91. Seven letters from Fichte to Goethe Two letters from Fichte to Schiller

With explanatory notes by Rudolf Steiner

Fichte wrote the first seven of the nine letters given here to Schiller during the first months of his work at the university entrusted to Goethe's care. Time is a circumstance that essentially determines their significance. They show us that Fichte's personal appearance and his way of approaching the teaching and philosophical profession had to give Goethe's relationship with him the character at the very beginning of their acquaintance that it subsequently retained. Fichte's way of working had something violent about it. A certain pathos of the idea, which accompanied his scientific as well as his political ideas, always led him to seek to achieve his goals by the straightest, shortest route. And if something stood in his way, his unyieldingness turned into brusqueness, his energy into ruthlessness. Fichte never learned to understand that old habits are stronger than new ideas, and thus constantly came into conflict with the people he had to deal with. The reason for most of these conflicts was that he alienated people through his personal nature before he had elevated them to his ideas. Fichte lacked the ability to come to terms with everyday life. All of this made it impossible for Goethe to always stand up for Fichte as energetically as he would have liked in recognition of his scientific achievements and abilities.

The book that Fichte sends to Goethe in Letter No. 1 is the first edition of the "Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre", which was published in sheets at the time (see J. G. Fichte's Life and Literary Correspondence, 2nd edition, Leipzig 1862, Volume I, p. 211).

The work in which Fichte hoped to be united with Goethe was Schiller's "Horen". On June 13, 1794, Schiller had invited Goethe to collaborate with him, noting at the same time that H. H. Fichte, Woltmann and von Humboldt had joined forces with him to publish this journal. Goethe only sent his acceptance to Schiller on June 24 (cf. correspondence between Schiller and Goethe, 4th ed., vol. I, p. I ff.).

Fichte had arrived in Jena on May 8, 1794, and on June 24 he was already forced to call upon Goethe's and the Duke's protection against slanderous rumors that had spread about his public lectures on "Morality for Scholars" (cf. letter no. 2). The energetic way in which Fichte confronted his slanderers and the firmness with which he asked the Duke to take care of him led, apparently through Goethe's mediation . (Letter No. 3), led to a temporary strengthening of his position, as the Duke did not allow his esteem for the philosopher to be dampened by the rumors. Fichte felt compelled to prove the inaccuracy of what was said about his lectures by having them printed word for word (cf. letter no. 2). They appeared under the title: "Einige Vorlesungen über die Bestimmung des Gelehrten" (Jena, Gabler 1794). Fichte's wish to be allowed to dedicate the reprint to the Duke was not carried out, but the latter praised the recently appointed teacher at every opportunity (cf. Fichte's Life I. 216 f.). Fichte's remarks about the Duke (Letter No. 2) are an important contribution to Karl August's characterization. One need only consider that this prince is admired in this way by a man who, a year earlier, wrote of the princes of Europe: "They, who are for the most part educated in indolence and ignorance, or, when they learn something, learn a truth expressly prepared for them; they, who are known not to continue their education once they reign, who read no new writing other than, at most, watery sophistries, and who are always behind their age at least by the years of their reign." This passage belongs to the anonymous writing mentioned in the first letter, namely Fichte's "Beiträge zur Berichtigung der Urteile des Publikums über die französische Revolution." This and the other anonymous pamphlet, "The Reclaiming of Freedom of Thought from the Princes of Europe Who Hitherto Suppressed It (A Speech, Heliopolis in the Last Year of the Old Darkness)", had appeared before Fichte's appointment to Jena. And according to Fichte's statements in the second letter, it cannot be doubted that the people who worked for Fichte's appointment, including first and foremost the jurist Hufeland, knew of these writings. This also seems to be the case for Goethe, as he calls Fichte's appointment "an act of boldness, indeed audacity" (Tag- und Jahreshefte 1794). Fichte himself probably made no secret of his way of thinking to the people who mediated between him and the Weimar government; hence the irritated tone in which he speaks of the accusations relating to his anonymous writings.

