongs to that class of historical figures who can be used to illuminate an emerging trend through his representation of the existing paradigm, as, by the time of his death, Ramler’s concept of poetry and its creation had been rejected in favor of a directly contradictory view. In 1809, just eleven years after Ramler’s death, Jördens, whose anthologies and relationship to Ramler are discussed in the third case study, discredited Ramler’s approach to poetry and presented a radically different concept of the poem as self-evident in his entry on Ramler in the Lexikon deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten: Ein wahres Gedicht entfaltet sich, wie eine Blume, in allen seinen Theilen zugleich; und die verschiedenen Operationen, die nur der Verstand trennt, sind in der Schöpfung des Genie’s [sic] eins und untheilbar.191 Bodmer vii, also cited in Savage 2011. In the original: “I cut all these parts, and, I think, with the same justification Homer had to leave out the kidnapping of Helen, the sacrifice of Iphigenia and all that happened during the ten years before the dispute between Achilles and Agamemnon, to which he only occasionally alludes, as if to familiar things.” 191 Jördens 4: 262-307 (1809): “Karl Wilhelm Ramler.” Lexikon deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten. Here, 272. Trans.: “A true poem unfolds itself, like a flower, in all parts at the same time; and the various operations, which only reason [or intellect] separates, are in the creation of the genius one and inseperable.” He goes on: “Dieser Mißgriff, welcher Ramlers Einsichten in das Wesen der Kunst allerdings etwas verdächtig macht, führt auf diejenigen seiner Werke in denen er als Kritiker auftritt.” Trans: “This mistake, which certainly makes Ramler’s thoughts on the nature of art somewhat suspect, leads back to those works of his in which he takes on the role of critic.” 190 48 One could hold up Ramler's resistance to incorporating Lessing's protean historical perspective into his own anthologies as an early and extreme example of the limits of historical relativism, which can never truly bracket the tastes of the present. The Sammlung is not a failed “historical survey,” as de Capua has posited, but rather a project meant to demonstrate a German epigram tradition motivated by cultural patriotism. The difference between these two is as simple and as complicated as the difference between Ramler and de Capua’s perspectives on literature. Ramler's approach to editing was based on the “Geschmacksbildung der Deutschen” or the ‘improvement’ of German literary taste, particularly by translating ancient authors in censored translations.192 Ramler does not have to endorse or even respect the poems of the seventeenth century to create a successful anthology of this design; rather, he must simply prove that a development has taken place. Ramler was generally respected during his lifetime, although also criticized for his habit of rewriting others’ poetry without permission in the anthologies as well as in his editions of Lichtwer and Ewald von Kleist.193 Since his death, he has largely been forgotten by Germanists except for his editorial practices, which have presented a seemingly insurmountable challenge to positive reception. These editorial practices, which were debated in the eighteenth century, have come to be considered scandalous, earning him the reputation of an ahistorical mind behind the tide of thinkers such as Lessing and Eschenburg, whose historically conditioned approach to older literature eventually became the dominant paradigm. As I have shown, the difference between Ramler’s position and that of Lessing is neither as great nor as unambiguous as it is often made out to be. Furthermore, the examination of Ramler’s methods and their contemporary reception allows for a new perspective on our own methods of literary scholarship, which are rooted in the ascendant paradigm of historical perspective in the analysis of literature. IV. A Late Miscellany: Christian Heinrich Schmid’s Anthologie der Deutschen, 1770-1772 In this case study, I will discuss Christian Heinrich Schmid (1746-1800) and his miscellany, the Anthologie der Deutschen, which was published in three volumes (1770, 1771, 1772). For this dissertation, the Anthologie is interesting for what it is not. It is not representative – Schmid goes to great lengths to deny any claim to representativity in the introductions to the three volumes. It is also not a Musenalmanach or another up-to-date periodical. Neither was it a beautiful printed object nor one to which its publisher wished to commit his name. Finally, the Anthologie was not a critical success. In this case study, I will examine the Anthologie der Deutschen and all the things it is not, with the aim of revealing eighteenth-century expectations for poetry collections and their compilers. During his life Schmid was a well-known, even notorious author, who caught the literary world off guard during his youthful years in Leipzig, Erfurt, and Gießen. Schmid was also an incredibly productive writer, publishing fifty books and numerous articles between the 1760s and 1790s. In the first seven years, Schmid published eight books about poetry and poets, all of which were collections of one kind or another: his Theorie der Poesie nach den neuesten Grundsätzen und Nachricht von den besten Dichtern nach den angenommenen Urtheilen (1767) and four Zusätze (1767, 1768, 1769, 1769), both volumes of his Biographie der Dichter (1768, 1770) and the three-volume Anthologie der Deutschen (1770, 1771, 1772). During these years, Schmid also edited the first Musenalmanach on the German market, the Leipziger Musen-Almanach auf das Jahr 1770. In the last hundred years, Schmid has hardly 192 193 See Kertscher 98-99, 103. Also discussed by Kertscher (111-112). 49 been paid any attention at all; today, he is mainly remembered for his Chronologie des deutschen Theaters (1775) and German translations of Shakespeare, although, in more recent times he has been identified as the author of the first history of German literature. The sixteen-part series, “Skizzen von der Geschichte der teutschen Dichtkunst” or “Sketches of the History of German Poetry,” which appeared in the popular periodical Olla Potrida between 1780 and 1792, is a benchmark for its subject rather than its style.194 The many collections that Schmid published related to poetry in the 1760s and early 1770s have been almost entirely forgotten. Due to the scandalous character of its subject – the young Schmid, willing to take any advantage to gain recognition in the literary world – it is tempting to see this case study as an experiment in the spirit of Heinrich von Kleist’s Lasterschule. In Kleist’s comic Brieferzählung, “Allerneuester Erziehungsplan” (1810), the fictional school principal C. J. Levanus from “Rechtenfleck im Holsteinischen” describes his innovative method of teaching children good manners and morals. In his opinion, children ought to attend a “Lasterschule” or “school of vices” which is a “contrary school, a school of virtue through vice,” where the worst, most wrong examples are shown to them, where they will become so disgusted that they themselves choose to be good people. 195 Levanus demonstrates the logic behind this with examples from the study of electricity and anecdotes from everyday life, in which a neutral object is forced to an extreme through the presence of the opposite extreme. Mr. Levanus sees this reaction not only in the natural world, but also in humanity. ...ein Mensch, dessen Zustand indifferent ist, nicht nur augenblicklich aufhört, es zu sein, sobald er mit einem anderen, dessen Eigenschaften, gleichviel auf welche Weise, bestimmt sind, in Berührung tritt: sein Wesen sogar wird, um mich so auszudrücken, gänzlich in ein entgegengesetzten Pol hinübergespielt. 196 As the reader can imagine, Schmid would play the role of the teacher in a Lasterschule meant to show how not to gain the respect of the German literati during the 1770s while also not creating a wellreceived poetry collection. With his many intellectual and interpersonal missteps, Schmid can become a truly excellent ‘contrary teacher,’ teaching “not only by admonishment, but by example, by living action, by immediate practical social acquaintance and intercourse.” 197 Some information about Schmid’s life and personality will help contextualize the incidents that follow. Schmid was born to a mining official and his wife in Eisleben, Sachsen-Anhalt on November 24, 1746. By all accounts, Schmid’s father, soon widowed, put great emphasis on education, teaching his children himself when they were very small and then arranging for an array of private tutors to give the children intensive lessons.198 At fifteen, Schmid matriculated in Leipzig and study in Leipzig, the center of publishing and literary life in Germany, was a deciding factor in the course Schmid’s life took. 199 Leipzig had The history of German literature was published as a series of articles in the periodical Olla Potrida and will be discussed toward the end of the case study. Batts and Kurz have written articles on Schmid and his “Skizzen von der Geschichte der teutschen Dichtkunst” (1780-1792). 195 In the original: “gegensätzische Schule, eine Schule der Tugend durch Laster” (Kleist 467). The italics are Kleist's. 196 Trans.: “a person, whose state is indifferent, not only stops being [indifferent] as soon as he comes into contact with another [person], whose qualities are decided, regardless in which way. His essence, even, is, so to speak, forced over completely to the opposite pole” (463). 197 In the original: “nicht bloß durch Ermahnung, sondern durch Exempel, durch lebendige Handlung, durch unmittelbaren praktischen, geselligen Umgang und Verkehr” (Kleist 467). 198 A former tutor later published a memoir in which he asserted that the children were forced to study from early in the morning until ten o’clock each night, a claim that Schmid himself disputed in an essay-length autobiography included by Friedrich Wilhelm Strieber in his entry on Schmid in Grundlage zu einer hessischen Gelehrten und Schriftsteller Geschichte. Seit der Reformation bis auf gegenwärtige Zeiten. 13: 61-95 (1802). 199 The first Leipzig printing presses opened as early as the last third of the 15th century and in 1492 the Angermühle was 194 50 successfully established itself as the center of German publishing by the end of the sixteenth century, and in the late eighteenth century was “indisputably […] the capital of books” in central Europe. 200 An incredible twenty percent of all eighteenth-century European books were printed in Leipzig (Herzog 1995, 133). Around 1780, there were twenty-eight bookstores and publishing houses, thirteen presses, and twenty-three binderies in Leipzig, while only twenty years later there were more than sixty bookshops and presses.201 The centralization of the printing trade and the presence of the university combined to make Leipzig the “capital of literary progress” and for that reason, the university also attracted many important eighteenth-century writers. 202 Because of his young age, Schmid’s father allowed him to study whatever he chose for two years (1762-1764) before asking that he attain a degree in law. Schmid spent his years of freedom studying philosophy and philology, but did do as father asked and was awarded both masters and doctoral degrees in law (in 1767 and 1769, respectively). As a student, Schmid found a way to satisfy his father’s ambitions for him and his own desires by studying “elegante Jurisprudenz,” a “humanistic-antiquarian” branch of law that combined history, law, and philology.203 In fact, Schmid’s doctoral thesis, “Simonides sive de theologia poetarum,” examined theology in ancient Greek poetry. As we will see, this dissertation topic is a felicitous choice, at least for the present writer, as it offers a striking parallel to Schmid’s own story. The subject of Schmid’s thesis was Simonides, famously the first poet to expect payment rather than patronage. 204 Like Simonides, Schmid ignored conventions and concentrated on material advantage in his literary dealings; in the end, however, Schmid paid a price for his willingness to cross unspoken but nonetheless very real boundaries in the literary world, which will play a central role in our examination of the Anthologie der Deutschen. As a student in Leipzig, Schmid spent his free time among those who shared his passion for literature; as he describes in an autobiographical essay, his circle of close friends consisted of the brothers Heinrich Karl Gottlieb Walz (1747-1781) and Johann Theophil Walz (birth and death dates unknown), Johann Benjamin Michaelis (1746-1772), and Johann Gottfried Dyck (1750-1815). 205 The Walz brothers had matriculated a year before Schmid and translated French literature, although they later went on to quite different careers. The short lived and poverty-stricken poet Michaelis began to study medicine two years after Schmid arrived in Leipzig and was trying to support himself through his writing; Michaelis translated Virgil and published his Fabeln, Lieder und Satiren in 1766. Gleim was a patron and benefactor of Michaelis, much as he was of Ramler in the 1740s.206 Dyck was the son of a Leipzig prepared for the production of paper. The development into a major publishing center was made possible by the imperial decree of two handelsanregender privileges from 1497: the right to hold Reichsmessen three times a year and an interdiction against the opening of markets in the surrounding lands; ten years later these privileges were expanded through a supplementary Stapelgerechtigkeit that centralized all the trade in the region in Leipzig (Künnemann 26-27). 200 Herzog 1995, 12; Hauswedell 1977 1:12 (in the original: “unbestritten [...] die führende Buchstadt”). 201 Herzog 1995, 133. 202 De Capua 1957, 338 203 Kurz 916 ff. Kurz has presented the argument that this subject provided important impulses to formal Germanistik in the earliest stage. I find the idea quite interesting but would not choose Schmid as ‘lead plaintiff’ if trying the case. Kurz also pointed out that another famous early Germanist, Jakob Grimm, studied elegant jurisprudence. Grimm would make a better case study for such an analysis. 204 The dates of Simonides life and death are in dispute, but his working life took place in the latter half of the fifth century BCE to the first half of the fourth century BCE (Molyneux 4).The title of Schmid’s dissertation was “Simonides sive de theologia poetarum” (Legband ix). In general, I refer the reader to Paul Legband’s introduction to the 1902 reprint of Schmid’s 1775 Chronologie des deutschen Theaters, Schmid’s autobiography in Strieber, and the title pages of his earlier works, where one always finds his most recent honorific title. 205 Schmid in Strieber 65. 206 Elschenbroich 434 ff. 51 Verlagsbuchhändler or bookseller-publisher, who had died when Dyck was still a boy.207 The younger Dyck translated many French plays into German and would soon transform the business begun by his father into one of the most respected German literary publishing houses. These young students made up a literary circle similar to the more famous (and successful) Hainbund, actively supporting and encouraging each other’s literary activities.208 With the encouragement and connections of his friends, particularly Dyck, Schmid was able to published four volumes before completing his doctorate: the Theorie der Poesie nach den neuesten Grundsätzen und Nachricht von den besten Dichtern nach den angenommenen Urtheilen (1767) and the first three volumes of the Zusätze (1767, 1768, 1769).209 Despite these successes, Schmid did not attempt to live from his writing upon graduation, but decided to pursue an academic career. Wolff reported that at the end of his studies, the twenty-one-year-old had the choice between a paid teaching position in Leipzig and an unpaid law professorship in Erfurt and made the surprising choice to accept the unpaid position in order to be near Christoph Martin Wieland (1733-1813) in Erfurt. 210 In the approximately two-and-a-half years Schmid spent teaching law in Erfurt (1769-1771), he did indeed manage to become close to Wieland and his circle. During those two years, Schmid also published seven more volumes related to poetry and poets: the fourth and final volume of Zusätze (1769), both volumes of the Biographie der Dichter (1769, 1770),211 the first two volumes of the Leipziger Musenalmanach (1769, 1770), and the first two volumes of the series collection, the Anthologie der Deutschen (1770, 1771), which will form the heart of our discussion. After a time, Schmid was asked to take a teaching position in Gießen, where he finished the third volume of the Anthologie der Deutschen (1772). The now twenty-three-year-old Schmid had been offered a paid position as professor of “Beredsamkeit und Dichtkunst” or rhetoric and poetry there in the fall of 1770, a significant improvement for the young professor. His friend Wieland had in fact been the first choice for the position that Schmid eventually received, but after a number of other candidates were suggested and ruled out for political or financial reasons, Schmid was invited to take the position, as the university administration needed an inexpensive and politically innocuous candidate, who could teach a number of subjects such as literature and philosophy.212 After his stormy entrance into the literary world and the intense controversies he caused among authors and critics, it is ironic that Schmid should have been offered a position on the grounds that he was politically safe, but, as usual, the concerns of the university administration Gießen were not those of poets. In any case, the second half of Schmid’s life passed peacefully in Gießen, where he taught for many years and eventually received several prominent university and government appointments, most notably the position of “hessen-darmstädischer Regierungsrath” or councilor to the Landgraviate of Hesse-Darmstadt in 1784 and “Universitätsbibliothekar” or university librarian in 1790 (Wolff 7:1). Schmid also continued to publish prolifically until the end of his life, albeit in with diminished effect on the literary world. 213 Also named Johann Gottfried Dyck (1715-1762). See Legband xi. 209 All were published by Siegfried Lebrecht Crusius (1738-1824), who had purchased a publishing business in Leipzig a few years earlier (1765) after leaving the university of Leipzig without a degree. Michaelis also published his Einzele [sic] Gedichte: Erste Sammlung dem Herrn Canonicus Gleim gewiedmet with Crusius in 1769. 210 In Wolff’s words: “mit dem Doctortitel […] eine Docentenstelle, die er aber gern einem Ruf nach Erfurt aufopferte, wo ihn der Umgang mit Wieland, Meusel und andern trefflichen Köpfen zwei Jahre lang die Entbehrung alles Gehaltes verschmerzen ließ” (7:1.). See also: Schmid, Christian Heinrich. Biographie der Dichter. Erster Theil. Leipzig: In der Dyckischen Buchhandlung, 1769. Title page. 211 Both of these bear the imprint: “Leipzig: In der Dyckischen Buchhandlung.” 212 Legband x. 213 Schmid, Christian Heinrich. Anthologie der Deutschen. Leipzig: bey Engelhart Benjamin Schwickert, 1772. Title page. 207 208 52 Despite his astonishing publishing record and his intense desire to be recognized by the literary world, the young Schmid who compiled the Anthologie der Deutschen was hardly beloved. Legband wrote that in response to him, there was “discord everywhere, more or less sharp,” while L. M. Price pointed out that “for his astounding industry in his brash years Schmid reaped nothing but contumely from the leading literary circles” (11).214 Legband writes that this was a reasonable response: “what he had written from approximately age twenty-two to age twenty-six offered plenty of material for such a sharp, derogatory verdict.”215 I will not contest these characterizations of Schmid’s youthful works. Instead, I hope to show that a careful examination of the strong reactions Schmid elicited can teach us about attitudes and expectations of the literati for the creation of literature and literary publications in general, as well as poetry collections in particular. More so than most, an analysis of Schmid’s anthologies reveals the social dynamics of the creation of literature during the latter half of the eighteenth century, as the censure of his peers reveals the mechanics of the German literary world at this crucial juncture. At the same time, literary success in the age of Schmid was a complex and evolving thing – as always, there were the Kenner or connoisseurs, whose esteem was sought after by all budding authors including Schmid, but, for the first time, there was also a critical mass of common readers interested in literature. Thus, for the first time, there were alternative definitions of literary success, which an exploration of the reception of Schmid’s Anthologie der Deutschen can highlight. The Anthologie der Deutschen (1770-1772) The Anthologie der Deutschen was published during Schmid’s first years as a professor. The three volumes were not iterations of the same project containing reworking or improvements of a single textual body like Ramler’s poetry collections, including the Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte and Wernickens Ueberschriften discussed in the first case study. Instead, Schmid’s Anthologie was an openended series of volumes of collected poetry with different selections in each, but without an organization into collections based on theme, form or chronology, as, for example, in the case of Zachariä’s plan for the Auserlesene Stücke deutscher Dichter (1766-1778), the first volume of which had been published four years before. Each volume contains a mix of works in diverse genres and spanning from the late seventeenth century to the present, but with a strong emphasis on the present and recent past. This is because Schmid, like most of his contemporaries, believed that German literature was improving with the passage of time, as was discussed at length in the first case study. In the logic and presentation of conventional arguments on this topic, Schmid shows himself to be very much a man of his age in the Anthologie. In the first volume, for example, Schmid invoked the commonplace argument that although the German people had come late to literature, they had shown all others nations how rich they were in poetic talent. He writes: Es muß allerdings schon eine reiche Erndte bey einer Nation vorangegangen seyn, wenn man eine solche Nachlese anstellen will. Ich freue mich aber, daß ich das Vorurtheil von der Armuth der unsrigen nicht mehr widerlegen darf, da es schon durch Versuche dieser Art, durch Sammlungen unsrer Lieder, Sinngedichte, und theatralischen Schriften zur Gnüge widerlegt ist.216 Legband vii. In the original: “Mißklänge also überall, mehr or minder scharf.” Legband vii. In the original: “Was er im Alter von etwa 22-26 years geschrieben hatte, gab […] reichlich Stoff zu solch scharfem abfälligem Urteil.” 216 AdD 1: vii-viii. Trans.: “But there must already have been a rich harvest in a country, if one wants to perform such a gleaning. I am glad, however, that I do not have to disprove the prejudice, that our nation is poor [in poems], since it is already been disproved enough through attempts of this kind, through collections of our songs, epigrams, and theatrical writings.” 214 215 53 Schmid improves upon the usual truism by stating that previous collectors have already proved the German nation rich in literature. Like Ramler’s epigram anthologies, the Anthologie is based on a patriotism for a cultural nation and the hope to build a national literature. The title alludes, of course, to the linguistic and cultural patriotism of this era of nation formation and Schmid explicitly makes a case for the Anthologie on these terms by writing about the collecting of German-language poetry in terms of national pride. The patriotism upon which Schmid draws is a nationless patriotism that defines itself through a shared language and that legitimates itself though the creation of a literary and cultural monuments such as fine literature and music. Schmid uses the common metaphorical language of agriculture, which was discussed in the introduction (II.I), to describe the state of literature in mideighteenth-century Germany. As Schmid writes, German authors had already created the bountiful “harvest” of adequate literature that must necessarily precede a “gleaning,” such as he performs in the creation of the Anthologie. Schmid immediately follows these protestations of quality concerning the rich ‘harvest’ of German literature with a qualifier. As he goes on: Zwar leben noch die meisten unsrer besten Dichter; aber viele derselben fangen schon an ihre Werke zu sammeln, und dieses geschiehet gemeiniglich nicht eher, als bis sie ihre poetische Laufbahn beschließen wollen.217 Here, Schmid makes clear his belief that the contemporary poetry is objectively better than older poetry. A second piece of evidence, Schmid’s request for submissions in the second volume, underscores that Schmid believes that poetry has improved in the recent past, specifically the last thirty years, “Wie manches gute Gedicht mag von 1740 bis 1770 gemacht worden seyn, das unverdienter Weise ein Raub der Zeit geworden!”218 In the Anthologie, as in many other contexts including Ramler’s collections, earlier poetry, when it appears, is not interpreted in its historical context, but instead measured against the standards of age in which it is read, a practice that caused early poetry to be continuously rejected as deficient until the end of the eighteenth century. Schmid characterizes the poetry collection as a palliative to the effects of time, offering a detailed description of the many ways in which individual poems are lost and of the merit of anthologists, who bring together such poems and make them available for others: “Es hat […] unter allen Zeiten und unter jeder Nation Sammler gegeben, die der Vergeßlichkeit des Publikums und der Nachläßigkeit der Dichter abgeholfen haben, und so sind Anthologien […] entstanden.” 219 Schmid’s rejection of the more distant past does not contradict this statement in the least, as Schmid’s association of forgetfulness and loss with time does not reflect a desire for the public to rethink their evaluation of earlier German poetry in relation to the present. In fact, although Schmid’s concept of the Sammler (collector) and his duties takes place within the same culturally patriotic framework as Ramler’s and also includes references to the past, their aims stand in stark contrast to one another. In place of the historical reimagining of the past in the service of the present (and potentially the future), which Ramler attempts, Schmid is focused on the present, which he understands as a ‘long present,’ that includes the near past. Thus, Schmid’s concept of time and loss is not based on historical perspective in the Koselleckian sense, which concerns the relativity of qualitative standards in different eras and, for that reason, it is simply not Schmid’s concern whether his contemporaries’ change their perspective on the history of German literature or not. Instead of a AdD 1: viii. Trans.: “True, most of our best poets are still living, but many of them are already beginning to collect their work and this does not usually begin until they want to bring their poetic career to a close.” 218 AdD 2: xv. Trans.: “To think that some good poem might have been made between 1740 and 1770 that [has] undeservedly become prey to time!” 219 AdD 1: vi. Trans.: “For that reason there have been collectors in every epoch and in every nation, who have remedied the forgetfulness of the public and the negligence of the poets, and that is how anthologies came to be.” 217 54 Koselleckian concept, Schmid’s perspective on poetry and literary history as well as his premise for the creation of the anthology relates to the loss of individual works due in great part to the advent of a new media landscape of the eighteenth century. Both the rise of periodicals and the many forms taken by poetry collections during this era belong to the early development of a “modern ‘industry of cultural commodities,’ of an advanced cultural communication system as the feudal, estate-based society began to transform into a bourgeois one.”220 As Schmid is acutely aware, the advent and growth of the literary periodical market in the eighteenth century had made it more difficult to keep track of the output of individual authors. This changing media landscape is itself related to technological change, which Koselleck addresses in his theory of modernity, but Schmid’s preoccupation with it and concern about its effect does not express modernity in itself, but rather anxiety about changes that presage modernity. Although Schmid draws on common themes, his theory of the purpose of an anthology is uncommon; for scholars interested in the advent of the anthology as the dominant poetry-collection form, Schmid’s Anthologie der Deutschen presents a fascinating counterbalance as it is in fact an anti-anthology, a work that rejects representativity as its purpose. As mentioned previously, in the introduction to the first volume, Schmid immediately assigns a purpose to the anthology form, a purpose that is at odds with the idea of the anthology as an intentionally canonizing document, one that defines the finest literature of a culture or group. Instead, in Schmid’s vision, the anthologist collects the “fliegende Bogen” or flying leaves of poets, both minor and great (vi). Thus, the anthology form exists to preserve not the best, but the good, not the most central, but the interesting (see AdD 1: vi). In the third volume of the Anthologie (1772), Schmid again describes his methods and intentions: Hierauf habe ich abermals ein Versuch gemacht, aus einigen unsrer minor-poets [sic] eine Auswahl zu treffen, weil es ohnstreitig Hauptpflicht des Anthologen is, nicht allein aus dem Guten des Beste, sondern aus dem Schlechten das Gute hervorzusuchen.”221 Furthermore, in both the first and second introductions, Schmid distinguishes between Anthologie and Chrestomathie (AdD 1: xi, 2: x). Chrestomathie or chrestomathy was (and still is) a word used for schoolbook collections, generally for the learning of foreign languages, at that time particularly Latin and ancient Greek. The word “Chrestomathie” does not come up very often in the discourse of German poetry collections, where Blumenlese or simply Sammlung is preferred. In the prefaces of the Anthologie volumes, Schmid applies the term Chrestomathie to the collecting of texts that are classics or to put it in modern terms, which are canonical. In a stroke of luck for modern scholars, Schmid even applies the term to Zachariä’s a well-known collection, the Auserlesene Stücke. Defending his inclusion of the poems of an Early Enlightenment poet, Friedrich Rudolf Ludwig Freiherr von Canitz (1654-1699), against a critic’s attack, Schmid argues: “Hätte ich es gewußt, daß Herr Zachariä wirklich gesonnen sey, seine Chrestomathie fortzusetzen, so würde ich ihm nie einen Eingriff gethan haben.” 222 This shows that Schmid does in fact have a concept similar to the representative anthology, which he chooses not to employ (for reasons that may have to do with interest, ability or opportunity). Wittmann 1991, 111. In the original: “modernen ‘Kulturwarenindustrie,’ eines fortschrittlichen cultural Kommunikationsssystems [...],als sich die feudal-ständische Gesellschaft in eine bürgerliche zu wandeln began.” 221 AdD 3: xvii. Trans.: “I have tried again to put together a selection from some of our minor poets, as it is undisputably the main duty of the anthologist not only to select the best from the good, but also the good from the bad.” 222 AdD 1: x. Trans: “If I had known that Mr. Zachariä actually planned to continue his chrestomathy I would never have encroached upon it.” 220 55 Metaphorical language can give us additional insights into reviewers’ and anthologists’ perspective on the literary world when they stray from the common tropes such as the harvest. Eschenburg, for example, using a nautical metaphor to express his conviction that most readers are not capable of true discernment. He complains about the miserable condition of contemporary readership by representing German literature as a rough sea in which individual texts swim like flotsam, with only the most recent trash floating to the surface to be admired by the ignorant masses. 223 Schmid uses a surprising metaphor to describe the logic and aims of his collecting: “Es ist gar nicht haushältig, kleine Läppchen wegzuwerfen. Warum sollte man also nicht auch das kleinste Product eines Genies vom Untergang retten?”224 To be sure, Schmid characterizes himself as a Sammler or collector, but not as a collector of the best of a particular group even according to personal taste. Schmid intends these works to supplement the poems that are already well known and that readers regard with pride – those, which already belong to the eighteenth-century ‘canon’ of German literature, but his metaphorical language takes a unique turn in his description of German literature and his role as an anthologist of that literature.At the same time, Schmid repeatedly asserts the stringency of his selection criteria; Schmid writes that although he is in search of forgotten poems, he attempts to sort out the bad ones: “Wer wird erretten, was zu vermodern verdient? [...] so viel bin ich mir bewußt, daß ich nicht mit Vorsatz Schutt zusammengefahren.”225 In these passages, Schmid characterizes himself as a householder, thriftily keeping track of “little rags.” His goal is to preserve odds and ends in the service of German literature, a documentary effort to preserve the work of the ‘long’ present in the face of a new technological reality for German literature. Schmid only obliquely addresses the question of selection criteria in his prefaces, invoking reason as a sure guide to discrimination between good and bad poetry: “Denn die kluge Wahl, die Vorsichtigkeit nicht Disteln unter Blumen zu lesen, lehrt die gesunde Vernunft.” 226 Schmid returns to the metaphorical territory of flowers and weeds, conventional for anthological discourse. According to Schmid, the goal was not to bring together great names or create an Auslese in the sense of a selection of known poems. Schmid maintained that he created the Anthologie to preserve literary works of varying quality, which otherwise would not find an audience and would be forgotten, would be lost. If one accepts his postulate, Schmid’s project cannot be treated as inadequate selection, because it did not render possible the general dissemination of poems of various quality that still deserved to be saved; however, despite his explanations, a tension remains palpable within the project itself, as well as between his stated aims and the actual collection. Contemporary Reactions to the Selection and Organization of the Anthologie Reviews of the Anthologie were published in well-known literary journals of the day. Although the reviews were published anonymously as was customary, it has since been determined that Kästner, whose comments on Ramler’s Ueberschriften are discussed in the first case study, reviewed all three volumes of the Anthologie for the Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen. The Hamburg educator, In his review of Wernickens Ueberschriften (1780). In the original: ““von einem Publikum, dessen größter Theil nichts schön zu finden gewohnt ist, als was eben jetzt auf dem krausen Meer der Litteratur oben aufschwimmt” (101). Trans.: “by a public, the majority of which is not used to finding anything beautiful except that which just now happens to float on the rough sea of literature.” 224 AdD 1: vii. Trans.: “It is not at all economical to throw out little rags. Why should one not save even the smallest product of a genius from destruction?” 225 AdD 1: x. Trans.: “Who would save that which deserves to rot? […] I know this much – I did not intentionally bring together rubbish.” 226 AdD 1: x. Trans.: “Because wise selection, the carefulness not to select thistles among flowers is taught by healthy reason.” 223 56 author and early Americanist, Christoph Daniel Ebeling (1741-1817), reviewed the first and third volumes of the Anthologie for the ADB, while Eschenburg, whose own anthology, the Beispielsammlung, is discussed in the introduction (II.I) and whose review of Wernickens Ueberschriften is discussed in the first case study, took on the second volume for that publication. Both the ADB and the GAGS were important and influential periodicals that published only reviews rather than articles. The GAGS was founded quite early (1739), while the younger, Enlightenment-oriented ADB, which was founded in 1765 by Friedrich Nicolai, spawned many imitators and adversaries. 227 The reviewers of the ADB and the GAGS were similarly reserved in their praise and fierce in their criticism of Schmid’s Anthologie, but Schmid found a defender in Christian Adolph Klotz (1738-1771), editor of the Deutsche Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften (1767-1771).228 Klotz was a professor of classics in Halle, a bitter opponent of Lessing’s and often the center of divisive literary debates and controversies during his short life. In 1767 Klotz founded the DBSW as an outlet for his differences of opinion with the ADB, which was associated with the German Enlightenment figures such as Nicolai, Lessing, Ebeling, and Eschenburg.229 Furthermore, Klotz was a personal friend and literary ally of Schmid’s and, accordingly, Klotz treats Schmid’s publications, including the Anthologie, much more positively than the other journals. In all cases, the main themes of the reviews are Schmid’s collecting premise and methods as well as the quality of the resulting collection. A less frequent but intriguing point of criticism to discuss before coming to the collecting premise and quality is the inclusion of paratexts. As de Capua’s disparaging comments on Ramler’s lack of a paratextual matrix around the texts of the Sammlung show, later critics sometimes make ahistorical assumptions about the value and desirability of paratexts in eighteenth-century poetry collections. In the case of the Sammlung, de Capua argues that the absence of an introduction prove Ramler’s ignorance on the subject of seventeenth-century poetry. 230 While de Capua’s claim that Ramler did not hold the poetry of the seventeenth century in the same esteem as he does that of his own age is indisputable, it seems wise to allow the interpretation of the value and uses of paratexts to be informed by the comments of contemporary readers or other contextual information as one’s first thoughts on the topic from a twenty-first century perspective seem not to match those of contemporary reviewers. For example, Schmid’s practice of embedding paratextual interpretive commentary before each poem in the first volume of the Anthologie was attacked as inappropriately pedagogical and even insulting to readers. In the eighteenth century, many collections of German-language poetry, such as Eschenburg’s Entwurf and Beispielsammlung in the introduction (II.I) or Jördens’ Blumenlese in the third case study, followed the textbook form for secondary school classes in ancient Greek and Latin and later, German rhetoric. Anthologists who followed this model used supplementary texts in the main portion of the book in addition to the introduction. These ‘schoolbooks’ were explicitly targeted toward young students, but in truth they were also read by adults particularly the literati, who also reviewed them in the important journals. With a nominally different audience and purpose than a collection such as the Anthologie, their supplementary texts were seen as essential to the contextualization of explication of the work and were thus quite valuable. Unlike the aforementioned U. Schneider, “Literaturkritische Zeitschriften,” 203. Like Schmid, Klotz got a reputation early. At only twenty-four, he was invited to become a professor of philosophy in Göttingen and moved to Halle three years later, where he had been offered a position as Professor für Beredsamkeit (Garland 472; Berghahn 78). His influence as an editor of literary journals was substantial for a time. Schmid began at the Leipziger Gelehrten Zeitung and founded the Deutscher Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften and the satirical journal, Die Elenden Scribenten, that attacked the Spätaufklärer. 229 Klotz, Christian Adolph, ed. Deutsche Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften. Halle: bey Johann Justinus Gebauer. Twenty-four issues were published in six volumes between 1767 and 1771, but the series ended upon Klotz's untimely death at the age of thirty-three (Garland 472). 230 See de Capua 1956, 361 ff. 227 228 57 anthologists, who chose to apply the schoolbook model, Schmid thinks only incidentally of students as his audience, even as he dedicates the third volume of Anthologie (1772) to Karl Mastalier (1731-1795), a Viennese Jesuit, rhetoric teacher, and poet, who had quite an enviable reputation at the time: Wenn einige Gedichte in diesem Theile meiner Sammlung würdig sind, von Ihnen gelesen, und den glücklichen Jünglingen, die Ihres Unterrichts genießen, empfohlen zu werden: so bin ich zwar einigermaßen wegen der Freiheit entschuldigt, die ich mir nehme, diesen Theil mit Ihrem Namen zu zieren, so wie der vorige mit Ihren Beiträgen prangte […].231 Accordingly, Schmid described these accessory texts as justifications of his selection: “ich [habe] vor den meisten Stücken meine Wahl durch eine Vorerinnerung gerechtfertigt, und noch lieber ist es mir, wenn sich die Stücke selbst rechtfertigen.” 232 These short texts are meant, of course, to serve the reader as an entrance point into the poem, but as Schmid did not design the volumes of the Anthologie primarily as a pedagogical tool, he did not include much contextualizing information or aim for a chronological or genre-based organization. This case shows that the intended audience had a strong effect on formal considerations such as the appropriateness of the work. In other places, Schmid writes that the Anthologie was meant to be read by connoisseurs, people, who chose to expand their knowledge of poetry in German through his collection, were sophisticated enough to discern for themselves what belongs to Literature and expected to be treated as such. For that reason, Ebeling, speaking for the connoisseurs, finds that Schmid’s Anthologie was not an appropriate kind of collection for paratextual explication. In his review, Ebeling writes that the notes were an affront to the taste of the reader. The vitriolic tone of Ebeling’s review demonstrates how presumptuous he finds Schmid’s commentary: Eine Sonderbarkeit müssen wir nicht unbemerkt lassen. Hr. S. hat fast bey jedem Stücke in einer kleinen Vorrede seine Leser angewiesen, auf welche Weise sie dasselbe schön finden sollen. Wir finden es ziemlich unhöflich, sich so über seine Leser wegzusetzen; zumal, wenn man seinen Urtheilen nicht mehr Wahrheit und Genauigkeit zu geben weis.233 After the intense criticism of the supplementary texts, Schmid attempted to appease the critics by restricting his comments to the preface itself. In the third volume, Schmid left out the “Vorerinnerungen” or individual prefaces to the poems and points it out rather heatedly: Was meine ehemaligen summarischen Urtheile anbetrift, so kann ich es ohne Stolz behaupten, daß sie wenigstens eben so viel Wahrheit und Genauigkeit gehabt, als die Aussprüche derer, die die Nase darob gerümpft. Allein der wahre Grund ihrer Unzufriedenheit mochte wohl der seyn, daß ich ihren einigen Urtheilen vorgriff.234 231 232 233 234 AdD 3: v. Trans.: “If a few poems in this poem are worth to be read by you and recommended to the lucky youths who enjoy your instruction, I will be excused for the freedom I take in gracing this volume with your name, as the earlier one was resplendent with your contributions.” Every volume of the Anthologie (1770-1772) begins with a preface in the form of a letter, which was the usual form at the time. The first is addressed to the poet and researcher Friedrich Karl Kasimir Freiherr von Creutz (1724-1770), the second to Johann Kaspar Lavater (1741-1800). AdD 1: x-xi. Trans.: “for most pieces, I [have] justified my choice with a preface, and it is even more desirable to me, when the pieces justify themselves.” ADB 14.2 (1771): 554. Trans.: “There is one singularity that we cannot let pass without remark. For almost every poem, Mr. S. has directed his readers in a little preface in what way they should find it beautiful. We find it quite impolite to put oneself so far above ones readers; particularly if one does not know how to give his judgments more truth and accuracy.” AdD 3: viii. Trans.: “As for my former summary judgments, I can say without pride, that they contained at least as much truth and precision as the statements of those, who turned up their noses at them. But the true cause of their dissatisfaction may well be that I preempted their own judgments.” 58 More combative than usual in tone, Schmid, explains that he had included them for the practical comfort of the reader, so that one would not always have to page forward to the introduction. Furthermore, he describes the “Kunstrichter” or critics as snobs, who wrinkle their noses at the information he shares with them. Furthermore, he asks that the critics provide some constructive criticism: Ueberhaupt werde ich jederzeit zu denen Erinnerungen lachen, die nur geschehen, um mich in den Stand der Vertheidigung zu setzen; zu denen Behauptungen, die meistens ohne Beweis geschehen, daß dieses oder jenes Stück hätte herausbleiben sollen. Ich kann es doch nicht wieder zurücknehmen. Man sage mir dafür, welche noch hätten hineinkommen sollen!235 Despite his efforts, Ebeling’s criticism of his literary judgment in general did not improve: Seine unmaßgeblichen Urtheile über die gesammleten Stücke hat er nun in die Dedikation an Hrn. Mastalier gebracht. Er muß glauben, daß sie da eine schicklichere Stelle haben; wenigstens hält er seine kritische Brille nun nicht mehr den Lesern gerade vor die Augen.236 As this case study shows, an examination of contemporary conversations such as took place in the reviews and the introductions to the various volumes can make it possible to calibrate our understanding of contemporary expectations of publication forms. Schmid makes claims to originality in the preface to the first volume, suggesting that he is concerned that he will be accused of imitating the plan of another: Zuletzt muß ich noch um derer willen, die vielleicht die Entstehung dieses Werks einer Nachahmungssucht zuschreiben könnten, erinnern, daß ich auf diesen Gedanken zuerst durch die verschiednen Poesien gebracht worden, die ich ehedem von Zeit zu Zeit in die Theorie der Poesie einrückte, und die bey der jetzigen Umarbeitung derselben herausgelassen werden.237 It was Bareikis’ thesis that Schmid was defending himself against accusations that he had committed structural plagiarism of Karl Wilhelm Ramler’s Lieder der Deutschen (1766).238 The Lieder was a gigantic success and were also constantly discussed in the literary journals. Schmid mentions the Lieder himself parenthetically in the second volume of Anthologie.239 Interestingly enough, this accusation does not come up in the reviews of the ADB and the GAGS; given the freedom with which the anonymous reviewers attacked Schmid, the absence of this accusation suggests that the reviewers did not think this was a problem. Instead, Ebeling associates Zachariä’s Auserlesene Stücke with the illegitimacy of Schmid’s undertaking, attacking Schmid, because he “[sich] Chrestomathie erlaubt [hat]” and reprinted a few poems by Canitz that Schmid considered Canitz’s best: AdD 3: viii. Trans.: “I will always laugh at the notes that are only made to put me on the defensive; to the pronouncements that are made without proof, that this or that piece should not have been included. After all, I cannot take it back. Tell me rather what should have been included!” 236 ADB 20.2 (1773): 590. Trans.: “He has now moved his insubstantial judgments of the collected pieces to the dedication to Mr. Mastalier. He must believe that they are more decorously positioned there; at least he no longer holds his critical glass as directly before the readers’ eyes.” Regretfully, we do not have a reply from Schmid to Ebeling’s remarks. 237 AdD 1: xii. Trans.: “Lastly, I must remind [the reader] for the sake of those, who might possibly ascribe the genesis of this work to an addiction to imitation, that I first had the idea because of the different poems that I slipped into the Theorie der Poesie from time to time, and that were left out in the current reworking of that project.” 238 See Barkeis 109. 239 AdD 2: vii: “Herr Ebert hält dafür, daß von seinen Liedern nur diejenigen die Unsterblichkeit verdienen, welche Herr Ramler unter die Lieder der Deutschen aufgenommen hat.” Trans.: “Mr. Ebert believes that only those poems deserve to become immortal, which Mr. Ramler included in his Lieder der Deutschen.” 