It is clear from Letter No. 6 that Fichte attached particular importance to being understood by Goethe. Consistent with this is a communication by W. v. Humboldt (correspondence between Schiller and W. v. Humboldt, September 22, 1794) about a conversation with Fichte, in which the latter had stated that he wished to win Goethe over to speculation and that he had to explain his feeling as one that guided him correctly in philosophical matters: "The other day, he (Fichte) continued, he (Goethe) explained my system to me so succinctly and clearly that I could not have explained it more clearly myself." That Goethe had a lively interest in Fichte's philosophy and did not take a negative attitude towards it is proven not only by the passage in a letter to Fichte dated June 24, 1794 (Briefe W. A. X. p. 167), in which he says of the first sheets of the "Wissenschaftslehre": "What has been sent contains nothing that I did not understand or at least thought I understood, nothing that would not readily fit in with my usual way of thinking", but also the fact that Goethe made extensive extracts from this work, which are still preserved in the Goethe Archive.

Fichte had also announced public lectures similar to those mentioned above from the summer of 1794 for the winter of 1794/95. These lectures were among the most popular at the university and were received with great enthusiasm by the students. As Fichte could not find another suitable hour, he read on Sunday mornings from 9 to 10. The Jena Consistory took offense at this, and the Weimar High Consistory could not "deny unanimous approval" to the reasons of the former, "since it seems, however, that this undertaking is an intended step against the public national service, even if this intention were not the case, or that such an intention could not be achieved, such an unlawful and disorderly act would nevertheless always have very bad consequences, especially for the reputation of the Academy itself, because of the unpleasant impression it would reliably make on the Jena and neighboring public as well as abroad". These are the words of the submission from the Oberkonsistorium to the state government. Fichte wrote a detailed letter to the academic senate. He explained the reasons why he had to choose the hour in question and explained that the character of his public lectures made them very suitable to be held on Sundays, as they were not aimed at instruction through science, but at moral edification and character refinement. At the same time, Fichte also called on Goethe's assistance in this matter; and the letter in which he does so is the one reported here under no. 6. The Academic Senate reported to the Duke on this matter to the effect that "although Professor Fichte is not to be blamed for taking an appalling step against public worship, he should be instructed not to hold his moral lectures on Sundays; if, however, in the middle of the half-year, he could not find another suitable time, as we neither believe nor wish, he could be permitted to hold them on Sunday for the remainder of the current winter semester and without consequence, but in this case it must be made an absolute condition that he should not be permitted to do so before the afternoon service is completely finished". The Duke made the following decision: "We have therefore resolved, following your request, that the aforementioned Professor Fichte should only be permitted to continue his moral lectures on Sundays in the hours after the end of the afternoon service. However, it was only the fact that "something as unusual as the scheduling of lectures of this kind on Sunday during the hours designated for public worship" prompted Karl August to make his decision. Of the lectures themselves, the ducal decree addressed to the academic senate says: "We have gladly convinced ourselves that, if his (Fichte's) moral lectures are in accordance with the ... ... stapled trefflichen essay, they can be of excellent use". Fichte's opponents, on the other hand, intended to make the lectures completely impossible, as they were uncomfortable with their content. When Fichte resumed the lectures on February 3, which had been suspended since the beginning of November due to the incident, he scheduled them for Sunday afternoon at 3-4 p.m.

The Professor Woltmann mentioned in letter no. 7 was a historian and a favorite student of Spittler. He was appointed to Jena at the same time as Fichte, aged only 23, was one of the philosopher's most intimate friends and later also came into contact with Schiller.

It is perhaps not superfluous to note that Fichte's two letters to Schiller differ from those to Goethe in that they are written in German, while the latter are written in Fichte's more legible Latin script.

In July 1799, Fichte moved to Berlin. The well-known accusation of atheism led to his dismissal from Jena. He sought a new sphere of activity. Among the plans that emerged in him for the future was that of founding a scientific journal that would better meet the demands Fichte made of such an institute than the Jenaische Allgemeine Literaturzeitung, with which both he and Schelling were dissatisfied. During the winter of 1799/1800, Fichte again spent a short time in Jena, where he had temporarily left his family behind. Here he met Schelling. The two agreed to found and establish the journal, for which Goethe and Schiller were also to be recruited as contributors. The first of the two letters addressed to Schiller contains an invitation to become a contributor and at the same time a detailed discussion of the purpose and structure of the journal. This matter, for which, as the letter indicates, Cotta was to be won as publisher, came to nothing. The plan was then taken up again with J. F. G. Unger as publisher, who also sent a printed circular promising the publication of the "Jahrbücher der Kunst und der Wissenschaft" from New Year 1801. This time, too, the matter did not come to fruition. Goethe viewed such an undertaking on Fichte's part with suspicion. He wrote to Schiller on September 6, 1801, apparently referring to this (the circular is dated July 28, 1800): "The tone of the announcement is entirely Fichtian. I only fear that the gentlemen idealists and dynamists will soon appear as dogmatists and pedants and occasionally get into each other's hair." The document sent is: "The closed commercial state."