235 59 Und wenn dis etwa seine besten Stücke sind, so gehörten sie doch nicht hieher, sondern in eine deutsche Chrestomathie, dergleichen bekanntlich schon Herr Zachariä besorgt, welcher Canitzen wohl nicht vergessen wird.240 Ebeling’s criticism might appear immaterial to the modern reader, considering that the poet Canitz had been dead for years – why should Zachariä be the only one allowed to reprint his poems? According to the law then, as now, anyone could have an edition of Canitz made. In addition, Zachariä had published only the first volume of his series – since the 1766 volume of the selected works of Opitz, not a single volume had appeared. Ebeling’s criticism of Schmid reveals Ebeling’s expectation that literati should and would follow rules beyond what the law required, and second, that Ebeling considers Schmid to be a threat to established order. Another central topic of the reviews are Schmid’s efforts to collect poems and the quality of the resulting selection. The gathering and preservation of almost forgotten texts earned Schmid the critics’ praise. Klotz, who generally applauded the Anthologie wrote: Dieser erste Theil hat ungemein viel Mannigfaltigkeit, sowohl in Ansehung der Verfasser, als der Gattungen der Gedichte. Herrn Schmids Auswahl, welche bey solchen Sammlungen das grösste Verdienst ist, kann ich nicht anders als loben.241 Although Klotz praised not only Schmid’s efforts to bring the works together, but also his final selection for its diversity and rarity, other reviewers found the selection less fortunate, although they also praise Schmid’s industry in ferreting out material. The other reviewers also consider the collecting of ‘lost’ poems worthwhile; in the review of the third volume, Kästner wrote: 242 Vieles davon ist noch nicht gedruckt gewesen, Manches nur einzeln, und da viel Stücke Beyfall verdienen, so hat man Hr. Schm. für die Mühe dieselben zu sammeln, für die Mühe, die er selbst klein nennt, doch zu danken. Nevertheless, many critics are not satisfied with the result of his collecting. Although Kästner looked upon the selection of the third volume favorably, he describes the selection of the first volume in the following way: es sind welche von unsern besten Dichtern darunter, und man hat Hr. S. Dank zu sagen, daß er einige von ihren Arbeiten bekannter macht, als sie sonst waren, andere aus Journalen u. dergl. wo sie sich verlieren konnten, nicht ohne Mühe herausgesucht hat.243 For the critics, the basic problem of Schmid’s Anthologie is one of justification. Why collect and publish second and third-class poems? Essentially, the GAGS and the ADB attack Schmid’s all-encompassing Sammelfreudigkeit as uncritical, but among Schmid’s detractors there are different standards. Kästner Ebeling in ADB 14.2 (1771): 553. Trans.: “And if these are his best pieces, then they certainly do not belong here, but rather in a German chrestomathy, which, as everyone knows, Mr. Zachariä is already attending to, [and] who is unlikely to forget Canitz.” 241 Klotz 1770, 618. Trans.: “This first volume has an uncommon amount of diversity, both concerning the status of the authors and in the types of poems. I have only praise for [literally, I can do nothing but praise] Mr. Schmid’s selection, selection being the greatest accomplishment in such collections.” Identification by Munetic (202) cited in the Index deutschsprachiger Zeitschriften des 18. Jahrhunderts. 242 Kästner in GAGS 1772: ccclxviii. Trans.: “Many of them had not yet been in print, some only singly, and since many pieces deserve praise, one must thank Mr. Schmid for his effort collecting them, for the effort, which he himself calls small.” 243 Kästner in GAGS 1769.2: 1392. Trans.: “There are some of our best poets in it, and one has Mr. S. to thank, that he makes some of their works better known than they were otherwise, that he selected others (not without much effort) from journals and other such publications, where they could have been lost.” 240 60 treats Schmid and his project more generously than does Ebeling and Eschenburg. In Kästner’s opinion, the low quality is due at least in part to the quality of available to be collected by Schmid: Man ist Hr. S. allerdings für die Bemühung Dank schuldig, so vieles zum Vergnügen der Deutschen zu sammeln, daß nicht alle Bluhmen, die er lesen konnte, gleich vortrefflich waren, muß man übersehen.244 While Ebeling also praises the concept of the Anthologie, he leaves no doubt whose fault it is that the Anthologie is not entirely successful:245 Es wäre immer ein guter Gedanke, die lesenswürdigen Gedichte, solcher Dichter zu sammlen, welche entweder nur [...] einige einzelne geschrieben haben, welche sie selbst nicht zusammen herausgeben können und wollen, oder solcher, in deren Werken unter vielen mittelmäßigen nur hie und da sich etwas gutes befindet; und dies scheint die Absicht des Sammlers dieser Anthologie gewesen zu seyn. Nur ist er dabey, wie man augenscheinlich sieht, sehr eilfertig und nachläßig zu Werke gegangen, und mag sich auch keinen festen Plan gemacht haben.246 Ebeling and Kästner appear unable to decide what role quality should play in their evaluation of Schmid’s work. On the one hand, they accept his premise that a legitimate function of a poetry collection such as the Anthologie could be that of the Fundgrube or simple poetic repository. On the other hand, they nevertheless lament the low quality of its contents. Schmid’s results do not fully satisfy them, despite their theoretical acceptance of his premise. In his review of the third volume Ebeling complains: “In diesem Bande stehen viel bisher ungedruckte Gedichte, aber auch verschiedene, die des Druckes wenig werth waren.”247 He follows up this criticism with a kind of negation in the next sentence: “Doch lauter meisterhafte Stücke soll man von einem Anthologen nicht verlangen.” 248 Ebeling, for his part, seems to assimilate the concept of the anthology, as Schmid and Klotz understand it, into his argumentation, but does not appraise it positively. Instead, he treats Schmid’s assertion of a conceptual framework for the project as an excuse: Einige andere Gedichte, die hie und da versteckt waren, sind mit Rechte aufgenommen worden. Unter den Epigrammen sind viele gute, und minder bekannte, aber auch eben so viel schlechte. Wer nicht einmal Epigramme beurtheilen kann, solte doch allem anthologisiren billig entsagen.249 Ebeling does not find it adequate that the collected poems are unknown to the public; he demands a collection organized by quality. According to Ebeling, an editor should choose poems according to some Kästner in GAGS 1771: xiv-xv. Trans.: “One owes thanks indeed to Mr. S. for his efforts collecting so much for the pleasure of Germans; one must ignore that not all flowers that he could harvest [literally, select], were equally excellent.” 245 ADB 16.1 (1772): 269. In his review of the second volume, Eschenburg does not bother to disagree with Ebeling’s opinion: “Ein allgemeines Urtheil über die ganze Idee und Einrichtung dieser collection ist schon bey Gelegenheit der ersten Theils in dieser Bibiothek gefällt worden; wir wollen also sogleich dasjenige anzeigen, was dieser zweyte Theil enthält.” 246 ADB 14.2 (1771): 552. Trans.: “It is a good idea to collect the readable poems of such poets, who either wrote only a few individual poems, which they could and did not want to gather and publish themselves, or of such [poets], in whose works one finds something good only here and there among many mediocre things; and this seems to be the intention of the collector of this Anthologie. It is just, that as one sees apparently, he went to work hastily and negligently, and may not have made himself any concrete plan.” 247 ADB 20.2 (1773): 589. Trans.: “In this volume, there are many poems that have not been published until now, but also many that were not worth printing.” 248 ADB 20.2 (1773): 589. Trans.: “But one should not demand all masterly pieces from an anthologist.” 249 ADB 14.2 (1771): 554. Trans.: “Some other poems, that were hidden here and there, were rightly included. Among the epigrams there are many good and less well-known ones, but equally many bad ones. If one cannot even judge epigrams, one should not bother with any anthologizing.” 244 61 principle of selection or, as Schmid calls it himself, ‘Chrestomathie.’ Ebeling finds Schmid’s Anthologie unsatisfactory in this point and emphasizes that if one is not able to select among his collection, one is not in a position to collect at all. Each critic emphasizes that Schmid earns thanks for his “Mühe” or effort and reviewers had good reason to commend Schmid’s industry sincerely. Many of Schmid's selections come from searching through what Pforte calls the “Massengrab” of past issues of literary journals (Pforte xxxix). During this period, anyone with any connection to the literary world was well aware that collecting poetry was constrained by the difficulty of identifying, accessing and sorting through the books, magazines and handbills in which these texts were available, that is, by the sheer increase in publication outlets and the limited technology of the era to identify, sort and access the texts within these new publications. The technological barriers to such searches are only now being lifted by twenty-first-century electronic media that allow one to search huge bodies of material by metadata and keywords. The reviewers are essentially ready to accept as valid the idea of poetry collecting according to Schmid’s method. Nonetheless, the critics are unsure how such an anthology should look; their comments reveal a general dissatisfaction with the resulting collection and the sense that Schmid’s guidelines cannot be followed without the quality suffering. For example, both Kästner and Ebeling were appalled to find an occasional poem on the death of a dog in the collection: Eine davon, Dreyers, ums Geld gemachtes Leichencarmen auf einen Hund, ist, wie sonst ein wahres ernstliches, ums Geld gemachte Leichencarmen, eine gemeine Bluhme weder durch Gestalt, noch durch Zeichnung merkwürdig, aber doch, sich zu unterscheiden, stinkt diese. Ohne Zweifel fänden sich mehr gefallende und weniger beleidigende, in Dreyers Distelgebüschen.250 Ebeling completely rejects Schmid’s entire concept in a most blunt way: [Schmid] ist alles wichtig, was einige Blätter anfüllt. Verschiedene hier befindliche gute Gedichte, stehn schon in unsers Sammlers Theorie der Poesie; er sammlet sie hier zum zweytenmal, und wir vermuthen, daß er sie in einem von ihm zu erbittenden Corpore poetarum germanorum noch einmal sammeln wird. […] Wir können Herrn S. mit nichts entschuldigen, daß er diesem zuvorkömmt, als mit seiner Sucht, alles de papyro in chartam zusammen zu schreiben, und drucken zu lassen.251 Ebeling speculates that Schmid does not follow the unspoken rules of engagement, because he is only interested in printing as much as possible, even if the poems in question are neither good nor new. Kästner attributes the indiscriminateness to Schmid’s sloppiness and bemoans his negligence in reviews of the first two volumes, which he demonstrated by pointing out examples of various factual errors, for example a poem by Gellert. Kästner disputed the authorship of a poem, writing in disbelief: Gellert hat sich, so viel bekannt ist, nie in den Umständen befunden, in denen sich der Verfasser muß befunden haben, und nach seinem Character würde es ohne Zweifel für ihn ein so ernsthaftes Geschäfft seyn, zu versichern, daß er das nicht gemacht hat, so gleichgültig es dem wahren Verfasser seyn wird, ob man ihm diesen Einfall zuschreiben will oder nicht.252 250 251 252 Kästner in GAGS 1771: xv. Trans.: “One of them, Dreyer’s poem written for money on the death of a dog is, like any other true, earnest funerial elegy written for money, a common flower remarkable neither in design nor in its particulars, but still, to distinguish itself, this one stinks. Without a doubt there must be more pleasing and less offensive [poems] in Dreyer’s thistle bushes.” ADB 14.2 (1771): 553. Trans.: “Everything is important to [Schmid] that fills a few pages. Various good poems in it are already in our collectors Theorie der Poesie; he collects them for the second time and we surmise that he will collect them again in a Corpore poetarum germanorum to be asked of him. […] We have nothing to excuse Mr. S. for anticipating this except his adddiction to write up everything of paper on paper and have it printed.” Kästner in GAGS 1771: xv. Trans.: “As far as is known, Gellert never found himself in the circumstances in which the author must have found himself, and when one considers his character, it indubitably would be important to him [literally, 62 Rather humorously, Kästner, also finds himself in the position of correcting errors about his own poetry: Daß die Elegie […] am Tage seiner [Kästners] Abreise aus Leipzig geschrieben worden, ist wohl nicht glaublich. An einem solchen Tag hat man gewöhnlich mehr zu thun, als Elegien zu machen.253 Although Ebeling and Kästner suggest different reasons for the defectiveness of Schmid’s selection, they agree that the quality is too poor to be a useful contribution to the study and enjoyment of German literature. It seems that the anthology as conceived by Schmid did not satisfy the contemporary needs of the literati. Intellectual Property and the Anthologie der Deutschen Questions about the ethics of Schmid’s selection criteria are even more diverse than the aesthetic criticism of the Anthologie. In addition to the confusion about the purpose of the collection and a negative appraisal of the poems contained within it, Schmid and his Anthologie were embroiled in a conflict concerning authors’ rights, testing the bounds of social convention, although not the law, by reprinting in whole two of Lessing’s early plays. During the eighteenth century, the German publishing trade operated under the antiquated privilege system, which did not effectively limited reprinting, as the trade crossed the boundaries of the many small states that made up the German linguistic and literary ‘nation;’ combined with many new readers, this resulted in the effective freedom to republish without permission or compensation the works of essentially any author. Nonetheless, the appearance of Damon, oder wahre Freundschaft, ein Lustspiel (1747) and Die alte Jungfer (1749) in the first volume of the Anthologie aroused the ire of Schmid’s contemporaries, especially Lessing’s many friends, influencing the initial reception of the Anthologie and the organization of the later volumes.254 Unlike England, which had quite strong copyright protections during the eighteenth century, the many German states had no uniting interest in establishing copyright protections (Korte 24-25). Between 1765 and 1795, the period examined in this dissertation, the concept of literary property was discussed constantly, resulting in the genesis of the concept of the Urheber and various suggestions were made to improve the position of authors (Bülow 5-6). However, the first modern German law protecting copyright was not made until 1837, with the passage of the Prussian “Gesetz zum Schutze des Eigentums an Werken der Wissenschaft und Kunst gegen Nachdruck und Nachbildung” or “Law for the Protection of Property in Works of Scholarship and the Arts against Reprinting and Reproduction” (see Kanzog, Bently). What made this law important was that the author was the protected party, rather than the publisher, as had been the case throughout the eighteenth century; additionally, “the protected subject matter consisted of abstract works, rather than specific physical goods” (Bently). In the era coved by this dissertation, texts were still protected solely by privilege, which was granted by a governing authority to publishers rather than a very serious business] for him to assure [the world], that he did not write it, no matter how indifferent the actual author would be, whether one ascribes it to him or not.” Schmid responded to this as well. In this case, Schmid stood by his claim: “Das Sinngedicht im ersten Theil […] rüht von dem seeligen Gellert her, von dem ich auch das auf Richardson und noch ein andres würde mitgetheilt haben, wenn jetzt nicht zu seiner Nachlassenschaft ohnedies so viel begierige Hände da wären” (AdD 2: xiii). Trans.: “The epigram in the first volume […] is by the blessed Gellert, from whom I also have that on Richardson and another, which I would have shared, if there were not so many hands eager for his estate now.” 253 Kästner in GAGS 2 (1769): 1392. Trans.: “That the elegy […] was written on the day of his [Kästner’s] departure from Leipzig is not credible. On such a day, one usually has more [important things] to do than write elegies” Schmid corrected his assertion in the second volume of the Anthologie: “Herrn Kästners Elegie ist nicht am Tage seiner Abreise aus Leipzig, und nicht 1756, sondern 1755 zu Göttingen geschrieben” (AdD 2: xiii). Trans.: “Mr. Kästner’s elegy was not written on the day of his departure from Leipzig and not in 1756, but rather in Göttingen in 1755.” 254 See pages 101-146 and 147-212 respectively in the Anthologie der Deutschen [1]. 63 authors and which were concerned with the printed product rather than the Lockean idea of intellectual property, which would eventually prevail (Kanzog 734). The reaction to the reprinting of Lessing’s early comedies was swift and incredulous. Heinrich Christian Boie (1744-1806) wrote the following comments on the Anthologie in a letter shortly after the appearance of the first volume of the Anthologie at the Leipzig book fair: Schmidts Anthologie haben Sie schon gesehen. Es ist ein Gemisch von Guten und Bösen, um Wielands Nadine gäbe ich die ganze Anthologie. Der Einfall, den ich am wenigsten verzeihe, ist der unverantwortliche Abdruck zweyer Leßingischen Jugendstücke. In dem ersten merkt man kaum den künftigen Leßing, und das andre ist doch seiner jetzt nicht mehr würdig.255 Four months later Lindner, who had supplied Ramler with the paratexts for the Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte der Deutschen just a few years previously, wrote Scheffner: “Schmidts Anthol. ist so schlecht als die mehresten solcher Blumenlesen. Denken Sie nur, Lessings alte Jgfr. Ist das nicht ein Pasqvill?”256 Literary figures did not restrict their ire to private letters – the reviewers mention the scandal, too. For example, in his review for Nicolai’s ADB, Ebeling emphasized that Schmid had included Lessing’s plays in the first volume of the Anthologie without the author’s consent: Lessings zwey Lustspiele stehn gewiß nicht mit des Verf[asser]-Erlaubniß in dieser Sammlung. Man könne nicht sagen, meynt Hr. S., daß der V[erfasser]. die alte Jungfer verworfen habe. Wir dächten allerdings; denn er hat sie nicht in die Sammlung seiner Lustspiele aufgenommen. Oder wenn diese Sammlung noch nicht vollständig ist: weis Herr S. denn, was Hr. Lessing noch mit diesen Stücken vor hat; ob er sie der Umarbeitung werth findet, oder sie ganz der Vergessenheit überlassen will? Wahrlich wir wissen nicht, wie wir ein so unwürdiges Betragen nennen sollen.257 Ebeling argues that only Lessing has a right to decide which of his texts be published and that Schmid had no way of knowing what plans Lessing had for his texts. Lessing’s fame was considerable and Schmid’s decision to reprint these two works, which amounted to about one hundred pages of text or slightly more than a quarter of the length of the first volume of the Anthologie, was interpreted as an opportunistic attempt to profit from Lessing’s celebrity. Allies, like Ebeling, published reviews pointing out the 'theft' of the opportunity to decide whether or how to reprint his own works. At the same time, the plays had never been reprinted and were completely unknown to many. Thus, reprinting them fit with the concept of the miscellany as a way to preserve works in danger of disappearing. Schmid’s lone friend in the debate was Klotz, who was mentioned in the first case study and who will play an important role in this one. In his review of the first volume of the Anthologie, Klotz 255 256 257 25 Nov. 1769. Boie’s letter was addressed Rudolf Erich Raspe, author of the Baron von Münchhausen tall tales. Trans.: “You have already seen Schmid’s Anthologie. It’s a mix of good and bad and I would give up the whole anthology in exchange for Wieland’s Nadine. The idea that I forgive the least is the irresponsible reprinting of two of Lessing’s youthful plays. In the first, one hardly recognizes the future Lessing and the other is certainly not worthy of him anymore” (W. Albrecht 184, Nr. 569). Schmid and Boie had met in person a few years earlier (1766 or 1767), when Schmid accompanied his father to Jena for an operation (see Schmid’s autobiography in Strieber 65). 3 Mar. 1770. Trans.: “Schmid’s Anthol.[ogie der Deutschen] is as bad as the most such poetry collections. Just imagine, Lessing’s Old Virgin. Isn’t that a joke?” (W. Albrecht 1 190, Nr. 586). ADB 14.2 (1771): 553. Trans.: “Lessing’s two comedies were certainly not included in this collection with the author’s permission. One cannot not say whether or not Mr. S. thinks that the author had discarded the Old Virgin. We think he certainly did, otherwise he [Lessing] would not have included it in his collected comedies. Or if the collection is not yet complete: does Mr. S. then know what plans Mr. Lessing has for these plays; whether he thinks they are worthy of revision or if he would like to allow them to be forgotten? In truth, we do not know what we should call such dishonorable conduct.” 64 wholeheartedly supported Schmid’s reprinting of Lessing’s plays. Klotz had tried to become closer to Lessing by flattering his Laokoon (1766) in his journal, Acta litteraria but, when Lessing did not prove responsive to Klotz’s overtures, Klotz turned on him, attacking the philology in the Laokoon as unsound.258 Klotz’s attack gave occasion to Lessing’s “Wie die Alten den Tod gebildet,” in which Lessing says the following of Klotz: “Immer glaubt Herr Klotz, mir auf den Fersen zu sein. Aber immer, wenn ich mich, auf sein Zurufen, nach ihm umwende, sehe ich ihn, ganz seitab, in einer Staubwolke, auf einem Wege einherziehen, den ich nie betreten habe.” 259 Although Klotz had extraliterary motivations for defending Schmid and encouraging the reprinting of Lessing’s work, he also made an interesting argument. In his review of Schmid’s anthology, he wrote that it is nothing out of the ordinary to reissue other authors’ texts and that reprinting is acceptable as the public had a right to material that had entered the public domain. His argument is that if something had already become part of the public sphere by being printed, others had the right to make it available again by reissuing it, regardless of authorial consent. Klotz’s argument may sound familiar to Lessing scholars, as Lessing had made a similar defense of Ramler in the Briefe, die neueste Literatur betreffend when Ramler had been called out for his unauthorized reworking and reprinting of Lichtwer’s fables in 1761 (mentioned in the first case study):260 Es ist noch nicht ausgemacht, daß sich das Eigenthumsrecht über die Werke des Genies so weit erstreckt. Wer seine Schriften öffentlich herausgiebt, macht sie durch diese Handlung publici juris, und so denn stehet es einem jeden frey, dieselbe nach seiner Einsicht zum Gebrauch des Publicums bequemer einzurichten.261 It is commonly known that Lessing’s own sense of what should be acceptable in terms of reprinting and authorial control changed over time. The discussion of Lichtwer’s fables took place a few years before the most intense period of reprinting began in 1764. In the period, 1760 to 1761, Philipp Erasmus Reich of the publishing house Weidmanns Erben und Reich, who had become the most powerful publisher in Leipzig, forced a break between the already tenuously connected Northern and Southern publishers by moving from Saxon currency to the more valuable Reichstaler in his business and convincing other publishers with whom he did business to do the same. In effect, this ended the ability of South German publisher-booksellers to participate in trade with North German publishers, as the change resulted in a nearly fifty percent inflation of the prices; in addition, they had relied on the older trade practice of Tauschhandel or bartering with books rather than paying cash for them, which was no longer possible (Bülow 12-14). When Reich (1717-1787) then ultimately broke off trade with the Southern publishers by ceasing to visit the South German book fair in Frankfurt am Main 1764, he ushered in a period of “systematic” and systematically protected literary piracy of North German Originalverleger by South German publisher-booksellers (ibid). An additional complicating factor in the debate around authorial rights and Ramler’s decision to anonymously publish an “auserlesene verbesserte” or selected and improved edition of Lichtwer’s fables was not a simple case of piracy, but rather an attack on Lichtwer as a writer as well as a potentially profitable endeavor. 262 Nonetheless, Lessing’s arguments for Otto describes the situation in his commentary on “Wie die Alten den Tod gebildet” (1167-1168). Lessing 173. Trans.: Mr. Klotz always believes he is hot on my trail. But whenever I hear shouting and turn around, I see him, completely off to the side in a cloud of dust going off on a path that I have never taken.” 260 Lichtwer, Magnus Gottfried (1719-1788). Vier Bücher Äsopischer Fabeln in gebundener Schreib-Art (originally published anonymously in 1748, but also 1758, 1762, and 1775 under his name. See Jäger). 261 Letter 232, 267-280. Here, 271. Trans.: “It is not yet agreed that the right of ownership extends so far over the work of the individual [literally, genius]. If one makes his writings public, he opens them to public judgment, and so it is the right of any person to make these more comfortable for the public use according as he sees fit.” 262 The title of Ramler’s edition was in fact M. G. Lichtwer’s auserlesene verbesserte Fabeln und Erzahlungen in zwei 258 259 65 unimpeded access to information to facilitate literary discussion could easily be turned on himself. As he writes, dem Autor [wird] durch diese Handlung nichts von seinem Rechte benommen […], indem das erste Geschenk, das er dem Publico gemacht hat, deswegen nicht vernichtet wird […]. Mit dem Eigenthum der Güter dieser Welt hat es eine ganz andere Beschaffenheit. Diese nehmen nicht mehr als eine einzige Form an […]. Hingegen bleibet die erste Ausgabe einer Schrift unverändert […].263 In his review of Schmid’s Anthologie, Klotz also argues that an obligation to the public trumps the writer’s second thoughts about a particular piece: Schon viele grosse Dichter sind unwillig worden, wenn man ihre ersten jugendlichen Versuche, die sie gern ganz unterdrücken möchten, aufs neue bekannt gemacht hat. So rühmlich es ihnen aber ist, wenn sie selbst die Schwäche dieser ersten Versuche einsehn; so wenig sollten sie zürnen, wenn sie wider ihren Willen gedruckt werden. Es geschieht nicht zu ihrer Beschämung, sondern die Neugierde des Publikums zu befriedigen. Und warum sollten wir uns so ungern an unsre Kinderschuhe erinnern lassen? Schande wäre es, wenn wir noch Kinder wären, aber keine, daß wir es gewesen sind. Besonders sind solche Lehrlingsstücke für den Biographen von Wichtigkeit.264 A duty to literary history played a role in Klotz’s argumentation – as he writes, in order to understand a given author, one has to be able to observe every step along his path, which reprinting makes possible. Fundamentally, Lessing’s allies see the individual as worthy of protection and defend the autonomy of the author, while Klotz and (and the younger Lessing) takes the side of the readership and free access to information. Weaknesses of Klotz and Lessing’s argumentation are that neither addresses the questions of profit and compensation. Furthermore, in the case of simple reprinting rather than reworkings, Klotz does not address whether or not one must make contact with the author before printing his works in order to ensure that he had not planned to reprinting his own work in the foreseeable future. Lessing learned quickly of the reissue of his work by Schmid, as his good friend, Nicolai, who attended almost every Easter and Michaelmas (late September) book fair in Leipzig in order to manage his publishing business and secure books to be reviewed in the ADB, had already informed Lessing of the reprinting in October:265 Haben Sie Schmids Anthologie gesehen? Ist denn das Lustspiel, das er aus den Ermunterungen genommen haben will, wirklich von Ihnen? Es ist doch höchst unerlaubt, daß der Mensch Sachen, wie sie ihm in die Hände fallen, wider Willen der Verfasser drucken lässet.266 Büchern and was published, also anonymously, by the lesser known publisher Weitbrecht in Greifswald in 1761. See Kertscher 111-112 for more information on Ramler’s “improved” edition. 263 Trans.: “none of the author’s rights are taken form him by this action […], in that the first gift that he gave the publc is not destroyed by it […]. The ownership of material goods has a completely different quality. These can only assume one form […]. Conversely, the first edition of a text remains unchanged” (271-272). 264 Klotz in DBSW 16. St (1770): 618. Trans.: “Many great poets have disliked it when people have made familiar again their first youthful attempts, which they would gladly like to suppress entirely. As laudable as it is that they themselves appreciate the weaknesses of these first attempts, they should not be cross when they are reprinted against their will. It is not done to shame them, but to satisfy the curiosity of the public. And why should we so dislike being reminded of our first steps [literally, children’s shoes]? It would be a disgrace if we still were children, but it is none that we once were. Especially for the biographer such apprentice-pieces are of importance.” 265 Selwyn 107-109. See Selwyn 107-120 for an overview of the Leipzig fair during the period and Nicolai dealings there. 266 24 Oct. 1769. Trans.: “Have you seen Schmid’s Anthology? Is the comedy he says he took from [the journal] the Ermunterungen really yours? But it is absolutely impermissable for a person publish things that fall into his hands against the author’s will” (LB 631-632, Nr. 511). 66 Lessing was quite upset to find himself reprinted and his frustration was only increased by the fact that he was no longer proud of these early verse plays. Nonetheless, Lessing also could no longer have been surprised, as the same thing had happened to him numerous times and he had not been able to secure any compensation in the other cases. The most egregious case in the years before the publication of the Anthologie had been Engelhard Benjamin Schwickert’s rapid reprinting of every issue of the Hamburgische Dramaturgie (1767-68) under the false imprint, “Dodsley und Compagnie.” Schwickert (1741-1825) was an infamous, young Leipzig publisher, who caused many scandals not only for literary theft, but also for impersonating the prominent English publisher (and anthologist!) Robert Dodsley (1733-1764) to secure texts of famous authors.267 Schwickert was the most bold, defiant, and aggressive Northern reprinter. He initially using his position of trust as an employee in the Dyckische Buchhandlung, which belonged to the family of Schmid’s good friend, to gain access to literary texts and to publish them through his fictional publishing house, Dodsley und Compagnie, the name of which was intended to suggest a German branch of the famous London publishing house founded by Dodsley. Lessing repeatedly asked his colleagues for legal advice, particularly his good friend Nicolai, but he could not stop Schwickert’s near instantaneous reprinting of his works, which led Lessing to give up on the Dramaturgie in spring of 1768. As Nicolai wrote him, despite his disgust, he also could not recommend any legal recourse to Lessing, as he also had been unable to do in the earlier instances. In the final installment of the Hamburgische Dramaturgie, Lessing expressed his opinion of reprinters such as “Dodsley und Compagnie” or Schwickert: Aber keiner […] muß mir es auch verübeln, daß ich meine Verachtung und meinen Haß gegen Leute bezeige, in deren Vergleich alle Buschklepper und Weglaurer wahrlich nicht die schlimmern Menschen sind. Denn jeder von ihnen macht seinen coup de main für sich: Dodsley und Compagnie aber wollen Bandenweise rauben.268 Although Lessing might have agreed with the theory behind Klotz’s review ten years previously, his increasing popularity, personal financial situation (dire enough to require the sale of his personal library in 1769-1770), and Schwickert’s insistent reprinting of his work from 1767 on had changed his perspective on reprinting by the time Schmid reprinted his comedies. 269 On January 5, 1770, Lessing again wrote of his frustration about the republication of the plays in the Anthologie, this time in a letter to Christian Friedrich Voß, also a publisher of Lessing’s work and editor of the Berliner Priviligierten Zeitung, in which Lessing also published: doch möchte ich nun auch gern endlich einmal den übrigen Rest meiner Schriften wieder in das Publicum bringen; ich laufe sonst Gefahr, daß man mir es mit mehrern so macht, wie es der Schurke von Anthologisten mit der alten Jungfer und der Freundschaft gemacht hat.270 Wittmann 1976, 5. Trans.: “No one can hold it against me that I show my contempt and my hate for people, in comparison to whom bandits and highway robbers are truly not the worse people. For each of them makes his ambush separately: but Dodsley and Company want to rob as a gang” (“Hundert und erstes, zweites, drittes und viertes Stück” of Lessing’s Hamburgische Dramaturgie (19 Apr. 1768)). 269 Some such suggestions: Immanuel Kant’s “Von der Unrechtmäßigkeit des Büchernachdrucks” (1785). In or sometime after 1772, Lessing also wrote a short text entitled “Leben und leben lassen. Ein Projekt für Schriftsteller und Buchhändler” or “Live and Let Live. A Project for Authors and Publishers,” in which he defends authors’ rights. Plans were made to publish the text in Lichtenberg’s Göttingischer Magazin der Wissenschaften und Literatur in 1780, it did not make an appearance in print until 1800. See Otto’s notes to “Leben und leben lassen” (1218). 270 Trans.: “yes, I would like to finally present the rest of my writings to the public again; otherwise, I run the risk that the same thing will be done to me with more [works], as that scoundral of an anthologist did with the Old Virgin and the Friendship” (LB 658, Nr. 529). 267 268 67 Lessing hoped to avoid further reprints of his works by publishing his own edition of his collected works more quickly than others. He desired to begin this project as soon as possible, as one can learn from the next few, practically oriented lines: Schrieben Sie mir doch ungefehr [sic] Ihre Gedanken, wie Sie glauben, daß sich diese Ausgabe am besten bewerkstelligen lasse; ob einzeln nach den verschiednen Materien, oder alles auf einmal?271 In the case of the plays published by Schmid in the Anthologie, as in the case of the Hamburgische Dramaturgie, Lessing could find no legal means to redress the wrong he felt had been done him; still, not one to let a grudge stand in the way of a well-stocked library, Lessing purchased a copy of the Anthologie der Deutschen for the Herzoglichen Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel in 1772.272 The Leipziger Musenalmanach and the Anthologie der Deutschen In Aus meinem Leben: Dichtung und Wahrheit, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) recalled that during the 1770s, “Eine rasche Mittheilung war jedoch unter den Literaturfreunden schon eingeleitet; die Musenalmanache verbanden alle jungen Dichter, die Journale den Dichter mit den übrigen Schriftstellern.”273 The first Musenalmanach, the Almanach des Muses, was published in Paris in 1765. The Musenalmanach was a collection of poetry appearing annually, thus belonging to the new periodical media. As a periodical, the primary aim of which was not an “allegorically aesthetic composition,” but rather the punctual publication of the newest texts.274 The form experienced tremendous popularity in German-speaking lands right from the start, remaining particularly influential and important well into the nineteenth century.275 Just after publishing the first volume of the Anthologie, Schmid played a role, albeit an ignominious one, in the transfer of the Musenalmanach to Germany. Although Schmid was the first to publish a German Musenalmanch, it was in fact Boie, who had the idea to transfer the idea to the German market in 1769, collecting poetry from many young poets in order to complete his Göttinger Musenalmanach that same year and as the original Almanach des Muses contained older poetry, so too did Boie’s first Musenalamanach.276 To Boie’s dismay, Schmid, Michaelis, Klotz, and Schwickert stole not only the concept, but also a number of poems Boie had collected; they even managed to publish the Leipziger Musenalmanach before Boie’s (Legband vii). As Mix points out, Schmid and his associates transgressed against the literary conventions of the German literary world in a completely new way by stealing and printing the unpublished poems gathered by Boie and his associates, Kästner and Friedrich Wilhelm Gotter (Mix 227). Just a month before, Boie had written a letter expressing his disgust at the reprinting of Lessing’s comedies, but in December 1769, he had occasion to write a shocked letter on his own behalf. Here the swindled Boie described the actions that led to the publication of the Leipziger Musenalmanach before his own: Mein Musen-Almanach hat so viel Beifall gefunden, daß ein anderer von der Klotzischen Secte, die sich Straßenrauberei und Spitzbuberei in der literarischen Welt erlaubt, ihn copirt, eine große Anzahl Gedichte 5 Jan. 1770. Trans.: “Do write me your thoughts about how you believe that this edition can best be executed, whether individually according to the different materials or all at once?” (LB 658, Nr. 529). 272 From the Hofbuchhändler Meissner in Wolfenbüttel (Entry 44 in Raabe and Strutz). 273 Goethe I, 430: 7-9. Trans.: “lovers of literature had already been given a means of quick communication: the poetic almanachs united all the young poets, while the journals united the poet with other writers” (Heiner 384). 274 In the original: “sinnbildhaft aesthetische Komposition” (Wilke 41). 275 See Bunzel’s publications. In this case, Bunzel 1999, 24. 276 See Mix 1988, 227; Bunzel 1999. In his 1988 article Mix gives excellent information about Boie and the history of the Göttinger Musenalmanach. 271 68 herausgenommen hat, und eher noch damit erscheint als mein langsamer Verleger fertig wird. Ich bin den Herausgeber auf der Spur und werde öffentlich die Betrügerei mit einigen Briefen, die den Herrn wenig Ehre bringen bekannt machen.277 Only a few weeks after writing this first letter, Boie discovered the identities of the group responsible for the theft, but knew there was nothing he could do: Mein Verleger hatte ***[Klotz] durch die ersten gedruckten Bogen wieder [sic] meinen Willen ein Opfer bringen wollen; daher kommt die Plünderung des Musenalmanachs. Alles ist gewissen Leuten erlaubt, wenn sie Ruhm zu sehen glauben. [...] Alle Welt sagt daß ***[Klotz] der Verfasser ist oder vielmehr der Mitverfasser der scurrilischen Briefe ist, ob er es gleich mit den größten Betheurungen mir geleugtet [sic] und selbst mit auf den Verfasser geschimpft hat. [...] Ich schäme mich, daß ich je ihr Freund gewesen bin. Aber sich betrogen zu sehen, macht nur für künftigen Betrug sicher [...] Gestern habe ich endlich den Almanach erst bekommen. Der Kupferdrucker ist Schuld an dem Verzuge. 278 The idea for the theft may have come from Schwickert or Klotz: While from our vantage Klotz has shriveled into nonentity, at the time he was an imposing figure, churning out Horatian odes in Latin, and, in his journal reviews, holding every German author up to a fixed ancient standard in a manner that would perhaps even have given pause to Boileau. He was as vindictive as he was pompous (Zammito 160). As Zammito makes clear, Klotz was a polarizing figure on the German literary scene. Given what we know about Schmid, we can also surmise that Klotz’s established position as well as his willingness and ability to engage impressive literary figures such as Lessing in intense conflicts impressed the younger and not yet established Schmid, who would have easily been motivated to join him in such an enterprise. Whatever responsibility Klotz and Schwickert might have had in the scandal, it was Schmid’s name alone that graced the title page of the Leipziger Musenalmanach auf das Jahr 1770, when it appeared on the market in late 1769, months ahead of the Göttinger Musenalmanach. Boie was out for revenge, but, like Lessing, he had no way of getting it except by making the action public and appealing to his peers to sanction Schmid as they could. Instead of dwelling on the past, Boie had to find a way to differentiate his Musenalmanach from the Leipziger Musenalamach in the future and hit upon the idea of collecting only new poetry (Mix 228). Ironically, the thievery of Schmid and his circle that pushed Boie to innovate a new trend in periodical publication in Germany. Had Schmid and his circle not interfered with Boie’s Musenalmanach, there is a chance that the German Musenalmanach form would not have been originated and that the Göttinger Musenalmanach would have acted as an anthological or canonizing yearly publication. 277 278 28 Dec. 1769. Trans.: “My Musenalamanch has been praised so much, that another of the Klotzian sect, which allows itself highway robbery and rascalry in the literary world, copied it, took a large number of poems from it, and published it before my slow publisher. I am on the trail of the editor and will make the swindle known publicly with a few letters that will bring the gentlemen little honor” (9). 23 Jan. 1770. Trans.: “Against my will, my publisher wanted to bring ***[Klotz] an offering of the first printed pages [literally, signatures]; that is how it came to the plundering of the Musenalmanach. Everything is permissable to some people, when they believe to see glory. […] The whole world says that ***[Klotz] is the author or rather the co-author of the scurrile letters, regardless of whether he denies it to me with the greatest assurances and even railed against the authors himself. […] I am ashamed, that I was ever their friend. But seeing oneself deceived just strengthens [one] against future deceit […] Only yesterday did I finally get the [Göttinger] Almanach. The delay is the fault of the copperplate printer” (Boie 21-23). 69 News of the two scandals, the reprinting of Lessing’s early comedies and the theft of the Göttinger Musenalmanach proof sheets, spread quickly, ruining Schmid’s already weak reputation by the beginning of 1770. In a letter dated December 31, 1769, Reich described the situation to Wieland: Les Soubçons, touchant l’allmanach des Muses, n’allaint jamais juisqu’a Vous; mais on se disait, que c’etait Mr Schmid a Erfort qui en etait l’auteur, et on etait surpris qu’on permettait tant de petillence. Sans avoir de l’esprit, ces Msrs sacrifient bien des qualités plus utiles et plus respectables! 279 Reich’s letter emphasized the ethical dimension of the reaction to the Leipzig Musenalmanach; he himself shared the general opinion that Schmid and his anonymous associates had done something disgusting. Like the others, Reich mentions no official recourse against such violations, but rather 'natural’ social consequences. His words suggest that there was a generally held assumption that those who were responsible for the Leipziger Musenalmanach would lose personal capital for future projects. Five weeks later, Wieland wrote Sophie La Roche a letter, in which he describes the effect of the scandal on Schmid’s reputation with some sympathy: “Voilà aussi l’Almanach des Muses, production qui attire une grêle d’hostilités littéraires sur son pauvre auteur, le Dr. Schmid d’ici.” 280 As this shows, the responsibility for the theft was attributed primarily to Schmid, whose name would remain associated with the Leipziger Musenalmanach for many years. The opinion Reich expressed in his letter to Wieland seems to have been representative of the general attitude of the literati toward Schmid after 1769. Nearly four years later, the consequences of the scandal were still in evidence as, toward the end of 1773, Johann Friedrich Hahn of the Göttinger Hainbund, wrote Friedrich “Mahler” Müller: “Schmidts Almanach [ist] so verschrieen, daß Kenner sich nicht um ihn bekümmern, und nur diese können loben and belohnen.”281 Attempts to Sanction Schmid Although the literary world was generally of one mind concerning Schmid’s decision to reprint two entire plays of a living author without permission, at the time, there was no legal protection of an author’s rights to his work. The weapons available to a wronged author were indirect and only partially effective. Authors could neither demand compensation for the damage nor force reprinters to cease their illicit activities. An author could try, like Lessing did, to reissue one’s own texts more quickly than the reprinter or intimidate him by exposing him in print. Authors also used their friendships to punish the reprinters on a social or professional level. In this case, critical reproof was effective in some ways and ineffective in others; Schmid’s readership was restricted to uninitiated readers as the literati shunned him. The quality of later volumes suffered because of this censure, as exactly those authors whom Schmid wanted to include belonged to the circle of connoisseurs that had condemned him. Furthermore, Schmid found it difficult to climb higher in literary circles, as he was denied work by the well-known literary journals. Over the course of publishing the Anthologie, Schmid reacted to the criticism he received by alternately defending his approach and, when that failed, changing it. In the preface to the Trans.: “Suspicions, concerning the Musenalmanach, [were never directed at you]; but it is said, that it was Mr. Schmid in Erfurt, who was the author, and one was surprised that so much presumption was permitted him. Without intelligence, these gentlemen sacrifice many qualities of usefulness and respectability!” (Wieland 5:78). 280 5 Feb. 1770. Trans.: “Here we have the Musenalmanach, a production that has attracted a hailstorm of literary hostilities for its poor local author, Dr. Schmid” (Wieland Brief 79, s. 88, z. 25-26).” 281 Trans.: “Schmid’s almanac [is] so discredited that the conoisseurs do not bother with it and they are the only ones who can praise and reward” (Müller 7). 279 70 second volume of the Anthologie (1771), Schmid underscored the difficulty of finding enough material and challenges his readers to send him contributions: Dringend wiederhohle ich hier meine Bitte an alle Freunde des Geschmacks, mir besonders von verstorbnen Dichtern unbekannte kleine Stücke, fliegende Gedichte, die in Wochenschriften vergraben geblieben, und Versuche solcher Männer, die der Dichtkunst untreu geworden sind, mitzutheilen, und mich in den Stand zu setzen, einen dritten Band zu liefern. […] Insonderheit fordre ich die Herren Hermes, von Blankenburg, von Ewald, Dusch, Beyer, Löwen, Waser, Aldorfer, Eschenburg, und den ältern Herrn Fischer aus Koburg auf, mich theils mit ihren eignen, theils mit fremden Seltenheiten zu beschenken.282 Unlike the Anthologie, a Musenalmanach was a publication form in which both young and established writers could seek exposure for themselves and in which they could present their newest texts to the public. As a yearly publication, a reliable following and a certain amount of suspense were built into the publication of the Musenalmanach. As a series anthology geared toward fugitive verse, the Anthologie, on the contrary, could only offer a home to fugitive verse. Here, Schmid first asks for poems by socially acceptable groups namely, those, who have died and those, who have abandoned writing. Finally, Schmid makes specific requests to better known authors, whom he believes will be receptive to his requests. As noted in the first case study, the works of dead authors were considered open to reprinting, as the author himself could no longer make changes to the works and thus did not need control over the work. The question of remuneration certainly also paid a role, but was not considered a gentlemanly topic (Selwyn 329). Few authors lived from their writing, but reprinting reduced their ability to receive a healthy honorarium; at the same time, anthologists had a distinct profit motive, as they were themselves the recipients of the honorarium in the case that a collection they had compiled and edited reached publication (Steiner 343 ff, 257 ff). In the third volume, Schmid denies having received any payment for his work on the Anthologie, writing that his publisher can vouch for him: Da ich hier nicht meine eigne Sachen empfehle, und da ich den Verleger zum Zeugen aufrufen kann, daß mich sein Honorarium noch nicht bereichert; so glaube ich allen Verdacht abgelehnt zu haben.283 Schmid may or may not have received payment, but it does not defuse criticism that the publication was made out of profit motive. Schwickert for one, was a known Raubdrucker and thus quite interested in the profit motive. This irony is underscored by the fact that it was in fact revealed that Schwickert was the publisher on the title page of this very volume. After several years of attacks, Schmid backed down from the confrontation over reprinting, deciding, it seems, that the criticism of the reviewers and other members of the literati was not worth the benefit of notoriety or profit. In the final volume, Schmid includes almost exclusively unpublished material: Dadurch, daß ich größtentheils ungedruckte Sachen liefere, hoffe ich, diejenigen zu beschämen, welche das Publikum überreden wollen, als habe mich, ich weiß nicht, was für eine Verlegenheit oft genötigt, gedruckte Stücke von neuem drucken zu lassen.284 282 283 284 Trans.: “Desperately I repeat my request of all friends of Taste, to share with me, unknown little pieces especially by deceased poets, flying poems, which were buried in weeklies, and attempts of such men, who have become untrue to poetry, and put me in the position to deliver a third volume. […] In particular, I call upon Messrs Hermes, von Blankenburg, von Ewald, Dusch, Beyer, Löwen, Waser, Aldorfer, Eschenburg, und the elder Mr. Fischer of Coburg to share with me both their own [poems] and the rarities of others” (AdD 2: xiv-xv). Trans.: “Since I am not recommending my own things and can call the publisher as my witness, that I have not yet been enriched by his honorarium; I believe I have rejected all suspicion” (AdD 3: xii). Trans.: “By delivering mainly unprinted things, I hope to shame those who want to convince the public that I have been put in the position of printed published things, for whatever reasons, anew” (AdD 3: vi). 