The first part of Fichte's second letter to Schiller, dated August 18, 1803, deals with a private matter concerning Fichte (sale of his house in Jena and other matters relating to the time of his stay in Jena), in which he had appealed to Goethe and Schiller for assistance. On August 29, Goethe wrote to Zelter about this (correspondence ı, 80): "Tell him (Fichte) that we are taking his matter to heart. Unfortunately, a curse so easily rests on what advocate's hands touch." The second part of the letter refers to the performance of Goethe's "Natural Daughter" in Berlin. The first performance of this play took place there on July 12, 1803. The letter was published in a form differing in many respects from the above in "Schillers und Fichtes Briefwechsel aus dem Nachlassen des Erstern" in 1847 by I. H. Fichte (pp. 70-75). This justifies the reprint. Schiller probably sent it to Goethe to read through, and it was neglected to be returned, so that it remained among Goethe's papers. Consequently, what is printed here is the final version, whereas what I. H. Fichte published can only have been taken from the brouillon, which the editor may have revised in a few places. What left the large audience cold about the play, indeed downright repulsed them: the fact that a high art form had eradicated all materiality attracted Fichte as well as Schiller (cf. his letter of August 18, ı803 to Wilhelm von Humboldt). What classical aesthetics (namely Schiller in his "aesthetic letters") demanded: The eradication of interest in the depicted event by elevating it to the pure enjoyment of what the artistic imagination has made of it, Fichte saw fulfilled here. He therefore also wanted to advise against any shortening of the play. On July 28, 1803 (correspondence I. p.67) Goethe writes to Zelter that he would like to "shorten some scenes which must seem long, even if they are excellently acted". To this Zelter replied on August 10: "Fichte does not agree with an abridgment of The Natural Daughter; he believes the play is whole, round and can only suffer by abbreviation." The philosopher regarded the art form as the only decisive factor, while the poet wanted to count on the taste of the audience. Fichte demanded to a far greater extent than Goethe that the public should be educated to enjoy the highest aesthetic productions. The fulfillment of ideal demands was his first priority. If the public did not exist for this, then in his opinion it had to be improved. Goethe was inclined to bring people closer to art; Fichte wanted to transform people according to the ideas he considered right.

I was commissioned to annotate these letters by Bernhard Suphan, who had already worked through them beforehand and provided me with his notes on the points of view from which the documents are to be viewed, as well as on various individual points.

Fichte to Goethe

I.

Honored man,

I looked for you soon after your departure to give you the first sheet I had just finished. I did not find you; and I am sending what I would have preferred to hand over.

Philosophy has not yet reached its goal as long as the results of reflective abstraction do not yet conform to the purest spirituality of feeling. I regard you, and have always regarded you, as the representative of the latter at the presently attained stage of humanity. Philosophy rightly turns to you: your feeling is the same touchstone.

The correctness of my system is vouched for, among other things, by the intimate concatenation of all with one, and one with all, which I have not produced, but which already exists; as well as the immense fertility, which surpasses all expectation, and which I have just as little introduced myself; so that it has very often astonished and enthralled me. Both are not discovered at the beginning of science, but only gradually, as one progresses in it.

I do not know whether I am still recommending a clearer presentation. This much I know, that I could raise it to a higher, and to any clarity, if the necessary time were given: - but I have, with my public lectures, at least three printed sheets a week to work with, other business accounted for; and therefore expect indulgence.

I hoped - perhaps because I longed for it - to see myself united with you in one work. I do not know whether I can still hope so. At least a few days ago Mr. Schiller had not yet made up his mind. Schiller had not yet made up his mind.

I am with true admiration

Your most devotedJ. G. Fichte
Jena, d. 2x. Jun. 1794

II

Most venerable patron and friend,

In my last letter I merely claimed the friendship of this noble man and great spirit; I believed

not to be able to claim your political reputation within a few days.