71 As he writes, his choice to include mostly unpublished works was influenced by the criticism he had received. Although the critics could not silence him, they did succeed in forcing him to adjust course. Schmid felt himself scorned by the reviews and consequently forced to use the preface to the second volume to defend himself and his methods. In it, he emphasized that the collected texts were freely given: Kaum hätte ich es selbst geglaubt, so geschwind wieder einen Theil dieser Anthologie liefern zu können; allein mein Muth, den keine Art von Verläumdungen schwächen kann, ward durch unerwartete Beytrage gestärkt.285 In this passage Schmid calls the criticism of the reviewers “Verleumdung” or slander. A few pages later, he again takes up the negative opinion of the reviewers: Ich würde die Ehrfurcht gegen Sie [Lavater] und meine Leser aus den Augen setzen, wenn ich mich hier mit jedem Zeitungsschreiber duellieren wollte. Und wer kann sich wohl mit dem Gewäsche jeder dieser Herren abgeben? Sie mögen lästern! Nur alle Beschuldigungen böser Absichten verbitte ich in Zukunft. Ich, der ich einen Leßing nie beleidigen kann, sollte ihn haben beleidigen wollen? Einiger Vorwürfe hätten sie sich schon um deswillen schmähen sollen, weil sie bis zum Ekel abgenutzt sind.286 Despite addressing the attacks directly, Schmid does not support these claims with concrete counter arguments and proof. Unlike Klotz, he offers no theoretical justification of his choice to reprint of Lessing’s texts. He also does not explain how it came to be that he reprinted the plays. Instead, Schmid merely writes that he did not intend to annoy Lessing and that he had no idea that the reprinting would be considered problematic. Before his scandals, Schmid had always published under his own name, but afterward he often had to remain anonymous, both as an author and as an editor. Even his friend Wieland, could only allow him to work on the Teutscher Merkur if he would agree to remain anonymous.287 In early January 1773, Wieland wrote a mutual friend from the Erfurt period, the historian Johann Georg Meusel (1743-1820), a letter in which he delineated exactly how Meusel should explain to Schmid his responsibilities as a reviewer for the Merkur: Versichern Sie ihn meinerganzen Ergebenheit und meiner Dankbarkeit für seine Geneigtheit in meinem Merkur zu arbeiten. Nur bitte ich, daß er seine Mitarbeiterschaft (wenigstens das erste Jahr durch) ein vollkommnes Geheimniß unter uns dreyen seyn lasse. Bücher von Anno 72 können noch recensirt werden. Mit Recensionen von G e d i c h t e n und S c h a u s p i e l e n werde ich unsern Freund nicht behelligen. [...] Empfehlen Sie dem Freunde Schmidt, daß er soviel möglich seine M a n i e r verbergen, und diejenigen, die er, in eigner Person, l a u g e n würden, im Merkur mit f e i n e r l e i c h t e r P l a i s a n t e r i e aberferigen soll. Ich möchte gern gründliche Critik, aber nicht schwerfällig; scharf, aber nicht zu beißend; lebhaft aber decent; kurz, r e i f e s U r t h e i l und g u t e n T o n. Herr Schmidt kann seyn was er will. Er hat ein treffliches Genie, Geschmack, Feinheit, und eine Menge Kenntnisse. 288 AdD 2: vi. Trans.: “I myself could hardly have believed I would be able to deliver another volume of this anthology; only my courage, which no kind of defamation can weaken, was strengthened through unexpected contributions.” 286 AdD 2: x. Emphasis Schmid’s. Trans.: “I would lose sight of the veneration I have for you [Lavater] and my readers, if I wanted to duel with every newspaperman. And who can mess about with the balderdash of these gentlemen? They can go ahead and gossip! Only, I refuse to tolerate all accusations of ill intentions in the future. I, who can never insult a Lessing, should have wanted to insult him? They should have refrained from using some reproaches on that account, because they are used up to the point of nausea.” 287 Discussed by L. M. Price (10). 288 8 Jan. 1773. English translation: Assure him of my devotion and my thankfulness for his willingness to work on my Merkur. I only ask, that he let his contribution (at least for the first full year) remain a complete secret among us three. Books from 1772 may still be reviewed. I will not bother our friend with reviews of poems and plays. […] Recommend to our friend Schmid that he try to hide his manner as much as possible and those, whom he in his own person would attack, 285 72 As this note shows, Wieland respected and admired many of Schmid’s personality traits, but was also absolutely sure that he could become a serious liability without adequate supervision. For that reason, most of Wieland’s instructions to Meusel concern how to contain the undesirable aspects of Schmid’s personality, particularly his tactless treatment of his subjects, who were fellow members of the literati, while encouraging his better qualities. The social punitive measures had an effect in this case; those in the right circles (the connoisseurs) knew to treat the Leipzig Musenalmanach and its editor with contempt; however, the shortcomings of this kind of punitive system are obvious – as it only works if enough consumers of literature are connoisseurs. Thus, it is absolutely possible that one who infringes on the unspoken rules of the literati, nonetheless could remain active and even be praised by those who do not belong to the world of the connoisseurs. The effect of such a social punishment remains limited, as in this case. The historian Reinhard Wittmann counts the publisher Schwickert among the few “early capitalist publishers par excellence, who through their unscrupulousness and daring satisfied the reading hunger of the emerging middle-class audience, stimulated new consumption-needs and used every means to strengthen their position.” 289 Schmid should be viewed in the same light – as we know, despite the disdain of the literary world, Schmid remained in a position to find a reading public. In the prefaces to the Anthologie volumes, Schmid speaks freely of the difference between the connoisseurs and the rest. Other anthologists such as Jördens and Eschenburg (in his review of Ramler’s Ueberschriften) did this, too, but Schmid’s mention is practical rather than rhetorical. When he distinguishes between the connoisseurs and the masses, he is writing about a differentiated market: Ueberdieß läßt ja der Verleger nicht blos für das kleine Häuflein der Kenner drucken, die das Buch gar oder oft nur aus geborgten oder geschenkten Exemplaren kennen lernen. Es giebt noch einen großen Theil Leser, denen die Vorrede die Sachen anpreisen muß, wenn sie aufmerksam werden sollen. Thäten die Recensenten ihre Pflicht, so wäre dieß freilich unnöthig.290 The reproof of connoisseurs, which could have functioned effectively as censorship in another, earlier, era had no perceptible effect on Schmid’s ability to publish. In the ten years after the Leipziger Musenalmanach scandal, he was still responsible for numerous publications. The reason for this is that there was a broad stratum of readers who were not greatly influenced by the connoisseurs, because these readers had not yet read enough to take a position. Although the Lessing and Musenalmanach scandals permanently scarred Schmid’s reputation, it nonetheless remained possible for him to continue working as its editor and to begin other projects like the Anthologie der Deutschen. Critical reproof was not totally ineffective, but functioned only on one level, restricting not the size but rather the quality of Schmid’s readership, as Hahn’s letter to “Mahler” Müller shows. 291 For another, the quality of his 289 290 291 please treat with fine, light pleasantry in the Merkur. I would like thorough criticism, but not belabored [criticism], sharp, but not too biting; lively but decent; in short, mature judgment and good manners. Mr. Schmid can be what he wants. He has an excellent originality [literally, genius], taste, subtlety, and a great deal of knowledge” (Wieland 1983, 5:45 (letter 55, l. 15ff). Wittmann 1976, 5: “frühkapitalistische Verleger par excellence, die mit Skrupellosigkeit and Wagemut den Lesehunger des entstehenden bürgerlichen Publikums befriedigten, Konsum-bedürfnisse stimulierten und alle Mittel einsetzten, um ihre Position auszubauen.” AdD 3: xii. Trans.: “Furthermore, the publisher does not publish just for the little pile of connoisseurs, who often are acquainted with the book only through borrowed or gifted copies. There is still a large portion of readers, to whom the introduction must advertise the things, if they are to become aware of them. If the reviewers would do their duty, this certainly would be unnecessary.” The format of his works is also a sign of it, such as the presence of illustrations on the title pages (see Hoffmann-Scholl 40). 73 collections also suffered because of this censure, as precisely those authors, whom Schmid wanted to anthologize belonged to exactly the circle of connoisseurs that had condemned him most harshly. Furthermore, Schmid found it difficult to climb higher in literary circles, as he was shunned by the better employers (i.e. the well-known literary journals). Before the Musenalmanach scandal, he had always been published under his own name, but afterwards he often had to remain anonymous, both as an author and as an editor.292 Examples of Schmid’s anonymous publications are Ueber die Döbbelinische Schauspielergesellschaft (O. O. [s.n.] 1769), the two-volume Ueber die Leipziger Bühne an Herrn J. F. Löwen (Dreßden: [s.n.] 1770) and Ueber einige Schönheiten der Emilia Galotti (Leipzig: [s.n.] 1773). There are also other cases in which publishers did not want to see their names attached to Schmid’s, although they were prepared to print his works. Schmid’s eight-volume Chronologie des deutschen Theaters (1775) is a good example, in which the publisher as well as the place of publication were suppressed (see L. M. Price). The first two volumes of the Anthologie der Deutschen are also among those works published without complete publication information (fig. 4). Schmid’s name and position are listed on the title page, but the publisher’s name does not appear on the title page of the first two volumes – just “Frankfurt & Leipzig” and the year of publication below the vignette (of an owl, mask, Fig. 4. The title pages of the Anthologie der Deutschen (courtesy of the SB Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz). 292 Schmid had his poetological works printed by at least five different Leipzig publishers – his Jugendfreund Johann Gottfried Dyck, the young Crusius, who had just become a press-owner, the young but already infamous Schwickert, the equally infamous Weygand and Christian Gottlieb Hertel, who generally only published technical literature and textbooks related to medicine, history and religion. 74 book and arrows). On the title page of the third and final volume of the Anthologie der Deutschen (1772), however, Schwickert is listed as the publisher (fig.4, far left). It is naturally possible that Schwickert did not print the first volumes, but it seems unlikely, given the design of the three books, timing of publication, the fact that they shared a close link – Dyk, for whose family Schwickert worked and who was close to Schmid – and, of course what is known of Schwickert’s willingness to reprint Lessing’s texts. Despite the limited effect on Schmid’s ability to publish, the literati continued to try to punish Schmid. In his review of the third volume of the Anthologie, Ebeling points out the relationship between the Anthologie and the Leipzig Musenalmanach referring specifically to Schmid’s role in each: “Es ist bekanntermaßen ein und dieselbe Person, welche die Anthologie and den Almanach der Musen herausgegeben. Diese ist keine Anekdote, sondern steht schon an mehrern Orten schwarz auf weiß.” 293 This citation comes from the last paragraph of the review, in which Ebeling dissects Schmid’s preface to the third volume of Anthologie. Ebeling embeds this revelation into this segment of his review in order to call into question the legitimacy of Schmid’s claims that he was being persecuted by reviewers. Anonymously, Schmid and his criticism met with just as little approval as if it had been published with his name. On multiple occasions, Wieland felt himself compelled to print a dissenting opinion next to Schmid’s anonymous reviews. In Dichtung und Wahrheit, Goethe describes his reaction to Schmid’s critical work on his play Götz von Berlichingen mit der eisernen Hand (1773, premiere 1774) for the Merkur: So stand z. B. im deutschen Merkur eine weitläufige wohlgemeynte Recension, verfaßt von irgend einem beschränkten Geiste. Wo er tadelte, konnte ich nicht mit ihm einstimmen, noch weniger wenn er angab, wie die Sache hätte können anders gemacht werden. Erfreulich war es mir daher, wenn ich unmittelbar hinterdrein eine heitere Erklärung Wielands antraf, der im Allgemeinen dem Recensenten widersprach und sich meiner gegen ihn annahm. Indessen war doch jenes ach gedruckt, ich sah ein Beyspiel von der dumpfen Sinnesart unterrichteter und gebildeter Männer, wie mochte es erst im großen Publicum aussehn!294 Goethe is not aware that it is the same Schmid that he had mocked the summer before (an incident which will receive further attention below) but, as we can see, he found Schmid’s opinion to be ill advised and he interpreted this review to be an example of the “how carelessly a great many unfounded, one-sided, and arbitrary things were said” and of the “contradictory statements of cultivated men.” 295 In any case, Schmid’s reputation was in fact so thoroughly destroyed after the publication of the first volume of the Leipziger Musenalmanach and the reprinting of Lessing’s play in the Anthologie der Deutschen that he became a liability to others. The contempt for him was so extreme that it no longer was restricted to Schmid alone, but spread to his friends and acquaintances, as a letter from Engel to Nicolai in 1775 shows: 293 294 295 ADB 20.2, 592. Trans.: “As is known, it is one and the same person who edited the Anthologie and the [Leipziger] Almanach der Musen. This is no anecdote, but rather it is already down in black and white in multiple places.” Goethe 473: 22-30. Trans.: “Thus, for example, there was an extensive, well-meant review in The German Mercury written by some limited intellect or other. I could not agree with his criticisms, much less his suggestions for improvement. So it did my heart good when, directly afterwards, I found a cheerful statement by Wieland, who generally disagreed with the reviewer and took my part against him. Nevertheles, the former had also been printed, and so I saw an example of dull mentality even among educated and cultivated men. What could then be expected of the public at large!” (Saine 422). Ibid 422. In the original: “wie doch so vieles grundlos, einseitig und willkührlich in den Tag hinein gesagt wurde,” “die Widersprüche gebildeter Menschen” (Goethe I, 473: 18-20, 21). 75 Gar zu schlecht müssen Sie von Dyk wirklich nicht denken, oder Sie thun ihm Unrecht. Er hat viel gelesen und seine Briefe sind gar nicht übel geschrieben, auch seine Urtheile sind zuweilen sehr richtig, obgleich insgemein etwas keck. [...] Er hat sich nur durch seine Freundschaft mit Schmidten, durch die von diesem angenommenen Fehler, besonders der Anekdoten Krämerey zu verhaßt gemacht, sonst würde man ihm […] mehr Gerechtigkeit widerfahren lassen.296 Schmid’s reputation was so ruined that he even had to hide himself as a primary author. The Taschenbuch für Dichter und Dichterfreunde, which he edited as a quarterly beginning in 1774 and which shared many characteristics with his Anthologie and the Musenalmanach is one of these projects.297 Schmid retreated from literary conflicts after the era during which he worked on the Musenalmanach and the Anthologie, contributing to general interest periodicals such as the Journal von und für Deutschland, Schmid was an industrious contributor to the JVFD, which was not a literary publication, but rather a gentleman’s magazine with articles on many subjects. Schmid usually provided literary reviews to the JVFD, including the article “Uebersicht von der Familie der deutschen Musenalmanache,” in which he put together a bibliography of the German Musenalmanache.298 Although it had long been common knowledge (at least among connoisseurs) that Schmid had been the editor of the Leipziger Musenalmanach, he nonetheless wrote this review and mentioned nothing of the old scandal. Schmid presents his list chronologically, except at the beginning. The Leipzig Musenalmanach was on the market many months earlier than the Göttinger Musenalmanach, but Schmid begins his article with the Göttinger Musenalmanach, a conciliatory gesture. Schmid also contributed to Olla Potrida, one of the longest lived periodicals of eighteenth-century, with a print run of 19 years.299 Between 1780 and 1793, Schmid wrote more than fifty articles, reviews, biographies and translations of texts by French and English authors including Racine, Diderot and William Shenstone (1714-1763), who was an English poet and early theorist of landscape gardening for Olla Potrida.300 In keeping with its title, this periodical was not a serious scholarly literary journal like the ADB, ALZ or GAGS, but rather a quarterly containing a 'stew' or 'mix' of Unterhaltungsliteratur or popular reading: “eclectic diversion and orientation to a not especially discriminating literary taste made up the popular recipe of the magazine and were likely the reasons for its long-term success.” 301 In his monograph on Das deutsche Museum, Hofstaetter called the Olla Potrida a “a gathering place for inferior intellects.”302 Ironically, this magazine was the forum for one of Schmid’s most important works, a series of sixteen “Skizzen von der Geschichte der teutschen Dichtkunst” (1780-1792), which has been identified recently as the first history of German literature (see Batts and Kurz). Schmid the Mollusk? Schmid’s Place in the German Literary World 17 Nov. 1775. Trans.: “You must really not think too poorly of Dyck or you are unfair to him. He has read much and his letters are not too badly written, also his judgments are sometimes quite right, although generally somewhat saucy. […] He has simply made himself hated by the flaws he acquired through his friendship with Schmid, especially the anecdote hording, otherwise one would treat him […] with more fairness.” (Engel 1992, 47). 297 The Dyckische Buchhandlung published 12 volumes between 1774 and 1781. 298 JVFD 1791b, 905-911 299 Wilke 1978b, 190-192. 300 Ed. Heinrich August Ottokar Reichard (1751-1828). Berlin: Wever, 1778-1797. 301 In the original: “Vielseitige Abwechslung und Zurichtung auf einen nicht besonders wählerischen literarischen Geschmack bildeten das populäre Rezept der Zeitschrift und dürften seinen langfristigen Erfolg begründet haben” (Wilke 1978b, 190). 302 In the original: “Sammelplatz für untergeordnete Geister.” Hofstaetter 1908 cited in Wilke 1978b, 192. 296 76 Goethe’s memoir also provides a colorful example of the melding of social and literary sanctions against Schmid. In the summer of 1772, Goethe arranged a practical joke in Gießen with the express purpose of humiliating Schmid in front of fellow member of the literary world. 303 Goethe attacked Schmid’s ability and character through the application of biological metaphors to literary life and literary history during the course of this ‘practical joke’; these metaphors may help clarify how exactly Schmid’s contemporaries perceived him and may also add something to this study of poetry collections as compilations. On August 18, 1772, shortly before his twenty-third birthday, Goethe traveled to Gießen to make the acquaintance of a law professor there, Ludwig Julius Friedrich Höpfner (1743-1797), who was a fellow collaborator on the Frankfurter gelehrten Zeitungen or Frankfurt Scholarly Review. Goethe’s good friends, Johann Heinrich Merck (1741-1791) and Johann Georg Schlosser (1739-1799), who also worked on the FGZ, were in on the joke; looking back, Goethe describes this practical joke as characteristic for the period: “wie es in dem Uebermuth froher und friedlicher Zeiten zu geschehen pflegt, nicht leicht etwas auf geradem Weg vollbringen konnten,” deciding instead “wie wahrhafte Kinder, auch dem Nothwendigen irgend einen Scherz abzugewinnen suchten,” and hatching a plan to surprise Höpfner with Goethe’s presence and simultaneously to humiliate Schmid. 304 Disguised as a traveling student, Goethe first visited Höpfner in his study and gets to know him, all the while maintaining the charade of a young traveling student, who “wished to become acquainted with the worthiest men along the way.”305 Later Goethe appeared at the inn, where Schmid had been invited to dine with Höpfner, Merck, and Schlosser; Goethe, still playing the student, asked to join them and then set about humiliating Schmid, whom he had also never met before, over the course of the meal. According to Goethe, the twenty-five-year-old professor Schmid “in dem deutschen Literarwesen zwar eine sehr untergeordnete, aber doch eine Rolle spielte,” and Goethe intended to punish him for his misdeeds “auf eine lustige Weise.”306 During the dinner hour, the disguised Goethe asked if he could not join Schmid and his companions at their table in a local tavern. The meal soon became uncomfortable as the unfamiliar student began to antagonize Schmid. Goethe wrote, “doch richtete ich auf Schmidten alle meine Pfeile, die seine mir wohlbekannten Blößen scharf and sicher trafen.” 307 Goethe began his attacks in a roundabout way, describing literary epochs: “die Literaturen, scheint es mir, haben Jahrszeiten, die mit einader abwechselnd, wie in der Natur, gewisse Phänomene hervorbrigen, und sich der Reihe nach wiederholen,” going on to speak out against the constant rejection of older literature, which had been standard until the 1750 and which was still common: Ich glaube daher nicht, daß man irgend eine Epoche einer Literatur im Ganzen loben oder tadeln könne […] berherzigte man dieß so würde man dieselbigen Klagen nicht alle zehn Jahre wieder erneuert hören, Goethe 452: 9-10. Goethe I, 451: 21-24. All English translations of Dichtung und Wahrheit are taken from From My Life: Poetry and Truth. Parts One to Three. Trans. Robert R. Heiner. Introduction Thomas P. Saine. Ed. Thomas P. Saine and Jeffrey L. Sammons. New York: Suhrkamp, 1987 (=Goethe’s Collected Works; 4). Here, 403. Trans.: “as often happens amidst the exuberance of happy and peaceful times, we could hardly ever accomplish anything in a straightforward manner” … “like true children, to wring some nonsense out of necessary actions.” 305 Ibid. 403. In the original: “unterwegs die würdigsten Männer wollte kennen lernen” (Goethe I, 451: 34-35). 306 Goethe I, 452: 9-10, 13. Trans.: “played a role, though a very subordinate one, in the German literary world,” “in a comical way” (Heiner 404). 307 Goethe I, 452: 25-27. Trans.: “all my arrows were directed at Schmid, sharply and surely striking those weaknesses of his I knew so well” (Heiner 404). 303 304 77 und die vergebliche Mühe, dieses und jenes Misfällige auszurotten, würde nicht so oft verschwendet werden.308 Goethe now turned his attentions to Schmid and “his type of characterless littérateur,” comparing him to various lower-order flora and fauna. Both of central metaphors immediately recall Schmid’s role as an anthologist: Ich sagte, es [Molusken] seyen dieß Geschöpfe, denen man zwar eine Art von Körper, ja sogar eine gewisse Gestalt, nicht ableugnen könne; da sie aber keine Knochen hätten, so wüßte man doch nichts rechts mit ihnen anzufangen, und sie seyen nichts besseres als ein lebendiger Schleim; jedoch müsse das Meer auch solche Bewohner haben.309 Here, Goethe insults Schmid by comparing him to a sea creature that is essentially without a form of its own, being without bones, but still has some kind of form, as it exists; he also characterizes Schmid and others like him as practically without thought or agency, through his depiction of mollusks as barely above “living slime.” Where Schmid compared himself to the thrifty householder, saving scraps, Goethe transforms the idea of the careful collector avoiding waste into the far more negative image of the practically insentient “living slime” made up of the base and microscopic detritus of the seafloor, which it filters and consumes, that is, a literary bottom feeder. Goethe writes that he went on and on until his compatriots objected that “an analogy carried too far finally has no meaning at all,” at which point, Goethe wrapped up his attack by comparing Schmid to the climbing parasite, ivy: So will ich auf die Erde zurückkehren! versetzte ich, und vom Epheu sprechen. Wie jene keine Knochen, so hat dieser keinen Stamm, mag aber gern überall, wo er sich anschmiegt, die Hauptrolle spielen. An alten Mauern gehört er hin, an denen ohnehin nichts mehr zu verderben ist, von neuen Gebäuden entfernt man ihn billig; die Bäume saugt er aus, und am aller unerträglichsten ist er mir, wenn er an einem Pfahl hinaufklettert und versichert, hier sey ein lebendiger Stamm, weil er ihn umlaubt hat.310 Coming to the end of his attack, Goethe writes that he became wilder and wilder: Ungeachtet man mir abermals die Dunkelheit und Unanwendbarkeit meiner Gleichnisse vorwarf, ward ich immer lebhafter gegen alle parasitische Creaturen, und machte, so weit meine damaligen Naturkenntnisse reichten, meine Sachen noch ziemlich artig. Ich sang zuletzt ein Vivat allen selbständigen Männern, ein Pereat den Andringlingen. 311 Goethe I, 452-453: 37-10. Trans.: “Literatures, it seems to me have alternating seasons, like those in nature, which produce certain phenomena and repeat themselves in series. Therefore, I do not believe that a literary epoch can be either totally praised or blamed. […] If one took this fact to heart, the same laments would not be renewed every ten years, and there would not be so many vain efforts to exterminate this and that offensive thing.” (Heiner 404-405). 309 Goethe I, 453: 15-19. Trans.: “I said that these creatures [molluscs] undeniably had some sort of body, and even a certain form, but since they had no skeleton one really did not know what to make of them, and they were no better than animated slime; yet the sea had to have such creatures also” (Heiner 405). 310 Goethe I, 453: 23-30. Trans.: “Then I shall return to earth, I replied, and speak of the ivy. Just as molluscs have no skeleton, the latter has no trunk, but wants to play the main role wherever it clings. It belongs on old walls, which are in ruins anyway, but is properly removed from new buildings. It drains sap from the trees, and bcomes most intolerable of all to me when it covers a post with its leaves and then proclaims that this is a living trunk” (Saine 405). 311 Goethe I, 453: 31-35. Trans.: “Despite their repeated reproaches about the obscurity and inapplicability of my analogies, I grew ever more vituperative about parasitical creatures and managed the affair quite well, as far as my knowledge of nature at the time permitted. I finally sang out a “Vivat!” to all independent men and a “Pereat!” to the importunate ones” (Saine 405). 308 78 As he writes, Goethe means to attack Schmid and all other “parasite” of the literary world, who live off of “independent men” as ivy off of buildings and trees. Clinging indiscriminately to any surface that can support it, the ivy, like Schmid, climes toward the sun, forcing itself into view, while obscuring that which supports it. Creatures like Schmid, the mollusk and the ivy have no form of their own, but instead live off of others. It cannot be denied that his compilations, such as the Anthologie and the Leipziger Musenalmanach, like those of any anthologist, reshape pre-existing material into a new formation and are thus not independent. Schmid creates publications new by compiling other texts – or perhaps more correctly – by compiling the texts of others. Goethe thus suggests that Schmid is as indiscriminate as ivy, caring not at all whether that which he includes in his collection is a living tree or rather a mere “fence post.” Furthermore, Goethe suggests that there are in fact certain kinds of works, which are acceptable for Schmid to collect – in Goethe’s words, old walls that he can no longer spoil. At the same time, Goethe also mentions a number of things from which ivy such as Schmid should be removed – from new buildings and living trees. Both new buildings and living trees can still be harmed by Schmid’s parasitic collecting. The image of the ivy sucking out the life of the tree perfectly represents the reason that distain and hatred many in the literary world felt for Schmid, who was willing to take whatever advantage he could in the publishing of his collections. Despite the harshness of the interaction, Goethe’s narrative of the events in Dichtung und Wahrheit ends happily: the “Scherz” was “entdeckt[…],” causing “eine allgemeine Heiterkeit,” in which Schmid “selbst mit einstimmte” after Goethe and his friends “durch Anerkennung seiner wirklichen Verdienste, und durch unsere Theilnahme an seinen Liebhabereyen, wieder begütigt wurde.” 312 Goethe makes clear that humiliating Schmid was not the sole aim of his practical joke: “Diese geistreiche Einleitung konnte nicht anders als den literarischen Congreß beleben und begünstigen, auf den es eigentlich angesehn war.” 313 A Positive Response to Schmid’s Anthologie der Deutschen Given the overwhelmingly negative response to Schmid and the Anthologie der Deutschen, it may surprise the reader that there were also neutral and even positive responses. Some of his books were mentioned as reference works by other writers: one finds a neutral treatment of Schmid in the preface to Jördens’ Blumenlese, which is the topic of the third case study. Jördens was a methodical and careful scholar, who mentions Schmid as one source among many: Die Hülfsmittel, deren ich mich hiezu habe dienen können, waren, ausser den biographischen Nachrichten und Litterarnotizen, welche den Werken dieser Dichter von den Herausgebern beigefügt worden: Christ. Heinr. Schmids Anweisung der vornehmsten Bücher in allen Theilen der Dichtkunst, und vorzüglich desselben Nekrolog; ferner Leonh. Meisters Charakteristik deutscher Dichter, und Küttners Charaktere deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten. […] Andere Hülfsmittel, deren ich mich bedient, werden gelegentlich in der Blumenlese selbst von mir namhaft gemacht.314 Goethe I, 453-454: 39-2. Trans.: the “jest” was “revealed,” causing “general merriment,” in which Schmid himself joined” after Goethe and his friends “placated him by acknowledging his genuine merits and showing interest in his favorite pursuits” (Heiner 405). 313 Goethe I, 454: 3-4. Trans.: “this sprightly introduction coulnd not but enliven and foster the literary congress which was the real purpose of this visit” (Heiner 405). 314 Trans.: “The resources, which I could use for this, were, aside from the biographical and literary notes that the editors included with the works of these poets: Christ. Heinr. Schmids Anweisung der vornehmsten Bücher in allen Teilen der Dichtkunst and especially his Nekrolog; further Leonh. Meister’s Charakteristik deutscher Dichter, and Küttner’s Charaktere deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten. […] Other resources, which I have used, are occasionally named in the Blumenlese itself” (xi-xii). 312 79 On the other hand, Jördens delivers a negative portrait of Schmid in his Lexikon deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten or Encyclopedia of German Poets and Prose Authors, although he does also suggest that Schmid possessed positive qualities as well, particularly his eagerness to collect: “Sein Hauptverdienst […] ist das eines fleißigen Sammlers und Registrators im Fache der poetischen Literatur der Deutschen.”315 The aspects of Schmid’s personality, which Jördens criticizes in the Lexikon, are his superficial and cursory engagement with many topics: Es ist schwer, den schriftstellerischen Charakter dieses Mannes zu bestimmen, da er sich zu abwechselnd in so viele und so verschiedene Fächer eingelassen, und sie sämmtlich, bis auf wenige Ausnahmen, mit sichtbarer Flüchtigkeit bearbeitet hat. Nicht an Talent, an Kenntnissen und Belesenheit fehlte es ihm, aber wohl an Stetigkeit, Sorgfalt und Genauigkeit. Er schrieb zu viel und vielerlei, um gründlich schreiben zu können.316 Furthermore, Jördens attributes Schmid’s failings to a lack of discipline and scholarly carefulness in every aspect, from conception to the printing of his projects. For this reason, Jördens does not feel that they were adequate to be used by scholars because they “so sehr sie von Druck= und andern Fehlern wimmelt.”317 Furthermore he cautions: “[seine Werke] können auch jetzt noch, mit Vorsicht gebraucht, wenn gleich nicht dem eigentlichen Literator, doch dem Literaturfreunde in einer und anderer Rücksicht nützlich und brauchbar sein.”318 Jördens writes that Schmid’s works should not be treated as a reliable resource for scholarly work, although they might be of some use to those who simply enjoy reading literature. The only truly enthusiastic remarks about Schmid’s Anthologie der Deutschen (aside from those of his friend and co-conspirator Klotz) were made by one Carl Friedrich Lentner (1746-1776), a young “Arzneywissenschaft Doctor” or medical doctor and native of Breslau. Lentner thought Schmid had hit upon a wonderful idea in creating his Anthologie der Deutschen and was inspired to make his own regional version, the Schlesische Anthologie (2 vols., 1773 and 1774). Lentner intensifies Schmid’s rhetoric in his own preface as he praises for Schmid: Der glückliche Einfall des Herrn Prof. Schmid, die fliegenden Blätter großer und kleinerer deutschen Dichter in einer eignen Sammlung von dem Untergange zu retten, hat mich veranlaßt, für mein Vaterland eben das zu thun, was Herr Schmid für Deutschland überhaupt that.319 Lentner takes Schmid as a model for a patriotic anthology dedicated to “flogging the near-dead horse of Silesian literary preeminence,” to borrow Angelo de Capua's colorful expression. 320 That is, he himself has set about trying to prove that there are still good poets in Silesia at the end of the eighteenth century; Lentner does offer a bit of humorous humility, as well, however: “Also giebt es in Ihrem Vaterland auch Trans.: “His main virtue […] is that of an industrious collector and recorder in the subject of German poetic literature.” In: “Christian Heinrich Schmid.” Lexikon deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten [6 vols.]. 4. Leipzig: in der Weidmannischen Buchhandlung, 1809. 551-573. Here, 553. 316 Trans.: “It is difficult to ascertain the literary character of this man, since he worked alternately in so many and such diverse subjects, and all of them, with only a few exceptions, cursorily. He did not lack talent, knowledge or erudition, but consistency, carefulness, and accuracy. He wrote too much and on too many topics to write soundly” (553). 317 Trans.: “teemed to such a degree with typographical and other errors” (553). 318 Trans.: “[his works] can still be used (with a pinch of salt), if not by the actual man of letters, but they can be useful and serviceable to the lover of literature in one regard or another” (553). 319 Trans.: “The felicitous idea of Mr. Prof. Schmid to save the flying leaves of great and lesser German poets from ruin in a separate collection prompted me to do exactly the same as Mr. Schmid has done for Germany in general” (7). 320 De Capua 1957, 338. 315 80 Dichter? fragt hier mancher witzige Spötter gewiß: und unpartheyisch von der Sache gesprochen – ich finde seine Fragen so ungereimt nicht. […]”321 Lentner praises Schmid’s ‘rescue’ of earlier poems of any form; at the same time, his interest in philology is conditioned by the social function of poetry as he hopes to bring glory to Silesia. Lentner’s Schlesische Anthologie presents a refreshing counterexample to the critical remarks of the reviewers. At the same time, the indiscriminate enthusiasm with which Lentner treats Schmid’s anthology suggests that Lindner might better be categorized not a dissenting voice among the literati, but rather an active member of the new class of reader. As mentioned above, the literati, who kept up with the intimate affairs of the literary world, could only do so much to sanction Schmid for his activities; the reproof of connoisseurs that possibly could have functioned as censorship in another, earlier, era with a lower literacy rate. The ever-growing reading public of the 1770s, however, meant that even the harshest criticism could restrict only the quality of Schmid’s readership, not its size. This broad stratum of readers, who were not influenced by the connoisseurs, made it possible for Schmid to publish copious books, articles, and reviews, albeit in lesser fora. Conclusion: Christian Heinrich Schmid, Anti-Anthologist I would like to end this tale of scandal and conflict with a pleasant anecdote. Around the time the second volume of Schmid’s Anthologie der Deutschen was published, Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (17421799) wrote the following humorous epitaph on the death of a literary figure in one of his famous “Sudelbücher” or personal notebooks.322 It is has not been shown definitely if Lichtenberg was thinking of anyone in particular or, if so, of whom, although Wolfgang Promies believes puts forth Schmid’s rival, Boie.323 I would like to suggest that Schmid could also be the subject as Boie given the use of the title of his work (also mentioned by Promies), Schmid’s reprinting scandals, and the negative publicity that haunted him in the leading periodicals. Grabschrift auf Herrn B. Hier liegt und rezitiert nicht mehr, das ist hier liegt begraben J. Christian B … trotz seines patriotischen Sinnes mehr eine Anthologie der Deutschen, als ein Deutscher. Sein ganzes Leben war ein Sinngedicht, denn Er brachte den klügsten Einfall den er jemals hatte ans Ende, Er starb. Doch Nein, er ward vielmehr vergriffen Trans.: “Oh, are there also poets in your homeland? some witty jeerer is sure to ask here: and speaking impartially about the topic – I do not find his question so absurd” (n. p.) 322 Circa 1771. Lichtenberg 148 (Entry 400). See Promies’ commentary (171). Cited in Neukirchen 7. 323 Promies, also cited by Neukirchen, suspected that the subject of the epigram was Heinrich Christian Boie (1744-1806). Neukirchen writes, “Dieses witzig-gemeine Epitaph […] bezieht ihre Scharfsinnigkeit aus der metaphorischen Verwendung der Beziehung >>Anthologie<< mit der >>J. Christoph B.<< als bloß kompilierender deutscher Büchernarr verspottet wird” (Neukirchen 8). 321 81 und wir zweifeln nicht daß Er an jenem Tage auf besseres Papier wieder aufgelegt werden wird.324 Regardless of the intended subject, Lichtenberg’s use of the Anthologie to describe the failings of a deceased anthologist echo essential features of the contemporary perception of the Anthologie and Schmid. Lichtenberg captures the tension between Schmid’s “patriotism” and his nebulous plan perfectly with suggestion that the anthologist himself was more an “Anthologie der Deutschen, als ein Deutscher;” in this line alone, one sees the senselessness of the act of compilation when not accompanied by a clear purpose and a certain amount of genius. With the reference to the life of the anthologist as a “Sinngedicht,” Lichtenberg highlights the senselessness that many felt when examining Schmid’s Anthologie der Deutschen. While the “new edition” of the anthologist “on better paper” that is to be made at the Last Judgment captures both the bibliophilia of literature lovers and the idea of pure quantity of the Vielschreiber or mass-production authors such as Schmid. Underlying and lending bite to the humor is Lichtenberg’s investment in individual integrity. A number of forms of poetry collections were successful in the latter half of the eighteenth century. It is not only or, rather, not yet the representative anthology, which incorporates earnest pedagogical intentions and historical perspective, that is the norm. Although different types of poetry collections were acceptable to the reading public, the model that Schmid settled on for his Anthologie der Deutschen was not a critical success. In fact, Schmid’s contribution to the development of the Germanlanguage anthology was hardly praised at all. Not only the concept of the Anthologie, but also its structure, contents and Schmid’s way of working were attacked by critics. Their criticism seems justified in most instances, as Schmid quickly aped the innovative ideas of others but at the same time was not capable of successfully synthesizing and deploying them. Schmid tried every form that is in style, but failed each time. Thus, his Anthologie, for example, is a Musenalmanach, while his Theorie is a textbook. The Oden der Deutschen and the Satiren der Deutschen were based on the genre anthology. The Anthologie is neither an anthology according to the definitions found in the dictionaries of the time nor a text book, which provides sample specimens including texts considered to be of lesser quality. At the same time, the Anthologie is not a periodical like a Musenalmanach, and thus cannot provide a sustained forum for the publication of new work. Instead, the Anthologie is a miscellany, in which Schmid is prepared to include all poems that reach a certain standard, leaving the final decision about their quality to the reader. Schmid’s Anthologie evinces the nationalist desire to collect vernacular poetry that is characteristic of the period, but without the aesthetic conviction of Ramler or the historical perspective of Zachariä, Eschenburg, or Jördens. When one compares Schmid to the other anthologists and theoreticians of his time, he is neither scientist nor critic. Contemporary critics also reacted strongly to Schmid’s perceived moral deficits. Schmid’s frequent infringements of the accepted although not yet legal arrangement of the literary world seem to stand in the way of his success to the same degree as his other perceived failings. For these reasons, the Anthologie was and remains a curious document, the reception of which shows by negative example which elements were considered necessary to a good poetry collection during the latter half of the eighteenth century and which behaviors were expected of a member of the literati to remain ‘in good standing.’ Beyond this, Schmid was an early popular mediator 324 Trans.: “Here lies / and recites no more / that is / here lies buried / J. Christian B …/ despite his patriotic sense / more an Anthology of the Germans than a German. His entire life was an epigram, as he placed the smartest idea / he ever had / at the end, / he died. / Wait, no, / he went out of stock / and we do not doubt / that / on the final day / he will be reprinted again on better paper.” 82 between the world of literature and the masses – a forerunner of certain forms of popular or entertainment literature in which originality is not the main criterion. Schmid stands between criticism and science, but he lacks the most important attributes of both: discernment and organization. V. An Early Representative Epigram Anthology: Karl Heinrich Jördens’ Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte, 1789-1790 Karl Heinrich Jördens (1757-1835) spent his life working with young people in schools and published a great number of texts, particularly textbooks and reference works for the teaching of Greek, Latin, and German rhetoric. As a part of his efforts concerning German literature, Jördens created the first representative anthology of German epigrams, the Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte (2 vols., 1789 and 1790).325 The education of young people was a central theme of Jördens’ life and thus, Jördens’ created an anthology that could aid them in their understanding of the field of German literature. In this case study, I will demonstrate how this project is unique and also how it relates to other aspects of Jördens’ life and work, especially his career as a pedagogue specializing in classics and German literature and an Enlightenment-era education reformer. In order to show why the Blumenlese is a uniquely compelling object of study, I will also discuss Jördens’ earlier epigram collection, the Epigrammenlese (1789), a more miscellany-like collection he published just prior to the Blumenlese.326 By examining the differences between the Blumenlese and the Epigrammenlese as well as the critical reception of these projects, and comparing them to other projects, it can be shown how the ideal of the representative anthology came into focus in the late eighteenth century. As Jördens is practically unknown today, a few pages on his career and other publications is necessary to contextualize his Blumenlese.327 Jördens was both an education reformer and a lover of literature, describing himself as “'Schulmann und Literator,” which Winter has called a “union of interests and career characteristic for the age of the Late Enlightenment, which attempted to transmit the legacy of the German Enlightenment to wider circles.”328 Hailing from the Grafschaft Mansfeld in present-day Sachsen-Anhalt, where his father was a school principal, Jördens studied theology and philology in Halle from age sixteen to nineteen (1773-1776). After completing his studies, Jördens moved to Berlin, where he worked as a household tutor and teacher before finding his calling in the management and reform of schools.329 Jördens began teaching at the Schindlerisches Waisenhaus in 1778, a small but prestigious privately-funded orphanage and school for boys associated with the famous Nikolaikirche in Berlin.330, 331 After six years at the Schindlerisches Waisenhaus, Jördens was appointed Subrektor or The title page of the second volume declares the 1791 to be the year of publication, but Döring asserts that it was actually published in 1790. I am inclined to accept his assessment, as Jördens wrote in 1789 that he had already finished the Blumenlese and I doubt the second volume of more contemporary works would have taken two years to complete, even if he had only finished the first volume in 1789. During this period one finds many examples of false dating to make a work seem fresh long after its initial release, particularly if the work first appeared at the less popular Michaelmas Buchmesse that took place in Leipzig in September. 326 The Blumenlese appears never before to have been studied closely. 327 Jördens, Karl Heinrich. Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte. Berlin: Im Verlage der Königlichen Realschulbuchhandlung, 1789-91. 328 Trans.: “eine für die Zeit der Spätaufklärung, die versuchte, das Erbe der deutshen Aufklärung breiteren Kreisen weiterzuvermitteln, charakteristische Verbindung von Interesse und Beruf” (Winter 457). 329 See Volkert, Winter, Hoffmann. 330 Streckfuß 192; Mila 273, 343; Kullnick 429. 331 The Shindlerisches Waisenhaus was founded in 1730 by Severin Schindler (1671-1737). Schindler owned a large silver and gold manufactory in Berlin specializing in metallic thread and other decorative elements (Nicolai 316). 325 83 vice principal of the Cöllnische Schule in 1784. The Cöllnische Schule was the oldest school in all of Prussia, having been founded before 1276, but after the Seven Years War (1756-1763) the three highest classes had been combined with those of the Graues Kloster (Wiese 104). The well-known Enlightenment school reformer and pedagogue Büsching directed the combined schools. 332, 333 The Cöllnische Schule, or, as it was often called, the Cöllnische Stadtschule, offered three lower grades enrolling over two hundred boys, which prepared some for the Graues Kloster but also acted as a terminal Bürgerschule for others who would not go on to the Gymnasium or college preparatory level.334, 335 After six years at the Cöllnische Schule and a total of fifteen years in Berlin, Jördens left the Prussian capital for Silesia, which had been a Prussian territory since the end of the Seven Years War in 1763. During his twenty-five years in the Prussian capitol (1776-1791), Jördens is said to have taken part in the Berliner Aufklärung or the community of Late Enlightenment-era authors in the Prussian capitol. He was close to Karl Philipp Moritz (1756-1793), a colleague at the Graues Kloster from 1778 to 1786 and author of one of the first psychological novels in German, Anton Reiser (published in four parts, 1785-1790).336, 337 It has been asserted that Jördens’ circle was made up of scholars including fellow anthologists Engel and Ramler, as well as Mendelssohn and Nicolai (Winter 457, Jacob 153). Sources from the latter half of his career, which was spent as a school principal in Silesia and Lusatia form the clearest picture of Jördens’ aptitudes and personality. In the Schlesische Provinzialblätter of 1791, it was announced that Jördens had been appointed “Inspektor” and “2. Direktor” or vice principal of the Bunzlauer Waisenhaus, where he would be responsible for day-to-day operations and curriculum design.338 Despite a warm welcome and high hopes for Jördens , who had made a reputation for himself as a modern school reformer in Berlin, the appointment in Bunzlau, now Bolesławiec, in southwestern Poland did not go well.339 In the Geschichte des Bunzlauer Waisenhauses (1854), Jördens is characterized quite negatively; he is accused of clashing with the director and teachers, making radical changes, nearly bankrupting the institution by mismanagement, and ruining the confidence of local government in the Bunzlauer Waisenhaus, which had been in existence for more than forty years (est. 1754).340 Perhaps relying somewhat too heavily on Stolzenburg, subsequent biographers have also characterized Jördens as a difficult personality. Winter, for example, wrote, “Jördens has gone down in the history of the Bunzlau school and the Lauban Lyceum as a curriculum reformer and conscientious, but not always easy-going administrator.”341Given the particulars of Stolzenburg’s account concerning Jördens mismanagement and the information about Jördens’ next position in local periodicals, it seems that the trouble might not have stemmed from Jördens’ personality, but rather from his progressive Büsching chose Friedrich Gedike (1754-1803), principal of the Friedrichswerdersches Gymnasium to followed him as principal of the Graues Kloster and the other schools after his death (in 1793), but Gedike became co- principal (and acting principal) starting in June of 1791 due to Büsching’s illness (P. Hoffmann, 118-119). 333 Büsching, Anton Friedrich. Eigene Lebensgeschichte: in vier Stücken. Halle: Witwe, verlegt von sel. Johann Jakob Curts Witwe, 1789. 334 Büsching 557-559. 335 Wiese 104. 336 Meier 149-152. 337 Klischnig, Karl Friedrich. Mein Freund Anton Reiser. Aus dem Leben des Karl Philipp Moritz. Ed. Heide Hollmer and Erwentraut. Berlin: Mathias Gatza, [1993]. Originally published in 1794 under the title: Anton Reiser. Ein psychologischer Roman. 5. und letzter Teil. 338 Bunzlau, birthplace of Martin Opitz, was part of Niederschlesien (see E. Dewitz on the history of the city Bunzlau and its historical affiliations. Here, vi-vii.). 339 Schlesische Provinzblätter, 14 “Julius bis December” (1791): 94. Titles according to Winter 458. 340 Stolzenburg 83, 157. 341 Winter 458. In the original: “In der Geschichte der Bunzlauer Schule und des Laubaner Gymnasiums ist J[ördens] als Lehrplanreformer und gewissenhafter, aber nicht immer bequemer Verwaltungsfachmann eingegangen.” 332 84 vision for the Bunzlauer Waisenhaus. Stolzenburg disparages Jördens by saying that he reduced the number of sermons and expunged religion from lectures in favor of the “benefits of the Enlightenment,” destroying the religious faith of teachers and students by encouraging enlightened thinking (see Stolzenburg 157, 83). Fortunately for both Jördens and the Waisenhaus, in 1796 Jördens received an appointment to Rector or principal of the Lyceum in Lauban, where he remained until his retirement in 1825.342 The Bunzlauer Waisenhaus chose a substantially more conservative person to fill Jördens’ position, one Pastor Erdmann Friedrich Buquoi (1750-1821) from Sprottau (Stolzenburg 318). In contrast to Jördens, Buquoi made it clear that he was against the “Basedowschen Bestrebungen,” or the attempts of the famous school reformer Johann Bernhard Basedow (1724-1790) in Halle and other such reforms (Stolzenburg 117). As a direct commentary on Jördens and his attempted changes to the Bunzlauer Waisenhaus, Buquoi gave his inaugural sermon as vice principal on “falsche Aufklärung” or “false Enlightenment” (157). Jördens’ appointment in Lauban, was in the region Upper Lusatia, then a part of Saxony, and appears to have been substantially more liberal, at least concerning education policy. While Lauban might seem to be rather a disappointment from a twenty-first-century perspective, at the time it belonged to the Oberlausitzer Sechsstädtebund or the Lusatian League, as it is called in English along with Bautzen, Görlitz, Kamenz, Löbau, and Zittau. These six small, but prosperous and independent towns controlled the Königsstraße, an essential trade route through Central Europe from the late Middle Ages on and had become quite wealthy and cosmopolitan as a result. 343 At the time, each city in the Lusatian League had its own Gymnasium or Lyceum (Latin school), but none of these schools were exclusively university preparatory or Gelehrtenschulen, but were instead also Bürgerschulen or terminal schools for most boys, who did not go on to university, just as the Cöllnische Schule, where Jördens had taught previously.344 The Lausizische Monatsschrift of 1796 reports that Jördens arrived in Lauban on March 30, 1796 and began his duties on April 14.345 As mentioned above, there is evidence that in the 1790s Lauban was more open to school reform than Bunzlau. The topic of the final school program held by the previous principal, Göbel, before his death the previous year, had been “Daß die Aufklärung der Vernunft nicht die Verdunkelung der geoffenbarten Religion sei, aus Beispielen bewiesen,” which demonstrates the reform-mindedness of Lauban that must have been attractive to Jördens.346 Another sign that the town was an environment more suited to Jördens was the newly opened rare book reading room, organized by the city and open to the public. 347 As a principal of a school in the Lusatian League, Jördens also would have answered directly to the city magistrate, rather than to a Curator and Direktor, who, incidentally, had been the pastor of the local church during Jördens’ tenure in Bunzlau (Stolzenburg 317-318). The magistrates of the Lusatian League reportedly allowed principals Neue Lausitzisches Magazin, 14.1.3 (1836): 135. The Lusatian League survived until Lusatia was divided by the Congress of Vienna (1815). At that time, Lauban and Görlitz became a part of Prussia and the other cities joined Saxony. 344 See “Kurze Geschichte und Beschreibung des äussern Zustandes der Hauptschulen in den Sechsstädten.” Lausizische Monatschrift. 1.5 (Mai 1795): 266-276; here 266. 345 “Veränderung im Kirchen und Schulstande.” Lausizische Monatschrift, 5 (May 1796): 317. 346 Held 13 Apr. 1795. “Anzeigen von Schulschriften” 229-231. Trans.: “That the enlightenment of reason is not the dimming of confessed religion, proven through examples.” 347 “Schulschriften. Lauban.” Lausizische Monatschrift. 5 (May 1795): 302-303. “Der dasige Magistrat hat in dem Zucht- und Waisenhause einige Säle zu der öffentlichen Bibliothek eingeräumet, welche hierauf gebaut, und wohin die bisher in einer ehemaligen Kapelle der alten in Ruinen liegenden Dreifaltigkeitskirche sich befundene Bücher und andere Seltenheiten geschaft worden sind. Auf Anordnung des Magistrats hat daher der Hr. KonR. M. Becher, als Bibliothekar eine Ankündigungsschrift […] Schicksale der öffentl. Sammlungen von Büchern, Naturalien, Münzen, Kunstsachen und Alterthümern in Lauban druken lassen, und angezeiget, dass die Bibliothek alle Mittewochen von 2 bis 4 Uhr zu Jedermanns Gebrauche offen seyn würde, welches auch am 6ten Mai das erstemal geschah.” Mentioned under “Oeffentliche Anstalten” or “public institutions” in the ALZ Intelligenzblatt, 92 (1796). 342 343 85 great freedom in managing their institutions, particularly concerning curriculum and discipline. 348 In Lauban, Jördens not only managed the institution and drew up the curriculum, but also taught alongside the five teachers under his direction.349 The principals and teachers at each school in the Lusatian League received a salary paid in a combination of currency, fire wood, grain, and housing for themselves and their families.350 After Jördens’ inaugural speech at the Lyceum, the local paper appears to have been quite taken with him; the reporting author wrote that one could not help but desire to help Jördens achieve his goal of educating both the students’ “Verstand,” or “reason,” and their “Herzensgüte,” or “goodness of the heart,” through a “möglichst praktisch[e] Religionsunterricht,” or “teaching of religion that is as practical as possible.”351 Furthermore, Jördens specifically addressed the role of the teacher, suggesting that the role of teacher is a hard but extremely rewarding occupation, which is accompanied by “viel reizendes und ermunderndes,” such as the “Würde” of the profession and the fact that as a teacher “aus dem Zweck desselben [des Lehramts], der nur auf Aufklärung des Verstandes, und Besserung des Herzens, also auf Beförderung der menschlichen Glückseligkeit gerichtet ist. 352 If one desires to judge Jördens’ character according to anecdotes, it should be mentioned that at least one former student, who also became a pedagogue, remembered Jördens and his teaching so positively that they were included in his obituary some twenty-five years after Jördens’ death.353 To return to Jördens’ publications, Winter has argued that the influence of the Berliner Aufklärung can be seen in the “intellectual world conveyed by his poems and writings as well as by his literarypedagogical intentions,”354 while Döring credits Ramler (with whom he asserted Jördens was closest) with the initial encouragement to publish. As mentioned in the first case study, Ramler is best known today for his controversial editorial practices and various contributions to the eighteenth-century anthology form; Döring goes so far as to accuse Jördens of allowing himself to be “seduced” into writing poetry himself by Ramler during his time in Berlin, but admits that Jördens had the good sense to put it aside in favor of work more suited to his temperament: Am wenigsten eignete er sich durch seine Naturanlagen zum Dichter. Dennoch wagte er, besonders während seines Aufenthaltes in Berlin, durch Ramler's Beispiel verführt, mehre poetische Versuche, die sich nicht über das Mittelmäßige erhoben. [...] Ein gewisser Pedantismus, der in seiner Natur und seinem ganzen Wesen lag, war den Musen nicht günstig. Größere und unbestreitbarere Verdienste erwarb sich Jördens als Literator, besonders als Bibliograph, durch gründliche Kenntnisse und eisernen Fleiß. 355 “Kurze Geschichte”: “Gewöhnlich lassen die Rathskollegien […] dem Rektor oder Direktor, inter ihrer Oberaufsicht, zum Besten des Ganzen ziemlich freie Hand in Absicht auf Unterricht und Zucht, und kein alter oder neuer Zwang bindet die Lehrer an oft so unzwekmässige Lehrbücher oder Lehrstunden; ein Vorzug, den man nur überall ganz erkannt und benuzt zu sehen wünschen muß” (267). 349 Teaching duties: Bornmann 423. Curriculum design and faculty size (five teachers besides himself in 1806): Intelligenzblatt der Jenaischen allgemeinen Literatur-Zeitung 148. 350 “Kurze Geschichte…” 267. 351 Rev. of “Einige Gedanken ….” Lausizische Monatsschrift, 6 (Jun. 1796): 355-356. 352 “Eben dieser …” in the Lausizische Monatsschrift, 6 (Jun. 1796): 355-357. Trans.: much that is enjoyable and encouraging,” “nobility,” “from the purpose of the same [teaching profession], which is only directed toward enlightening reason and improving the heart, that is toward the advancement of human happiness.” 353 Bornmann 423. In the original: “Durch den Rektor Jördens wurde er [Karl Gottfried August Bornmann], wie er oft rühmte, namentlich in das Verständnis der Schönheiten der Dichter, besonders der griechischen und römischen, eingeführt […] den genannten Lehrern verdankte er auch eine gute Grundlage im deutschen und lateinischen Stile, so wie in der Welt- und Literaturgeschichte.” 354 In the original: “in seinen Gedichten und Schriften vermittelte Gedankenwelt wie auch seine literaturpädagogischen Intentionen” (Winter 457). 355 Döring 29. Trans.: “He was least suited to become a poet in terms of his natural abilities. Nonetheless he dared, especially during his residence in Berlin, to try his hand at poetry, which did not rise above mediocre. […] A certain pedantry, which 348 86 Most of Jördens’ publications are translations of ancient poets or reference materials to support the study of literature. Jördens’ first translations were of Horace's odes and Virgil's ecologues, when he was a teacher at the Schindlerisches Waisenhaus in his mid- twenties. 356 In addition, as Winter has described, Jördens also wrote works on pedagogy, concentrating on the teaching of literature to young people: 357 Jördens repeatedly grappled theoretically with the aesthetic, philosophical and pedagogical justifications, as well as the didactic problems of teaching [literally, transmitting] ancient and contemporary literature in schools. Winter noted that Jördens was an early proponent of German literature in the classroom: “Especially his consistent advocacy for the instruction of contemporary German texts in the Prussian Gymnasien [university preparatory schools], which for the most part still were oriented toward the Latin and Greek authors, should be emphasized.”358 A further example of Jördens’ engagement for German literature in conjunction with classical literature is his earlier collection, Sammlung der besten zerstreuten Übersezzungen aus Griechen und Römern: zum Gebrauch der Übersezzer, Schullehrer und Liebhaber der alten Litteratur which he published in 1783 (also with Lange). Volkert also emphasized Jördens’ contribution to contemporary pedagogy through his development of didactic materials 359 J. made a significant contribution to contemporary discussion of curricula in upper schools through his school editions of ancient authors with extensive glossaries and commentaries on grammar and translation. He also made a theoretical contribution on questions of translation and reading selections for school instruction. Volkert characterizes the “encouragement of independent reading by students” as a primary element of Jördens’ approach.360 Jördens reduced students’ dependency on the teacher by creating extensively commented student editions. As Volkert describes it, the “commentary of the texts was supposed to replace the additional explanation of the teacher in large part.” 361 In an effort to diminish the necessity for a teacher, Jördens built up a substantial paratextual body around the chosen literary texts. By doing so, Jördens had a much more immediate effect on a greater number of students than he would have had, had he created only theoretical pedagogical works. If Jördens is remembered at all today, it is for his were a part of his nature and his entire essence, was not favorable to the muses. He did himself greater and more indisputable credit as a literary critic, especially as a bibliographer through exhaustive knowledge and steely industry.” 356 Horazens Oden: neu verdeutscht (2 vols, 1781) and Virgils Eklogen: nebst einigen kurzen Erläuterungen auf's neue verdeutscht (1782), both published by Lange in Berlin. Although it is outside the scope of this examination to discuss it, the ADB published a review of his Horace translation that compares his version to an anonymous translation published by Schwickert as well as translations by Schmid (Anh.37-52. Bd., 3.Abt. (1785): 1592-1594). The ADB finds Jördens’ translation not only superior to the translations mentioned, but also the best ever in German with the exception of a few poems, which Ramler had translated better (1592). 357 Winter 458. In the original: “Mehrfach setzte sich J[ördens] theoretisch mit der ästhetischen, philosophischen und pädogogischen Rechtfertigungen, wie auch den didaktischen Problemen der Vermittlung antiker und zeitgenössischer Literatur an den Schulen auseinander.” 358 Winter 458. In the original: “Sein konsequentes Eintreten für die Lektüre zeitgenössischer deutscher Texte an den überweigend noch an den lat[einische] und griech[ische] Autoren orientierten preuß[ische] Gymnasien ist besonders vorzuheben.” 359 Volkert 106. In the original: “Zur zeitgenöss. Diskussion um Lehrpläne an höheren Schulen leistete J. einen maßgebl. Beitrag durch seine Schulausgaben antiker Schriftsteller mit ausführl. Wortregistern, Grammatik- u. übersetzungsanmerkungen. Auch theoretisch äußerte er sich zu Übersetzungsfragen u. Lektüreauswahl für den Schulunterricht.” 360 Volkert 106. In the original: “Forderung nach selbstständigem Lesen der Schüler.” 361 Volkert 106. In the original: “Kommentierungen der Texte sollen zusätzl[iche] Erklärungen des Lehrers weitgehend ersetzen.” 87 massive Lexikon deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten or Encyclopedia of German Poets and Prose Authors, which he published in six thick volumes between 1806 and 1810 and represents the first attempt at a reference work on German authors that is simultaneously comprehensive and evaluative. Present-day scholars agree that the Lexikon has, in some ways, never been surpassed, pointing out his painstaking inclusion of bibliographic materials as well as his attempt to provide an objective assessment of the contributions of each poet. In the words of one Mendelssohn scholar, the Lexikon “distinguishes itself just as much through its deliberate judgment as through the extensive amount of information.”362 This evaluation has long been held; at the time of publication, Jördens’ Lexikon was positively received and became a standard reference work, used, for example, by Goethe to check dates and other facts while writing Dichtung und Wahrheit (Trunz 612). Mid-nineteenth-century biographer Heinrich Döring called the Lexikon a “comprehensive work, that, at least with regard to the bibliographic notes, has yet to be surpassed.”363 At the same time, critics disparaged his outmoded Late Enlightenment worldview. In the Encyclopädie der deutschen Nationalliteratur oder, biographischkritisches Lexikon der deutschen Dichter und Prosaisten seit den frühesten Zeiten; nebst Proben aus ihren Werken of 1838, one finds a typical, positive mid-nineteenth-century characterization of Jördens: Gründlicher Fleiß, Belesenheit und Gewissenhaftigkeit, zeichnen diesen trefflichen Mann mehr aus als seine übrigen schriftstellerischen Eigenschaften, welche sich nicht über das Gewöhnliche erheben, doch verdient in einigen Leistungen, seine behagliche Darstellungsweise angemessenes Lob. – Großes Verdienst dagegen erwarb er sich um die Geschichte deutscher Literatur, durch sein Lexikon deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten, welches einen bedeutenden Reichthum von höchst schätzbaren, mit unermüdlicher Emsigkeit zusammengetragenen Notizen und Nachweisungen enthält, und, so vornehm auch mancher neuere Kritiker auf dasselbe herabblickt, sich doch noch fortwährend als höchst brauchbar erweist.364 Wolff praises qualities that we associate with academic engagement with literature, rather than those we might associate with the creation of literature itself. Jördens is, according to Wolff, a capable enough author, although hardly a fine writer; his true ability lies in the careful collection of materials related to literary figures. Wolff points out that some, younger critics no longer find Jördens’ work useful and turned up their noses at it. The reception of the Lexikon as depicted by Wolff is representative of the changes taking place in the field of literary studies in Germany during the first half of the nineteenth century. During this era, literary studies became distinctly separate from belles lettres and the evaluative standards of the Late Enlightenment were superseded as authors of the Sturm und Drang and Romanticism were canonized. The result of this process has led Jördens’ methodology, which included the careful collection of evidence, extensive bibliography and an attempt at objectivity, to become the norm and, thus, nearly invisible to commentators, while the actual evaluations he made were already outdated. All of Jördens’ successful projects, from his dictionaries and translations to his compilations and biographies, belong to the genres of literature that, as Döring says, thrive on “steely industry” and are not affected adversely by a “certain pedantic streak” (29). The Blumenlese is no exception. Furthermore, Jördens brought both classical training and a teacher’s expectation of the need to explain 362 363 364 M. Albrecht 333. In the original: “Sein Lexikon zeichnet sich durch gediegene Information ebenso aus wie durch das wohlerwogene Urteil.” In the original: “umfassende[s] Werk[...], das, wenigstens in Bezug auf die bibliographischen Notizen, bisher noch nicht übertroffen worden ist” (Döring 29). Trans.: “thorough industry, erudition, and scrupulousness distinguish this excellent man more than all his other characteristics as a writer, which did not rise above average, but his comfortable way of representing things earns commensurate praise in some deeds. – He earned greater credit for himself, however, concerning the history of German literature, through his Lexikon deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten, which contains a significant wealth of extremely valuable notes and evidence, and, how lordly some newer critics look down on it” (Wolff 4:287). 88 and define to the genre of the German poetry anthology. All of the qualities came together to result in the creation of an anthology that presents poems as part of a historical narration. At the time of its creation, the Blumenlese, like the Lexikon, was simultaneously cutting edge and passé. On the one hand, it represents a new standard in its field in terms of careful attention to detail, comprehensiveness, historical perspective, and evaluative organization suggestive of a conscious attempt at canonization. On the other hand, Jördens chose to anthologize the epigram, a genre that was a bulwark of the cultural patriotism of the Enlightenment, but which, in 1789, was long past its prime and reflected neither contemporary nor future production of German poetry. The result was an anthology in the modern sense, one that is selective, retrospective, and representative. Jördens’ First Epigram Collection: The Epigrammenlese (1789) It was during his final years in the Prussian capitol that Jördens published the Epigrammenlese and the Blumenlese. As de Capua observes, Ramler’s earlier volumes were versions or “preliminary studies” which he adapted and improved.365 Schmid for his part seems to have settled on a single concept for his Anthologie, but without a fixed plan as to the number of volumes he would create. Judging from his publication history, it is clear that Jördens worked differently than either Ramler or Schmid; it seems that he planned his projects from the beginning to have a certain scope and then creating only a single version in most cases; however, the epigram project is an exception to his usual method, appearing in two stages. Jördens’ earlier attempt at an epigram anthology, Epigrammenlese oder Sammlung von Sinngedichten aus den vorzüglichsten älteren und neueren Epigrammatisten der Deutschen nebst einem Anhange über das Epigramm, appeared in the same year as the first volume of the Blumenlese. The preface of the Epigrammenlese is dated May 1, 1789, while that of the Blumenlese is dated “den letzten des Herbstmonats [September] 1789” – no more than five months passed between the publication of the Epigrammenlese and the first volume of the Blumenlese. As in the case of Ramler's Sammlung and Ueberschriften, the first publication is thinner than the second, and differs from it in both form and content, containing only a very short, two-page preface and a selection of five hundred forty-two less accessible epigrams and seventy-five pages of biography. Unlike Ramler, however, Jördens did not create the Epigrammenlese as a draft to be improved upon, but rather as an entirely different project, best described as a frustrated compromise, possibly with the publisher of that work, Wilhelm Vieweg, who was known as Vieweg der Jüngere, or Vieweg the Younger. 366 As Jördens reports in the preface to the Epigrammenlese, he had been planning a comprehensive epigram anthology long before publishing the Epigrammenlese and shares the plan of this already completed “Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte” and mentions unnamed factors that prevent the Epigrammenlese from being that ideal collection: Die Sinngedichter selbst sollten in chronologischer Ordnung auf einander folgen, aus ihren Werken aber mit strenger Auswahl nur das Beste und Charakteristische eines jeden gesammelt werden. Voran sollte die Theorie dieser Dichtungsart, verbunden mit einer Geschichte derselben, stehen. Ich gieng mit Eifer und Fleiß an dieses Werk, wodurch ich mir vielleicht einiges Verdienst erwerben zu können hoffte, und vollendete es nicht ohne grosse Arbeit und Mühe. Man wundre sich nicht, wenn man bei gegenwärtiger Epigrammenlese diesen Plan nicht ausgeführt findet. Umstände, für die ich nicht verantwortlich seyn kann, haben mich dahin vermocht, hier nur eine Nachlese dessen, was in unsern bisherigen Sammlungen nicht enthalten ist, zu liefern.367 De Capua 1756, 356. Not to be confused with Friedrich Vieweg known as Vieweg der Ältere or Vieweg the Elder (beginning in 1787), who was based at that time in Berlin but would later move to Braunschweig. 367 Epigrammenlese n. p. Trans.: “The epigrammatists themselves should be arranged in chronological order, but only the best and most characteristic poems of each should be collected from their works. At the beginning of the volume should 365 366 89 In this passage, which makes up the heart of the preface, Jördens describes the Epigrammenlese as a “Nachlese” or “gleaning” of epigrams not found in contemporary anthologies, using one of the metaphors Schmid uses to describe the Anthologie der Deutschen; however, unlike Schmid, Jördens is not satisfied with only the pickings, but would prefer to create an anthology that represents the entire Lese or the first selection, such as of wine grapes (AdD 1: vii-viii). Here, Jördens also describes the essential elements of the project that would in fact be published as the Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte shortly thereafter: a chronological organization of poems that are both the finest and the most representative work of each author and a theoretical and historical description of the genre. Fig. 5. The title page of Jördens’ Musenalmanach with Ramler in crown of laurels and classical garb. After a portrait by Georg David Matthieu (courtesy of the SB Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz). The Epigrammenlese was not the anthology Jördens hoped to create; furthermore, it was still indebted, at least in part, to a prescriptive Ramlerian approach to collecting poetry, which allowed for the be a theory of this poetic genre united with a history of the same.” I began this project with zeal and industry, though which I had hoped I could do myself some credit and completed it not without much work and effort. One should not be surprised to find that this Epigrammenlese does not match that plan. Circumstances over which I have no control have made me able only to deliver a gleaning of that, which is not in our current collections.” 90 emendation of others’ poetry and for names to be left off of poems (as in the Lyrische Bluhmenlese). In both points, Jördens does not go as far as Ramler, as his emendations are fewer and the poems are grouped together by author, so that one can identify his work. As mentioned in the biographical section, Jördens knew Ramler personally; in his own attempt at editing a Musenalmanach (which was poorly received), Jördens wrote and published a biography of Ramler based on a series of conversations with him (fig. 5, see Döring 29). In this “Kurze Nachricht von Karl Wilhelm Ramlers Leben und Schriften,” Jördens includes a biography and the annotated bibliography, adopting Ramler’s metaphors to describe his textual emendation (i.e. “Ausfeilen”) in his descriptions of Ramler’s individual works. 368 Jördens’ Epigrammenlese demonstrates a gradual transition toward modern approaches to poetry, but it also represents an important and direct path of influence from anthologist to anthologist as Jördens took on aspects of Ramler’s approach to anthologizing poetry in his first collection.In line with Jördens’ disappointment with Epigrammenlese, Jördens’ name does not appear on its title page369 and that he chose a different publisher for the Blumenlese, although he had published three works with Vieweg between 1788 and 1790, after which point he moved on to other publishers in Berlin, Leipzig, Silesia, und Lusatia.370 It is possible that Vieweg decided he did not wish to publish a representative epigram anthology, as that would mean republishing the texts of numerous living authors, which could lead to reprisals or unsold copies, due to a saturated market. In any case, Jördens first created his “Nachlese” with Vieweg the Younger and then took his manuscript for his ideal project, the Blumenlese, to the Verlag der Königlichen Realschulbuchhandlung. Jördens was not the only one to wish that the Epigrammenlese could have been more complete. A reviewer at the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung took notice of the Epigrammenlese and Jördens’ plans; at the time, the ALZ was “the reviewing body with the largest print run, likely also the widest and most influential one in the German-speaking territories.” 371 In comparison to the older Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek, the ALZ transcended the Enlightenment conception of the review and was “open to new movements in literature and science.” 372 The ALZ reviewer wrote of the plan for the Blumenlese, which was described in the introduction to the Epigrammenlese: “Schade, dass dieser Plan nicht ausgeführt worden ist! Eine solche Sammlung würde uns noch viel wilkommener sein.” 373 Although the ALZ reviewer is pleased with the collection as it is, writing that it has been made “mit ziemlicher Auswahl” or “much selection” and, while he identifies the textual changes to the poems, that Jördens in a Ramlerian turn does not mention himself, he finds that the poems have been improved by his emendations (707). In comparison, the reviewer finds the lack of paratextual explanation and theorizing of the genre in the Epigrammenlese as well as the lack of names at the beginning of each selection to be central flaws of the collection (708). The reviewer’s criticism of the Epigrammenlese suggests that although the it fell short as a representative anthology and was indebted to an earlier, partly prescriptive view of literature, Jördens had perceived a true need in the literary world, a need that he still hoped to fill by creating the Blumenlese.374 Also, despite the Jördens, Karl Heinrich, ed. “Berlinerischer Musenalmanach für 1791.” Berlin: Carl Matzdorff, 1791. 161-176. The Epigramnenlese already had already been attributed to him during his lifetime (see W. Heinsius, 511 of 1812 and Julius 29 of 1817). See also Holzmann 2: 32. 370 Jördens published Plutarchi vitae parallelae Themistoclis et Camilli, Alexandri et Caesaris. Ad optimas editiones expressae selectisque variorum notis illustratae (1788), the Original-Dialoge und -Erzählungen der Deutschen (2 vols., 1789 / 1790), and the Epigrammenlese (1789) with Vieweg the Younger. 371 In the original: “das auflagenstärkste und wohl auch verbreitetste wie einflussreichste Rezensionsorgan im deutschsprachigen Raum.” “Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung.” 372 In the original: “öffnete sich neuen Strömungen in der schönen Literatur und der Wissenschaft” (Scheider 204). 373 Rev. of “Epigrammlese…” in ALZ (1791): 707-708. Trans.: “How unfortunate that this plan was not completed! We would appreciate [literally, welcome] such a collection even more.” 374 ALZ 1.89 (1791): 708. 368 369 91 Fig. 6. The title page of the Epigrammenlese (courtesy of the SB Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz). unspecified difficulties Jördens mention, he managed to maintain at a few of the important characteristics of his original plan for the Blumenlese in the Epigrammenlese, especially its chronological organization and focus on canonical poets. One third of the Epigrammenlese is made up of Baroque poets, particularly Opitz, Logau, Wernicke, Tscherning, Gryphius and Adam Olearius, but nearly fifty percent of the biographical pages are dedicated to them. The second section includes poems by Hagedorn, C.E. v. Kleist, Kästner, F. Ewald (twenty-three percent of the total poems). The third includes Lessing, Kretschmann, C. A. Fehre [K. G. Küttner?] (twenty percent), while the final section includes Gökingk, J. C. Blum, K. G. Pfeffel, P. W. Hensler (twenty-four percent). Even in the Epigrammenlese, it is clear that Jördens is not creating a collection of Läppchen with low evaluative standards as Schmid does in the Anthologie der Deutschen. Instead, working within the unnamed strictures that prevent him from publishing a representative anthology, Jördens created a collection of poems by poets he found to be the “vorzüglichsten” or the “most excellent,” as the subtitle of the 92 Epigrammenlese suggests. In doing so, Jördens weights his collection toward seventeenth-century poets whose works had been popularized by Ramler, and toward poets known for their epigrams. The authors with the greatest number of poems are Logau (eighty-nine poems or twenty percent of the total poems), Wernicke (fifty-four poems or ten percent), Kästner (sixty-seven or twelve percent of the total), Lessing (forty poems or seven percent), Hensler (sixty poems or eleven percent), Gökingk (fifty-one poems or nine percent) and Küttner (or possibly Fehre) the author of the anonymously published Sinngedichte und Lieder, gesungen an der böhmischen Gränze (1776) (forty-four poems or eight percent). Taken together, these seven poets (of seventeen) make up seventy-seven percent of the total collection. Another reviewer, Johann Gottlieb Portmann (1739-1798), a composer and cantor in Darmstadt who made important contributions to harmony theory, wrote a very unfavorable review of the Epigrammenlese for the ADB.375 Portmann also picked up on Jördens’ efforts to bring together central poets, but he was not in favor of the project, deeming Jördens’ attempts unoriginal and a wasted effort, suggesting the collection of poems from Musenalmanache and other periodicals as a more useful project for an anthologist: Besser auch, glauben wir, hätte der Herausgeber gethan, und mehr für den Nutzen und das Vergnügen seiner Leser gesorgt, wenn er sich nicht blos auf unsre besten und allgemeinen Sinndichter eingeschränkt hätte. In unsern unzähligen Musenalmanachen, Journalen und Sammlungen von Gedichten, die entweder bald in Vergessenheit gerathen, oder vielleicht gar nicht, oder doch nur dem allerkleinsten Theile des Publicums bekannt werden, finden sich hie und da einzelne gute und vortreffliche Stücke.376 Furthermore, Portmann also criticized Jördens’ inclusion of older materials that did not meet contemporary generic standards for the epigram (156). As we will see in his introduction to the Blumenlese, Jördens is against the application of normative poetics (such as Ramler applied) to earlier poetry. A final criticism against which one cannot defend Jördens is an overly close reliance on biographical sources in the paratexts of the Epigrammenlese, copying them directly in large part and uncritically parroting biographical information; however, to a certain degree, Jördens’ decision to repeat texts and information available elsewhere is a conscious choice that reflects the modernity of his projects in that he attempts to canonize particular authors rather than showcase novelty. His compilation relies specifically on the ‘standardness’ of the texts to achieve its goal, which is directly counter to the idea of originality. Jördens’ decision to create a representative anthology is foreshadowed in his Epigrammenlese. Despite now being a form so standard as to be invisible, at the time, the representative anthology was not greeted with praise from all sides. The Blumenlese: Anthology Theory and Anthology Practice Jördens’ desired representative anthology, the Blumenlese, was published by the Verlag der Königlichen Realschulbuchhandlung that same year. This press had been founded some forty years before (1749) by Friedrich the Great (Friedrich II) and through the influence of Georg Andreas Reimer (1776-1842), the 375 376 Review signed “Hf.,” which Parthy attributes to Portmann (Parthey 60). See Damschroder for information about Portmann’s life and theoretical contributions (268). Rev. of “Epigrammenlese oder Sammlung…” ADB, 93.1 (1790): 155-157. Here, 157. Trans.: “The editor would have done better, and done more for the utility and pleasure of his readers if he had not restricted himself to only our best and most common epigrammatists. There are individual good and excellent pieces to be found here and there in our countless Musenalamanche, journals and collections of poems that either will soon be forgotten, or perhaps are not known at all or only to the smallest part of the public.” 93 press would soon become an important publisher of the Romantics, including such authors as Jean Paul, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Ludwig Tieck, Achim von Arnim, the Brothers Grimm, Heinrich von Kleist and Wilhelm von Humboldt. However, in the early 1790s, the Realschulbuchhandlung was an academic press that published titles on topics such as accounting, pedagogy, numismatics, history, and the natural sciences.377 Its publishing program did encompass selected works on literature, works that represent the “eben entstehende Germanistik,” or the academic study of German literature emerging at precisely that moment (Reimer 73). The most famous of these early literary works are Erduin Julius Koch’s critically acclaimed Compendium der deutschen Literatur-Geschichte (1790-1798) and System der lyrischen Dichtkunst in Beispielen (1792).378 Jördens’ work shares a few important traits with Koch’s work on literature in the title list of the Realschulbuchhandlung: they are pedagogical and historically oriented. These qualities are significant in that they create the conditions necessary for modern approaches to literature by demanding the creation of clear narratives in order to be useful for teaching purposes and by placing literary works in the context of their creation, which forces historical perspective. Koch (1764-1834) begins the preface to the Compendium (1790) with a description of his approach: Ich liefere hier einen Versuch, der in einem weitern Umfange, als bisher geschehen ist, die Fragen h i s t o r i s c h beantworten soll: welche Fortschritte hat die Deutsche Nation in der schriftlichen Bearbeitung der Wissenschaften gemacht? welche Schiftsteller hat sie in jeder Gattung derselben aufzuweisen? unter welchen äussern Umständen lebten diese? wie und in welchem Zustande sind ihre Werke auf uns gekommen?379 The literary materials published by the Realschulbuchhandlung are designed to ease the reader's entry into literature by creating an intelligible structure or viewpoint from which to approach the material for their audience – mostly made up of teenage schoolboys –young, but, nonetheless, decently educated laypeople. Through the definition of terms and the creation of an historical narrative these authors make literary history intelligible for students, but also for the wider field of people interested in German literature. As a publication of the Realschulbuchhandlung, the Blumenlese finds its place in a series of literary Wegweiser or signposts for both students and the literati. That said, the Blumenlese is also not a literary creation in itself, but rather a tool for the study of literature. The Physical Properties of the Blumenlese In this case study, I will explore the physical properties of the Blumenlese in detail, as important differences between the Blumenlese and earlier eighteenth-century anthologies find expression in these characteristics. Although the format of the volumes is octavo, as were virtually all anthologies of the period, the volumes of Jördens’ Blumenlese give a more substantial impression than most other collections of epigrams. The Königliche Realschulbuchhandlung is still in existence; in 1801 the press became the Verlag Georg Reimer and in 1897, the Verlag Walter de Gruyter. 378 Paul Raabe calls Koch’s essay Über deutsche Sprache und Literatur (1793) “die in Vergessenheit geratene Geburtsurkunde der Germanistik als historischer Wissenschaft von der deutschen Sprache und Literatur” (Raabe 142). 379 E. Koch. i.Trans.: “With this, I offer an attempt, which is intended, to a greater extent than has been done before, to answer the questions h i s t o r i c a l l y : what progress has the German nation made in the written development of the sciences? which writers can she show for herself in each genre? in what material [literally,“external”] conditions did these [writers] live? how and in what condition have their works been passed down to us?” 377 94 The volumes are thick, with a total of approximately two hundred thirty pages in the first volume and three hundred in the second. Additionally, the Blumenlese is printed in Roman type rather than the more common Fraktur typeface (fig. 7). The Zweischriftigkeit or use of two typefaces in German language texts was long a method of specification not available to authors writing in other Western European languages. From the beginning of the sixteenth century on, German authors used Fraktur and other “gebrochene Schriftarten” for German-language texts and Roman type and other “runde Schriftarten” for Latin, ancient Greek and other European-language texts whether printed or handwritten.380 In an article on German typography between 1750 and 1850, Georg Kurt Schauer wrote that “the most thrilling contrast [of the typography of this era] lies in the unabated continuation of the use of two fonts, the coexistence of angled and rounded fonts, the specifically German tension between the two types, Fraktur and Roman.”381 This “tension” originated in the latter half of the eighteenth century when some authors began to support the use of Roman type as a primary typeface for German language texts. These intellectuals were attempting to take part in an international return to Classicism, while those who favored Fraktur saw the use of Roman type as a betrayal of tradition and their Germanic roots.382 Jördens uses Fraktur Fig. 7. courtesy of the SB Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz. in other contexts, such as the Lexikon and the Denkwürdigkeiten Charakterzüge und Anekdoten aus dem Lebendervorzüglichsten deutschen Dichter und Prosaisten (1812), and the Epigrammenlese (fig. 6), and other works from around the same time were printed in Fraktur by the Realschulbuchhandlung.383 Thus, the printing of Blumenlese appears not to be due to necessity, but rather by the shared intention of the author and his publishing house. The use of Roman face in the Blumenlese as well as Koch’s Compendium seems to reflects the participation of Antiqua also was used to denote foreign origin of specific words or the titles of texts in texts primarily in Fraktur, much as italics are used today. 381 In the original: “Der erregendste Kontrast [der Typographie dieses Zeitraums] lag in der unvermindert fortdauernden Zweischriftigkeit der deutschen Typographie, dem Nebeneinander gebrochener und gerundeter Schriften, der spezifisch deutschen Spannung zwischen Fraktur und Antiqua” (Schauer 7). 382 This ideological debate would not reach its conclusion until 1941, when the National Socialist government issued an edict in favor of Roman type and Fraktur met its end in mainstream printing. 383 For example: Diterich, Johann Samuel. Die Ersten Gründe der Christlichen Lehre (1790). Bergen, Johann Christian. Anleitung zur Viehzucht oder vielmehr zum Futtergewächsbau und zur Stallfütterung des Rindviehs mit Anmerkungen, Berichtigungen und Zusätzen. Ed. Albrecht Thaer (1800). 380 95 Jördens and the Verlag der königlichen Buchhandlung in the literary-political discourse of the day and a desire to locate the German epigram tradition within a wider European tradition, rather than to underscore the specifically German origin of those texts. At the same time, Jördens draws attention to the German origin of the poems in the title, as Schmid had done some years prior. This choice represents a distinctly different approach than that of, say, Johann Joachim Eschenburg in his eight-volume Beispielsammlung zur Theorie und Literatur der schönen Wissenschaften (1788), which covers ancient Greek, ancient Latin, Italian, French, English and German examples and represents an intentionally comparative study divided into literary genres and then further by linguistic-cultural group. 384 By melding an exclusively German set of texts with the use of Roman type under the title Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte, Jördens and his publisher, the Realschulbuchhandlung, draw a line of descent from the ancient Greek and Roman models to modern German epigrams, a theme on which he touches in the introduction. Unlike Ramler’s Lieder der Deutschen and Bluhmenlese der Deutschen or Schmid’s Anthologien der Deutschen, Jördens’ Blumenlese does not include a title page image, frontispiece or other figurative decoration, except for a gracefully stylized line that appears at the top of each page. The presence or absence of these elements signals different intended uses of a particular text and, for that reason, often entirely different audiences. Here, the austere format signals its use-value to attract an academic audience. In place of a vignette on the title page, Jördens includes a motto: “Inest sua gratia parvis” or “little things have their own grace.” In the landmark study of the anthology, Die deutschsprachige Anthologie, Dietger Pforte write that approximately twenty percent of anthologies created between 1800 and 1950 had mottoes on their title pages.385 He theorizes that mottoes are used in the following way: “to appeal to the reader or even the potential buyer leafing through the anthology, to create a bridge to him, bringing him closer to the anthology.”386 Although Jördens’ work falls earlier than those in Pforte's study, this thesis seems applicable to the Blumenlese; nevertheless, it appears that Jördens’ motto has other functions in addition to those suggested by Pforte. The motto is an advertisement to be sure, but it also justifies Jördens project and indicates through the use of Latin to the potential buyer of the past, as well as the academic of today, that this book is meant for an audience that already possesses or aspires to a certain standard of education. The Paratexts and Organization of the Blumenlese The title of Jördens’ Blumenlese combines three thematic aspects: “Sinngedichte,” which defines this work as a genre anthology, the adjective “deutsch,” which can denote either membership in a linguistic or cultural group or both, and the primary substantive, “Blumenlese,” a compound that promises beauty and quality through selectivity. Taken together, the elements of the title provide an accurate advertisement of the contents of the book, but they are also suggestive with regard to Jördens’ approach. Jördens does not use the substantive form of deutsch, as in Schmid’s Anthologie der Deutschen, among many others, but rather an adjective form. Jördens does not use this adjective before a substantive indicating a person as in Ramler’s Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte der deutschen Poeten. Instead, Jördens uses the adjective before the word Sinngedichte or “epigrams”: Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte. This choice is still patriotic, but less explicitly so, as it directs the readers focus toward the Of the other European traditions, one finds neither Spanish nor the Scandinavian and Slavic languages represented in the Beispielsammlung. 385 Pforte lxxi. 386 “den Leser oder auch schon den in der Anthologie blätternden potenziellen Käufer anzusprechen, eine Brücke zu ihm zu schlagen, ihn der Anthologie näherzubringen” (Pforte lxxi). 