I was informed from Weimar that "there were disgraces (to be precise, only stupidities) being bandied about that I was supposed to have presented in my lectures. My position was dangerous. A certain class had formed a formal alliance against me. The Duke hears you, and what other men there are, less often than others who belong to that alliance; I should not be so sure, for the sake of the consequences, - in short, I could be deposed before I miss it, etc., etc." I am given advice that I would certainly follow if I were Parmenio. - "I should disavow a certain anonymous writing that is attributed to me." Let someone else take the liberty of doing so; I do not consider it permissible. I will not recognize an anonymous writing either. Whoever wants to acknowledge his writings does so as soon as they are published. Those who write anonymously do not want to acknowledge them.

"I should just be careful not to touch politics for at least half a year." I don't read politics and am not called to do so. I will, of course, read natural law when it is my turn in my course, according to my convictions, I am expressly forbidden to do so, and publicly; but it will certainly not be my turn in the first year. I am acting this half year according to rules that I will always act according to; and will always act as I am acting this half year. I have no particular summer and no particular winter morality.

"I should hide so that I can do all the more good." That is Jesuit morality. I am there to do good if I can; but I may not do evil under any condition, and not even under the condition of doing good in the future.

If I consider myself completely isolated in this, I would be the last among men if I were to fear anything with my principles and with the strength with which I have grasped them, and therefore wanted to deviate from my path even by a foot's breadth. Whoever does not fear death, what under the moon should he fear? - In any case, it would be ridiculous if I were to consider these things worthy of serious consideration.

But unfortunately I am no longer isolated. The fate of several people is tied to my fate. I'm not talking about my wife. She wouldn't be if I didn't trust her with the same principles. But a 74-year-old old man, her father, is inextricably linked to her. His age requires rest; he cannot expose himself to the danger of being driven about, to which I myself may well expose myself. So the question is, and it is necessary that this question be answered in good time: Can and will the prince to whom I have entrusted myself protect me? Will he do so under the following conditions? III. IV. V. VI. VII . VIII IX.

I will come to Weimar next Saturday and put myself in the faces of people who might have something to say to me, to see if they have enough courage to tell me what they say about me to others. I will have the 4 lectures held in public in which I am supposed to have said these foolish things, and which I am writing down verbatim with good forethought and reading out verbatim, printed verbatim at the earliest. It would be the greatest favor to me if the duke would allow me to appropriate them to him. In all truth I could assure this prince of an unlimited veneration, which all I have ever heard of him, later that he entrusted me with a lectureship at his university in the opinion which the public has now formed of me, has founded in me, and which my personal acquaintance with him has increased infinitely. It would give me great pleasure to be able to show before the whole public that I can venerate a great man, even if he is a prince; and I should believe that this prince, who can place his highest value in his humanity, could not be displeased by the assurance of a veneration which applies to the man in him, and not to the prince. - In this case, I am willing to submit to you, or to the duke himself, the writing in proof form beforehand; as well as, if requested, the dedication: although, I confess, I would be even more pleased if I were trusted to know how to behave in such a delicate matter without a preliminary examination.

I will promise, if it is required, that a certain anonymous writing shall not be continued; nay, I will even promise not to write any anonymous writing on political subjects within any time (unless self-defense makes it necessary). - That I can easily promise this and yet do what I like afterwards, since I can hope to remain undiscovered - I do not expect this objection from anyone with whom I am to negotiate. What I promise, I keep, and even if no one but myself knows that I keep it.

But in my lectures I can change nothing; and if they are not approved, they must be forbidden to me in public. I shall, and will say what I consider to be true after my best investigation; I may err; I tell my hearers daily that I may err; but I can only yield reason. (At least no one has yet even pretended to be able to refute on principle what they consider to be my errors). I will say it in its place, and in its time, i.e. : when it comes to the science I teach. In my lectures, in its own time, there will also be talk of respect for established order, etc.; and these duties will be inculcated with no less emphasis.

Under these conditions I now expect protection, and peace in Jena, at least as long as my old father-in-law lives; and I ask for the word of the bland prince about this.

May I add a few observations to show the fairness of my request. I have made no move to obtain the reputation I have received. I was known when I was called; they knew what writings were attributed to me; they knew what opinion the public had formed of me; I wrote to the proper man, and the letter must still exist, "that I had been a man rather than an academic teacher, and hoped to remain so longer, and that I was not disposed to abandon the duties of the former, and that, if that were the opinion, I must renounce the reputation I had received"; I wrote this when certain principles were spoken of.