384 96 level of linguistic commonality rather than suggesting a commonality among individuals as directly as it would on the substantive level. In short, the title promises the reader a careful selection of good epigrams that represent the literature of the German language rather than the literature of the Germans. In comparison to most of the other major anthology projects, Jördens’ methodology seems surprisingly close to that which since has become best practice. Jördens supplies the reader with several substantial introductory supplementary texts to his anthology. These texts are arranged to follow an order of increasing specificity. After the standard dedication, Jördens presents an introduction that illuminates the anthology form itself and then gives specific information including a theoretical and historical essay on the epigram as a genre. Finally, Jördens includes biographies of those poets he considers to be the greater German writers of epigrams.387 With these accompanying materials, Jördens accomplishes a variety of tasks including contextualization of the individual epigrams as well as a critical summary of the existing theories of the genre. The first text in the Blumenlese is a “Vorbericht” or “introduction” that describes the anthology form in the abstract. The introduction begins as follows: 388 Blumenlesen aus einer oder der andern Dichtungsart scheinen unter uns immer notwendiger zu werden, je nachdem von Zeit zu Zeit die Anzahl der Dichter selbst sich dergestalt mehret, dass die Anwendung theils der Kosten, welche die Anschaffung der ältern und neuern Produkte aus dem weiten Reiche der Poësie, theils der Zeit, welche das Lesen und die sorgfältige Absonderung so wohl des Mittelmässigen und Schlechten, was sich nicht selten bei manchem sonst guten Dichter, als auch des Guten, was hie und da sich bei manchem sonst schlechten Dichter noch findet, erfordert, nur die Sache einer sehr geringen Klasse von Freunden und Verehrern der Dichtkunstseyn kann. Like Schmid, Jördens describes the mass of poems one must sift through to find the few good ones; Jördens, however, does not focus on the difficulty of bringing together poetry as Schmid does, but rather the difficulty of sorting the good from the bad. Jördens argues that German-language anthologies are becoming increasingly essential in the final decades of the eighteenth century due to the wild growth of the German literary corpus, which makes it impossible to buy and read everything for oneself. Thus, anthologies function as Vermittlungsinstanzen or “engines of transfer” between the “vast realm of poetry” and the reader. At the same time, Jördens uses the figure of the Kenner or connoisseur, who has the means to collect much poetry, but who is also trained enough in the evaluation of literature to discern quality, as a foil. Here, Jördens, like Eschenburg in his evaluation of Ramler’s Ueberschriften, does not identify himself with the Kenner, but rather with other readers – the great mass of readers, who lack the financial means and the discerning eye of the Kenner. Although he aligns himself with readers who are not connoisseurs, Jördens speaks specifically of his hopes that he might gain the approval of the particular and select audience, whom he identifies as Kenner: “Hier werde ich völlig zufrieden seyn, wenn sie im Ganzen nicht missfällt und sich den Beifall der mehresten, besonders der Kenner, zu erwerben das Glück hat.”389 Jördens’ anthology concept is shaped by what he believes will satisfy the As in most eighteenth-century books, we find a dedication directly following the title page. Jördens dedicates his anthology to a Prussian magistrate: “Sr. Hochwohlgeboren dem Herrn Georg Eberhard Friedr. von Beyer Königl. Preuss. Geheimen-Oberfinanz-Krieges- und Domainen-Rathe u. s. w. unterthänigst zugeeignet von Karl Heinrich Jördens.” 388 Blumenlese 1: v. Trans: “Anthologies of one or the other poetic genre seem to be increasingly necessary for us [Germans], depending upon how the number of poets itself seems to multiply from time to time such that the dedication partly of the funds that the acquisition of older and newer materials from the vast realm of poetry, and partly of the time that the reading and careful discrimination required to separate the mediocre and bad, which are not uncommon in many otherwise good poets, and the good things still found here and there among [the works of] some otherwise bad poet, can only be the affair of a very small class of friends and admirers of the poetic arts.” 389 Blumenlese 1: x. Trans.: “I will be completely satisfied if it [the anthology] generally does not displease and is lucky enough to earn the approbation of the majority, especially the connoisseurs.” 387 97 needs and desires of his audience, but as mentioned above, Jördens’ designs his anthology around the expectation that he will indeed have multiple target audiences within his readership, as should be expected of a literary publication from the Realschulbuchhandlung. As most anthologists of the period do, Jördens makes claims to selectivity, and therefore to quality. However, he also emphasizes a second, equally important element. In addition to quality, Jördens insists on the representative nature of the poems he chooses: “Ich habe aus jedem Dichter mit strenger Auswahl, das Beste und Charakteristische desselben auszuheben gesucht.”390 Evaluating poems both by qualitative and representational standards, Jördens redefines the anthology in the German speaking realm, changing the entire sense of the anthology from simply a book of good poetry by a variety of authors to a collection with a historical perspective as its basis. Directly after defining his audience on the first page of the introduction, Jördens announces that his motivation to compile this anthology were related to the creation of a German literary history: Ich hatte mir vorgenommen, das ganze geräumige Feld der deutschen Poësie, so weit es mir irgend möglich, nun genauer und völliger kennen zu lernen, als ich es vormals in meinen Jünglingsjahren vermocht; besonders auch zu dem Entzweck, um durch diese vertrautere Bekanntschaft den Zustand unsrer gesammten Dichtkunst, so wohl in ältern als neuern Zeiten, zu ergründen und für die vollständigere Geschichte derselben die nöthigen Resultate gewinnen zu können.391 Jördens describes his ambition to read and know the entirety of German poetry in both “earlier and later” times; he hoped by doing so to be able to make a contribution on the history of German literature. While not carried out for other aspects of literary production, the Blumenlese certainly meets Jördens’ aims in regard to the epigram. Toward the end of the introduction, Jördens speaks explicitly of a history of German literature. In his Blumenlese, he writes, he had attempted a history of the epigram after the theoretical exploration of the genre: Auf die Theorie folgt sodann die Geschichte dieser Dichtungsart bei den verschiedenen sowohl ältern als neueren Völkern, doch so, dass ich hauptsächlich mich nur bei den Deutschen verweile […]. Ich weiss es und fühle es sehr wohl, zu was für Forderungen ein so glänzender Titel berechtigt; was für [xi] Fragen man hier beantwortet, was für Untersuchungen man angestellt zu finden glauben wird.392 Echoing Hallbauer, Jördens writes that there are certain elements that one ought to include in a literary history, which he is certain he himself has not succeeded in accomplishing; however, he explains that the writing of a literary history is a difficult undertaking to which he does not consider himself equal. Instead of expecting that what he has attempted will be the last word on the subject, he considers it merely a first attempt and writes that he hopes it will serve to encourage others to undertake the writing of an improved history of the epigram and histories of other genres: Aber gesetzt auch, dass die wirkliche Ausführung hier dem Titel noch so wenig entspräche, so würd' es doch immer Verdienst genug seyn, wenn ich so glücklich wäre, dadurch die Idee von einer Geschichte der Blumenlese xiv. Trans.: “I have tried to choose the best and the characteristic of each poet through rigorous selection.” Blumenlese 1: vi. Trans.: “I had planned to get to know the whole wide field of German poetry, in as far as I could, more accurately and completely than I had succeeded in my youthful days, particularly with the purpose of taking the measure of the state of our entire poetic arts both in earlier and later times through this more intimate acquaintance and being able to gather important findings contributing to the more complete history of it [our poetic arts].” 392 Blumenlese 1: x-xi. Trans.: “A history of this poetic genre in the various earlier and newer cultures [literally, peoples] follows the theory, but such that I mainly only linger by the Germans […]. I know and feel it very strongly, what would be equal to the challenge of such a glorious title; what questions one should answer here, what kind of inquiry one expects to find here.” 390 391 98 einzelnen Dichtungsarten unter uns mehr aufgereget und Gelegenheit gegeben zu haben, dass scharfsinnigere Köpfe daran dächten, ein Gebäude aufzuführen, wozu mir die Kräfte mangelten.393 Here we also see Jördens express the Koselleckian condition of modernity, in which one sees the temporality of one’s own age. As we see, Jördens looks toward the future for the creation of literary history: Lange hat man bittere Klage darüber geführt, dass wir noch keine vollständige Geschichte unserer einheimischen Dichtkunst besitzen; aber sollt' ich wohl irren, wenn ich behaupte, dass uns die Aussicht hiezu noch so lange verschlossen bleiben wird, bis mehrere ihre Bemühungen auf die vollständige Geschichte der einzelnen Theile verwenden? – Ich würde übrigens selbst statt Geschichte lieber den bescheidenern Titel Litteratur gewählt haben, wenn nicht jene Absicht mich anders bestimmt hätten.394 According to Jördens, a literary history had not yet been created, which shows that he was either unaware of or did not consider Schmid’s “Skizzen” in Olla Potrida (discussed briefly in the second case study) to be a true literary history; instead, in a footnote, Jördens names the work of Karl Friedrich Flögel (1729-1788), who created the Geschichte der komischen Litteratur (4 vols. 1784-1787), as exemplary (see Palm). Critical for our understanding of the development of German literary history before the nineteenth century is the fact that Jördens is already looking forward to a future in which it is possible to write a literary history for the German language and that he has a plan for how this should be accomplished, which we might even call a historiographical approach. In his understanding, studies of each genre must be made, which can then be used to write the history of the entire field, much as historians today rely on narrower histories of specific places and incidents in order to assemble broader historical overviews. At this stage, however, Jördens does not have a specific method or theory of how these histories should be written, other than that one should begin at the level of the genre and trace its forms through history. This, however, is not the only place in which Jördens addresses history and the development of historical perspective as an important aspect that can contribute to the study of German literature. For example, historical perspective comes up in determining the poetic selection of the Blumenlese. Jördens does more than select poem-for-poem; instead makes an evaluation of each author's body of work and then makes a selection based on this interpretation. A crucial element of this approach is, of course, the selection criteria. Ramler, for example, can include only very few seventeenth-century poems in his anthologies, because he measures all poetry according to the standards of the eighteenth century and either excludes or changes poems to fit his taste. Jördens similarly calls attention to the 'deficits' of earlier poetry when measured by contemporary standards: 395 Noch darf ich nicht vergessen, dass man in gegenwärtiger Sammlung bei einigen Dichtern manches Stück antreffen wird, das weder nach Lessingscher, noch irgend einer andern unsrer jetztigen Theorien für ein ächtes Sinngedicht gelten kann. So sind bekanntlich sehr viele Stücke unserer ältern Epigrammatisten eigentlich nichts weiter als versificierte moralische Sentenzen. Blumenlese 1: xi. Trans.: “But given that the actual product does not fully live up to the title, it would be an accomplishment enough, if I could be so lucky as to encourage the idea among us to write a history of individual genres and could give occasion, that sharper minds would think to create a monument, for which my own powers are lacking.” 394 Blumenlese 1: xi. Trans.: “People have long complained bitterly that we do not possess a complete history of our native poetry, but would I be mistaken, if I assert, that the prospect of that will be slight until more people concentrate their efforts on a complete history of the individual parts? – Incidentally, I myself would have chosen the more modest title of “Literature” rather than “History,” if my intentions had not convinced me otherwise.” 395 Blumenlese 1: xv. Trans.: “I should not forget that one will find encounter poems by a few poets in the current collection that cannot be considered a genuine epigram according to the theory of Lessing or any of our other contemporary theories. As is well known, a great many poems [literally, pieces] by our earlier epigrammatists are actually nothing more than versified moral aphorisms.” 393 99 Despite calling attention to the difference between the poems and current literary theory, Jördens asserts that it was his duty to include these poems as evidence of the evolution of poetic forms over time: 396 Diese aber und andre dergleichen gänzlich auszumerzen, halte ich wider die Pflicht des historischen Sammlers, da eben diese Stücke zeigen müssen, was man in den verschiedenen Zeiten für Begriffe vom Sinngedicht gehabt, und was man alles mit diesem Namen belegt habe. In this extremely important step, Jördens collects both new and old poetry while understanding himself to be a “historical collector.” Thus, he avoids giving a normative evaluation of these older poems based on the standards of his day, while at the same time uniting them with contemporary poetry. This, in combination with his desire to select the most “characteristic” poems of each author, makes him unique among his contemporaries. Jördens also addresses anthologizing on a theoretical level and makes suggestions for the creation of good anthologies: “Es möchte daher wohl der Mühe werth seyn, darüber nachzudenken, welche Einrichtung solchen Blumenlesen zu geben stünde, wenn sie für uns einen höhern Grad der Nutzbarkeit und Vollkommenheit erhalten sollen.”397 Jördens embeds his reasons for dissatisfaction with the many German anthologies of the late eighteenth century in a personal narrative. He wrote that German literature had been his hobby and he had noticed during his attempt to read all there was that most anthologies were not satisfactory: 398 Ich fertigte nun nach einem eigenen Plane, zu meinem Privatvergnügen und Nutzen verschiedene Blumenlesen aus mehreren Dichtungsarten an, wobei ich hauptsächlich mein Augenmerk auf Vollständigkeit, zweckmässige Ordnung, und gute Auswahl richtete. By creating a personal narrative, Jördens allies himself with his audience as a fellow reader – as a companion, rather than a teacher. Assuming the role of the reader himself, he can also allow himself greater freedom in his critique of others, as he need not approach them as one professional to another. In his analysis, Jördens alludes to every well-known anthology of the last third of the eighteenth century. At the outset, he quotes from the anthological preface of a Berlin acquaintance, Johann Jakob Engel (1741-1802): “Entweder fand ich, um es mit Herrn Engel zu sagen, mit zu wenig, oder auch mit zu viel Geschmacke gesammelt.”399 Jördens then describes the anthologies of his day, none of which he found satisfactory.400 Um, wenigstens bei einigen Dichtungsarten, unnöthige Mühe und Kosten zu ersparen, hielt ich's für rathsam, mich baldigst näher mit den […] vorhandenen Blumenlesen bekannt zu machen. Ich griff mit Blumenlese 1: xv. Trans.: “But I consider it contrary to the obligation of a historical collector to completely expunge these and others like them, as exactly these poems must show what defininitions of the epigram were had in different times and all the things that have borne this name.” 397 Blumenlese 1: v. Trans.: “Trans.: “It would therefore very well be worth the trouble to contemplate how anthologies should be constructed, if they are to reach a higher degree of usability and completeness for us.” 398 Blumenlese 1: iix-ix. Trans.: “I soon made different anthologies of different genres according to my own plans for my own private pleasure and use, whereby I mainly focused my attention on completeness, purposeful organization, and good selection.” 399 Blumenlese vi. Trans.: “Either, I found, to use Mr. Engel’s words, that they had been collected with too little or too much taste.” Engel had published his Anfangsgründe einer Theorie der Dichtungsarten aus deutschen Mustern entwickelt. Erster Theil with Nicolai six years previously (1783). 400 Blumenlese vi. Trans.: “In order to save myself unnecessary effort and cost in at least a few genres, I thoought it would be wise to examine the […] available anthologies as soon as possible. The more famous the name of the anthologist, the greater my expectations as I reached for each of them. But how unsatisfactory they were for my needs!” 396 100 desto grösserer Erwartung nach ihnen, je berühmter die Namen ihrer Herausgeber waren. Aber wie wenig ward ich hier grösstentheils zu meiner Absicht befriedigt! Among the many types of anthologies Jördens decries, are the “Disteln- und Dornenlesen,” or “selections of thistles and thorns” which parade themselves as “selections of flowers,” among which one might reasonably expect Schmid’s Anthologie der Deutschen.401 Here we can see how Jördens applies modern qualitative expectations of the anthology to the poetry collections of his age. For Jördens, Schmid's Anthologie certainly would fall into the category of the ‘unneeded’ poetry collection. Some twenty years later, Jördens would characterize the Anthologie negatively in his Lexikon for precisely that reason: “Man findet hier fliegende Gedichte und Stücke aus periodischen Schriften, theils ungedruckte Poesien gesammelt. Nur ist zu wünschen, daß der Herausgeber eine bessere Wahl und Ordnung beobachtet hätte.”402 Jördens also discredits anthologies which are chronologically narrowly conceived, and thus include either “bloss das Alte” or “bloss das Neue,” that is, “only the old or only the new” (vi). Even these anthologies, which purport to have a narrow focus, are often not sorted strictly enough and thus are also “mangelhaft” or wanting (vii). Of course, Jördens criticizes anthologies that are disorganized: “Bei mehreren […] sucht' ich die Namen der aufgenommenen Dichter vergebens.” 403 Here, Jördens must almost certainly be criticizing Ramler's Lyrische Bluhmenlese (1774), in which the authors' names do not appear at all, neither with the poems themselves nor in an appendix. Ramler had excused this as follows: Die Namen aller dieser Dichter [...] hat man nicht unter ihre Lieder setzen wollen, um solchen Kennern, die allein von dem Namen auf die Güte des Werkes schließen, die Beurtheilung ein wenig schwerer zu machen. Auch hat man nicht angezeigt, welche Stücke aus neueren Poëten nachgeahmt worden sind. Warum sollte man seinen Landesleuten die Ehre entziehen, selbst Schöpfer eines witzigen Einfalls gewesen zu seyn? Eine Ehre, die mancher desto mehr verdiente, weil er die entlehnten Gedanken weit glücklicher eingekleidet hatte, als sein Vorgänger, der überdem oft der Nachahmer eines ältern Dichters gewesen war, dessen Namen er gleichfalls verschwiegen hatte.404 In this description, Ramler suggests that his intention is pedagogical - at least insofar as the so-called “connoisseurs,” who only pay attention to the name of a poet, are concerned. In the introduction to the second volume of the Lyrische Bluhmenlese (also 1774), he mentions the heated criticism he received for his cheeky attempt at scholarly reeducation, despite the legality of his decision. The main complaint, of course, is that if one found a good poem, it was impossible to find more by the same author. So Jördens: “Bei mehreren wiederum sucht' ich die Namen der aufgenommenen Dichter vergebens, um wissen zu können, was diesem, oder was jenem gehöre.” 405 Jördens also criticizes misguided attempts to organize poems by genre: “Bei einigen dieser poëtischen Chresthomathien fand ich die Dichtungarten Blumenlese 1: vi. Trans.: “One finds flying poems and pieces collected from periodicals, partially unpublished poetry. It is only to be wished that the editor had observed a better selection and organization” (4: 556). 403 Blumenlese 1: vii. Trans: “In some […] I searched in vain for the names of the included poets.” 404 Ramler, Karl Wilhelm. Lyrische Bluhmenlese. Teil I. Leipzig: bey Weidmanns Erben und Reich, 1774. xiv-xv. Trans.: “We did not want to put the names of all these poets under their songs, in order to make the evaluation a little more difficult for such connoisseurs, who judge the quality of the work by the name alone. We also have not stated which items have been copied [translated] from newer poets. Why should one deprive his countrymen the honor of himself having beeen the creator of a witty idea? An honor that some deserved even more, because he had dressed the borrowed thoughts far more felicitously than his predecessor, who, besides, often was the imitator of an older poet, whose name he had also withheld.” Ramler’s true motives for anonymously publishing the poems was more likely his constant editing of others’ work without permission. 405 Blumenlese vi. Trans.: In some […] I searched in vain for the names of the included poets in order to know, what belongs to this one or that one.” 401 402 101 selber nicht von einander gesondert, bei andern sie zwar dem Namen, doch nicht der That nach durchgängig genau und richtig geschieden. 406 Unlike Ramler's stripping the poems of their authors' identities, failures that fall into this category are common – and specific to the age, as the exact boundaries of the various genres were still in flux and also had changed markedly over the preceding 150 years. Jördens points out that differentiating between genres is difficult, particularly when dealing with older poetry: Zwar laufen öfters die Grenzen der Dichtungsarten so dicht zusammen, dass es allerdings, selbst für den Geübtesten und Besonnensten, schwer genug ist, in einzelnen Fällen sich nicht aus dem Gebiete der einen in das Gebiet der andern zu verirren.407 In the case of historical collections, Jördens excuses the confusion of genres, as he understands the difficulty of applying the standards of his day to the poems of the past and accepts that such a collection must be documentary: In einer Rücksicht sogar, denk' ich, würde ein solcher Fehltritt nicht bloss Verzeihung, sondern auch Rechfertigung verdienen, wenn nemlich die ganze Sammlung bloss historisch seyn soll, wo alsdann der Sammler unmöglich das Recht haben kann, die Grenzen der Gattung nach seinen eignen Begriffen von derselben, oder auch denen seines Zeitalters, festzusetzen, sondern, meines Bedünkens, gehalten ist, sie so zu lassen, wie er sie bei den Dichtern selbst in verschiedenen Zeiten antrifft, der Grenzstein mag übrigens, seiner Ueberzeugung nach, weiter oder auch näher gerückt seyn, als es sich ziemet. 408 In this passage, Jördens carefully defines his position on changes to genres over time, which is distinctly at odds with the thinking of many other anthologists, such as Ramler, who applied his strict standards either by excluding older poems or changing them to reflect his own narrower conception of poetic virtue. Jördens, on the other hand, makes room for nonconforming poems, and thus the poets of earlier times, not by challenging modern standards, but by invoking his role as a collector to maintain appropriate distance from the material. Jördens is certainly ahead of his time (and sometimes of ours!) in his suggestion that one must search for the boundaries of a specific genre form in their original location, in the works of the age one is studying. Such a maxim has not always been heeded in the study of many things, including in the research on the anthology form (see II.II). In the same vein, Jördens attacks other anthologists’ sloppy categorization of poem and poets, which prevents the reader from tracing literary developments:409 Was mich indessen immer am meisten bei diesen Sammlungen beleidigte, war, die Dichter selbst Blumenlese vi. Trans.: “In some of these poetic chresthomathies I found the poetic genres themselves not separated from each other, in others they separated by name, but not in actually very carefully and correctly.” 407 Blumenlese 1: vii. Trans.: “The boundaries of the poetic genres run so close together that it is, however, that even the most practiced and best, it is indeed hard enough not to mistakenly wander out of one field into another in certain cases.” 408 Blumenlese vii-viii. Trans.: “In one regard, I think, such a blunder would deserve not only pardon but also justification, when namely the whole collection is meant to be merely historical, in which case, the collector cannot possibly have the right to set the limits of the genre according to his own definitions, or even those of his age, but is instead required as I see it, to leave them as he finds them in the poets themselves in different ages [literally, times], the landmark may have moved closer or further, by the way, than is appropriate, according to his conviction.” 409 Blumenlese 1: viii. Trans.: “What always most insulted me the most in these collections, was to commonly find the poets themselves mingling in the strangest and to me most contrary combinations. Here I found, to take an example out of our epigram anthologies, the honest, true-hearted Logau, right next to him the jolly Heinse, then Bürger following, then Hofmannswaldau, then Gökingk, then Haller, then Opitz again, and so it went on in such a tangle. How is it possible [in such an anthology] to become familiar with the spirit of any poet in particular or to trace the path that a genre has taken among us [Germans] in the various periods [lit. times]?” 406 102 gemeiniglich in der sonderbarsten, mir oft widrigsten Zusammenstellung und Gesellschaft zu finden. Hier traf ich, um für itzt ein Beispiel aus unsern Epigrammenlesen zu nehmen, den ehrlichen, treuherzigen Logau, dicht neben ihm den lustigen Heinse, dann folgte Bürger, dann Hofmannswaldau, dann Gökingk, dann Haller, dann wiederum Opitz, und in diesem Gewirre gieng es dann weiter. Wie ist es da möglich, den Geist eines jeden Dichters nun insbesondere kennen zu lernen, oder aber dem Gange nachzuspüren, den eine Dichtungsart unter uns in den verschiedenen Zeiten genommen? Here Jördens attacks the practice of organizing poets next to those with whom they have nothing in common on the grounds that it does not lend itself to a deeper understanding of the spirit of a particular poet. Jördens goes on to point out that this confusion of poets and poems does not allow the reader to become acquainted with the spirit of the individual authors and thus, also to get a sense of the path a genre has taken in its development throughout history. As we notice, every third name Jördens lists is a seventeenth-century poet; Jördens sets store by a chronological organization, as he expects that it could lead to the creation of knowledge about the development of the form. Although Jördens is still speaking of the development of specific genres rather than of a history of literature, as he had touched on at the beginning the introduction, he does express the advent of modernity here through a true historical perspective that allows for formal evolution over time and the enjoyment of that discovery. The second supplementary element before the poems in the Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte is an anthology of the theories of various other authors, which Jördens has selected, summarized, and interpreted under the title “Ueber das Epigramm oder Sinngedicht” as a complement to the work Eschenburg did on the epigram in creating his Entwurf einer einer Theorie und Literatur der schönen Wissenschaften. Zur Grundlage bey Vorlesungen, discussed in the introduction (II.II) and which Jördens considers “schätzbar” or “valuable” (1: x). In the commentary, Jördens introduced various aspects of epigram scholarship in a series of short sections from theoreticians including Batteux in Ramler's translation, Sulzer, Lessing, and Herder. Jördens comments on those texts directly as well as indirectly in his ordering of the authors as well as the length and frequency of the materials by them, quoting most extensively from Lessing and Herder. Indeed, he bases his anthology concept on a combination of Lessing and Herder's literary theories, particularly their rejection of a rhetorical approach in favor of the evaluation of poetry within a historical framework, including both Lessing’s “Zerstreute Anmerkungen über das Epigramm” and Herder’s “Anmerkungen über das griechische Epigram” in shortened form. Jördens also includes epigrams by both Lessing and Herder; in the case of Herder, particularly from his Blumen aus der griechischen Anthologie gesammelt, a collection of epigrams Herder had selected and translated into German for publication in his Zerstreute Blätter (1785-1786). In the Blumenlese, Jördens takes up Herder's “historisch-genetische” or “historical-genetic” literary theory, which he had developed out of his anthropological understanding of human history; according to Herder's theory, “Lit[eratur] soll nicht mehr mit Hilfe überzeitlicher Normen bewertet, sondern aus ihrem je eigenen historischen und kulturellen Voraussetzungen heraus einfühlend verstanden werden.” 410 Like Schmid’s introductions to the volumes of the Anthologie der Deutschen, Jördens’ introduction to the Blumenlese also reflects the contemporary expectation that the question of international status will be addressed; Jördens dedicates a paragraph each to the epigram tradition in Greek, Roman, Italian, Spanish, English and French. 411 Following these short sections, he addresses the question of Rang or international status of the various ‘national’ literatures:412 Nünning 252. Trans.: “Lit[erature] should no longer be judged according to supratemporal norms, but should rather be understood empathetically according to their own historical and cultural conditions.” 411 Blumenlese 1: 21-27. 412 Blumenlese 1: 27. Trans.: “The present anthology should be able to show whether the Germans stand higher or lower in status and comparison with the epigrammatist of other nations of ancient and later times. From it, one will hopefully see, 410 103 Ob die Deutschen im Range und in Vergleichung mit den Epigrammatisten anderer Nationen alter und neuer Zeit höher oder niedriger stehen, wird die gegenwärtige Blumenlese zeigen können. Aus ihr wird man hoffentlich sehen, dass man man [sic] auch in unsern bessern Sinngedichten jenen Charakter gewichtigen Schrotes und reinen Korns antrifft, der überhaupt jedem Werke ächter deutscher Art und Kunst eigenthümlich ist, und welcher so wohl des schärfste SALZ des Römers, als die feinste Spitze des Galliers aufwiegen dürfte; so wie man in einigen, je nach ihrem Gegenstande und Zwecke, so gar die schmucklose griechische Grazie nicht vermissen wird. In this comparison of German literature to the literatures of other European countries, Jördens describes the best qualities of each nation’s epigram-style and then suggests that something of each can be found in German epigrams. Instead of directly answering the oft-asked question of international dominance, Jördens wrote that the anthology would have to answer this question itself. Although he clearly is proud of the accomplishment of German poets, he maintains a certain distance (or at least discretion). This paragraph is the only place in which the topic is addressed and Jördens does not insist on the overall superiority of Germany’s poetry, but rather on glimmers of the ‘best of everything’ in the finest work of his countrymen. Without devolving into histrionic patriotism, Jördens succeeds at laying to rest this anxiety about the international status of German epigrams. Jördens follows this theoretical portion with entries on the German epigrammatists he believes to be most important. The entries in the section entitled “Deutschlands eigentliche und sehr schätzbare Epigrammatisten” are biographical, but not exclusively so; they also address both the importance of the epigram in the authors' total body of work and the reception history of that author. In it, Jördens describes Logau, Wernike, Hagedorn, Ewald, Kästner, Lessing, Kretschmann, Göckingk, Fehre and Hensler as the “eigentlichen Sinndichter.” 413 Then he lists Opitz, Adam Olearius, Tscherning, A. Gryphius, E. von Kleist, Michaelis, Weisse, Blum, Unzer, Claudius, Ludwig Heinrich von Nikolai, Pfeffel, Götz, Kazner, Sangerhausen, Bürger, and Voß as others who made a contribution, albeit a somewhat smaller one. He also lists Herder as an important theoretical contributor. Then he offers a simple listing of others who wrote just one or two poems: “Ausser diesen findet man endlich auch noch zerstreut in den Werken vieler ältern und neuern Dichter Deutschlands einzelne vortrefliche Sinngedichte.”414 These entries prefigure Jördens’ Lexikon, which includes entries on more than 300 German authors from the Gothic Bible translator and bishop, Wulfila (C. E. 310-383) up to the present. It appears to me that Jördens had worked out the structure of his later encyclopedia entries in the Blumenlese. As Marianne Jacob points out in her 2003 dissertation, “Die Anfänge bibliographischer Darstellung der deutschen Literatur des 19. Jahrhunderts. Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte des Deutschen Schriftsteller-Lexikons 1830 – 1880,” “Vollständigkeit wurde von Jördens nicht angestrebt” (Jacob 15). Instead of a comprehensive reference work (like the Gelehrtenlexika of an earlier age), Jördens restricts the scope of his Lexikon to all authors who are generally considered to be “von erstem Rang” and what he can of the others, lest he “vor lauter Bäumen den Wald nicht erblick[en]” (Lexikon 1: 7, 10). In the fifth volume, Jördens described his selection process anew, writing that he did not see the sense in collecting information on writers indiscriminately: “es [dünkt] mich ein sehr unnützes Unternehmen, so manchen elenden Reimer und Dichterling der wohlverdienten Vergessenheit entziehen that also in our best epigrams one finds that character of solid and pure weight, that is particular to every truly German work of art and which should be able to compensate not only for the sharpest SALT of the Roman, but also for the finest barb of the Gaul; in some, depending on their subject and purpose, one does not even miss the unadorned Grecian grace.” Blumenlese 1: 43. Jördens draws heavily on Karl August Küttner’s Charaktere teutscher Dichter und Prosaisten. Von Kaiser Karl, dem Großen, bis aufs Jahr 1780 (Berlin: Voß, 1781). 414 Blumenlese 1: 59. 413 104 zu wollen.”415 As we can see, by the time he began the Lexikon, Jördens fully recognizes that canonization requires evaluating authors and their works hierarchically. In the Blumenlese, Jördens maintains careful control of his impulse to collect and share information, giving the salient details of each authors' contribution to the genre but nothing more. In his Lexikon, his articles are far more complete and very different in tone, as they are meant not only to highlight a contribution to a subfield, but to give a full picture of each subject, both as an author and as a personality. As a literary historian, Jördens sees himself bound by the quantity of information available on a given author, but this alone does not determine the length of a biography. Jördens makes Wichtigkeit or importance a central feature of his determinations regarding depth of treatment as well as inclusion in the Lexikon: “Die verhältnißmäßige Ausführlichkeit richtete sich bald nach den ergiebigern oder dürftigern Quellen, bald nach der größeren oder geringeren Wichtigkeit des Schriftstellers.” 416 In both the Blumenlese and the Lexikon, his systematic approach is to describe biography first, then the most important works as well as reception history. This information is covered in an evaluative fashion. In the introduction to the Blumenlese, Jördens successfully unites the anthology form with an extensive criticism of the life and works of twenty-eight authors, whose contributions to the German epigram Jördens thought especially noteworthy. The Organization of the Poems in the Blumenlese Unlike the poems of Schmid’s Anthologie or even Ramler’s Sammlung and Ueberschriften, the poems of the Blumenlese are logically organized rather than simply divided into small, digestible random groupings of poems that keep each author's selected works together. Aside from the first tone-setting poem, which will be discussed in the conclusion of this case study, Jördens organizes the poems chronologically, like the standard representative anthology of the twentieth century. The creation of an intrinsic or immanent organization stems from Jördens’ desire to clarify the origins and trace the development of the epigram as a genre in German-speaking lands. This historicizing dimension forces a development of literary theory specifically for German works, which in turn results in a structure that narrates something on its own about the poems presented in the anthology. The poems of the Blumenlese are divided into two sections, one of which is made up of the chronologically organized poems and the Anhang to the second volume, which Jördens calls his “Polterkammer” or “storeroom for odds and ends.” All of the poets are listed in the “Chronologisches Verzeichniß der in dieser Blumenlese vorkommenden Dichter” at the end of the second volume that provides the year of birth for each one as well.417 Jördens’ organizational decision results in a prioritizing of authors. In an era with a much less precisely fixed canon, Jördens’ decision puts the reader's focus on those he considers most important without excluding authors whose contribution to the form he deems modest. By employing these various groupings, Jördens creates a kind of canon-thesis through selection and organization, which he then reinforces through his explicit assessments of particular authors in the supplementary biographies. As Martin mentions, the Blumenlese contains poems by a number of Baroque authors: Andreas Gryphius, Logau, Adam Olearius, Opitz, Andreas Tscherning, Christian Wernicke, Johann von Besser, Fleming, J. Franck, Christian Gryphius, Hoffmannswaldau, Homburg, Lohenstein, Morhof, Travendall, Weckherlin, Martin Zeiller and Zincgref.418 The poems of the main portions are organized chronologically, meaning Lexikon 5: iv (also cited by Jacob 154). Trans.: “It appears to me a very useless project to try to save some miserable rhymers and versemongers from well deserved obscurity.” 416 Jördens 1: 11 (also cited by Jacob 154). Trans. “the comparative elaborateness is according sometimes to abundance or the scantiness of sources, sometime according to the greater or lesser importance of the writer.” 417 469-479. 418 Martin 587. 415 105 the first volume covers the seventeenth century, beginning with Opitz, and the eighteenth century on through Lessing, Michaelis and Christian Felix Weiße. The other pre-1700 poets included in the main portion are Olearius, Logau, Tscherning, Gryphius, and bridge figure Christian Wernike (in that order). The rest of the pre-1700 authors are in the appendix. In Jördens’ words, “Den Beschluss der ganzen Blumenlese macht endlich ein Anhang, den ich im Scherz meine e p i g r a m m a t i s c h e P o l t e r k a m m e r zu nennen pflege.”419 In his Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, Campe describes a “Polterkammer” as “eine Kammer, in welche man altes abgenütztes Hausgeräth bei Seite stellt und verwahrt, von dem Gepolter, welches das handhaben und Bewegen desselben verursacht.” 420 Jördens’ metaphor thus recalls Schmid’s comparison of some poetry to household rags, but improves upon it by suggesting through this particular expression a discordant aural experience that the poems are supposed to share with household odds and ends knocking about it a closet. The definition of “Polterkammer” found in J. G. Krünitz’s Ökonomisch=technologische Encyclopädie, adds another important element to our understanding of Jördens’ metaphor. In the words of its compiler, H. G. Flörke, a “Polterkammer” is: 421 im gemeinen Leben, derjenige Raum, Platz oder Winkel, oder eine Kammer, in welcher man überflüssiges oder dermahlen entbehrliches oder altes abgenutztes Hausgeräth verwahret, von dem polternden Schalle, mit welchem das Handthieren in derselben verbunden ist. Here Flörke expands on Campe’s definition of the items held within the “Polterkammer,” calling them not only “old used up household items,” but also “extraneous or unnecessary.” Applied to poetry, these two definitions show that Jördens does not view the poems in his “Polterkammer” to be necessarily bad, but rather that he believes their utility has been exhausted. Jördens describes his “Polterkammer” as follows: Er enthält hauptsächlich die zerstreuten Sinngedichte sowohl von ältern als neuern, genannten und ungenannten Dichtern. Auch hier wird man auf manches unvermuthete Kleinod stossen, so wie man verschiedene bis itzt noch ungedruckte vortreffliche Epigrammen antreffen wird, die ich der gütigen Mittheilung einiger meiner Freunde zu danken habe.422 Jördens deals with the problem of uncertain quality in the “Polterkammer” in a unique way; the reader is invited to page through this section and either enjoy what he or she can or even to dispose of the section entirely: “Wem die ganz zuletzt noch angehängten Karrikaturen nicht gefallen, mag meinentwegen dieses Blatt abschneiden und es dem -- Herscher der Feueressen in Lemnos widmen, dass er es mit flammender Lohe verzehre!”423 To add a metaphor of my own, the “epigrammatic Polterkammer,” functions as a poetic quarantine, demonstrating Jördens’ preoccupation with qualitative differentiation, Blumenlese xvi. Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 3. Braunschweig: In der Schulbuchhandlung, 1809. 672. Google Books. Accessed Jan. 22, 2012. Trans.: a chamber in which one sets aside and stores old, used up household equipment, from the “Gepolter” or jangling, that the handling and moving of it causes. 421 Krünitz “Polterkammer.” Trans.: “in everyday life, that room, place or corner, or a chamber, in which one stores extraneous or currently expendable or old used up household items, from the jangling noise that is connected to the moving of the same.” Krünitz’s encyclopedia encompassed 242 volumes published between 1773 and 1858. 422 Blumenlese 1: xvi. Trans.: “It primarily contains the scattered poems of both earlier and later, known and anonymous poets. Here, too, one will find some unexpected gems, just as one will find diverse excellent epigrams, which have not been published until now, for which I have the generous contributions of a few of my friends to thank.” The Epigrammenlese, which Jördens had published with Vieweg is similar to the Polterkammer, as it is a kind of appendix or supplement to the available selection rather than a representative work itself. 423 Blumenlese 1: xvi. It would be exciting to find a copy that was bound without the Polterkammer. 419 420 106 while simultaneously making room for epigrams that do not fit his criteria. From a postmodern perspective, as the “storeroom” of marginalized works and authors in Jördens’ epigrammatic ‘house,’ the “Polterkammer” demonstrates that the canon is being enacted here by Jördens and, thus, that the canon is a construct, an artifice, created by people, rather than an inevitability or a natural phenomenon. At the same time, the use of a “Polterkammer” allows Jördens to have it both ways: although he creates a canon thesis, he does not actually discard the poets and poems, whom he rejects. Furthermore, the employment of the “Polterkammer” allows him to begin shaping a literary history out of the raw material of poems. For example, because of the “Polterkammer,” Jördens can begin his anthology with Martin Opitz, whom he calls “der Schöpfer einer neuen Epoche” for his 1624 call-to-arms, the Buch der deutschen Poeterey, while still including epigrams by Luther, Weckherlin, and others, who do not fit with this literary historical thesis.424 In total, the first volume contains four hundred fifty-nine poems by thirteen poets for an average of thirty-five poems per poet, but a median of only twenty-six, with a range between six and one hundred. The main section of the second volume represents sixteen poets of the mid to late eighteenth century, from Kretchmann and Unzer through Voß and Herder. With a total of three hundred eighty-three poems, there is an average of twenty-four poems per poet, but a median of seventeen (the range, however, is wide: six to sixty-seven). The “Polterkammer” contains both the greatest variety and chronological range, as it contains eighty-one named poets from Martin Luther and Martin Zeiller, the lone representatives of the sixteenth century, to poets born as late as the 1760s, such as Spalding and Hartmann, as well as seventy poems by anonymous authors. There are a total of two hundred eightyeight poems, leaving us with an average of 2.7 poems per poet (if we exclude the seventy anonymous poems) but a median of two. As one can see, the median is significantly lower than the average in all of Jördens’ groupings, a discrepancy due to Jördens inclusion of a substantially larger sample for a few poets. In the first volume, Logau and Lessing raise the average the most, with one hundred and eightytwo poems respectively. In the second volume, it is Herder and Göckingk with sixty-seven and fifty poems each. In the “Polterkammer,” the difference is less pronounced, but caused by larger groupings of poems by Klopstock (ten), Karoline Luise von Klenke (nine) and Klamer Eberhard Karl Schmidt (eight). Jördens includes a total of 110 named poets in the Blumenlese as well as seventy anonymously authored poems. Luther is the earliest of all the named poets, while only three others born before 1600 find a home in it: Zeiller, Zinkgref and Opitz. Approximately sixteen others were active during any part of the seventeenth century, including Logau, Fleming, Tscherning, Gryphius, Hofmannswaldau, Morhof, Weckherlin and Lohenstein. Half of all poets included in the Blumenlese were born between 1700 and 1750. Some stars of the late eighteenth century do not find a home in the Blumenlese, such as Wieland and Schiller. Others, such as Goethe and Klopstock, seem rather peculiarly relegated to the “Polterkammer,” as are most of the Baroque figures who are now considered central canon material, including Johann Christian Günther, Hofmannswaldau, Fleming and Weckherlin. Another interesting number is 1738, which is the median birth year of Jördens’ selected poets for whom a birthdate was available to Jördens; he himself was born in 1757, approximately one generation after his median. 425 By his youth, the generation born in the 1730s – the generation of Nicolai, Lessing, Klopstock, and Herder – had established themselves as serious authors. Although Jördens’ choices likely are influenced to a certain extent by the genre of his anthology, it also reflects the qualitative evaluations of the Late Enlightenment. 424 425 Blumenlese 1: 45. These statistics are somewhat rough, as data is not available on all poets, but should be sufficient for a general overview. 107 Contemporary Reception of the Blumenlese The reviews differ wildly from one another in their assessment of the merit of Jördens’ concept; from the responses one gets the impression that Jördens’ concept was novel and its merits were not immediately obvious. Although some praised it or praised parts of it, others considered it a mere “compilation” and were unable to admire his insistence on the integrity of individual poets’ works and his desire to abandon normative standards for older works. A very unflattering review of the Blumenlese appeared in the Neue Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften und freyen Künste, which had been founded by Nicolai and Mendelssohn in 1757, but by the time Jördens’ Blumenlese was written, editorial supervision had passed to its publisher, Schmid’s friend Dyk. Long an important literary institution, the NBSWFK had lost its “original progressive orientation” by the time this review was written in 1792, as it remained wedded to the “older literature of the Enlightenment (K. W. Ramler).” 426 The review of the Blumenlese in the NBSWFK is short but filled with bile:427 Wenn ein Mann, wie Ramler, aus einer Menge größtentheils wenig gelesener oder ganz vergessener Dichter die schönsten Stücke mit dem feinsten Geschmack auswählt, sie von einzelnen Flecken und Auswüchsen reinigt, und eine Sammlung von dem Werth seiner Bluhmen- und Fabellese liefert, so wird er sich zwar gegen Tadel und [256] schiefe Urtheile nicht ganz [hüten? illegible due to inking error] können, allein der Dank aller Unpartheyischen, der Leser von ächtem und feinem Geschmack, die den Zweck und das Verdienst seiner Arbeit einzusehen und zu schätzen wissen, kann ihm nicht entgehen. Solche Sammler verschiedenen Dank und Lob, denn ihre Arbeiten sind mühsam und nützlich, allein weder das eine noch das andere sind Compilationen, wie die hier angezeigte, und so können ihre Urheber auch weder auf Dank noch auf Lob Ansprüche machen. Was ist leichter als aus Büchern, die in jedermanns Händen sind, auf gerathe wohl, schöne, mittelmäßige und schlechte Stücke abzuschreiben, und neben einander abdrucken zu lassen? Im Anhang (den Hr. J. im Scherz, aber warlich mit dem größten Recht seine epigrammische Polterkammer zu nennen pflegt) verspricht er, werde man auf manches unvermuthete Kleinod stoßen, und auch ungedruckte vortrefliche Epigrammen finden. Wir suchten, und suchten und fanden kaum ein paar gute Stücke, die wir nicht schon gekannt hätten.428 The reviewer denigrated Jördens’ critical faculties and reduced his work to a mechanical process, asking “what could be easier than writing down beautiful, mediocre and bad pieces from books that everyone already has and then to print them all up next to each other?,” and depreciatively lumps Jördens’ Blumenlese together with “Compilationen.”429 This reviewer also praises Ramler's industry [Fleiß] and taste [Geschmack] and especially Ramler’s characteristic altering of poems that appear in his anthologies, which Ramler called “Ausfeilung” of “Fehler,” in comparison to Jördens’ ‘preservation’ McCarthy 183-184. In the original: “verlor ihre anfängliche progressive Zielsetzung,” “älteren Aufklärungsliteratur (K. W. Ramler).” 427 Rev. of Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte by Karl Heinrich Joerdens. NBSWFK 45.2 (1792): 255-256. 428 When a man like Ramler selects the most beautiful pieces with the finest taste from a large number of poets who are hardly read or even completely forgotten, cleanses them of their individual blotches and outgrowths, and delivers a collection of the quality of his [Ramler’s anthologies, the] Bluhmen- and Fabellese, he will, of course, not be able to completely [protect? illegible due to inking error] himself against criticism and cross judgments, but the thanks of all unprejudiced [people], the readers of true and fine taste, who know how to appreciate and to treasure the purpose and the merit, cannot escape him. Such collectors deserve diverse thanks and praise as their work is difficult and useful, but compilations are neither the former nor the latter, as this one [Jördens’ Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte] demonstrates, and so their creators can make no demands to thanks nor praise. What could be easier than writing down beautiful, mediocre and bad pieces from books that everyone already has and then to print them all up next to each other? In the appendix (which Mr. J. jokingly but in fact very rightly refers to as his epigrammatic storeroom) he promises that one will come across some unexpected gems, and also find some excellent epigrams that have never been published before. We searched and searched and found hardly a few good pieces we did not already know. 429 NBSWFK 45.2 (1792): 256. 426 108 method that did not “cleanse” the poems of their objectionable characteristics with Ramler’s “finest taste,” an argument that echoes Lessing’s preface to the Logau edition (discussed in the second case study).430 These criticisms highlight the radical changes in the concept of the aims of the poetry collection taking place in the eighteenth century. Furthermore, they emphasize the modernity of Jördens’ anthology and show how early representative anthologies prefigure the histories of German literature, which would only be written in the nineteenth century. It is fascinating to see how very different these concepts are from those of today; the reader of today may even find these arguments alienating, as the concepts of the supremacy of the authorial control and the preservation of historical evidence has become ‘obvious’ to us. The overwhelmingly negative, even vitriolic attack of Jördens’ Blumenlese suggests that factors external to the concept of the anthology itself are in play; unfortunately, the anonymity of the NBSWFK contributors has not yet been fully lifted. What can be said is that by trying this new form, Jördens seems to have attracted the ire of an ally of Ramler, perhaps due to his republication of older poets, whom Ramler had popularized in the Logau edition as well as the Sammlung and the Ueberschriften. As the NBSWFK reviewer mentions, one of Jördens’ ‘failings’ was that he did not change the works of others. As this review shows, not changing texts could, in fact, result in criticism, since it was so ‘easy,’ and thus suggested that the collector simply wanted to benefit financially from copying out others’ poems. The question of authorship in relation to anthologies is complicated by the fact that the main purpose of the anthologists is not the writing of original texts, but rather the selection and editing of texts written by others. Because these reproduced texts are clearly marked as from another hand, it obviously cannot be said that plagiarism has occurred, but as authors had no way to prevent it, reprinting could easily prevent them from benefiting financially from their work. As discussed in the second case study, without copyright, authors had only limited options to protect themselves, which consisted almost exclusively of social and literary reprisals. A much more positive review of the Blumenlese appeared in the younger and more modern Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung.431 This anonymous reviewer also refers to Ramler in his description of the state of German-language anthologies and, while he seems generally skeptical of the current state of the epigram anthology, he still counts Ramler among the best anthologists. The ALZ reviewer wrote that there have only been two in the great flood of epigram anthologies, which “einige Aufmerksamkeit verdienen: die Ramlerische, die sich jedoch bloss über die ältern Dichter erstreckt, und die von Hn. Füssli [sic].”432 In the opinion of the reviewer, however, Jördens’ Blumenlese outdoes both of these: “Gegenwärtiger Versuch von Hn. J. hat selbst vor dieser letztern [von Füssli], die bis jetzt die vollständigste und mit dem meisten Geschmack ausgesucht war, einige nicht unbeträchtliche Vorzüge.” 433 Among the exceptional merits of the Blumenlese is the selection, (“Mit der Auswahl kann man im Ganzen zufrieden seyn” 434). More interesting aspects praised are, firstly, a structure that allows the texts of each author to appear together but also organizes these authors into categories designated by Jördens and, second, the introductory texts chosen by him: “Hr. J. [hat] der Sammlung einen gutgerathenen Auszug aus den Ramler 1774, xi. Rev. of Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte by Karl Heinrich Joerdens. ALZ, 1.53 (1792): 419-420. 432 419. Trans.: “which deserves more than a little attention:” “Ramler’s, which, however, only covers the older poets, and that of Mr. Füssli.” 433 419. Trans.: “the present attempt by Mr. J. has some not inconsiderable advantages even over that of the latter [by Füssli], which was the most complete and tastefully selected until now.” 434 419. Trans.: “In general, one can be satisfied with the selection.” 430 431 109 besten theoretischen Schriften über das Sinngedicht und eine kurze Geschichte desselben vorzüglich bey unserer Nation vorgesetzt.”435 The structure merits an especially extensive description: 436 Die Stücke jedes Dichters, was wir sehr billigen, stehen beysammen, und sie selbst folgen nach chronologischer Ordnung auf einander. Sie sind in drey Classen getheilt. In der ersten stehen diejenigen, die sich dieser Dichtungsart einzig oder doch vorzüglich gewidmet: in der zweyten die, die ihren Ruhm auf andern Feldern erworben, aber doch auch das Epigramm mit Glück versucht haben. Die dritte Classe endlich begreift diejenigen guten und schlechten, Dichter, die nur ein oder ein paar gute Sinngedichte geliefert haben. The ALZ reviewer does criticize two aspects of the anthology. For one, although the reviewer praises Jördens’ general thoroughness, he questions Jördens’ treatment of translations into German and works in the style of a particular poet:437 Bey Uebersetzungen und Nachahmungen ist Hr. J. bemüht gewesen, die Originale anzugegeben, doch gesteht er selbst, dass, um hier sich die Vollständigkeit zu nähern, seine Belesenheit nicht hinreiche. Warum aber führt er auch da nicht immer den Vorgänger des deutschen Dichters an, wo dieser ihn selbst nannte? The reviewer's complaint represents a distinctly modern view of literature that insists upon a clear tracing of the newly created work to its literary ancestors. This interest in origins and intertextuality is representative of a new historical tendency of the eighteenth century that would lead to Literaturwissenschaft and which stood in direct conflict to the older mindset (represented by Ramler) which assumed an abstract and absolute standard of perfection that precludes such an interest. In addition to the modern perspective represented by the criticism above, this reviewer believes that Jördens’ canonization project could be supported by continued efforts to retrieve good poems from periodicals, which he feels Jördens neglects, echoing Portmann’s response to the Epigrammenlese:438 freylich würde er seiner Sammlung einen ungleich grössern Werth gegeben, und sie zu einer wahren Bereicherung unserer Literatur erhöht haben, wenn er aus den unzähligen, zum Theil ganz vergessenen Sammlungen von Gedichten, Monats- und Wochenschriften und andern fliegenden Blättern, die einzelnen guten Stücke ausgehoben hätte. The ALZ reviewer is not yet satisfied with the canon of literature available by other avenues, which was also the argument Schmid made for his Anthologie der Deutschen and the one aspect of his Anthologie that was positively received. This criticism reflects the eighteenth-century project of evaluating German cultural production as a whole and trying to create a cohesive literature from the myriad individual pieces that had been written up to that point, particularly in an era of an increasingly complex and 419. Trans.: “Mr. J. has preceded the collection with a judicious excerption of the best theoretical writings on the epigram and a short history of it specifically in our nation.” 436 419. Trans.: “The pieces of each poet are placed together, which we very much approve of, and they themselves follow one another in chronological order. They are divided into three categories. In the first are those who have dedicated themselves only or primarily to this poetic genre: in the second are those who acquired their fame in other fields, but who also attempted the epigram with success. The third class, finally, includes those good and bad poets who have yielded only one or two good epigrams.” 437 420. Trans.: “In the case of translations and imitations, Mr. J. has been keen to note the originals, although he himself admits that his erudition is not sufficient to achieve comprehensiveness. Why, then, does he not include the German poet’s predecessor, when he [the German poet] himself has named him?” 438 420. Trans.: “admittedly, he would have imbued his collection with a disproportionately larger value and have elevated it to a true enrichment of our literature if he had excavated the individual good pieces from the countless, in part completely forgotten, collections of poems, monthlies and weeklies, and other flying leaves.” 435 110 increasingly voluminous media landscape. This quotation reflects the widespread desire for a German Literature as well as the general conviction that this had not yet been achieved and that the search for lost treasures would have to go on. The Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin holds an exemplar of the Blumenlese from the famous personal library of Karl Hartwig Gregor von Meusebach (1781-1847), which contained approximately 25,000 works with an emphasis on German literature and literary history.439 During his lifetime, his personal holdings were considered to be the “nucleus of a German national library” by contemporary scholars such as the Grimms, Lachmann and Goedeke; the Blumenlese was one of a number of anthologies in his collection, including Schmid's Anthologie der Deutschen and Ramler's Lieder der Deutschen.440 Bettina Brentano von Arnim (1785-1859) persuaded Friedrich Wilhelm IV to purchase Meusebach's collection for the royal library in Berlin after the nobleman's death and in a pronouncement shortly thereafter, Uhland wrote that the collection “so recht dem eigensten Leben des deutschen Volkes angehört und, einmal verschleudert, nicht mehr zu ersetzen wäre.”441, 442 As a part of Meusebach’s collection, his copy of the Blumenlese was bound in a fine walnut-brown leather and decorated with gold stamping and gilded paper spine labels in mustard and emerald green (bearing the inscriptions “Epigrammen Blumenlese” and “1. 2. Theil.”). The page edges have been dyed red and a fine marbled paper in black, orange, salmon, bright blue and yellow on cream makes up the end papers. Despite the luxuriousness of its binding and decoration, Meusebach’s copy of the Blumenlese also bears evidence of active reading. Directly below the poetic “Vorrede,” that introduces the main part of the anthology, an early reader has added a second, thematically linked epigram: Ein Sinngedicht soll gleich der Biene seyn, So süss, wie sie, so steikend und so klein.443 The author indicates that the source of this poem by Wieland was an issue of the Deutscher Merkur from 1786, which suggests that the writer was likely a close contemporary of Jördens, I would venture, not later than 1800 and, based on the handwriting, possibly Meusebach himself. The reader has written nine additional poems on the endpapers; it appears that the reader used this book as a repository for epigrams, continuing the process of anthologizing in the published collection itself. The reader noted the author and sometimes the source of the poems (seemingly, when they were taken from periodicals), the same practice as was mentioned in Portmann’s criticism of the Epigrammenlese and reviewers’ praise of Schmid.444 Other scattered examples of the Blumenlese functioning as a point of transfer can be found, Today copies can be found in libraries in Augsburg, Berlin, Braunschweig, Dresden, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Fulda, Greifswald, Halberstadt, Halle, Hamburg, Leipzig and Überlingen. 440 Circular red stamp: “Ex Biblioth. Regia Berolinensi.”] quadratisch (2”x2”). In a circle with an eagle above - “Bibliotheca Regia Berolinensis. Dono Friderici Wilhelmi IV. Regis Augustissimi. D. V. Nov. MDCCCL. Ex Bibliotheca B. M. Karl. Hartw. Gregorii de Meusebach.” 441 “Weltliche und geistliche Lieder aus der Sammlung Meusebach.” Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Web. 1 Mar. 2012. 442 Ludwig Uhland. Eine Gabe für Freunde von seiner Witwe. Stuttgart, 1865. 403. As cited by Camillus Wendeler in the preface to Briefwechesel des Freiherrn Karl Hartwig Gregor von Meusebach mit Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm. Heilbronn: Verlag von Gebr. Henninger, 1880. cxxiii. 443 “An epigram should be just like a bee / as sweet, as piercing and small as she.” 444 Meusebach's personal copy of the second edition of Koch’s Compendium der deutschen Literatur-Geschichte (1795) is also held at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. This copy was custom bound with outsized blank pages between each printed page to allow for copious note-taking. Each blank page is neatly divided by hand-drawn markings into two columns and many of these pages are filled with Meusebach's extremely neat and regular handwriting in black with green highlighting. The notes concern diverse aspects of literature, from biography to bibliography and curatorial matters, as well as 439 111 such as Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Wander’s attribution of a poetic variation on the common German saying, “Ein gut Wort vermag viel,” to Jördens’ Blumenlese in the Deutsches Sprichwörter-Lexikon (18671880): “Die Kraft der guten Wort lässt sich in vielem spüren, ein gut Wort kann am Haar den Elefanten führen.”445, 446 In addition, Elaine Sisman traces the text of a canon by Austrian composer Joseph Haydn (1732-1809) back to the Blumenlese – Haydn used Jördens’ anthology as his source for the epigram “Herr von Gänsewitz zu seinem Kammerdiener” by Gottfried August Bürger (1747-1794): “Befehlt mal, draussen still zu bleiben! / Ich muss izt meinen Namen schreiben.”447 Conclusion: “nur zum Erleuchten” – Karl Heinrich Jördens, Pedagogue Anthologist I would like to the end this case study with a few observations on the poem Jördens chose to begin the Blumenlese; this poem embodies the most important aspects of Jördens’ method and the resulting collection, and thus makes their interest for German literary history clear. The first page bears only a single, neatly centered poem. Like many other features of Jördens’ poetry collection, beginning the Blumenlese with this poem is not an original idea. This short, unrhymed epigram in the Greek style is by Klopstock Fig. 7, courtesy of the SB Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz. and was originally titled “Elfte, vergeßne Vorrede,” when he had published it in the Hamburgische Neue Zeitung on November 2, 1771.448 By the time Jördens published his Blumenlese, the poem had already graced the beginning of the first volume of Johann André’s 1776, collection, the Epigrammatische Blumenlese, among others.449 The epigram is, of typographical and factual corrections. Translated into English by Wander as “Good words cool more than cold water.” 446 The entry reads “128. Ein gut Wort vermag viel. »Die Kraft der guten Wort lässt sich in vielem spüren, ein gut Wort kann am Haar den Elefanten führen.« (Persischer Rosengarten, 162; Jördens, Blumenlese, S. 75.)” (Wander 5, 403-404). 447 Sisman 454. However, the poem is not as Sisman wrote, to be found on page 139 of the first, but rather on 301 of the second volume. Also, the nobleman's name is Herr von Gänsewitz, not Herr Gänzewitz. 448 Hurlebusch 172-173, entry 31. 449 C. Boghardt 436, entry 1658. 445 112 course, paradigmatic for the genre of the epigram in form and content, as it is brief and witty, ending with an unexpected point. A comparison to the appearance of this poem in André’s Epigrammatische Blumenlese showcases several unique features of Jördens’ use of this poem. In his collection, André does not use the poem as a preface, but rather as the first poem in the collection, which changed the meaning of Klopstock’s poem and accordingly, André saw fit to change its title to “Das Epigramm” (5). As a “Vorbericht” or introduction to his collection, André chose another poem, one by Lessing, who, at least anecdotally seems to be the most common choice to introduce eighteenth-century epigram collections. This epigram is “Die Sinngedicht an den Leser,” which had been published as the lead poem of Lessing’s collected epigrams in 1771: Wer wird nicht ein Klopstock loben? Doch wird ihn jeder lesen? – Nein. Wir wollen weniger erhoben, Und fleißiger gelesen sein.450 André’s decision to use this epigram by Lessing sets an entirely different tone for the collection than the one by Klopstock – a lighter one, to be sure, and one that almost rebelliously rejects the preferred reading of the connoisseurs, as Klopstock was most famous for his religious epic, Der Messias, and his odes. By rejecting Klopstock and celebrated, serious literature in the epigrammatic “Vorbericht,” André suggests that his collection belongs to the category of entertainment, of popular literature. In fact, the Lessing poem not only rejects the entire category of high literature at the outset, but also ingeniously sets up a dynamic that places the collection of epigrams to follow on the side of the reader in a mutual ‘rebellion’ against literary aspirations and thus against social strictures. By comparison, Jördens has made a staid choice, but one that serves his purposes. As the Lessing epigram demonstrates, the “Elfte, vergeßne Vorrede” is by a poet who belongs to the very few uncontested giants of the eighteenthcentury German canon and one who is associated with fine literature. These facts mean that the “Elfte, vergeßne Vorrede” both sets a high tone for the collection and underscores Jördens’ intention to create a representative anthology, rather than a poetry collection based on other criteria such as novelty or regional affiliation. Furthermore, the poem is self-reflexive, describing the epigram per se; as the “Vorrede” to Jördens’ Blumenlese, the poem also becomes programmatic, signaling his understanding of the epigram and his intentions for the epigram anthology to the reader. Also, this epigram offers multiple metaphorical possibilities for the purpose of the epigram, but the final image is one that rejects violence and aggression in favor of communication; in this final image, the raison de etre of the epigram is “zum Erleuchten,” or to enlighten, its audience, rather than to enact a destructive “Brennen,” or burning, of the subject. By beginning his collection with a poem that favors wit that puts the subject ‘in a new light’ over wit that attacks and destroys, Jördens emphasizes the power and the pedagogical potential of the genre, and, thus, subtly foregrounds the educational purpose of the collection. A third important factor in his selection is the decision to use an epigram in the Greek style and that specifically mentions the Greek heritage of the epigram. This connects the present to the past and thus suggests a tradition upon which German poets draw and, thus, the historical perspective that is the foundation of the entire endeavor. In the history of German literature, Jördens is an ambiguous figure. In some ways, he is an old fashioned and unoriginal thinker, deeply indebted to the Late Enlightenment he had experienced during his younger years in Berlin long after new directions in literature and new approaches to the study of literature were growing out of the seeds planted by the Sturm und Drang and the Romantics – the 450 André n. p. Trans.: “Who would not praise a Klopstock? / But will everyone read him? – No. / We want to be less elevated / and read more industriously.” 113 subject of the Blumenlese, the epigram, is evidence of this rather outmoded perspective. Jördens also compiled and reprinted excerpts of other authors’ works without responding to it critically; his compilation of other sources can verge on parroting, particularly concerning biography. In other ways, Jördens demonstrates an approach to literature that embodies the advent of Koselleckian modernity through “historiographic consciousness” quite clearly (Osborne 30). First, in the Blumenlese, one can see Jördens’ clearly defined concept of canonicity and his efforts to establish a canon of poets in the genre of the epigram that goes beyond the most recent generation. Contemporary reviewers, who represent the most sophisticated class of readers, did not pick up on what Jördens was trying to accomplish, responding with a yawn to his efforts, misinterpreting his attempts to create a standard body of German epigrams and literature on epigrams as, at best, the work of a dull compiler and, at worst, the work of a willful imitator and, thus, literary thief. Jördens demonstrates a fully developed sense of historical perspective in his treatment of older literature; as one reviewer complains, he does not “cleanse” poems, desiring in fact, that one be able to see the differences between the generic definitions of various eras (Koselleck 166-167). A second important point that demonstrates the modernity of Jördens’ perspective is his call for a complete history of German literature, including both his concern that it likely not yet possible for such a history to be written at all and also his optimism that such a work can be created in the future. In the introduction to the Blumenlese, Jördens furthermore advocates for the creation of many narrower studies of individual genres so that one might eventually attempt a comprehensive history of German literature. In his discussion of a creating such a narrative about his native literature, Jördens demonstrates the beginnings of two other important facets of Koselleck’s theory, the idea that change is to be expected as time passes and that one’s own era be experienced and understood as a period of transition between the past and this “open” or unknowable future, which will be differentiated by more advanced technology and new knowledge (165, 167-168). It seems reasonable to suggest that Jördens’ perspective as a scholar of the classics and German literature combined with his work as a pedagogue, whose duty it was to explain these subjects, which were so similar (in subject), yet rooted in absolutely different cultures and ages, gave Jördens the tools necessary to create an anthology demonstrative of nascent modernity in 1789. VI. Conclusion: Collecting Tradition and Historical Consciousness I would like to end this study with a passage by Lessing on the writing of a history of a library, which is a pleasing analogy for the work of the anthologist. In the introduction to the Wolfenbüttler Beiträge (1773), Lessing, then librarian of the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel, contemplated the essence of historical narrative in a discussion of the flaws in an earlier attempt at a history of the ducal library: 451 Burckhard scheinet überhaupt nicht erwogen zu haben, worauf es bey der Geschichte einer Bibliothek hauptsächlich ankömmt. Nicht darauf, daß man die gleichgültigern Umstände ihrer Entstehung und ihrer allmäligen Vermehrung mit einer ängstlichen Gewissenhaftigkeit her erzählet; das wäre höchstens die Genealogie der Bibliothek: sondern darauf, daß man zeigt, wozu es denn nun auch der Gelehrsamkeit und den Gelehrten genutzt habe, daß so viele Bücher mit so vielen Kosten hier zu Haufe gebracht worden. Das 451 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim. Zur Geschichte und Litteratur. Aus dem Schätzen der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel. Vol. 1. Braunschweig: im Verlage der Fürstl. Waysenhaus-Buchhandlung, 1773. 4. Trans.: “Burckhard seems not to have considered at all about what is the primary aim of a history of a library – not that one simply narrate the irrelevant conditions of its genesis and gradual increase with timorous conscientiousness, that would be, at most, a genealogy of the library, but rather, that one shows how scholarship and scholars have benefited, that so many books at such a great price were brought here in piles. That alone makes up the deeds of the library and without deeds there is no history.” 114 allein sind die Thaten der Bibliothek: und ohne Thaten giebt es keine Geschichte. Lessing distinguishes between recording and narrating history, describing the latter as the creation of new knowledge out of the facts and events of the past. As he describes it, the mere recording of objects and events falls short: “Ein Inventar von Schätzen, ist recht gut; aber es ist kein neuer Schatz.” 452 Lessing wrote that the historian, when confronted with a library, must attempt to extract the essential from the factual, must search for purpose in the correlations between “books” and “circumstances.” Lessing’s problem of how to write the history of a library parallels the situation of early anthologists. How does one select from the vast literature that, to borrow Lessing’s terminology, makes up the ‘genealogy’ of the German literary tradition, those few works that have served scholars – how to find the ‘deeds’ of German literature? Despite what previous scholars have written about them (or not written about them, as the case may be), eighteenth-century anthologists were in fact looking for the deeds of their ‘library’ of German literature, developing narratives by choosing to publish certain collections of texts. They were not all indiscriminate in their selections; instead, their selection criteria and their motivations were different than ours. As we have seen, early anthologists made choices based on contemporary understandings of the development of German literature, an understanding that changed radically over the course of the eighteenth century as prescriptive, normative poetics were dropped in favor of an individualistic, descriptive approach. In addition to this underlying change, other priorities shifted, too – originality became more important, leading to the rejection of translated poetry as worthy of compilation, and the relevance of certain poetic forms shifted over the course of the century. The work of creating anthologies was (and remains) an unglamorous and often invisible literary pursuit and poetry collections are often forgotten when literary history is being written. However, despite their near invisibility, they have been a force in the reception and shaping of literary tastes since the days of manuscript. In a similar vein, credit for the development of a perspective that allows for a positive evaluation of earlier literatures often has been given to the Romantics, including Herder and members of the following generation, who created a Germanistik, or German literary studies, as a university department in the early 1800s.453 In these narratives, the Enlightenment has been cast as the movement against which these groups reacted, but not as a truly productive force itself. Eighteenth-century scholars have countered this popular narrative by demonstrating precursors to that mindset in an effort to challenge the primacy of the Romantics to our understanding of our own modernity. In writing this dissertation, I have hoped to show in a small way how members of the German Enlightenment contributed to the genesis of modernity through the creation of poetry collections with a historical perspective as central concerns of modernity were taken up in the discourse in and around anthologies, prior to other more dramatic changes to historical perspective. At the same time, anthologies can contribute something to Koselleck’s theory by demonstrating how material history is related to and, in fact, enriches the history of ideas. In the case studies, I have tried to construct narratives about poetry collections that demonstrate those changes, not only as intellectual history, but also as publication history and, in the experiments that were made with the design and structuring of poetry collections. Anthologists such as Ramler and Jördens (and perhaps also their publishers), should be credited for their early engagement with older literature, which in fact prefigured and made possible the later development of German literary scientific methods in the nineteenth century. Poetry collections of the eighteenth century do not only reflect the 452 453 Lessing 1773, 5. “Trans.: An inventory of treasures is very good, but it is no new treasure.” The first was created in 1807, but the profession grew gradually; by 1864 there were only twenty full professorships (Ordinarien) in Germany (see Kolk). 115 popularization of literature for the emerging mass market, but also the beginnings of an attempt at a comprehensive evaluation of German poetry, an evaluation that for modernity is rooted not in normative standards, but rather in historical perspective. Only in the latter half of the eighteenth century did Germans begin to think about poetry through the lens of historical perspective, which allows for the appreciation of the past as well as the present. Poetry collections of the era and the discourse around them reflect these new concerns and new perspectives. It is fascinating that over the course of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, the one type of poetry collection most suited to the representation of historical perspective, the representative anthology, became the dominant form. An unexpected result of this study was the discovery that two minor figures, Ramler and Jördens, who could be said to be behind the times , or at least very soon to be eclipsed, should also make admirable contributions to the development of modern poetry collections and historical perspective in literature. This may serve as a reminder that the way we often ‘do business’ in literary and intellectual history – looking for forerunners, such as Lessing, on historicity, and then tracing the development of those ideas in later key authors – can leave out significant developments taking place in less obvious places. Interesting new developments can and in fact often do happen in works that are otherwise unremarkable. Perhaps this dissertation can also help to give our picture of the development of historical perspective more realistic contours. 116 Appendix A: Chronological Bibliography of Early German Poetry Collections to 1799 Bibliography of German poetry collections, like the research on them, is still fragmentary, often hampered by a narrow view of what a poetry collection ought to be, rather than what it has actually been. I have created this bibliography to suggest the wide variety of poetry collections published in Germany before 1800. I believe this anthology bibliography represents an improvement on previous efforts both in the completeness of the individual entries and in the total number and range of entries. In keeping with my philosophy that past scholarship has too narrowly defined the concept of the anthology to the detriment of an accurate understanding of the forms and functions of poetry collections in Early Modern Germany, I have preferred to make the diversity of poetry collections apparent to researchers. The only anthology type I completely excluded is the Musenalmanach, which has received greater scholarly attention than the other forms and for which substantial bibliographical work has already been done.454 I include compilations that could be used in a variety of contexts and to various aims and also collections that are not exclusively made up of poetry, such as the Baroque poetics Handbücher (I discuss the Handbücher in section II.II “Anthologies and Terminologies”). The entries are arranged chronologically and then by title, after which I give the name of the anthologist and publication information. In all cases, I have given complete information to the extent that the title page or catalogue record allows, including full titles, full names of the editors and publication information to the extent available. In the case of anonymously edited works, I have included surmised editors’ names in brackets. I also indicate whether or not a particular work was issued in multiple editions, although time constraints do not permit me to definitively name the years of each edition in all cases. To compile this bibliography, I began with the dissertation bibliographies of Angelo George de Capua (“Development of the Lyrical Anthology from the End of the Baroque Period to the Beginning of the Sturm Und Drang,” 1953) and Robert P. Bareikis ("Die deutschen Lyriksammlungen des 18. Jahrhunderts," 1969) as well as Dieter Martin’s Habilitationsschrift, Barock um 1800 (2000). Beginning with the Neukirch collection and ending in 1799, Bareikis created the only bibliography dedicated solely to the anthology, while de Capua mixes anthologies in with other period sources. Both Bareikis and de Capua rely on short titles and omit much publication information. Martin gives full bibliographic information and the location of a copy of each work, but in keeping with the scope of his project covers only anthologies containing Baroque poetry and published between 1766 and 1830. I also compared the list to Peter John Czornyj’s bibliography of mid-eighteenth-century Lieder collections, which contains 51 entries and the “Quellensammlungen” or source collections, which August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben compiled in the mid-ninetheenth century. 455, 456 I have made additions and corrections from the Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 17. Jahrhunderts (VD17), begun in 1996, and the Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 18. Jahrhunderts (VD18), begun in 2009. Both of these standard reference works are web-based and actively adding entries; there are sure to be new anthologies to add to this bibliography in the future. Unfortunately, I could not examine every entry personally, but did see many held at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University (BRBL) and the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (SB Berlin) in the 454 York-Gothart Mix’s Populäre Almanache im frühmodernen Europa (2002) and Die deutschen Musen-Almanache des 18. Jahrhunderts (1987). Hans Köhring’s Bibliographie der Almanache, Kalender und Taschenbücher für die Zeit von ca. 1750 bis 1860. (1929, reprint 1987). 455 “A List of Lieder Collections Published in Germany between 1733 and 1767” (1988). 255-261. 456 In Die deutsche Philologie im Grundriss: ein Leitfaden zu vorlesungen (1836). 117 course of writing the dissertation, as well as a few items from Princeton and the many digital facsimiles available online through the Zentrales Verzeichnis Digitalisierter Drucke, Google Books, and the individual online archives of research libraries. At the end of each entry, I name one or two libraries holding that volume using the libraries’ standard German abbreviations. I also indicate the existence of reproductions in digital, print, and microform to the best of my knowledge, with a focus on identifying digital facsimiles, since these will most universally and immediately available to researchers. More information about the reproductions often can be found in the VD17 or VD18 catalogue entry, unless the reproduction is a product of a library outside of Germany. At the end of each entry, the reader will also find earlier bibliographies that have included the entry ([C] = de Capua, [B] = Bareikis, [M] = Martin). Comparison of this bibliography with the Messkataloge or the catalogues prepared for the German book fairs in Frankfurt and Leipzig is an undertaking that surely would provide new leads. The catalogues began to be produced in the sixteenth century and were produced for each fair until 1860, with the exception of a few years during the Thirty Years War and represent the most complete primary record of German publishing, although they do sometimes include titles that never reached print and obviously also do not include all books produced in German-speaking lands, but rather only those that were to be advertised for sale at the book fairs. Books that were at the time of only regional interest would not be advertised at the fairs and, thus, too heavy reliance on the fair catalogues can lead the researcher to overlook these materials, which might in fact shed light on regional concerns. The catalogues are available in microform and digital editions, but unfortunately are not text searchable. Early German Poetry Collections to 1799 1624 Martini Opicii. Teutsche Pöemata, vnd: Aristarchus Wieder die Verachtung Teutscher Sprach, Item Verteutschung Danielis Heinsii Lobgesangs Jesu Christi, und Hymni in Bachum; sampt einem Anhang mehr auserleßener geticht anderer teutscher Pöeten. Der gleichen in dieser Sprach hiebeuor nicht auß kommen. [Julius Wilhelm Zincgref]. Straßburg: In verlegung Eberhard Zetzners, 1624. BRBL, SUB Göttingen. Digital, print, microform. [C] 1642 Andreas Tschernings Deutscher Getichte Früling. Andreas Tscherning. Breßlaw: Georg Baumans Buchdruckers, 1642. Multiple editions: 1646, 1649. BRBL, ULB Halle. Microform. (DF via GDZ) 1645 Poetisches Lust-Gärtlein darinnen schöne anmuthige Gedichten, lustige Lieder, zur Anleitung guter Tugend und höfflichen Sitten. aus etlicher der vornehmsten deutschen Poeten-Bücher und Schriften mit Fleiss, gleich als in einem Reuch-Büschlein zusammen gebunden und gedruckt im Jahr, 1645. Simon Dach. [Dantzig: Andreas Hünefeld], 1645. BRBL. Digital, microform. 1650 Teutscher Labyrinth In welchem Durch viel artige moralische Historien/ lustige/ liebliche Discursen die Melancholey vertrieben/ und die Gemüter auffermuntert werden Sampt einem Poetischen Lustbringer Und Teutschen Sprachverderber. Jo. Cocay [pseudonym]; Sprachverderber by Christoph Schorer. Cölln: Apud Andream Bingen Vor den Minnenbrüdern im Loret, 1650. SB Berlin. 1652 Neüer Teütscher Parnass/ Auff welchem befindlich Ehr' und Lehr Schertz und Schmertz Leid= und Freüden= Gewächse/ Welche zu unterschiedlichen Zeiten gepflantzet/ nunmehr aber Allen/ der Teütschen Helden-Sprache und deroselben edlen Dichtkunst vernünfftigen Liebhaberen/ zu 118 sonderbarem Gefallen zu hauffe gesamlet und in die offenbahre Welt außgestreüet/ Von Johann Risten. Johann Rist. Lüneburg: Gedruckt und verlegt durch Johann und Heinrich / denen Sternen / Gebrüdern, 1652. Multiple editions.SB München, SB Berlin (DF via SB München) 1653 Vier Gelehrter Teutscher Poëten Gedichte über die Gnadenreiche Geburt Jesu Christi. Zu erweckung süsser Andacht bey der Jugend / also zusammen gesezet [Paul Fleming; Just Georg Schottel; Andreas Tscherning; Caspar Ziegler]. Oelß: Druckts Johann Seyffert, 1653. SUB Göttingen. 1662 Deutsches ærarium poeticum, oder Poetische Schatz=kammer/ Daß ist Poetische Nahmen, Redens-Arthen und Beschreibungen / so wol Geist= als weltlicher Sachen/ Gedicht und Handlungen/ Zu verfertigung eines zierlichen und sauberen Reims/ auff allerhand fürfallenden Begebeneheiten: Theils aus Hn. Martini Opitzens/ Paul Fleminges und unterschiedlicher deroselben Nachfolger/ nütz- und lieblichen Schrifften ordentlich zusammen getragen: Theils aus dem Lateinischen der Jugend bekanten und ordentlich gefasseten Wercke Herr M. Melchior Weinrichs / wo es füglich klingen wollen reimstimmig übersetzet und ausgefertiget Durch M. Michael Bergmann Mit Verwilligung und Censur der löblichen Philosophischen facultät zu Iehna. Michael Bergmann. Iehna: In Verlegung Ierem. Mamphrasens, Buchhändler in Stettin, 1662. Multiple editions: 1662, 1675, 1676, 1677. VD17 23:243280A. Reprint, microform. BRBL, BSB München (DF 1677 ed. via ZVDD). [NB. Not a collection of poetry, but still anthological in form. See subsection “Nahmen derer Autoren/ so in dieser Poet. Schatz-Kammer angezogen werden.”]. 1663 Gottfried von Peschwitz Jüngst-Erbauter Hoch-Teutscher Parnaß/ Das ist/ Anmuthige Formeln/ Sinnreiche Poetische Beschreibungen/ und Kunst-zierliche verblühmte Arten zu reden: aus den besten und berühmtesten Poeten unserer Zeit/ mit Fleiß zusammen getragen/ und/ auff drängliches Anhalten guter Freunde/ Der Poetisirenden Jugend zu Nutz heraus gegeben. Gottfried von Peschwitz. Jehna: In Verlegung Zachariæ Hertels, Buchhändlers in Hamburgk, druckts Johann Nisius, 1663. BRBL, SB. [C] 1681 Poetische Nebenstunden/ Heroischen Geistern zu sonderbahrer Belustigung/ verfertiget von Christoph Friedrich Kiene. Franckfurth und Leipzig: zu finden Bey Christian Weidmannen. Druckts Joh. Wittigauens Sel. Wittwe, Im Jahr 1681. SB Berlin. 1695 Herrn von Hoffmannswaldau und andrer Deutschen auserlesene und bissher ungedruckte Gedichte: nebenst einer Vorrede von der deutschen Poesie. Benjamin Neukirch, T. Fritsch (?), G. Stolle, G. Juncker. 7 vols. Leipzig: Bey Thomas Fritsch, 1695-1727. SB Berlin. [C, B] 1699 Des Schlesischen Helicons auserlesene Gedichte oder Etlicher vortreflicher Schlesier bisz anhero ohnbekandte poëtische Galanterien/ nebst einer Vorrede von Vortrefligkeit der Neueren Deutschen Poëten. [G. B. Scharff]. 2 vols. Franckfurt und Leipzig: In Verlegung Michael Rohrlachs seel. Wittib und Erben in Liegnitz, 1699 (vol 1) / Breszlau and Liegnitz, 1700 (vol 2). BRBL (bound with Walther 1705). [C, B] 1702 Die Geistliche Rüst- und Schatzkammer: voll auserlesener geistreicher Gebete ... Anjetzo aber mit einem vollständigen Gesang-Büchlein und andern anmuthigen Reimen ... gezieret… Johann Eichhorn. Nürnberg: Zu finden bey J. Hoffmann, [etc.] & Streck, 1702. BRBL. 119 1702 Historischer Lust-Garten: welcher statt fruchtbarer Bäume und wohlriechender Blumen einen schönen Vorrath an merckwürdigen Geschichten und erbaulichen Discursen aus den berühmtesten Scribenten und Rednern meistens zusammen gebracht ... Nebst einem anhange etlicher ausserlesener poetischer Gedichte präsentiret, angebauet und eröffnet von … Gottfried Feinlein. Leipzig: J. L. Gleditsch, 1702. BRBL. [C] 1702-1704 Neu-eröffnetes Musen-Cabinet in welchem auserlesene Hochzeit- Leichen- VermischteVerliebte und Schertz-Gedichte vor die Liebhaber der teutschen Poesie zu befinden Erste[fünffte] Entrée. [Erdmann Uhse]. 5 vols. Leipzig: verlegts Friedrich Groschuff, 1702-1704. BRBL. [B] 1703 Wohl-informirter Poët worinnen die poëtischen Kunst-Griffe vom kleinsten bis zum größten durch kurtze Fragen und ausführliche Antwort vorgestellet, und alle Regeln mit angenehmen Exempeln erkläret werden. [Erdmann Uhse]. Leipzig: Groschuff, 1703 [Multiple editions: ]. SB. [C] 1705 Die Poetisierende Welt, das ist, Allerhand auserlesene und noch niemahls zusammen gedruckte teutsche Gedichte. Menander [pseud. David Christian Walther]. Hamburg: In Verlegung Chrisitan Liebezeit; Lauenburg: gedruckt bey Christian Albrecht Pfeiffer, 1705. BRBL (bound with Scharff 1699). [B] 1708 Des neu-eröffneten Musen-Cabinets aufgedeckte Poetische Wercke ... Auch kan man zugleich ... haben Den Wohl-informirten Poëten, welcher die Poëtischen Kunst-Griffe ... vorstellet, etc. Orpheus HOMMER, pseud. [i.e. Erdmann Uhse.] 1708. 1709 Etwas vor alle Menschen, das ist, Neuer Vorrath allerhand recht curiösen auch in beliebtem Schertz die sonst bitter eingehenden Wahrheit vorstellender Gedichte : zum Nutz und Lust der curiösen Welt mit besonderem Fleiss in unterschiedene Parthien gebracht. Anonym. 2 vols. [Görlitz: Rohrlach] In der poetischen Cammer-Druckery, 1709. BRBL (imperfect), Stuttgarter Landesbibliothek. [C, B] 1715 Teutschlands Galante Poetinnen mit ihren sinnreichen und netten Proben: nebst einem Anhang ausländischer Dames, so sich gleichfalls durch schöne Poesien bey der curieusen Welt bekannt gemacht, und einer Vorrede. Dass das weibliche Geschlecht so geschikt zum Studieren, als das männliche. Georg Christian Lehms. 2 vols. Franckfurt am Mayn / Zu finden bey Samuel Tobias Hocher, gedruckt bey Anton Heinscheidt / Anno 1715, 1714. BRBL. [C] 1718-21 Auserlesene und noch nie gedruckte Gedichte unterschiedener berühmten und geschickten Männer zusammen getragen und nebst seinen eigenen an das Licht gestellet von… Menantes [Christian Friedrich Hunold]. 3 vols. Halle: In Verlegung der neuen Buchhandlung, 1718-21. BRBL. [C, B] 1721 ff Der Vortrefflichsten Teutschen POETEN ... Meister-Stücke. J. F. Mantzel. 1721 ff. [B] 1721 Sammlung Allerhand Sinn=reicher Gedichte Von C** [Celander pseud. Johann Geor Gressel] und H** [Hochgesang pseud. Heinrich Hochgesang] Bey verschiedenen Gelegenheiten entworffen, und nun, nebst einigen auf den Großmächtigsten König Carl XII. Und den Durchl. Prinzen 120 Eugenium, von berühmten Poeten verfertigten Lob=Gedichten / Ans Licht gestellet. Gabriel Neunhertz. Stockholm: Bey Gabriel Neunhertz, 1721. SUB Göttingen. Digital facsimile. 1721-38 C. F. Weichmanns Poesie der Nieder-Sachsen, oder, Allerhand, Mehrenteils noch nie gedruckte Gedichte von den berühmtesten Nieder-Sachsen ... / zusammen getragen, und ... mit einer ausführlichen Vorrede versehen ... welcher noch beygefüget Hrn. B.H.B. Untersuchung von den ganz verschiedenen Reim-Ahrten ... C[hristian[ F[riedrich] Weichmann. 6 vols. Hamburg: bey sel. Benj. Schillers Wittwe und J. Christ. Kissner, 1721[-26]. Multiple editions: vols 1 & 2 appeared in 2 eds. BRBL. Reprint, microform. [B]. (See Perels 1983). 1722 Auserlesene Teutsche Gedichte verschiedener geschickler Poeten und Poetinnen nebst seinen eigenen dem Druckt übergeben von.... Christoph Gottlieb Stockmann. 2 vols. Leipzig: verlegts Johann Adam Spörl, 1722 (vol 1) / Leipzig, zu finden bey J.C. Cörnern, 1722 [“andere Auflage”] / 1723. BRBL [C, B] 1723 Auserlesene und noch niemals getruckte Geistliche und Weltliche Gedichte. Johann Jakob Spreng. Basel: Bey Iohann Ludwig Brandmüller, 1723. 8 vols. [UCB catalogue notes: “The first Swiss anthology; intended as a periodical, 8 numbers per volume, but only 4 appeared./ Most of the poems are of Swiss origin, others from bordering southwest German sections, a few from more distant parts; includes 4 poems by Spreng's older friend, Carl Friedrich Drollinger, one of them not reissued with his collected poems./ Head- and tail-pieces; initials./ Includes errata./ Description based on incomplete copy: 1.-3. Sammlung only.”] UC Berkeley [B] 1724 Das Lustige Moral- und Satyrische Frauenzimmer-Cabinet, oder, Sam[m]lung artiger Gedancken über die unartige Art desselben in auserlesenen kurtzen Versen und Epigrammatibus vorgestellet [German and Latin]. [J. J. Rembold]. [Berlin: 1724]. [C, B] Biblioth. Pud. Reg. Stuttgart, Microform. 1725 Sammlung teutscher auserlesener sinnreicher Inscriptionen nebst einer Vorrede darinne von den teutschen Inscriptionen überhaupt eine historische Nachricht ertheilet wird. Friedrich Andreas Hallbauer. Jena: im Waysenhause Druckts und verlegts Christian Franciscus Buch., 1725 [2nd, revised ed 1732 in BRBL]. [B, M] 1726 Anweisung und Krempel, mehrentheils lustiger und annehmlicher Epigrammatum. Aus vielen Authoribus zusammen gelesen, von… M. Meistern [Johann Heinrich Meister]. Leipzig, Franckfurth, 1726. BRBL. 1727 Auferweckte Gedichte und poetische Übersetzungen: aus berühmter Männer Schrifften gesammlet und in zweyen Theilen abgefasset. Franckfurth u. Leipzig, 1727. UB Leipzig. 1728 Deliciae Poeticae. Oder:Poëtische Ergötzlichkeiten, für alle Menschen, bestehend in allerhand ungezwungenen, wohl fliessenden, netten, galanten, schertz- und ernsthafften, curieusen, deutschen Gedichten; Welche hin u. wieder von Sinn-reichen Köpffen derer besten Poëten unserer Zeiten verfertiget worden; Vor ietzo ... zusammen gelesen u. ... mitgetheilet. [?]. [n. P., likely Bautzen]: Aus der Poëtischen Kammerdruckerey, 1728. SB Berlin [B] 1728 Oden der Deutschen Gesellschaft in Leipzig: in vier Bücher abgetheilet; an Statt einer Einleitung ist des Herrn de la Motte; Abhandlung von der Poesie überhaupt, und der Ode ins 121 besondre vorgesetzet ... [Johann Christoph Gottsched]. Leipzig: Bey Joh. Friedr. Gleditschens sel. Sohn, 1728. BRBL [B] 1729 Vollständige Schatz-Kammer der hoch-deutschen Dicht- und Reim-Kunst: in sich haltend einen Auszug der besten und reinesten Gedichten von allerley Gattungen bey frölichen und traurigen Begebenheiten, welche theils noch nie gedruckt, theils aus den besten deutschen Poëten gezogen, Und ... zum offentlichen Druck befördert Von... 3 vols [1, Freund- und GlückwünschungsGedichte.- 1729, 3, Allerley vermischte Gedichte]. Jacob Friederich Jungen. Ulm: Zu finden bey Johann Paul Rothen Buchhändlern, gedruckt mit Kühnischen Schrifften, 1729. BRBL. [B] 1730 Poesie der Franken erste Sammlung… Georg Ludwig Oeder. Frankfurt und Leipzig: bey Peter Conrad Monath, 1730. Brown Univ., Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (DF) [missing title page and illustration?]