I was warned; I was told from various places in Switzerland that they were calling me simply to get me under their control. I despised these threats; I trusted the honor of the prince who called me. He will protect me; or if He cannot do so under the conditions mentioned, at least until the appointed time, He will tell me frankly. In that case, I will write to my friends, whom I have not without forethought left behind in Switzerland, to remain where they are; and after completing my six-month lecture, I will return to my quiet private life.

Pardon the decided tone in which I have spoken. I knew that I was speaking to a man, and to a man who was kindly disposed towards me. My request would be ridiculous if it were only about me; I must fear no danger: but my reason for moving excuses me before my heart, and will excuse me before yours.

With true warm esteem

Your most sincerely devoted Fichte
Jena, June 24, 1794

I can now, Venerable Privy Councillor, only express my heartfelt thanks to you and accept your kind invitation for next Saturday.

I hope you will kindly provide me with a more detailed explanation of various things that are not entirely clear to me. - I cannot defend myself, for I am not accused; I am only deliberately slandered; and slandered behind my back, and I do not know whether anyone will tell me themselves what compelled me to defend myself.

I am with the truest respect

Your most sincerely devoted Fichte
Jena, June 25, 1794

I am sending Your Reverence the two lectures that have been copied out so far. I apologize for the lack of correctness for the reason that I did not want to give you more than you had in the oral presentation.

With esteem and warm thanks

Your most sincerely devoted J. G. Fichte
Jena, July 1, 1794

Bringer of this, my friend and listener, Hırr. Fhr. v. Bielfeld requested a few lines from me to Your Excellency, and I take the liberty of taking this opportunity to send you the fifth lecture intended for printing.

Your applause is that which I particularly desire, and it gave me great pleasure to see from your letter that you did not completely deny it to these lectures either.

I commend myself and all my literary works to you with the highest regard.

Fichte
Jena, July 5, 1794

Often, my esteemed Privy Councillor, I have thought, while preparing the enclosed part of my textbook, that you would read it; and several times, when I was already on the point of letting it go, this thought has enabled me to completely rework what I had written down. If it has not yet reached the point where I can be completely satisfied with it - the test of this is always whether I can think of you as being completely satisfied with it - it was due to the imperative situation in which I wrote. When one sheet had been read through, another had to appear; and then I had to let it go.

With free reverence for your spirit and your heart, I commend myself to your benevolence.

Fichte
Jena, September 30, 1794

Hochwohlgeborener Herr

Most Reverend Privy Councillor

Who has never asked, asks, and as far as I can see, for justice.

I. I have begun an audience which has an influence on the state of the Academy which only I know, and which, lest I should seem immodest, I shall never say. Suppose it has none; it is an audience, and I am bound to read one.

On weekdays, the hours are so busy that we poor non-senators are officially forbidden to read the necessary Privata (about which under no. 2).

I sacrifice one hour of my Sunday, which I have not set aside for free but only for other business equally dedicated to the Academy, for this audience.

People who have never been known to have much religion have since been shouting about the "Sabbath desecrator", inciting the citizenry and the clergy against me; telling students that they would take credit for bringing charges against me at the next Senate session; and by today - Tuesday - they have already gone so far as to communicate their indignation to our pious wives. - I will name husband and wife if asked.

Why I ask is this:

I have inquired carefully about the law, according to the enclosure. "There is no law about it."

(And in passing! - Does our academy have laws for professors, or not? I'm a second semester professor and I certainly don't know. What I do know, I have please - That's hard for a man who literally follows the law because he likes to be free.)

If there really is none, then I ask here and Sunday for a law, i.e. not for an order that merely applies to me, but for a generally valid, publicly promulgated command: A princely order.

1.) Within here, and Sunday - I have undertaken by public notice to read every Sunday, I am in contract with the students; I will not break this contract; and I can only do so if I fall ill - I have every facility to be well on future Sundays - or if I receive a prohibition which I can respect, and may with honor.

2.) A princely order. - I will not and will not submit to orders from the senate, regardless of the fact that I appear to be completely without rights.

3.) If such an order does not arrive by Sunday in a way that convinces me, I will read without doubt; by my present request I absolve myself of all possible responsibility, and claim protection in this endeavor.

4.) I reserve the right to take legal action against those who have slandered my company and insulted me as soon as the matter has been settled.

II. a kind of introduction to transcendental philosophy is demanded of me, long after the printing of