. [C] 1731 Auserlesene Früchte der deutschen Poesie einiger Ober- und Nieder-Sachsen / mit Fleiss zusammen getragen von …. Erste Sammlung von 1731. Heinrich Richard Märtens. 2 vols. Halberstadt: Bey Christian Friedrich Schoppen, Buchhändler, 1731. BRBL. [B] 1731 Deutsche Jesuiten-Poesie oder, Eine Sammlung catholischer Gedichte welche zur Verbesserung allen Reimenschmiden wohlmeinend vorleget … Megalissus [pseud.]. G. Litzel. Franckfurth; Leipzig: J.E. Müller, 1731. [Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft collection]. UC Berkeley [B] 1732-35 Sammlung Verirrter Musen Darinnen Theils zerstreute, Theils noch ganz ungedruckte Jedoch auserlesenen Gedichte Verschiedener berühmten und geschickten Persohnen, Nebst seinen eigenen enthalten … Gottfried Behrendt. 10 vols (“Stu8cke”). Magdeburg und Leipzig Verlegts Christoph Seidels sel. Wittbe und Georg Ernst Scheldhauer, 1732-35 [Multiple editions: 2]. ULB Sachsen-Anhalt [C, B] 1733 Des Herrn von Hohbergs Beytrag Zum Schlesischen Helicon, oder, Sammlung auserlesener Gedichte, worunter viele Neukirchische befindlich: mit grosser Mühe zusammen gebracht, und dem Druck überlegen. Anonym. Sorau: Zu finden in Hebolds Buchladen, 1733. BRBL. [C, B] 1733 Poetische Blumen-Lese. Zum Gebrauch der Schulen angestellt. Georg Christoph Munz. Nürnberg: Endter, 1733. Microfilm. SB Berlin, SUB Göttingen (DF via GDZ) [C, B] 1734 Deutliche und gründliche Einleitung zu der reinen deutschen Poesie, Nach denen accuratesten Grund=Sätzen und Regeln derer berühmtesten Poeten, Wie auch nach vielen aus der Praxi selbst wahrgenommenen Vortheilen, Zum Nutz der Studirenden Jugend in Tangermünde öffentlich gezeiget, Und nunmehro auch anderen zum besten mit unterschiedenen Exempeln vermehrter ans Licht gestellet von Andreas Köhlern, Lycei Tangræmündensis Rectore. Andreas Köhler. Halle: In Verlegung Ernst Gottlieb Krugs, 1734. Microform. ULB Sachsen-Anhalt (DF via ZVDD). 1734 Sammlung Auserlesener Gedichte: welche als mehrentheils neue Proben der nach jetztigem Geschmack erfahrender Kenner eingerichteten und rein-fliessenden teutschen Poesie in III. Theilen vorgeleget worden. 3 vols. Johann Heinrich Stuss. Nordhausen: Verlegts Joh. Heinrich Gross, Buchhändler, Anno 1734. Microform. BRBL, SB Berlin. [C, B] 122 1738 Der deutschen Gesellschaft in Leipzig Oden und Cantaten in vier Büchern. Nebst einer Vorrede über die Frage: Ob man auch in ungebundener Rede Oden machen könne? [Johann Christoph Gottsched]. Leipzig: bey Bernhard Christoph Breitkopf, 1738. VD18 11008636. Microform. Princeton U (DF via Google Books), SUB Göttingen (DF via VD18). [C, B] 1740 Edle Früchte deutscher Poeten: Probe… nach gesundem Geschmack berühmter Kenner für die lehrbegierige Schul-Jugend ausgesucht von M. Johann Gottfried Hören, Conrector in der LandSchule. Meissen: Gedruckt und zu finden bey Justus Gottfried Löwen, 1740. Duke, Indiana [The catalogue record for the Bibliotheque Nat. & Univ. Strasbourg has the following publication information: “Leipzig; Görlitz: Siegmund Ehrenfried Richter.”]. [C, B. Listed in de Capua and Bareikis as Edle Früchte deutscher Poesie.] 1743 Zeugnisse treuer Liebe nach dem Tode tugendhafter Frauen: in gebundener deutscher Rede abgestattet von ihren Ehemännern. Anton Paul. Lud[wig]. Carstens. Hannover: in Verlage Nicolai Försters und Sohns sel. Erben, 1743. Microform. Princeton U (DF via Google Books). [B] 1746 Sammlung einiger auserlesener Gedichte, welche auf die von Sr. Königl. Majestät von Preussen erfochtenen Siege sind verfertiget worden. Berlin: Gedruckt mit Michaelischen Schriften, 1746. SUB Göttingen (DF via VD18) 1746-49 Sammlung einiger auserlesener Gedichte vom Lobe der Gotheit. [George Vensky.] 2 vols. Prenzlau und Leipzig: verlegts Christian Ragoczy, 1746 / 1749. VD18 10855785. BRBL, SUB Göttingen (DF via VD18). [B] 1748 Proben der alten schwäbischen Poesie des dreyzehnten Jahrhunderts. Aus der Maneßischen Sammlung. [Johann Jakob Bodmer & Johann Jakob Breitinger]. Zürich: Heidegger und Comp., 1748. Reprint. BRBL, BSB München (DF via ZVDD). 1753-1755 Oden mit Melodien. Erster Theil. [Karl Wilhelm Ramler and Gottlieb Christian Krause.] Berlin: gedruckt und verlegt bey Friedrich Wilhelm Birnstiel, 1753 / 1755. SB Leipzig [C, B] 1755-56 Muster und Proben der Deutschen Dichtkunst in den mehresten Arten der Poesie, die aus den Arbeiten neuerer Dichter zum Nutzen der Jugend in Absicht auf Geschmack und Sitten, und zum Gebrauch beym Unterricht in dieser Dichtkunst gesammlet sind. [Justus Christian Stuß]. 2 vols. Leipzig und Nordhausen: Groß, 1755 / 1756. Microform. Vol 1: UB Heidelberg. [C, B] 1758-59 Sammlung von Minnesingern aus dem schwaebischen Zeitpuncte, CXL Dichter enthaltend; durch Ruedger Manessen, Weiland des Rathes der Uralten Zyrich. aus der Handschrift der koeniglich-franzoesischen Bibliotheck herausgegeben. Johann Jakob Bodmer & Johann Jakob Breitinger. 2 vols. Zyrich: Durch Vorschub einer ansehnlichen Zahl von Freunden des Minnegesanges. Verlegt von Conrad Orell und Comp., 1758 / 1759. UB Heidelberg (DF via ZVDD). 1762-63 Poetische Bibliothek zur Ehre der Deutschen. 2 vols. Heilbronn: Claß, 1762-1763 [rev. in Briefe, die neuste Literatur betreffend; 1764]. SB Berlin. 123 1764 Gesammelte Frauenzimmer Gedichte. P. P. F. 3 vols. Leipzig und Frankfurt: n. P., 1764. Microform. SB Berlin. [B] 1766 Lieder der Deutschen. Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Berlin: Bey G. L. Winter, 1766. BRBL. [C, B] 1766 Sammlung kürzerer Gedichte aus den neuern Dichtern Deutschlandes in zweenen Theilen für die Jugend. Michael Denis. Two versions with the same title and year of publication: 1. Augsburg; Innsbruck: Wolff: 1766. UB Würzburg. 2. Wien: J. Kurzböck, 1766. Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. [C, B]457 1766 Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte der deutschen Poeten. Erster Theil. Opitz, Zeiller, Olearius, Tscherning, Flemming, Andreas Gryphius, Christian Gryphius. [Karl Wilhelm Ramler & Johann Gotthelf Lindner.] Riga: Hartknoch, 1766. SB Berlin, Princeton (DF via Google Books). [C, B, M] 1766-78 Auserlesene Stücke der besten deutschen Dichter von Martin Opitz bis auf gegenwärtige Zeiten. Mit historischen Nachrichten und kritischen Anmerkungen versehen ... Friedrich Wilhelm Zachariä (vols. 1-2); Johann Joachim Eschenburg (vol. 3). 3 vols. Braunschweig: Im Verlag der fürstl. Waisenhaus Buchhandlung, 1766 / 1771 / 1778. BRBL, BSB München (DF via ZVDD). [C, B, M] 1768 Sammlung kürzerer Gedichte meistens aus neuern deutschen Dichtern; sammt einer Anleitung zu deutschen Versen. Ignaz Weitenauer. 2 vols. Augsburg: in Verlag Ignaz Wagners, 1768. UB Freiburg, BSB München (DF via ZVDD). [B, M] 1768 Heinrich Brauns Sammlung von guten Mustern in der deutschen Sprach- Dicht- und Redekunst. Zur Beförderung des guten Geschmackes in Oberdeutschland. 8 vols. Heinrich Braun. [Vols. 5, 6, 7 include poetry. Vol. 5: Oden und Lehrgedichte. Vol. 6: Fabeln, Erzählungen und Sinngedichte. Subtitle to 7: Scherzhafte Gedichte]. München: bey Joseph Aloys Crätz, 1768. BSB München (DF via ZVDD). [C] 1770-72 Anthologie der Deutschen. Christian Heinrich Schmid. 3 vols. Frankfurt & Leipzig: [Engelhard Benjamin Schwickert] , 1770 / 1771 / 1772 [3rd vol. publication information: “Leipzig: bey Engelhart Benjamin Schwickert”]. [Subtitle to 2nd vol: Zweeter Theil and subtitle to 3rd vol: Dritter Theil]. SB Berlin, BSB München (DF via ZVDD). [B] 1771 Sammlung einiger Gedichte aus den Werken der Herren Gleim, Jacobi, Uz, Rabener, Lichtwer, u. a. m. zum Vergnügen für das Frauenzimmer.. C[hristian]. G[otthold]. Contius. Leipzig: Büschel, 1771. SB Berlin. [B] 1772-86 Sammlung kürzerer Gedichte aus den neuern Dichtern Deutschlandes, zum Gebrauche der Jugend gesammelt … Michael Denis. 4 vols. Augsburg: Im Verlag der Joseph=Wolffischen Buchhandlung, 1772 / 1772 / 1776 / 1786 [Title of 2nd vol: Zweyte Sammlung kürzerer Gedichte 457 Using the short title form of “Sammlung kürzerer Gedichte,” De Capua gives a publication date of 1726, while Bareikis gives a publication date of 1762, however, catalogue records from the SUB Göttingen show multiple incarnations of this work dating from 1766 and a similarly titled series-anthology version in multiple editions from 1772. Unfortunately, I could not verify this through a personal examination of the materials. 124 aus den neuern Dichtern Deutschlandes, zum Gebrauche der Jugend : Eine Fortsetzung jener von …. Title of 3rd vol: Dritte Sammlung kürzerer Gedichte, meist aus Deutschlands Originaldichtern : Die zweyte Fortsetzung jener von …, title of 4th vol: 4. Vierte Sammlung kürzerer Gedichte, aus den neuern Dichtern Deutschlands: die dritte Fortsetzung... ; mit einigen noch nie gedruckten Stücken / von …; 2nd ed 1782-1786]. SUB Göttingen, SB Berlin. Complutense U Madrid (DF via Google Books). 1773-74 Schlesische Anthologie. Carl Friedrich Lentner. 2 vols. Breßlau und Leipzig: bey Christian Friedrich Gutsch, 1773 / 1774. [Subtitles: Erste Sammlung and Zweyte Sammlung]. SB Berlin, BSB München (DF via ZVDD). 1774-75 Idyllen der Deutschen. Aus den gedruckten sowohl als handschriftlichen Originalen gesammlet [sic]. [Klamer Eberhard Karl Schmidt]. 2 vols. Frankfurt und Leipzig: bey Philipp Heinrich Perrenon, 1774 / 1775. VD18 14544520-001 (Vol. 1). Vol. 1: BSB München (DF Vol. 1 via ZVDD). Vol. 2: UB Würzburg. [B] 1774-78 Lyrische Bluhmenlese. [Karl Wilhelm Ramler – check anonymously?]. 2 vols. Leipzig: bey Weidmanns Erben und Reich, 1774 / 1778. BRBL. [C, B, M] 1774-76 Deutschlands Originaldichter. J[ohann]. P[hilipp]. C[hristian]. Reuß. 4 vols. Hamburg: gedruckt und verlegt von J[ohann]. P[hilipp]. C[hristian]. Reuß, 1774 / 1775 / 1775 / 1776. BSB München (DF via ZVDD). [B] 1774-1778 Romanzen der Deutschen. Mit einigen Anmerkungen über die Romanze. 2 vols. Christian Cay Lorenz Hirschfeld. Leipzig: bey Christian Gottlieb Hertel, 1774 / 1778. BSB München (DF via ZVDD). 1776 Elegieen [sic] der Deutschen aus Handschriften und gedruckten Werken. 2 vols. [Klamer Eberhard Karl Schmidt]. Lemgo, im Verlage der Meyerschen Buchhandlung, 1776. BSB München (DF via ZVDD). [B] 1776-78 Epigrammatische Blumenlese. [E. F. Rühl, Johann André (attributed to Johann André by Harold Jantz)]. 3 vols. Offenbach am Mayn: Zu finden bey Ulrich Weiß, 1776-1778. Microform. Duke. U Lausanne (DF via Google Books). [B] 1777 Einer Gesellschaft auf dem Lande poetische, moralische, ökonomische und kritische Beschäftigung. 3 vols. Samuel Gotthold Lange. Halle: Curt, 1777. [M] 1778 Ausbund flüchtiger Poesien der Deutschen. Band 1. [ed?]. Leipzig: Weygand, 1778. SB Berlin. [B] 1778 Oden der Deutschen. Erste Sammlung. Christian Heinrich Schmid. Leipzig: bey Christian Gottlieb Hertel, 1778. SB Berlin. [B] 1778-79 Volkslieder. Johann Gottfried von Herder. Leipzig, in der Weygandschen Buchhandlung, 1778 / 1779. [Subtitle to the first volume: Erster Theil. Subtitle to the 2nd volume: Nebst untermischten andern Stücken. Zweiter Theil.]. BRBL, BSB München (DF via ZVDD). [C, M] 125 1780 Anthologie teutscher Gelegenheitsgedichte. [ed?]. Frankfurt und Leipzig: [n. P.]: 1780. SB Berlin, BSB München (DF via ZVDD). [B] 1780 Sinngedichte der Deutschen. Carl Wilhelm Brumbey. Leipzig: verlegts Johann Gottlob Immanuel Breitkopf, 1780. BRBL, SB Berlin. [B, M] 1780 Christian Wernickens Überschriften. Nebst Opitzens, Tschernings, Andreas Gryphius und Adam Olearius epigrammatischen Gedichten. Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Leipzig: bey Weidmann Erben und Reich, 1780. BRBL, SB Berlin, BSB München (DF via Google Books). [M] 1780 Lyrische Blumenlese. Karl Wilhelm Ramler. 2 vols. Carlsruhe: bey Christian Gottlieb Schmieder, 1780. ULB Sachsen-Anhalt (DF via VD18).check Ramler’s bibliograhy 1780-81 Das preußische Tempe. Ludwig von Baczko. 2 vols. Königsberg: Kanter u. a., 1780-1781. [M] 1780-83 Schweitzerische Blumenlese. J[ohannes]. Bürkli. 3 vols. Zürich und Winterthur: Joh.Caspar Füeßly Sohn und Heinrich Steiner und Comp., 1780 / 1781 /1783. BRBL; U Lausanne (DF Vol. 1 via Google Books). [B, M] 1782 Versuch einer Geschichte der Deutschen Dichtkunst, Dichter und Dichterwerke von ihrem Ursprung bis auf Bodmer und Breitinger, und Poetische Versuche. [Gottfried Brun]. Danzig: gedrukt bei J. E. F. Müllers Wittwe, 1782. Microform. SB Berlin, Princeton U (DF via Google Books). [M] 1784-85 Sammlung deutscher Gedichte aus dem XII. XIII. und XIV. Jahrhundert. [Christoph Heinrich Myller. Professor der Philosophie und Geschichte am Könglichen Gymnasium] 3 vols. [Berlin]: Geendigkt im Anfang des Februars 1784 [gedruckt bei Christian Sigismund Spener] 1784 / 1785 / ca. 1785 (Vol 3 was not officially published; has no title page and is extremely rare). Vol. 1: Columbia. (DF via Google Books); vol. 1-3: UB Leipzig. [C] 1783 Anfangsgruende einer Theorie der Dichtungsarten aus deutschen Mustern entwickelt. Erster Theil. Johann Jakob Engel. Berlin und Stettin: bey Friedrich Nicolai, 1783. Microform, reprint (1977). SB Berlin, BRBL. 1784 Poetisches Vademecum für lustige Leute. Aus den besten deutschen Dichtern. [ed?]. Prag: [Wolfgang] Gerle, 1784. SB Berlin; Indiana U (DF via Google Books). [B, M] 1786 Lieder der Weisheit und der Tugend zur Bildung des Gesangs und des Herzens. Die Harmonie des Gesangs ist die Kette geminschaftlicher Empfindung. Hymnen. [Carl Friedrich Splittegarb]. Berlin: bei Siegesmund Friedrich Hesse, 1786. Duke U, UB Regensburg. [B] 1786 Religiöse Oden und Lieder aus den besten deutschen Dichtern mit Melodien zum Singen bey dem Claviere. Schulz, J[ohann]. A[braham]. P[eter]. Hamburg: bey Johann Heinrich Herold, 1786. BSB München (DF via ZVDD). 1787 Marcus Valerius Martialis: [Epigramme] in einem Auszuge, lateinisch und deutsch. Aus den poetischen Übersetzungen verschiedener Verfasser gesammelt ... Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Bd. 1. 126 Leipzig: bey Weidmanns Erben und Reich, 1787 [As Martin notes, there are four later volumes containing only translations by Ramler.]. BSB München (DF via Google Books). [M] 1787 Gedichte Einiger Jünglinge, jetzo bekannter und beliebter Dichter, aus den Blumenlesen der Fürstenschule Meissen gesammelt von zween Alumnen. [C. G. Schoeinberg]. Meissen: bey Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Erbstein, 1787. ULB Sachsen-Anhalt (DF via VD18). [B] 1788 Sinngedichte der Deutschen. Nebst einem Anhange deutscher Uebersetzungen aus der griechischen Anthologie und dem Martialis. Johann Heinrich Füßli. Zürich: bey Orell, Geßner, Füßli und Comp., 1788. SB Berlin, SUB Göttingen (DF via VD18). [M] 1788-95 Beispielsammlung zur Theorie und Literatur der schönen Wissenschaften. 8 vols. Johann Joachim Eschenburg. Berlin & Stettin:F. Nicolai, 1788-1795 (poems in vols. 1-6). BRBL, BSB München (DF via Google Books). [M] 1789 Epigrammenlese oder Sammlung von Sinngedichten aus den vorzüglichsten älteren und neueren Epigrammatisten der Deutschen nebst einem Anhange über das Epigramm. [Karl Heinrich Jördens]. Berlin: bei Wilhelm Vieweg, dem jüngern, 1789. SB Berlin, SLUB Dresden (DF via VD18). [M] 1789-90 Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte. Karl Heinrich Jördens. 2 vols. Berlin: Im Verlage der Königlichen Realschulbuchhandlung, 1789 / 1790. SB Berlin, ULB Sachsen-Anhalt (DF via VD18). [M] 1789 Sammlung der besten Gedichte aus Deutschlands neuesten Zeitschriften. [ed?]. Hamburg: [n. P.] 1789. SB Berlin [B] 1790 Blumenlese der Musen. [Johannes Karl[?] von Lackner & Cajetan Tschink]. Wien: Franz Jacob Kaiserer, 1790. BSB München (DF via Münchener DigitalierisierungsZentrum Digitale Bibliothek). 1791 Die Erstlinge unserer einsamen Stunden. J[oseph] Herbst, J[oseph] Kirpal. [Prag], 1791. VD18 10683488. SUB Göttingen (DF via VD18). 1792 System der lyrischen Dichtkunst in Beispielen. Erduin Julius Koch. Berlin: Im Verlag der Buchhandlung der Königlen Realschule, 1792. SB Berlin. 1793 Gedichte über die Schweiz und über Schweizer. J[ohann]. Bürkli. Bern: bey Em. Haller, 1793. BSB München (DF via Münchener DigitalierisierungsZentrum Digitale Bibliothek). [B] 1793 Odeum Friedrichs des Grossen. Erduin Julius Koch. Berlin, bey Gottfried Karl Nauck, 1793. BSB München (DF via Münchener DigitalierisierungsZentrum Digitale Bibliothek. [B] 1795 Gesellschaftliches Liederbuch. [August Niemann]. Altona und Leipzig: Kaven, 1795. Akademisches Liederbuch. 2. SB Berlin. [M] 1796 Fantasien und Gedichte. Eine Auswahl der besten Dichter Deutschlands. [ed?]. Breslau: Gehr, 1796. SB Berlin. [B] 127 1796 Poetische Chrestomathie, für Freunde der Dichtkunst und zum Gebrauch in Schulen. J[oseph]. M[aria]. Mayer. Nürnberg: bey Ernst Christoph Grattenauer, 1796. SUB Göttingen, UB München. 1796 Sammlung erbaulicher Gedichte für alle die, welchen es Ernst ist das Wohl ihrer Unterthanen, Untergebenen und Mitmenschen, nicht nach dem wankenden Tiger- und Fuchs-Gesetze des Stärkeren oder Listigern zu untergraben, sondern nach dem ewigfesten und ewigheiligen Gesetze der Menschenwürde, der Gerechtigkeit und der Menschenliebe väterlich und brüderlich zu födern, und dadurch Zutrauen, Ruhe und Menschenwohl, so wohl von Seiten der Obern als der Unterthanen, in Friede und Einigkeit gemeinschaftlich zu begründen und zu erhalten. Mitunter ein Zuchtspiegel für die politischen Vampyrs; wie auch ein Noth- und Hülfsbüchlein für alle die, welche von ihnen wiederrechtlich geplagt werden. [Friedrich Christian Laukhard]. 2 vols. Altona: auf Kosten des Herausgebers, 1796. BRBL, BSB München (DF via Münchener DigitalierisierungsZentrum Digitale Bibliothek). [B, M] 1796-97 Sammlung verschiedener Gedichte und Freiheits-Lieder: gesammelt von einem Freund der Freiheit. Landau: Kantonsdr., Jahr 5 [1796/97]. Stadtbibliothek Mainz. 1797 Freiheits-Gedichte. [Johann Philipp LePiqué]. 2 vols. Paris, auf Kosten der Republik [Mannheim]: [Kaufmann], [1797]. UB Frankfurt am Main, Bayrische SB München (DF via Münchener DigitalierisierungsZentrum Digitale Bibliothek). [B] 1796-1803 Poetisches Vademecum oder Blumenlese angenehmer und lustiger Gedichte aus den Schriften der größesten deutschen Dichter unsers Zeitalters gesammelt. 15 vols. Georg Adam Keyser. Lindenstadt [Erfurt]: [Georg Adam Keyser], 1797 [Gesamttitel: Der junge Antihypochondriakus oder Etwas zur Erschütterung des Zwergfells und zur Beförderung der Verdauung. Zweytes Porziönchen]. SB Berlin. 1796-1803 Chrestomathie deutscher Gedichte. Christian Friedrich Rudolph Vetterlein. 4 vols. Köthen: J. A. Aue, 1796-1803 (?). Vols 1-3: SB Berlin, Österreichische NB. Vol. 4 (supplement): UB Regensburg. [M] 1797-98 Kleine Schriften zur Unterhaltung. Georg Gustav Fülleborn. 2 vols. Breslau und Leipzig: bey Wilhelm Gottlieb Korn, 1797-1798. BSB München (DF via Münchener DigitalierisierungsZentrum Digitale Bibliothek). [M] 1798 Classische Blumenlese der Deutschen. 2 vols. Berlin: bey Carl Ludwig Hartmann, 1798. UB Leipzig, BSB München (DF via Münchener DigitalierisierungsZentrum Digitale Bibliothek). [B] 1798 Lilien der deutschen Dichtung für einsame Spaziergänge, zur Stimmung des Geistes für Innigkeit, Schönheit, Erhabenheit und Wahrheit. [August Johann Georg Karl Batsch]. Jena: bey Johann Christian Gottfried Göpferdt, 1798. SLUB Dresden (DF via SLUB Dresden and VD18). [B] 1798 Poetisches Bouquet gepflückt in den Gärten der vorzüglichsten deutschen Dichter. Deutsche poetische Chrestomathie. Für junge Leute, die sich im Declamiren üben wollen. [Johann Wilhelm Oelsner]. Breslau: Gehr in Comm., 1798 [later edition published under the title: 128 Deutsche Anthologie zum Erklären und Deklamiren in Schulen. 6., stark verm. u. mit biogr. Nachrichten über d. Verf. vers. Aufl. Breslau: 1839]. SB Berlin. 1798 Religion in den besten Liedern deutscher Dichter. Ein Hülfsbuch bei dem Religionsunterrichte der gebildeten Jugend. J[ohann]. W[ilhelm]. [Heinrich] Ziegenbein. Braunschweig bei Christian Friedrich Thomas, 1798 [multiple printings after 1800]. HAB Wolfenbüttel. [B] 1798-99 Triumph Des Deutschen Witzes in einer Sammlung der stechendsten Sinngedichte und witzigsten Einfälle deutscher Köpfe / Mit Kupfern. C[hristian]. F[riedrich]. T[raugott]. Voigt. 2 vols. Leipzig: bey F. G. Baumgärtner, 1798-1799 [2. verm. Ausg. 1800]. BRBL, Princeton U (DF via Hathitrust). [M] 1799 Denkmäler Altdeutscher Dichtkunst. Beschrieben und Erläutert … Johann Joachim Eschenburg. Bremen: Bei Friedrich Wilmans, 1799. SB Berlin, Austrian National Library (DF via Google Books). [M] 1799 ff Romanzen und Balladen der Deutschen. 2 vols. C[arl]. F[riedrich]. Waitz; Altenburg: bey G. H. Richter, 1799-1800. Princeton U (DF via Hathitrust). [B] 129 Appendix B: Works Consulted Adelung, Johann Christoph. “Anthologie.” Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Hochdeutschen Mundart. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Leipzig: bey Johann Gottlob Immanuel Breitkopf und Compagnie, 1793. 392. Google Books. Web. 06 Nov. 2011. ---. “Blumenlese.” Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Hochdeutschen Mundart. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Leipzig: bey Johann Gottlob Immanuel Breitkopf und Compagnie, 1793. 1089. Google Books. Web. 06 Nov. 2011. Adolph, Rudolf. “Der Katalog von Goethes Bibliothek.” Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel. Frankfurter Ausgabe 14 (1958): 1436-1438. Print. Albrecht, Wolfgang. Lessing im Spiegel zeitgenössischer Briefe. Ein kommentiertes Lese- und Studienwerk. 2 vols. Kamenz: Lessing-Museum, 2003. Albrecht, Michael. Moses Mendelssohn. Gesammelte Schriften. Dokumente. II. Die frühen Mendelssohn-Biographien. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann / Günther Holzboog, 1998. Alexander, John. Rev of Christian Gryphius: Poetische Wälder. Faksimiledruck der Ausgabe von 1707 by James N. Hardin; Dietrich Eggers; Christian Gryphius: Der deutschen Sprache unterschiedene Alter und Wachsthum. Faksimiledruck der Ausgabe von 1708 by Dietrich Eggers; James N. Hardin; Christian Gryphius: Bibliographie. Eine Bibliographie der Werke von und über Christian Gryphius (1649-1706) by James Hardin. Monatshefte 80.1 (1988): 125-126. JSTOR. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. “Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung.” Journals@UrMEL. U Jena. Web. 18 Jun. 2009. Allington, Daniel. “On the Use of Anecdotal Evidence in Reception Study and the History of Reading.” Reading in History. New Methodologies from the Anglo-American Tradition. Ed. Bonnie Gunzenhauser. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2010. 11-28. Print. History of the Book 6. Althaus, Thomas. Epigrammatisches Barock. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996. Print. Quellen und Forschungen zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte 9. André, Johann. Epigrammatische Blumenlese. Vol. 1. Offenbach am Mayn: Zu finden bey Ulrich Weiß, 1776. Google Books. Web. 14. Mar 2012. Anger, Alfred. “Nachwort.” Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Lieder der Deutschen Faksimiledruck nach der Ausgabe von 1766. Ed. Alfred Anger. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1965. 3*-12*. Print. Deutsche Neudrucke. Texte des 18. Jahrhunderts. Anz, Thomas, and Rainer Baasner, ed. Literaturkritik. Geschichte – Theorie – Praxis. Becksche Reihe. München: Beck, 2004. Print. “Anzeigen von Schulschriften.” Lausizische Monatsschrift, 10 (Oct. 1795): 229-231. Sächsiche Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden. Web. 10 Feb. 2012. 130 Baasner, Rainer, ed. “Johann Joachim Eschenburg (1743-1820).” Literaturkritik. Geschichte – Theorie – Praxis. Universität Rostock Institut für Germanistik, 11 May 2005. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. Bareikis, Robert P. “Die deutschen Lyriksammlungen des 18. Jahrhunderts.” Die deutschsprachige Anthologie. Studien zu ihrer Geschichte und Wirkungsform. Ed. Joachim Bark and Dietger Pforte. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1969. 48-139. Print. Studien zur Philosophie und Literatur des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. 2/2. Barner, Wilfried. “Das europäische 17. Jahrhundert bei Lessing und Herder.” Europäische BarockRezeption. Vol. 1. Ed. Klaus Garber. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991. 397-417. Print. Wolfenbüttler Arbeiten zu Barockforschung 20. ---. “’Rettung’ und Polemik. Über Kontingenz in Lessings frühen Schriften.” In: Lessings Grenzen. Ed. Ulrike Zeuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2005. Print. Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 106. Baßler, Moritz, ed. New Historicism. Literaturgeschichte als Poetik der Kultur. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1995. Print. Bär, Jochen A. “Geschichte der deutschen Sprache: ein Abriss.” Web. Jan. 28 2012. Bark, Joachim. “Zwischen Obskurität und Hochschätzung. Die Rolle der Anthologien in der Kanonbildung des 19. Jahrhunderts.” Autoren damals und heute. Literaturgeschichtliche Beispiele veränderter Wirkungshorizonte. Ed. G. P. Knapp. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1991. 441-458. Print. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur neueren Germanistik 31-33. Batts, Michael S. “Wer schrieb die erste deutsche Literaturgeschichte?” Seminar: A Journal of Germanic Studies. 11.1 (1985): 48-61. Print. Baur, Rolf. Didaktik der Barockpoetik. Die deutschsprachige Poetiken von Opitz bis Gottsched als Lehrbücher der ‘Poeterey.’ Heidelberg: Winter, Universitätsverlag, 1982. Print. Mannheimer Beiträge zur Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft 2. Beck, Hamilton. Rev. of Königsberger Beiträge: Von Gottsched bis Schenkenberg. Frankfurt am Main: Lang (2002). Lessing Yearbook, 35 (2003). 348-52. Print. Becker-Cantarino, Barbara. “Die Lektüren Sophie von La Roches (1730-1807).” Geselligkeit und Bibliothek. Lesekultur im 18. Jahrhundert. Ed. Wolfgang Adam and Markus Fauser. Göttingen: Wallenstein, 2005. 201-216. Print. Benedict, Barbara M. Making the Modern Reader: Cultural Mediation in Early Modern Literary Anthologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1996. Web. 09 Mar. 2011. ---. “The Paradox of the Anthology: Collecting and Différence in Eighteenth-Century Britain.” New Literary History 34 (2003): 231-256. JSTOR. Web. 15 Apr. 2011. Bently, L. and M. Kretschmer, eds. “Prussian Copyright Act, Berlin (1837).” Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900). Arts and Humanities Research Council. Web. 7 Mar. 2012. 131 Berg, Britta. “Braunschweigische Anzeigen.” Zeitungen und Zeitschriften aus Braunschweig. Braunschweig: Reichold, Hannover, 1995. 24-26. Print. Braunschweiger Werkstücke Reihe A, Veröffentlichungen aus dem Stadtarchiv und der Stadtbibliothek 40. ---. “Neue Braunschweigische Zeitung.” Zeitungen und Zeitschriften aus Braunschweig. Braunschweig: Reichold, Hannover, 1995. 27-28. Print. Braunschweiger Werkstücke Reihe A, Veröffentlichungen aus dem Stadtarchiv und der Stadtbibliothek 40. Berghahn, Klaus L. “Lessing the Critic. Polemics as Enlightenment.” A Companion to the Works of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Ed. Karin Barbara Fischer and Thomas C. Fox. Rochester: Boydell and Brewer, 2005. 67-88. Print. Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. “Georg Andreas Reimer – Verleger.” Berliner Klassik. Personendatenbank. Web. 06 Aug. 2009. Blanke, Horst Walter. “Historische Zeitschriften.” Von Almanach bis Zeitung. Ein Hanbuch der Medien in Deutschland 1700-1800. Ed. Ernst Fischer, Wilhelm Haefs and York-Gothart Mix. München: Beck, 1999. 71-88. Print. Bigler, Ingrid. “Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim.” Deutsches Literatur-Lexikon. Vol. 9. Ed. Heinz Rupp and Carl Ludwig Lang. Bern: Francke, 1984. Print. Rev. of Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte by Karl Heinrich Joerdens. Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, 1.53 (1792): 419-420. Rev. of Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte by Karl Heinrich Joerdens. Neue Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften und freyen Künste, 45.2 (1792): 255-256. Bodmer, Johann Jakob. Chriemhilden Rache, und die Klage; zwey Heldengedichte aus dem schvvæbischen Zeitpuncte: Sammt Fragmenten aus dem Gedichte von den Nibelungen und aus dem Josaphat. Darzu kœmmt ein glossarium. Zyrich: Verlegen Orell und Comp., 1757. Print. Boghardt, Christiane, Martin Boghardt, and Rainer Schmidt, eds. Die zeitgenössischen Drucke von Klopstocks Werken. 1.1-2004. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981. Google Books. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. Boghardt, Martin. “Das Buchformat und seine Variationsmöglichkeiten. Zur Technik der Buchgestaltung im 18. Jahrhundert.” Buchgestaltung in Deutschland 1740-1890. Ed. Paul Raabe. Wolfenbütteler Schriften zur Geschichte des Buchwesens 5. Hamburg: Hauswedell, 1980. 68-88. Print. Bohnen, Klaus. “Vom >>eignen Naturelle<<. Ramler's >nationalreformerische< Aufklärungsarbeit.” Urbanität als Aufklärung. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2003. 79-93. Print. Schriften des Gleimhauses Halberstadt 2. Boie, Heinrich Christian. Briefe aus Berlin 1769/70. Ed. Gerhard Hay. Hildesheim: Verlag Dr. H. A. Gerstenberg, 1970. 132 Bornmann. “Karl Gottfried August Bornmann, Superintendent und Pastor Primarius in Lauban.” Neues Lausitzisches Magazin, 38 (1861). Görlitz: Heyn’schen Buch- und Kunsthandlung. 423-427. Google Books. Web. 12 Feb. 2012. Bosse, Heinrich. Autorenschaft ist Werkherrschaft. Über die Entstehung des Urheberrechts aus dem Geist der Goethezeit. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1981. Print. Uni-Taschenbücher 1147. Bötte, Gerd-J. and Elmar Mittler. “Die Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen.” Das deutsche Buch. Die Sammlung deutscher Drucke 1450-1912. Ed. Bernhard Fabian and Elmar Mittler. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1995. Print. Braunbehrens, Volkmar. Nationalbildung und Nationalliteratur. Zur Rezeption der Literatur des 17. Jahrhunderts von Gottsched bis Gervinus. [East] Berlin: Volker Spiess, 1974. Print. Bunzel, Wolfgang. Poetik und Publikation. Goethes Veröffentlichungen in Musenalmanachen und literarischen Taschenbüchern. Weimar: Böhlau, 1997. Print. Kontext. Studien zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte der Neuzeit 2. Print. ---. “Almanache und Taschenbücher.” Von Almanach bis Zeitung. Ein Hanbuch der Medien in Deutschland 1700-1800. Ed. Ernst Fischer, Wilhelm Haefs and York-Gothart Mix. München: Beck, 1999. 24-35. Print. Bülow, Michael. Buchmarkt und Autoreneigentum. Die Entstehung des Urhebergedankens im 18. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1990. Print. Buchwissenschaftliche Beiträge aus dem Deutschen Bucharchiv München 30. Busch, Gudrun. “Karl Wilhelm Ramler als Liedersammler Die Lieder der Deutschen (1766) und die Lieder der Deutschen mit Melodien (1767-1768).” Urbanität als Aufklärung. Karl Wilhelm Ramler und die Kultur des 18. Jahrhunderts. Ed. Laurenz Lütteken, Ute Pott and Carsten Zelle. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2003. 225-250. Print. Schriften des Gleimhauses Halberstadt 2. Büsching, Anton Friedrich. Eigene Lebensgeschichte: in vier Stücken. Halle: verlegt von sel. Johann Jakob Curts Witwe, 1789. Google Books. Web. 02 Feb. 2012. Cahn, Michael. “Hamster: Wissenschafts- und mediengeschtliche Grundlagen der sammelnden Lektüre.” Lesen und Schreiben im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Studien zu ihrer Bewertung in Deutschland, England, Frankreich. Ed. Paul Goetsch. Tübingen: Narr, 1994. 63-77. Print. Campe, Joachim Heinrich, ed. “Blumenlese.” Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Vol. 1. Braunschweig: In der Schulbuchhandlung, 1807. 574. Google Books. Web. 05 Nov. 2011. Campe, Joachim Heinrich, ed. “Anthology.” Wörterbuch zur Erklärung und Verdeutschung der unserer Sprache aufgedrungenen fremden Ausdrücke. Vol. 1. Braunschweig: In der Schulbuchhandlung, 1801. Google Books. Web. 05 Nov. 2011. ---. “Blumenlese.” Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Vol. 1. Schulbuchhandlung, 1807. 574. Google Books. Web. 05 Nov.2011. Braunschweig: In der 133 Caygill, Howard, ed. A Kant Dictionary. [Oxford]: Blackwell Publishers, 1995. Blackwell Reference Online. Web. 4 Jun. 2010. Ciołek-Jóźwiak, Agnieszka. “Logaus Sinngedichte in Lessings und Ramlers Bearbeitung.” Chloe [Beihefte zum Daphnis. Salomo in Schlesien. Beitre zum 400. Geburtstag Friedrich von Logaus (1605-2005) Ed. Thomas Althaus and Sabine Seelbach] 39 (2006): 363-378. Print. Cook, Roger F. The Demise of the Author. Autonomy and the German Writer, 1770-1848. New York: Lang, 1993. Print. Studies in Modern German Literature 52. Corsten, Severin, Günther Pflug and Friedrich Adolf Schmidt-Künsemüller, ed. Lexikon des gesamten Buchwesens. 8 vols. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1987-<c2010>. Print. Cramer, Thomas and Horst Wenzel, ed. Literaturwissenschaft und Literaturgeschichte. Ein Lesebuch zur Fachgeschichte der Germanistik. München: Fink, 1975. Print. Czornyj, Peter John. “Appendix II: A List of Lieder Collections Published in Germany between 1733 and 1767. 255-261. 51 Entries.” “George Philipp Telemann (1681-1767): His Relationship to Carl Heinrich Graun and the Berlin Circle.” Diss. U. Hull. 1988. Print. Damschroder, David. Thinking about Harmony: Historical Perspectives on Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 2008. Google Books. Web. 13 March 2012. Darnton, Robert. “What is the History of Books?” The Book History Reader. 2nd ed. Ed. David Finkelstein & Alistair McCleery. London: Routledge, 2006. Print. Daunicht, Richard. Lessing im Gespräch; Berichte und Urteile von Freunden und Zeitgenossen. [München]: Fink, 1971. de Capua, Angelo George. Development of the Lyrical Anthology from the End of the Baroque Period to the Beginning of the Sturm Und Drang. Diss. Yale U, 1953. Ann Arbor: UMI, n. p. Microform. ---. “The Series Collection: A Forerunner of the Lyrical Anthology in Germany.” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 54 (1955): 202-225. Print. ---. “Karl Wilhelm Ramler: Anthologist und Editor.” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 55 (1956): 355-372. Print. ---. “Early Poetical Anthologies for Schools. A Contribution to the History of the Lyrical Anthology in Germany before 1770.” Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht, deutsche Sprache und Literatur 49 (1957): 337-352. Print. Dewitz, Eduard. Geschichte des Kreises Bunzlau. Bunzlau: Selbstverlag des Herausgebers, 1885. Hathitrust Digital Library. Web. 11 Feb. 2012. Dewitz, Hans-Georg. “Ramler, Karl Wilhem” Deutsches Literatur-Lexikon. Ed. Heinz Rupp and Carl Ludwig Lang. 3rd ed. Vol. 12. Bern: Francke, 1999. Print. 134 Di Leo, Jeffrey R, ed. On Anthologies: Politics and Pedagogy. Lincoln, NE: U Nebraska P, 2004. Print. Döring, Heinrich. “Jördens (Karl Heinrich).” Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste Vol. 2.23. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1844. 28-30. Print. Dyck, Joachim. Ticht-Kunst. Deutsche Barockpoetik und rhetorische Tradition. Mit einer Bibliographie zur Forschung 1966-1986. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1991. Print. Rhetorik-Forschungen 2. ---. “Nachwort.” Georg Neumark Poetische Tafeln oder Gründliche Anweisung zur Teutschen Verskunst. 2nd ed. Ed. Joachim Dyck. Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1971. Print. Ars Poetica Texte und Studien zur Dichtungslehre und Dichtkunst 2. [Ebeling, Christoph Daniel]. Rev. of Anthologie der Deutschen [Vol. 1] by Christian Heinrich Schmid. Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek 14.2 (1771): 552-554. Zeitschriften der Aufklärung im Netz. U Bielefeld. Web. 2008. ---. Rev. of Anthologie der Deutschen. Vol. 3 by Christian Heinrich Schmid. Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek 20.2 (1773): 589-592. Zeitschriften der Aufklärung im Netz. U Bielefeld. Web. 2008. “Eben dieser Hr. Rektor ladet zu Anhörung seiner Antrittsrede…” Lausizische Monatsschrift, 6 (Jun. 1796): 356-357. Sächsiche Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden. Web. 10 Feb. 2012. Eckardt, Hans Wilhelm, Gabriel Stüber, and Thomas Trumpp. “Thun kund und zu wissen jedermänniglich” Paläographie – Archivalische Textsorten – Aktenkunde. Köln: Rheinland, 1999. Print. Landschaftsverband Rheinland Rheinisches Archiv- und Museumsamt Archivberatungsstelle 32. Edward, Catharine. Death in Ancient Rome. New Haven: Yale UP, 2007. Rev. of “Einige Gedanken über die Bildung des Herzens junger Leute auf Schulen…” by Karl Heinrich Jördens. Lausizische Monatsschrift, 6 (Jun. 1796): 355-356. Sächsiche Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden. Web. 10 Feb. 2012. Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe. 14th printing. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009. 1st ed 1979. Elschenbroich, Adalbert, „Michaelis, Johann Benjamin.” Neue Deutsche Biographie. Vol. 17. Ed. Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin : Duncker & Humblot, 1994. 434. Deutsche Biographie. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. Engel, Eva J. “Einleitung.” Moses Mendelssohn. Gesammelte Schriften Jubiläumsausgabe. 4. Rezensionsartikel in Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften und der freyen Künste (17561759). Ed. Eva J. Engel. Stuttgart: Frommann, 1977. XIII-XLV. Print. 135 Rev. of Epigrammlese oder Sammlung von Sinngedichten aus den vorzüglichsten älteren und neueren Epigrammatisten der Deutschen, nebst einem Anhange über das Epigramm by [Karl Heinrich Jördens]. Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, 1:89 (1791). 707-708. Print. Ersch, Johann Samuel. Allgemeine encyclopädie der wissenschaften und künste in alphabetischer folge von genannten Schriftstellern. Ed. J. S. Ersch and J. G. Gruber. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1844. Print. [Eschenburg, Johann Joachim]. Rev. of Anthologie der Deutschen by Christian Heinrich Schmid. Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek. 16.2 (1772): 269-272. Zeitschriften der Aufklärung im Netz. U Bielefeld. Web. ---. Rev. of Christian Wernickens Ueberschriften. Nebst Opitzens, Tschernings, Andreas Gryphius und Adam Olearius epigrammatischen Gedichten by Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Neue Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften und freyen Künste 25.1 (1780): 100-122. Zeitschriften der Aufklärung im Netz. U Bielefeld. Web. ---. Rev. of Christian Wernickens Ueberschriften. Nebst Opitzens, Tschernings, Andreas Gryphius und Adam Olearius epigrammatischen Gedichten by Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek 50.2 (1782): 330-343. Zeitschriften der Aufklärung im Netz. U Bielefeld. Web. ---. Entwurf einer einer Theorie und Literatur der schönen Wissenschaften. Zur Grundlage bey Vorlesungen. Berlin und Stettin: bey Friedrich Nicolai, 1783 (2nd ed 1789). Print. ---. Beispielsammlung zur Theorie und Literatur der schönen Wissenschaften. 8 vols. Berlin und Stettin: bei Friedrich Nicolai, 1788-95. Print. Estermann, Monika, Ernst Fischer and Ute Schneider, ed. Buchkulturen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Literaturvermittlung. Festschrift für Reinhard Wittmann. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005. Print. ---. “Buchhandel, Buchhandelsgeschichte und Verlagsgeschichtsschreibung vom 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart. Ein Überblick über Quellenlage und Forschungsliteratur.” Buchwissenschaft in Deutschland - ein Handbuch. Vol. 1. Ed. Ursula Rautenberg. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur, 2010. 257-320. Print. Faber du Faur, Curt von. Deutsche Barocklyrik, Eine Auswahl aus der Zeit von 1620-1720. Salzburg: Anton Pustet, 1936. Print. ---. German Baroque Literature. A Catalogue of the Collection in the Yale University Library. New Haven: Yale UP, 1958. Print. ---. German Baroque Literature. A Catalogue of the Collection in the Yale University Library. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale UP, 1969. Print. 136 Fallersleben, August Heinrich Hoffmann von. Die deutsche Philologie im Grundriss: ein Leitfaden zu vorlesungen. Breslau: bei Georg Philipp Aderholz, 1836. Google Books. Web. 04 Jan 2012. Ferris, Ina and Paul Keen. “Introduction: Towards a Bookish Literary History.” Bookish Histories: Books, Literature, and Commerical Modernity, 1700-1900. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Mcmillan, 2009. 1-15. Print. Palgrave Studies in the Enlightenment, Romanticism and Cultures of Print. Ferry, Anne. Tradition and the Individual Poem. An Inquiry into Anthologies. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2001. Print. Fischer, Heinz-Dietrich. Deutsche Zeitschriften des 17. bis 20. Jahrhunderts. Pullach bei München: Dokumentation, 1973. Print. Publizistik-Historische Beiträge 3. Fischer, Ernst, Wilhelm Haefs and York-Gothart Mix. “Einleitung: Aufklärung, Öffentlichkeit und Medienkultur in Deutschland im 18. Jahrhundert.” Von Almanach bis Zeitung. Ein Hanbuch der Medien in Deutschland 1700-1800. Ed. Ernst Fischer, Wilhelm Haefs and York-Gothart Mix. München: Beck, 1999. 9-23. Print. Fohrmann, Jürgen. Das Projekt der deutschen Literaturgeschichte. Entstehung und Scheitern einer nationalen Poesiegeschichtsschreibung zwischen Humanismus und deutschem Kaiserreich. Stuttgart: Metzler & Poeschel, 1989. Print. Fohrmann, Jürgen and Wilhelm Voßkamp. Wissenschaft und Nation. Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. München: Fink, 1991. Print. Garber, Klaus. Literatur und Kultur im Europa der Frühen Neuzeit. München: Fink, 2009. Print. Garland, Mary. “Klotz, Christian Adolf.” Oxford Companion to German Literature. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997. Print. Gauger, Hans Martin. “Die sechs Kulturen in der Geschichte des Lesens,” Lesen und Schreiben im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Studien zu ihrer Bewertung in Deutschland, England, Frankreich. Ed. Paul Goetsch. Tübingen: Narr, 1994. 27-43. Genette, Gérard. “Introduction to the Paratext.” Trans. Marie Maclean. New Literary History 22.2 (1991): 261-272. JSTOR. Web. 10 Sep. 2008. ---. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Trans Jane E. Lewin; foreword by Richard Macksey. 1997. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. Print. Literature, Culture, Theory 20. Gerhardt, Claus W. “Der technische Stand des Buchdrucks im 17. Jahrhundert.” Bücher und Bibliotheken im 17. Jahrhundert in Deutschland. Wolfenbütteler Arbeitskreis für Geschichte des Buchwesens. Vorträge des vierten Jahrestreffen des Wolfenbütteler Arbeitskreises für Geschichte des Buchwesens in der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel 22. bis 24. mai 1979. Ed. Paul Raabe. Hamburg: Hauswedell, 1979. Print. Wolfenbütteler Schriften zur Geschichte des Buchwesens 6. 137 Gieseke, Ludwig: Vom Privileg zum Urheberrecht. Die Entwicklung des Urheberrechts in Deutschland bis 1845. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1995. Print. Göckingk, Leopold Friedrich Günther von. “Ramlers Leben.” Karl Wilhelm Ramlers Poëtische Werke. Zweyter Theil. Vermischte Gedichte. Vol 2. Berlin: bey Johann Daniel Sander, 1801. VD18. Web. 04 Feb.2012. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Aus meinem Leben: Dichtung und Wahrheit. Historischkritische Ausgabe. 2 vols. Ed. Siegfried Scheibe. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970-74. Print. Goetsch, Paul, ed. Lesen und Schreiben im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Studien zu ihrer Bewertung in Deutschland, England, Frankreich. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1994. Print. ScriptOralia 65. Gottsched, Johann Christoph. Versuch einer critischen Dichtkunst vor die Deutschen : darinnen erstlich die allgemeinen Regeln der Poesie, hernach alle besondere Gattungen der Gedichte abgehandelt und mit Exempeln erläutert werden ... / Anstatt einer Einleitung ist Horatii Dichtkunst in deutsche Versse übersetzt, und mit anmerckungen erläutert. Leipzig : B.C. Breitkopf, 1730. Revised editions: 1737, 1742 and 1751. Grimm, Sieglinde. “Johann Jakob Engel: Dichtung und Populärphilosophie.” Johann Jakob Engel (1741-1802) Philosoph für die Welt, Ästhetiker und Dichter. Ed. Alexander Košenina. Hannover-Laatzen: Wehrhahn, 2005. 97-121. Print. Berliner Klassik. Eine Großstadtkultur um 1800 7. Gunzenhauser, Bonnie. “Introduction.” Reading in History. New Methodologies from the AngloAmerican Tradition. Ed. Bonnie Gunzenhauser. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2010. 1-9. Print. History of the Book 6. Hainer, Robert R. trans. From My Life: Poetry and Truth. Parts One to Three by Johann Wolfgang von. Introduction Thomas P. Saine. Ed. Thomas P. Saine and Jeffrey L. Sammons. New York: Suhrkamp, 1987. Print. Goethe’s Collected Works 4. Halbey, Hans A. “Lessing gedruckt. Glanz und Elend der Buchgestaltung.” Buchgestaltung in Deutschland 1740-1890. Ed. Paul Raabe. Hamburg: Hauswedell, 1980. 9-38. Print. Wolfenbütteler Schriften zur Geschichte des Buchwesens 5. Hallbauer, Friedrich Andreas. Sammlung teutscher auserlesener sinnreicher Inscriptionen nebst einer Vorrede darinne von den teutschen Inscriptionen überhaupt eine historische Nachricht ertheilet wird. Jena: im Waysenhause Druckts und verlegts Christian Franciscus Buch. 2nd, revised ed 1732. Google Books. Web. 28 Jan. 2012. Häntzschel, Günter. Bibliographie der deutschsprachigen Lyrikanthologien 1840-1914. [“Unter Mitarbeit von Sylvia Kucher und Andreas Schumann”]. 2 vols. München: K. G. Saur, 1991. Print. 138 ---. “Anthologie.” Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 1. Ed. Jan-Dirk Müller. 3rd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 19972003. Print. ---. “Anthologie.” Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit. 1. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2005. 422-425. Print. Hamberger, Georg Christoph. “Jördens (Karl Heinrich).” Das gelehrte Teutschland oder Lexikon der jetzt lebenden teutschen Schriftsteller [Forgesetzt von Johann Georg Meusel]. 3. vol. 5th ed. Lemgo: im Verlage der Meyerschen Buchhandlung, 1797. 547-548. Google Books. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. Hammerstein, Notker and Ulrich Herrmann, ed. Handbuch der deutschen Bildungsgeschichte. Band II. 18. Jahrhundert. Vom späten 17. Jahrhundert bis zur Neuordnung Deutschlands um 1800. München: Beck, 2005. Print. Hauswedell, Ernst L., and Christian Voigt, eds. Buchkunst und Literatur in Deutschland 17501850. 2 vols. Hamburg: Maximilian-Gesellschaft, 1977. Print. Hecker, Uwe, and Marlies Ebert. Das Nicolaihaus. Brüderstraße 13 in Berlin. Ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte der Stadt Berlin. Berlin: Nicolai Verlag and Stiftung Stadtmuseum Berlin, 2006. Print. Heidemann, Julius. Geschichte des Grauen Klosters zu Berlin. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1874. Google Books. Web. 20 Oct 2009. Heinemann, Otto von. Die herzogliche Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel, 1550-1893. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte deutscher Büchersammlungen mit einem Anhang von Dokumenten und Archivstücken. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Gérard Th. van Heusden, 1969. Print. Heinsius, Th[eodor]. Versuch einer biographischen Skizze Ramlers, nebst einer kurzen Darstellung seines poetischen Charakters. Berlin: Bei Belitz und Braun, 1798. Print. Heinsius, Wilhelm et al. Allgemeines Bücher-Lexikon: oder vollständiges alphabetisches Verzeichniß der von 1700 bis zu Ende 1810 erschienene Bücher, welche in Deutschland und in den durch Sprache und Literatur damit verwandten Ländern gedruckt worden sind. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Leipzig: bey Johann Friedrich Gleditsch, 1812. Google Books. Web. 11 Mar. 2012. Herder, Johann Gottfried. “Anmerkungen über die Anthologie der Griechen, besonders über das griechische Epigramm.” Zerstreute Blätter. II. 1785. Print. Hermsdorf, Klaus. “Literaturzentren und literarische Regionen.” Stätten deutscher Literatur. Studien zu literarischen Zentrenbildung 1750-1815. Ed. Wolfgang Stellmacher. Frankfurt am Main: Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1998. 11-30. Print. Literatur – Sprache – Region 1. Herzog, Andreas, ed. Das literarische Leipzig: Kulturhistorisches Mosaik einer Buchstadt. Leipzig: Edition Leipzig, 1995. Print. 139 Heuschkel, Walter. Untersuchungen über Ramlers und Lessings Bearbeitung von Sinngedichten Logaus. Diss. U Jena. Jena: privately published, 1901. Print. Hocks, Paul and Peter Schmidt. Literarische und politische Zeitschriften, 1789-1805. Von der politischen Revolution zur Literaturrevolution. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1975. Print. Sammlung Metzler. M121. Abt. D, Literaturgeschichte. Hoffmann, A. G. “Jordens (Karl Heinrich).” Allgemeine Encyklopadie der Wissenschaften und Kunste: in alphabetischer Folge. Vol 2.23 Leipzig: F. A. Brockhouse, 1844. 28-30. Google Books. Web. 26 Jan. 2012. Hoffmann, Peter. Anton Friedrich Büsching (1724-1793): Ein Leben im Zeitalter der Aufklärung. Berlin: Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz, 2000. Print. Aufklärung und Europa. Hohendahl, Peter Uwe. Geschichte der deutschen Literaturkritik (1730-1980). Stuttgart: Metzler, 1985. Print. Holzmann, Michael, and Hanns Bohatta. Deutsches Anonymenlexikon. 7 vols. Weimar: Gesellschaft der Bibliophilen, 1902-28. Print. Holub, Robert C. Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction. London: Methuen, 1984. Print. New Accents. Hoffmann, Heinrich. Die deutsche Philologie im Grundriss. Ein Leitfaden zu Vorlesungen. Breslau: bei Georg Philipp Aderholz, 1836. Google Books. Web. 26 Jan. 2012. Hoffmann-Scholl, Rosemary. “Die Buchillustration im 18. Jahrhundert.” Buchgestaltung in Deutschland 1740-1890. Ed. Paul Raabe. Hamburg: Hauswedell, 1980. 39-53. Print. Wolfenbütteler Schriften zur Geschichte des Buchwesens 5. Holzmann Michael, and Hanns Bohatta, eds. Deutsches Anonymenlexikon 1501-1850. Vol. 2. Weimar: Gesellschaft der Bibliophilen, 1903. 32. Print. Howard, William Guild. “Christian Wernicke, a Predecessor of Lessing.” PMLA 23.3 (1908): 520-544. MLA. JSTOR. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. Hurlebusch, Klaus, ed. Klopstock Epigramme. Text und Apparat. Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock. Werke und Briefe. Historisch-kritische Ausgabe. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982. Google Books. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. Intelligenzblatt der Jenaischen allgemeinen Literatur-Zeitung, 3.18 (18 Feb. 1806). 148.Google Books. Web. 10 Feb. 2012. Jacob, Marianne. “Die Anfänge bibliographischer Darstellung der deutschen Literatur des 19. Jahrhunderts. Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte des Deutschen Schriftsteller-Lexikons 1830 – 1880.” 2003 Diss. Humboldt U Berlin. Humboldt Universität edoc server. Web. 06 Jun. 2009. 140 Jäger, Georg et al (ed). Die Leihbibliothek der Goethezeit. Exemplarische Kataloge zwischen 1790 und 1830. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1979. Print. Texte zum Literarischen Leben um 1800 6. Jäger, Hans-Wolf. “Lichtwer, Magnus Gottfried.” Neue Deutsche Biographie 14 (1985). 469f. Deutsche Biographie. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. Jähnert, Gabriele. “Göttingen um 1773. Literarisches Leben im Spannungsfeld des Wissenschafts- und Universitätsbetriebes.” Stätten deutscher Literatur. Studien zu literarischen Zentrenbildung 1750-1815. Ed. Wolfgang Stellmacher. Literatur – Sprache – Region 1. Frankfurt am Main: Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1998. 239-270. Print. Jördens, Karl Heinrich, ed. Epigrammenlese oder Sammlung von Sinngedichten aus den vorzüglichsten älteren und neueren Epigrammatisten der Deutschen nebst einem Anhange über das Epigramm. Berlin: Friedrich Vieweg, 1789. ---. Blumenlese deutscher Sinngedichte. 2 vols. Berlin: Im Verlage der Königlichen Realschulbuchhandlung Berlin, 1789-1790. ---. “Berlinerischer Musenalmanach für 1791.” Berlin: Carl Matzdorff, 1791. 161-176. ---. “Friedrich Gedike.” Lexikon deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten. [6 vols]. Vol. 2. Leipzig: in der Weidmannischen Buchhandlung, 1807. 39-53. Print. ---. “Karl Wilhelm Ramler.” Lexikon deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten [6 vols]. Vol. 4. Leipzig: in der Weidmannischen Buchhandlung, 1809. 262-307. Print. ---. “Christian Heinrich Schmid.” Lexikon deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten [6 vols]. Vol. 4. Leipzig: in der Weidmannischen Buchhandlung, 1809. 551-573. Print. Julius, Nikolaus Heinrich. Bibliotheca Germano-Glottica oder Versuch einer Literatur der Alterthümer, der Sprachen und Völkerschaften der Reiche, germanischen Ursprungs und germanischer Beymischung. Hamburg: bey Perthes & Besser, 1817. Google Books. Web. 11 Mar. 2012. Jung, Werner. Kleine Geschichte der Poetik. Hamburg: Junius, 1997. Print. “K. Heinrich Jördens, ehemaliger Rector am Gymnasium zu Lauban, starb den 6. December 1835.” Neues Lausitzisches Magazin, 14.1.3 (1836). Görlitz: Heyn’schen Buch- und Kunsthandlung. 135-136, 218. Google Books. Web. 25 Jul. 2009. Kaldewey, Gunnar. “Die Vignettenbücher des Rokoko in Deutschland 1750-1770.” In: Buchgestaltung in Deutschland 1740-1890. Ed. Paul Raabe. Hamburg: Hauswedell, 1980. 54-67. Print. Wolfenbütteler Schriften zur Geschichte des Buchwesens 5. Kaminski, Nicola. Ex Bello Ars oder Ursprung der >>Deutschen Poeterey<<. Heidelberg: Winter, 2004. Print. Beiträge zur neueren Literaturgeschichte 205. 141 Kanzog, Klaus. "Urheberrecht." Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 3. Ed. Jan-Dirk Müller. 3rd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997-2003. 733-736.Print. [Kästner, Abraham Gotthelf]. Rev. of Anthologie der Deutschen [Vol. 1] by Christian Heinrich Schmid. Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen, “Band 2, Stück 154” (25 Dec. 1769): 1391-1392. Print. ---. Rev. of Anthologie der Deutschen. Vol. 2. by Christian Heinrich Schmid. Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen, “Zugabe 2. Stück” (12 Jan. 1771): XIII-XV. Print. ---. Rev. of Anthologie der Deutschen. Vol. 2. by Christian Heinrich Schmid. Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen, “Zugabe 43. Stück” (14 Nov. 1772): CCCLXVIII. Print. ---. Rev. of Christian Wernickens Ueberschriften. Nebst Opitzens, Tschernings, Andreas Gryphius und Adam Olearius epigrammatischen Gedichten by Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen, 29 (1780). 461. Print. Kathe, Heinz “Die Universität Halle und das Oberkuratorium.” Studien zur Entwicklung preussischer Universitäten. Ed. Reinhard Brandt and Werner Euler. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999. Print. Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 88. Kemp, Friedhelm. “Deutsche Barockliteratur. Der Katalog der Sammlung Faber du Faur.” Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel. Frankfurter Ausgabe. 14.88 (4 Nov.1958). 1434-1436. Print. Kerlen, Dietrich & Inka Kirste, ed. Buchwissenschaft und Buchwirkungsforschung. VIII. Leipziger Hochschultage für Medien und Kommunikation. Leipzig: Institut für Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft Abteilung Buchwissenschaft und Buchwirtschaft, 2000. Kersting, Christa. “Pädagogische Zeitschriften.” Von Almanach bis Zeitung. Ein Hanbuch der Medien in Deutschland 1700-1800. Ed. Ernst Fischer, Wilhelm Haefs and York-Gothart Mix. München: Beck, 1999. 266-284. Print. Kertscher, Hans-Joachim. “Karl Wilhelm Ramler als Herausgeber.” Urbanität als Aufklärung. Karl Wilhelm Ramler und die Kultur des 18. Jahrhunderts. Ed. Laurenz Lütteken, Ute Pott and Carsten Zelle. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2003. 95-128. Print. Schriften des Gleimhauses Halberstadt 2. Kiesel, Helmuth and Paul Münch. Gesellschaft und Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert. Voraussetzungen und Entstehung des Literarischen Markts in Deutschland. München: Beck, 1977. Print. Kirchner, Joachim. Die Grundlagen des deutschen Zeitschriftenwesens. Mit einer Gesamtbibliographie der deutschen Zeitschriften bis zum Jahre 1790. Erster Teil Bibliographische und Buchhandelsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Leipzig: Hersemann, 1928. Print. 142 ---. Das deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen seine Geschichte und seine Probleme. Teil I. Von den Anfängen bis zu Zeitalter der Romantik. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1958. Print. Kittel, Harald. “International Anthologies of Literature in Translation: An Introduction to Incipient Research.” International Anthologies of Literature in Translation. Ed. Harald Kittel. Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1995. ix-xxvii. Print. Göttinger Beiträge zur Internationalen Übersetzungsforschung 9. Kleist, Heinrich von. “Allerneuester Erziehungsplan.” Berliner Abendblätter. 9. Nov 1810. Heinrich von Kleist. Werke und Briefe Vol. 3. Berlin: Aufbau-Verlag, 1978. 462-469. Print. Klischnig, Karl Friedrich. Mein Freund Anton Reiser. Aus dem Leben des Karl Philipp Moritz. Ed. Heide Hollmer and Erwentraut. Berlin: Mathias Gatza, [1993] [Anton Reiser. Ein psychologischer Roman. 5. und letzter Teil. 1794]. Print. Klotz, Christian Adolph. “Vorrede.” Deutsche Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften. Ed. Christian Adolph Klotz. 1.1 (1767). Halle: bey Johann Justinus Gebauer. n.p. Print. ---. Rev. of Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte der deutsche Poeten by Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Deutsche Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften. Ed. Christian Adolph Klotz. 1.3 (1767). Halle: bey Johann Justinus Gebauer.. Print. Zg18 K713 767d ---. Rev. of Anthologie der Deutschen. Vol. 1. by Christian Heinrich Schmid. Deutsche Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften. Ed. Christian Adolph Klotz. 4.16 (1770). 615629. Halle: bey Johann Justinus Gebauer. Print. ---. Rev. of Anthologie der Deutschen. Vol. 2. by Christian Heinrich Schmid. Deutsche Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften. Ed. Christian Adolph Klotz. 5.19 (1770). 509526. Halle: bey Johann Justinus Gebauer. Print. Knape, Joachim. “Poetics and Rhetorics in Early Modern Germany.” Early Modern Literature 1350-1700. Ed. Max Reinhart. Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2007. 247-280. Print. Camden House History of German Literature 4. Koch, Erduin Julius. Compendium der Deutschen Literaturgeschichte. Berlin: im Verlag der königlichen Realschulbuchhandlung, 1790. Print. Koch, Hans Albrecht. “Christian Heinrich Schmid.” Literatur Lexikon. Autoren und Werke deutscher Sprache. Vol. 10. Ed. Walter Killy. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag, 1991. Print. Koselleck, Reinhart. Futures Past. 2004. Trans. Keith Tribe [Vergangene Zukunft, 1979]. Ebray. Web. 4 Sep. 2011. ---. “Das 18. Jahrhundert als Beginn der Neuzeit.” Epochenschwelle und Epochenbewußtsein. Ed. Reinhart Herzog & Reinhart Koselleck. München: Fink, 1987. 269-82. Print. 143 ---. “The Eighteenth Century as the Beginning of Modernity.” The Practice of Conceptual History. Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Trans. Todd Samuel Presner. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2002. 154-169. Print. Cultural Memory in the Present. ---. “‘Progress’ and ‘Decline.’” The Practice of Conceptual History. Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Trans. Todd Samuel Presner. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2002. 218-235. Print. Cultural Memory in the Present. ---. “Concepts of Historical Time and Social History.” The Practice of Conceptual History. Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Trans. Adelheis Baker. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2002. 115-130. Print. Cultural Memory in the Present. ---. “Time and History.” The Practice of Conceptual History. Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Trans. Kerstin Behnke. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2002. 100-114. Print. Cultural Memory in the Present. ---. “Social History and Conceptual History.” The Practice of Conceptual History. Timing History, Spacing Concepts. Trans. Kerstin Behnke. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2002. 2037. Print. Cultural Memory in the Present. ---. Vom Sinn und Unsinn der Geschichte. Aufsätze und Vorträge aus vier Jahrzehnten. Ed. Carsten Dutt. Berlin : Suhrkamp, 2010. Print. Košenina, Alexander. “Ein deutscher Horaz? Karl Wilhelm Ramler in der zeitgenössischen Rezeption.” Urbanität als Aufklärung. Karl Wilhelm Ramler und die Kultur des 18. Jahrhunderts. Ed. Laurenz Lütteken, Ute Pott and Carsten Zelle. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2003. 129-152. Print. Schriften des Gleimhauses Halberstadt 2. ---. “Einführung: Johann Jakob Engel und die Berliner Aufklärung.” Johann Jakob Engel (17411802) Philosoph für die Welt, Ästhetiker und Dichter. Ed. Alexander Košenina. Hannover-Laatzen: Wehrhahn, 2005. 1-25. Print. Berliner Klassik Eine. Großstadtkultur um 1800 7. ---. “Johann Jakob Engels sokratische Lehrmethode am Joachimsthalschen Gymnasium zu Berlin (1776-1787).” Johann Jakob Engel (1741-1802) Philosoph für die Welt, Ästhetiker und Dichter. Ed. Alexander Košenina. Hannover-Laatzen: Wehrhahn, 2005. 189-204. Print. Berliner Klassik. Eine Großstadtkultur um 1800 7. Košenina, Alexander & Matthias Wehrhahn. Johann Jakob Engel (1741-1802). Leben und Werk des Berliner Aufklärers. Ausstellung zum 250. Geburtstag. Ausstellungsführer. Berlin: Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin, 1991. Print. Korte, Barbara. “Flowers for the Picking: Anthologies of Poetry in (British) Literary and Cultural Studies.” Anthologies of British Poetry. Critical Perspectives from Literary and Cultural Studies. Ed. Barbara Korte, Ralf Schneider & Stefanie Lethbridge. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2000. 1-32. Print. Internationale Forschungen zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft 48. 144 Krause, Friedhilde. Rund um die Bibliothek. Gesammelte Aufsätze und Studien. [Berlin]: Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz, 1998. Print. Beiträge aus der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preußischer Kulturbesitz 7. K[riebel, August Johann]. Rev. of Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte deutscher Poeten. Erster Theil ed. [Karl Wilhelm Ramler]. Neue critische Nachrichten, 2.30 (1766). 233-236. Zeitschriften der Aufklärung im Netz. U Bielefeld. Web. Krünitz, Johann Georg, ed. “Polterkammer.” Oeconomsche Encyclopädie oder allgemeines System Staats= Stadt= Haus= u. Landwirtschaft, in alphabetischer Ordnung. [Fortgesetzt von Friedrich Jakob Floerken, nunmehr von Henrich Gustav Flörke]. 114. Berlin: In der Buchhandl. des Königl. Preuß. Geh. Commercien=Rathes Joachim Pauli, 1810. 609. Google Books. Web. 22 Jan. 2012. Kühlmann, Wilhelm. “Frühaufklärung und Barock. Traditionsbruch -- Rückgriff -- Kontinuität.” Europäische Barock-Rezeption. 1. Ed. Klaus Garber. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991. 187-214. Print. Wolfenbüttler Arbeiten zu Barockforschung 20. Kuehn, Manfred. Kant: a biography. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. Kullnick, Heinz. Berliner und Wahlberliner: Personen und Persönlichkeiten in Berlin von 16401914. Berlin: Hayn, 1960. K. G. Saur World Biographical Index. Web. 25 Jul. 2009. Künnemann, Otto, and Martina Güldemann. Geschichte der Stadt Leipzig. GudensbergGleichen: Wartberg, 2000. Print. Kurz, Gerhard. “Lumpensammler am Parnaß. Christian Heinrich Schmid und die Anfänge der deutschen Literaturgeschichte.” Raum, Zeit, Medium – Sprache und ihre Determination. Festschrift für Hans Ramge zum 60. Geburtstag. Ed. Gerd Richter, Jörg Riecke, and Britt-Marie Schuster. Darmstadt: Hessische Historische Kommission Darmstadt, 2000. 909-928. Print. Arbeiten der Hessischen Historischen Kommission Neue Folge 20. “Kurze Geschichte und Beschreibung des äussern Zustandes der Hauptschulen in den Sechsstädten.” Lausizische Monatschrift. 1.5 (Mai 1795): 266-276. Sächsiche Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden. Web. 11 Feb. 2012. Lange, Victor. Die lyrische Anthologie im England des 18. Jahrhunderts (1670–1780). Diss. U Leipzig. Weimar: 1935. Lavoie, Chantel M. Collecting Women: Poetry and Lives, 1700-1780. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP, 2009. Print. Lee, David E. “Berlin in Halberstadt und Halberstadt in Berlin. Wünschbilder und ihre Auswirkung im Gleim/Ramler Briefwechsel.” Urbanität als Aufklärung. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2003. 61-78. Print. Schriften des Gleimhauses Halberstadt 2. 145 Leibrock, Felix. “Das Interesse an der Barockliteratur bei Gottsched und den Schweizern.” Europäische Barock-Rezeption. Vol. 1. Ed. Klaus Garber. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991. 327-335. Print. Wolfenbüttler Arbeiten zu Barockforschung 20. Leonhardt, Jürgen. “Ramlers Übersetzungen antiker Texte.” Urbanität als Aufklärung. Karl Wilhelm Ramler und die Kultur des 18. Jahrhunderts. Ed. Laurenz Lütteken, Ute Pott and Carsten Zelle. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2003. 323-353. Print. Schriften des Gleimhauses Halberstadt 2. Legband, Paul. Foreword. Christian Heinrich Schmids Chronologie des deutschen Theaters. Ed. Paul Legband. Berlin: Gesellschaft für Theatergeschichte, 1902. Print. Lentner, Carl Friedrich, ed. Schlesische Anthologie. Vol. 1. Breßlau und Leipzig: bey Christian Friedrich Gutsch, 1773. Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim. Briefe von und an Lessing 1743-1770. Lessing’s Werke und Briefe. Vol. 11.1. Ed. Klaus Bohnen. Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1987. ---. “Hundert und erstes, zweites, drittes und viertes Stück.” Hamburgische Dramaturgie. 19. Apr. 1768. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing Werke. Winkler Weltliteratur Dünndruckausgabe. Vol 2. Ed. Otto Mann and Peter-André Alt. München: Artemis und Winkler, 1995. 685698. Print. ---. “Leben und leben lassen. Ein Project für Schriftsteller und Verleger.” Gotthold Ephraim Lessing Werke. Winkler Weltliteratur Dünndruckausgabe. Vol 2. Ed. Otto Mann and Peter-André Alt. München: Artemis und Winkler, 1995. 699-704. Print. ---. “Wie die Alten den Tod gebildet.” Gotthold Ephraim Lessing Werke. Winkler Weltliteratur Dünndruckausgabe. Vol 2. Ed. Otto Mann and Peter-André Alt. München: Artemis und Winkler, 1995. 167-228. Print. ---. “Zerstreute Anmerkungen über das Epigramm und einige der vornehmsten Epigrammatisten.” 1771. Werke. Winkler Weltliteratur Dünndruckausgabe. Vol 2. Ed. Otto Mann and Peter-André Alt. München: Artemis und Winkler, 1995. 485-581. Print. ---. Zur Geschichte und Litteratur. Aus dem Schätzen der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel. Vol. 1. Braunschweig: im Verlage der Fürstl. Waysenhaus-Buchhandlung, 1773. Print. ---. Briefwechsel mit Karl Wilhelm Ramler, Johann Joachim Eschenburg und Friedrich Nicolai: Nebst einigen Anmerkungen über Lessings Briefwechsel mit Moses Mendelssohn. Berlin und Stettin: F. Nicolai, 1794. Google Books. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph. Schriften und Briefe. Vol. 1. Sudelbücher. Ed. Wolfgang Promies. München: Carl Hanser, 1968. Print. 146 “Literarische Nachrichten. II. Universitäten und andere öffentliche Lehranstalten.” Jenaische allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung. Intelligenzblatt der Jenaischen Allgem. Literatur-Zeitung. 18 (18 Feb. 1806). 148. Google Books. Web. 25 Jul 2009. Logau, Friedrich von. Friedrichs von Logau Sinngedichte; Zwölf Bücher; Mit Anmerkungen über die Sprache des Dichters. Ed. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing and Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Leipzig: In der Weidmannischen Buchhandlung, 1759. ---. Friedrichs von Logau Sinngedichte aufs neue überarbeitet, mit drey Büchern vermehrt, und mit Anmerkungen begleitet von Karl Wilhelm Ramler. 2 vols. Ed. Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Leipzig: in der Weidmannischen Buchhandlung, 1791. Lühmann, Frithjof. “Wandlungen der Buchgestaltung am Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts.” Buchgestaltung in Deutschland 1740-1890. Ed. Paul Raabe. Hamburg: Hauswedell, 1980. 89-104. Print. Wolfenbütteler Schriften zur Geschichte des Buchwesens 5. Mann, Otto and Peter-André Alt, ed. Lessing Werke Vol. 11.1. 2nd ed. München: Artemis und Winkler, 1995. Print. ---. “Anmerkungen zu ‘Leben und leben lassen.’” Gotthold Ephraim Lessing Werke. Winkler Weltliteratur Dünndruckausgabe. Vol. 2. München: Artemis und Winkler, 1995. Print. ---. “Anmerkungen zu ‘Wie die Alten den Tod gebildet.’” Gotthold Ephraim Lessing Werke. Winkler Weltliteratur Dünndruckausgabe. Vol. 2. München: Artemis und Winkler, 1995. Print. Martin, Dieter. Barock um 1800. Bearbeitung und Aneignung deutscher Literatur des 17. Jahrhunderts von 1770 bis 1830. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 2000. Print. Das Abendland. Forschungen zur Geschichte europäischen Geisteslebens 26. Matthews, Nicole. “Reading and the Visual Dimensions of the Book: The Popular Cold War Fictions of Helen MacInnes.” Reading in History. New Methodologies from the AngloAmerican Tradition. Ed. Bonnie Gunzenhauser. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2010. 6376. Print. History of the Book 6. Mauerer, Michael. “Johann Joachim Eschenburg und das Barock. Ein Beitrag zur Problematik der Kontinuität vom 17. zum 18. Jahrhundert.” Europäische Barock-Rezeption. Vol. 1. Ed. Klaus Garber. Wiesbaden: Herzog August Bibliothek in Kommission bei Otto Harrassowitz, 1991. 337-349. Print. Wolfenbüttler Arbeitung zur Barockforschung 20. Meister, Leonard. Characteristik deutscher Dichter, Nach der Zeitordnug gereyhet, mit Bildnissen von Heinrich Pfenninger. Vol. 1. Zürich: Im Verlag bey Heinrich Pfenninger, Mahler, in Commission bey J. C. Füßli und Heinrich Steiner und Compagnie, 1785. Mendelssohn, Moses. Rev. of Einleitung in die Schönen Wissenschaften, by Charles Batteux, trans. Karl Wilhelm Ramler. Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften und der freyen Künste. 3.2 (1758). 341-361. Zeitschriften der Aufklärung. Web. Dec. 10 2011. 147 McCarthy, John A. “Literarisch-kulturelle Zeitschriften.” Von Almanach bis Zeitung. Ein Hanbuch der Medien in Deutschland 1700-1800. Ed. Ernst Fischer, Wilhelm Haefs and York-Gothart Mix. München: Beck, 1999. 176-190. Print. McKenzie, D. F. Making Meaning. “Printers of the Mind” and Other Essays. Ed. Peter D. McDonald and Michael F. Suarez, S. J. Amherst, MA: U Massachusetts P, 2002. Print. Meier, Albert. “Moritz, Carl Philipp.” Neue Deutsche Biographie. Vol. 18. 1997. 149-152. Deutsche Biographie. Web. 02 Feb 2012. Metzger, Erika A. Rev. of Christian Gryphius. Poetische Wälder by Christian Gryphius; James N. Hardin; Dietrich Eggers; Christian Gryphius. Der Deutschen Sprache unterschiedene Alter und Wachsthum by Christian Gryphius; Dietrich Eggers; James N. Hardin. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 86:4 (1987). U Illinois P. 600-603. Meyen, Fritz. Johann Joachim Eschenburg 1743-1820. Professor am Collegium Carolinum zu Baraunschweig. Kurzer Abriß seines Lebens und Schaffens nebst Bibliographie. Braunschweig: Waisenhaus-Buchdruckerei und Verlag, 1957. Print. Braunschweiger Werkstücke. Veröffentlichungen aus Archiv, Bibliothek und Museum der Stadt 20. Mila, Wilhelm. Berlin oder Geschichte des Ursprungs, der allmähligen Entwicklung und des jetztigen Zustandes dieser Hauptstadt, in Hinsicht auf Oertlichkeit, Verfassung, wissenschaftliche Kultur, Kunst und Gerwerbe, nach den bewährtesten Schriftstellern und eigenen Forschungen. Berlin und Stettin: In der Nicolaischen Buchhandlung, 1829. Google Books. Web. 25 Jul. 2009. Milstein, Barney M. Eight Eighteenth Century Reading Societies. A Sociological Contribution to the History of German Literature. Berne: Herbert Lang, 1972. Print. German Studies in America 11. Mix, York-Gothart. “Der Göttinger Musenalmanach.” In: Einladung ins 18. Jahrhundert: ein Almanach aus dem Verlag C. H. Beck im 225. Jahr seines Bestehen. Ed. Ernst-Peter Wieckenberg. München: Beck, 1988. Print. ---. “Schreiben, lesen und gelesen werden. Zur Kulturökonomie des literarischen Feldes (17701800). Geselligkeit und Bibliothek. Lesekultur im 18. Jahrhundert. Ed. Wolfgang Adam and Markus Fauser. Göttingen: Wallenstein, 2005. 283-310. Print. Mollenhauer, Peter. Review of Lieder der Deutschen Faksimiledruck by Karl Wilhelm Ramler and edited by Alfred Anger. Monatshefte, Vol. 58, No. 2 pp. 171-172. 1966. U Wisconsin P. JSTOR. Web. 02 Feb. 2012. Molyneux, John H. Simonides: a Historical Study. Wauconda, IL: Bolcharazy-Carducci, 1992. Google Books. Web. 05 Mar. 2012. Moritz, Karl Philipp. “Anthologie.” Grammatisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Vol. 1. Berlin: Ernst Felisch, 1793. 124. Google Books. Web. 05 Nov.2011. 148 Müller, Jan-Dirk. “Zeitschrift.” Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 3. Ed. Jan-Dirk Müller. 3rd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997-2003. Print. Müller, Karl Gottlieb. Kirchengeschichte der Stadt Lauban von der Mitte des zehnten Jahrhunderts an bis mit der dritten Jubelfeier der Reformation im Jahr 1817. Görlitz: bei Karl Gotthelf Anton in Kommission, 1818. 561-562. Google Books. Web. 08 Aug. 2009. Müller-Funk, Wolfgang. “Michel Foucault: Diskurs als kulturelle Macht.” Kulturtheorie. Einführung in Schlüsseltexte der Kulturwissenschaften. Tübingen: Franke, 2006. 184212. Print. Napierala, Mark. Archiv der Kritik. Die Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung und das Athenaeum. Heidelberg: Winter, 2007. Print. Jenaer Germanistische Forschungen Neue Folge 22. Neuhaus, Stefan. Literatur und nationale Einheit in Deutschland. Tübingen and Basel: Francke, 2002. Print. Neukirchen, Thomas. Inscriptio. Rhetorik und Poetik der Scharfsinnigen Inschrift im Zeitalter des Barock. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1999. Print. Studien zur Deutschen Literatur 152. Nicolai, Friedrich. Beschreibung der Königlichen Residenzstädte Berlin und Potsdam und aller daselbst befindlicher Merkwürdigkeiten. Nebst einem Anhange, enthaltend die Leben aller Künstler, die seit Churfürst Friedrich Wilhelms des Großen Zeiten gelebt haben, oder deren Kunstwerke daselbst befindlich sind. Berlin: bey Friedrich Nicolai, Buchhändler unter der Stechbahn, 1769. Google Books. Web. 25 Jul. 2009. ---. Beschreibung der Königlichen Residenzstädte Berlin und Potsdam. 1786. Sämtliche Werke. Briefe. Dokumente. Kritische Ausgabe mit Kommentar. Vol 8.1-2. Ed. Ingeborg Spriewald. Bern: Lang, 1995. Print. Niekerk, Carl. “‘Spätaufklärung’: Rethinking the Late Eighteenth Century in German Literary History.” Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 102.3 [Spätaufklärung] (2003): 317-335. U Illinois P. Web. 16 Jan. 2012. Nünning, Ansgar, ed. “Herder, Johann Gottfried.” Metzler Lexikon. Literatur- und Kulturtheorie. Ansätze - Personen - Grundbegriffe. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Metzler, 2004. 252. Oergel, Maike. Culture and Identity. Historicity in German Literature and Thought, 1770-1815. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Print. Osborne, Peter. “Modernity is a qualitative, not a chronological, category: notes on the dialects of differential historical time.” Postmodernism and the re-reading of modernity. Ed. Francis Barker, Peter Hulme and Margaret Iversen. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1992. 23-45. Print. Otto, Gottlieb Friedrich: Lexikon der seit dem funfzehende Jahrhunderte verstorbenen und jetztlebenden Oberlausizischen Schriftsteller und Künstler, aus den glaubwürdigsten 149 Quellen möglichst vollständig zusammengetragen... Vol. 2. Görlitz: gedruckt bey Burghart, 1802. 236-240. Paepcke, Ernst August. Johann Jakob Engel als Kritiker. Diss. U Freiburg, 1928. Freiburg im Briesgau: privately published, 1908. Print. Paisley, David L. Deutsche Buchdrucker, Buchhändler und Verleger 1701-1750. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988. Print. Beiträge zum Buch- und Bibliothekswesen 12. Palm, Hermann. “Flögel, Karl Friedrich.” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Vol. 7 .1878. 124125. Deutsche Biographie. Web. 12 Mar. 2012. Parthey, Gustav. Die Mitarbeiter an Friedrich Nicolai’s Allgemeiner Deutscher Bibliothek nach ihren Namen und Zeichen in zwei Registern geordnet. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Literaturgeschichte. Berlin: In der Nicolaischen Buchhandlung, 1842. Print. Pascal, R. Rev. of Christian Heinrich Schmid and his Translations of English Dramas by L. M. Price. Modern Language Review 38 (1943): 66-67. JSTOR. Web. 21 Jul. 2008. Pascoe, Judith. Rev of The Anthology and the Rise of the Novel: From Richardson to George Eliot by Leah Price. Studies in Romanticism 44.3 (2005): 460-463. Boston U. JSTOR. Web. 15 Apr. 2011. Perels, Christoph, Jürgen Rathje and Jürgen Stenzel. C. F. Weichmanns Poesie der NiederSachsen (1721-1738). Wolfenbüttel: Herzog August Bibliothek, 1983. Print. Repertorien zur Erforschung der frühen Neuzeit 7. Perthes, Friedrich Christoph. Der deutsche Buchhandel als Bedingung des Daseyns einer deutschen Literatur. [Gotha : Friedrich Christoph Perthes], 1816. Print. Pforte, Dietger. Introduction. Die deutschsprachige Anthologie: Die deutschsprachige Anthologie. Vol 2. Studien zu ihrer Geschichte und Wirkungsform. Ed. Joachim Bark and Dietger Pforte. Studien zur Philosophie und Literatur des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. 2/2. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1969. 48-139. Print. ---. “Die deutschsprachige Anthologie. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Theorie.” Die deutschsprachige Anthologie. Band 1. Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Theorie und eine Auswahlbibliographie des Zeitraums 1800-1950. Ed. Joachim Bark and Dietger Pforte. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1969. xiii-cxvii. Print. Studien zur Philosophie und Literatur des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts 2/2. Pirscher, Manfred. Johann Joachim Eschenburg. Ein Beitrag zur Literatur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts. Diss. U Münster. 1960. Print. Pizer, John David. The Historical Perspective in German Genre Theory: Its Development from Gottsched to Hegel.Stuttgart: Hans Dieter Heinz Akademischer Verlag, 1985. Print. Stuttgarter Arbeiten zur Germanistik 160. 150 Plehwe, Arthur. Johann George Scheffner. Königsberg U. Diss. 1934; 32. Portmann, Johann Gottlieb. Rev. of “Epigrammenlese oder Sammlung von Sinngedichten aus den vorzüglichsten älteren und neueren Epigrammatisten der Deutschen, nebst einem Anhang über das Epigramm” by Karl Heinrich Jördens. Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek. 93.1 (1790): 155-157. Google Books. Web. 12 Mar. 2012. Pott, Ute (ed). Das Jahrhundert der Freundschaft: Johann Wilhelm Ludwig Gleim und seine Zeitgenossen. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2004. Print. Schriften des Gleimhauses Halberstadt 3. Price, Leah. The Anthology and the Rise of the Novel from Richardson to George Eliot. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print. ---. “From The History of a Book to a ‘History of the Book’.” Representations 108.1 (2009): 120-138. U California P. JSTOR. Web. 08 Apr. 2011. Price, L. M. Christian Heinrich Schmid and his Translations of English Dramas. Berkeley: U California P, 1942. Print. U California Publications in Modern Philology 26. Promies, Wolfgang. Georg Christoph Lichtenberg. Schriften und Briefe. Kommentar zu Band I und Band II. München, Carl Hanser, 1992. Pyritz, Hans, and Ilse Pyritz, ed. Bibliographie zur deutschen Literaturgeschichte des Barockzeitalters. München: K. G. Sauer, 1994. Print. Raabe, Paul. “Erduin Julius Kochs Pläne zur Erforschung der deutschen Sprache und Literatur.” In: Studien zur deutschen Literatur. Festschrift für Adolf Beck zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Ed. U. Fülleborn and J. Krogoll. Heidelberg: Winter, 1979. 142-157. Print. Probleme der Dichtung. Studien zur deutschen Literaturgeschichte 16. --- ed. Öffentliche und Private Bibliotheken im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert Raritätenkammern. Forschungsinstrumente oder Bildungsstätten? Bremen: Jacobi, 1977. Print. Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 2. ---. Friedrich Nicolai 1733-1811. Die Verlagswerke eines preußischen Buchhändlers der Aufklärung 1759-1811. 1983. Ausstellungskataloge der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel. Weinheim: Acta Humaniora, 1986. Print. Raabe, Paul and Barbara Stutz, ed. Lessins Bucherwerbungen. Verzeichnis der in der Herzoglichen Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel angeschafften Bücher und Zeitschriften 1770-1881. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2004. Print. Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 2. Ramler, Karl Wilhelm, trans. Charles Batteux Cours de belles lettres. 4 vols. Leipzig: Weidemann & Reich, 1756-58. Print. [Ramler, Karl Wilhem, ed.] Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte der deutschen Poeten. Th[ei]l 1. Riga: Hartknoch, 1766. Print. 151 Ramler, Karl Wilhelm, ed. Wernickens Überschriften. Nebst Opitzens, Tschernings, A. Gryphius und A. Olearius epigrammatischen Gedichten. Leipzig: Weidmann & Reich, 1780. Print. Rautenberg, Ursula & Dirk Wetzel. Buch. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2001. Print. Grundlagen der Medienkommunikation 11. Rautenberg, Ursula. “Buchwissenschaft in Deutschland. Einführung und kritische Auseinandersetzung.” Buchwissenschaft in Deutschland - ein Handbuch. Vol. 1. Ed. Ursula Rautenberg. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur, 2010. 3-64. Print. Reifenberg, Bernd. Lessing und die Bibliothek. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995. Print. Wolfenbütteler Schriften zur Geschichte des Buchwesens 23. Reimer, Doris. Passion & Kalkül: der Verleger Georg Andreas Reimer (1776-1842). Diss. U Stuttgart, 1999. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Google Books. Web. 13 Mar. 2012. Reinhart, Max. Rev of Ticht-Kunst: Deutsche Barockpoetik und rhetorische Tradition [3rd ed.] by Joachim Dyck. The Sixteenth Century Journal 23.4 (1992): 853-854. Print. Reitmeyer, Elisabeth. Studien zum Problem der Gedichtsammlung, mit eingehender Untersuchung der Gedichtsammlungen Goethes und Tiecks. Bern, Leipzig, P. Haupt, 1935. Diss. U. Bern, 1931. Print. Sprache und Dichtung, Forschungen zur Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft 57. Richards, Jennifer and Fred Schurink. “Introduction: The Textuality and Materiality of Reading in Early Modern England.” Huntington Library Quarterly 73.3 (2010): 345-361. Rieck, Werner. “,Pleißathen’ als literarisches Zentrum im 18. Jahrhundert – zur kulturgeschichtlichen Bedeutung Leipzigs in der deutschen Frühaufklärung.” Stätten deutscher Literatur. Studien zu literarischen Zentrenbildung 1750-1815. Ed. Wolfgang Stellmacher. Frankfurt am Main: Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1998. 73-96. Print. Literatur – Sprache – Region 1. Rose, Christian Gottfried. Richtiger Unterricht / Nach welchen die bey Hohen und Gelehrten jetzt beliebte Teutsche Inscriptiones wie auch der hohe und tiefsinnige Teutsche Stylus füglich einzurichten. Alles in kurtzen Regeln und vielen Exempeln ordentlich entworfen. Saalfeld und Leipzig: Verlegts Joh. Michael Kauffmann, 1716. VD18 Digitale Bibliothek deutscher Drucke des 18. Jahrhunderts. Web. 20 Jan. 2012. Rosenberg, Rainer. Literaturwissenschaftliche Germanistik. Zur Geschichte ihrer Probleme und Begriffe. East Berlin: Akademie-Verlag Berlin, 1989. Print. Rosenstrauch, Hazel. Buchhandelsmanufaktur und Aufklärung. Die Reformen des Buchhändlers und Verlegers Ph. E. Reich (1717-1787). Sozialgeschichtliche Studie zur Entwicklung des literarischen Marktes. Frankfurt am Main: Buchhändler-Vereinigung, 1986. Print. Rutledge, Joyce S. Johann Adolph Schlegel. Bern: Lang, 1974. Print. 152 Ruppert, Hans. Goethes Bibliothek, Katalog. Weimar: Arion, 1958. Print. Rev. of Sammlung der besten Sinngedichte deutscher Poeten. Erster Theil. Ed. anon. [Karl Wilhelm Ramler]. Neue Bibliothek der schönen Wissenschaften und freyen Künste, 3.2 (1767). 318-322. Zeitschriften der Aufklärung im Netz. U Bielefeld. Web. Sauter, Michael. “Preaching, a Ponytail, and an Enthusiast: Rethinking the Public Sphere's Subversiveness in Eighteenth-century Prussia.” In: Central European History. Vol. 37, No. 4. (December 2004). 544-567. JSTOR. Web. 13 Aug. 2009. Savage, Bryn. “Die teusche Ilias: The Nibelungenlied in the Early Years of its Rediscovery.” Creating Germany’s National Myth: The Nibelungenlied and its Homerian Context. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, 2011. Web. 13. Feb 2012. Schaffers, Uta. Auf überlebtes Elend blick ich nieder: Anna Louisa Karsch in Selbst- und Fremdzeugnissen. Göttingen: Wallstein, 1997. Print. Schauer, Georg Kurt. “Schrift und Typographie.” Buchkunst und Literatur in Deutschland, 1750 bis 1850. Ed. Ernst L. Hauswedell und Christian Voigt. Hamburg: MaximilianGesellschaft, 1977. Print. Scheffner, Johann Georg. Briefe von und an Johann Georg Scheffner. 5 vols. Ed. Arthur Warda and Carl Diesch. München: Duncker & Humblot, 1918-1938. Schlesische Provinzblätter. Ed. Streit und Zimmermann. 14 [“Julius bis December] (1791): 94. Breslau: bey Gottlieb Löwe. Google Books. Web. 29 Jan. 2012. Schmid, Christian Heinrich. Theorie der Poesie nach den neuesten Grundsätzen und Nachricht von den besten Dichtern nach den angenommenen Urtheilen.[ Zusätze zur Theorie der Poesie und Nachrichten von den besten Dichtern.] 3 vols. Leipzig: bey Siegfried Lebrecht Crusius, 1767-69. Print. ---. Biographie der Dichter. 2 vols. Leipzig: In der Dyckischen Buchhandlung, 1769-70. Print. ---. Anthologie der Deutschen. [1] Frankfurt & Leipzig: [?], 1770. Print. ---. Anthologie der Deutschen. 3 vols. Leipzig: bey Engelhart Benjamin Schwickert, 1770- 72 (first 2 vols. with false imprint: Frankfurt & Leipzig: [n. P.]). Print. ---. Taschenbuch für Dichter und Dichterfreunde. 12 Bde. Leipzig: in der Dyckischen Buchhandlung, 1774-1781 [published anonymously]. Print. ---. Chronologie des deutschen Theaters. [Leipzig : Dyck?], 1775. Print. ---. Oden der Deutschen. Erste Sammlung. Leipzig: bey Christian Gottlieb Hertel, 1778 [published anonymously]. Print. 153 ---. Anweisung der vornehmsten Bücher der Dichtkunst. Leipzig: In der Weygandschen Buchhandlung, 1781. Print. ---. “Plan einer Sammlung: Satyren der Deutschen.” Journal von und für Deutschland. 8.10 (1791): 895-900. Zeitschriften der Aufklärung im Netz. U Bielefeld. 12 Jan. 2009. Schneider, Joh. Nikolaus. “>>Still auf dem Blatt ruhte das Lied<<. Lyrische Gedichte zwischen Lesetext und Hörerlebnis.” Geselligkeit und Bibliothek. Lesekultur im 18. Jahrhundert. Ed. Wolfgang Adam and Markus Fauser. Göttingen: Wallenstein, 2005. 135-150. Print. Schneider, Ute. Friedrich Nicolais Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek als Integrationsmedium der Gelehrtenrepublik. Mainzer Studien zur Buchwissenschaft. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995. Print. ---. “Literaturkritische Zeitschriften.” Von Almanach bis Zeitung. Ein Hanbuch der Medien in Deutschland 1700-1800. Ed. Ernst Fischer, Wilhelm Haefs and York-Gothart Mix. München: Beck, 1999. 191-206. Print. Schön, Erich. “Geschichte des Lesens – ein knapper Überblick.” Der Verlust der Sinnlichkeit oder Die Verwandlungen des Lesers: Mentalitätswandel um 1800. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1987. 31-61. Print. Sprache und Geschichte 12. Schüddekopf, Carl. Karl Wilhelm Ramler bis zu seiner Verbindung mit Lessing. Diss. U Leipzig. Wolfenbüttel: privately published, 1886. Print. ---, ed. Briefwechsel zwischen Gleim und Uz. Tübingen: Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 1899. Print. ---, ed. Briefwechsel zwischen Gleim und Ramler. Vol. 2. 1753-1759. Tübingen: Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 1907. Print. “Schulnachrichten.” Lausizische Monatschrift, 1.4 (Apr. 1795): 240-248. Sächsiche Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden. Web. 10 Feb. 2012. “Schulschriften. Lauban.” Lausizische Monatschrift. 1.5 (Mai 1795): 302-303. Sächsiche Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden. Web. 10 Feb. 2012. Schulz, Helga. “Die Gesellschaft der Aufklärer. Das Berlin Nicolais und Ramlers.” Urbanität als Aufklärung. Karl Wilhelm Ramler und die Kultur des 18. Jahrhunderts. Ed. Laurenz Lütteken, Ute Pott and Carsten Zelle. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2003. 15-38. Print. Schriften des Gleimhauses Halberstadt 2. Selwyn, Pamela E. Everyday Life in the German Book Trade: Friedrich Nicolai as Bookseller and Publisher in the Age of Enlightenment, 1750-1810. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 2000. Print. Seifert, Siegfried. “'Historia literaria' an der Wende zur Aufklärung. Barocktradition und Neuansatz in Morhofs 'Polyhistor.'“ Europäische Barock-Rezeption. Vol 1. Ed. Klaus 154 Garber. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991. 215-228. Print. Wolfenbüttler Arbeiten zu Barockforschung 20. Sisman, Elaine Rochelle. Haydn and his world. Princeton UP, 1997. Print. Snead, Jennifer. “The Work of Abridgements: Readers, Editors and Expectations.” Reading in History. New Methodologies from the Anglo-American Tradition. Ed. Bonnie Gunzenhauser. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2010. 77-89. Print. History of the Book 6. Stahl, Karl Heinz. Das Wunderbare als Problem und Gegenstand der deutschen Poetik des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt am Main: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion, 1975. Print. Stallybrass, Peter, Roger Chartier, J. Franklin Mowery, and Heather Wolfe. “Hamlet's Tables and the Technologies of Writing in Renaissance England.” Shakespeare Quarterly 55.4 (2004): 379-419. Stellmacher, Wolfgang. “Literarische Zentrenbildung in der Endphase des Heiligen Römischen Reiches und im Zeitalter der Napoleonischen Kriege (1750-1815). Stätten deutscher Literatur. Studien zu literarischen Zentrenbildung 1750-1815. Vol. 1. Ed. Wolfgang Stellmacher. Frankfurt am Main: Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1998. 31-72. Print. Literatur – Sprache – Region. Steiner, Harald. Das Autorenhonorar -- seine Entwicklungsgeschichte vom 17. bis 19. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1998. Print. Buchwissenschaftliche Beiträge aus dem Deutschen Bucharchiv München 59. Stern, David, ed. The anthology in Jewish literature. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. Ebray. Web. 22 Feb 2012. Stieler, Kaspar. Der Teutschen Sprache Stammbaum und Fortwachs oder teutscher Sprachschatz. Mit einem Nachwort von Stefan Sonderegger. Vol 1. 1691. München: Kösel, 1968. Print. Stockhorst, Stefanie. Reformpoetik. Kodifizierte Genustheorie des Barock und alternative Normenbildung in poetologischen Paratexten. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2008. Print. Stöckmann, Ingo. Vor der Literatur. Eine Evolutionstheorie der Poetik Alteuropas. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2001. Print. Communicatio. Studien zur europäischen Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte 28. Stolzenburg, W. A. H. Geschichte des Bunzlauer Waisenhauses, zugleich ein Spiegelbild der wichtigsten pädagogischen und didaktischen Bestrebungen in dem evangelischen Deutschland und der Schweiz während der letzten anderthalb Jahrhunderte. Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt’s Buchhandlung, 1854. Google Books. Web. 02 Jun. 2009. Streckfuß, Adolph. Vom Fischerdorf zur Weltstadt. Berlin seit 500 Jahren. Geschichte und Sagen. Vol. 3. Berlin: Alexander Jonas, 1864. Google Books. Web. 25 Jul. 2009. 155 Streller, Siegfried. “Weltbürger und Patrioten. Berlin um 1810.” In: Stätten deutscher Literatur. Studien zu literarischen Zentrenbildung 1750-1815. Vol. 1. Ed. Wolfgang Stellmacher. Frankfurt am Main: Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1998. 501-515. Print. Literatur – Sprache – Region. Strieber, Friedrich Wilhelm. “Schmid (Christian Heinrich).” Grundlage zu einer hessischen Gelehrten und Schriftsteller Geschichte. Seit der Reformation bis auf gegenwärtige Zeiten. Vol. 13. Cassel: im Verlage J. H. G. Griesbachs Hofbuchhändlers, 1802. 61-95. Google Books. Web. 24 Jan. 2012. Suarez, Michael F. “Trafficking in the Muse. Dodsley’s Collection of Poems and the Question of Canon.” Tradition in Transition. Women Writers, Marginal Texts, and the EighteenthCentury Canon. Ed. Alvaro Ribeiro, SJ, and James G. Basker. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. 297-313. Print. ---. Rev of Making the Modern Reader by Barbara M. Benedict. Modern Philology 97.2 (1999): 283-286. U Chicago P. JSTOR. Web. 19 Apr. 2011. ---. “Historiographical Problems and Possibilities in Book History and National Histories of the Book.” Studies in Bibliography 56 (2003/2004): 141-170. Bibliographical Society of the U of Virginia. JSTOR. Web. 17 Mar.2011. ---. “Publishing contemporary English literature, 1695–1774.” Cambridge History of the Book. 2010. 649-666. Web. 15 Apr. 2011. Taege, Friedrich. Konzepte eines deutschen Literaturunterrichts im Vormärz. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1992. Print. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Deutschunterrichts 7. Tatlock, Lynne. “Introduction: The Book Trade and the ‘Reading Nation’ in the Long Nineteenth Century.” Publishing Culture and the “Reading Nation”: German Book History in the Long Nineteenth Century. Ed. Lynne Tatlock. Rochester: Camden House, 2010. 1-21. Print. Studies in German Literature, Linguistics, and Culture. Timpanaro, Sebastiano. The Genesis of Lachmann’s Method. Ed. and trans. Glenn W. Most. Chicago: U Chicago P, 2005 [1st ed 1981]. Print. Titel, Volker. “Reich, Philipp Erasmus.” Neue Deutsche Biographie. Vol. 21. 2003. 289-290. Deutsche Biographie. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. Torbruegge, Marilyn K. “Observations on the Genesis of ‘Germanistik’: Early German Professors of Poetics and Poetry.” Monatshefte 67.4 (1975): 349-357. U Wisconsin P. JSTOR. Web. 19 Oct 2009. Trappen, Stefan. “Handlungsbegriff und Literaturbegriff bei Johann Jakob Engel. Ein Beitrag zur Poetik der Aufklärung.” Johann Jakob Engel (1741-1802) Philosoph für die Welt, Ästhetiker und Dichter. Ed. Alexander Košenina. Hannover-Laatzen: Wehrhahn, 2005. 123-136. Print. Berliner Klassik. Eine Großstadtkultur um 1800 7. 156 Trunz, Erich, ed. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Werke. Hamburger Ausgabe. 13th ed. Vol. 10. München: Beck, 1981-2002. 612. Umlauf, Konrad. “Neuere Lehr- und Fachbücher und Fachlexika der Buchwissenschaft – Bestandsaufnahme und Desiderate.” Buchwissenschaft in Deutschland - ein Handbuch. Vol. 2. Ed. Ursula Rautenberg. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur, 2010. 605-710. Print. “Veränderung im Kirchen und Schulstande.” Lausizische Monatschrift. 1.5 (Mai 1796): 317. Sächsiche Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden. Web. 25 Jul. 2009. Volkert, Dominica. “Jördens, Karl Heinrich.” Literatur Lexikon. Autoren und Werke deutscher Sprache. Vol. 9. Ed. Walter Killy. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag, 1990. Print. Weil, Bernd A. Die Rezeptionsgeschichte des Minnesangs in Deutschland seit dem 15. Jahrhundert. Diss. U Frankfurt am Main, 1991. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1991. Print. Weimar, Klaus. Geschichte der deutschen Literaturwissenschaft bis zum Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts. München: Fink, 1989. Print. Wells, Larry D. Rev. of Die deutschsprachige Anthologie, by Joachim Bark and Dietger Pforte. German Quarterly 45 (1972): 155-158. JSTOR. Web. 30 Jun. 2008. Wiedemann, Conrad. “Vorspiel der Anthologie. Konstrukivische, repräsentative und anthologische Sammelformen in der deutschen Literatur des 17. Jahrhunderts.” Die deutschsprachige Anthologie. Vol. 2. Studien zu ihrer Geschichte und Wirkungsform. Ed. Joachim Bark and Dietger Pforte. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1969. 1-47. Print. Studien zur Philosophie und Literatur des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts 2/2. Wiese, Ludwig Adolf. Das höhere Schulwesen in Preussen. Historisch-statistische Darstellung. Berlin: Wiegandt und Grieben, 1864. Print. Wilke, Jürgen. Literarische Zeitschriften des 18. Jahrhunderts (1688-1789). Teil I: Grundlegung. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1978. Print. Sammlung Metzler. M174. Abt. D, Literaturgeschichte. ---. Literarische Zeitschriften des 18. Jahrhunderts (1688-1789). Vol. 1. Repertorium. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1978. Print. Sammlung Metzler. M175. Abt. D, Literaturgeschichte. Wilpert, Gero von and Adolf Gühring. Erstausgaben deutscher Dichtung. Eine Bibliographie zur Deutschen Literatur, 1600-1990. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner, 1992. Print. Winter, Hans G. “Karl Heinrich Jördens.” Neue Deutsche Biographie. Deutsche Biographie. Web. 2 Apr. 2009. 458-459. Wittmann, Reinhard. Buchmarkt und Lektüre im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Beiträge zum literarischen Leben 1750-1880. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1982. Print. 157 ---. “Buchhändlerzeitschriften.” Von Almanach bis Zeitung. Ein Hanbuch der Medien in Deutschland 1700-1800. Ed Ernst Fischer, Wilhelm Haefs and York-Gothart Mix. München: Beck, 1999. 36-44. Print. ---. Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels. Ein Überblick. München: Beck, 1991. Print. ---. “Zur Verlegertypologie der Goethezeit. Unveröffentlichte Verlegerbriefe an Heinrich Wilhelm von Gerstenberg.” Jahrbuch für Internationale Germanistik 8 (1976): 99-130. Goethezeitportal. Web. 18 Jan. 2009. Wolff, Oskar Ludwig Bernhard. Encyclopädie der deutschen Nationalliteratur oder, biographisch-kritisches Lexikon der deutschen Dichter und Prosaisten sein den frühesten Zeiten; nebst Proben aus ihren Werken. 8 vols. Leipzig: Otto Wigand’s VerlagsExpedition, 1835-1847. Google Books. Web. 15 Jan. 2012. Zachariä, Justus Friedrich Wilhelm and Johann Joachim Eschenburg, ed. Auserlesene Stücke der besten deutschen Dichter von Martin Opitz bis auf gegenwärtige Zeiten. Mit historischen Nachrichten und kritischen Anmerkungen versehen. 3 vols. Braunschweig: Im Verlag der fürstl. Waisenhaus Buchhandlung, 1766-78. Print. Zammito, John H. Kant, Herder, and the Birth of Anthropology. Chicago: U Chicago P, 2002. Print. Zedler, Johann Heinrich, ed. “Anthologia.” Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschafften und Künste. Vol. 2. Halle und Leipzig: Verlegts Johann Heinrich Zedler, 1732. 1605. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Digitale Bibliothek. Web. 01 Nov.2011. Zelle, Carsten. “Autorschaft und Kanonbildung – Barrieren der Ramler-Rezeption in der Neugermanistik.” Urbanität als Aufklärung. Karl Wilhelm Ramler und die Kultur des 18. Jahrhunderts. Ed. Laurenz Lütteken, Ute Pott and Carsten Zelle. Göttingen: Wallstein, 2003. 153-174. Print. Schriften des Gleimhauses Halberstadt 2. Ziesak, Anne-Katrin. Walter de Gruyter Publishers, 1749-1999. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Google Books. Web. 06 Aug. 2009. 158

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Collecting Tradition: Modernity, Material Culture, and German Poetry Anthologies, 1765-1795 A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by

Collecting Tradition: Modernity, Material Culture, and German Poetry Anthologies, 1765-1795 A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS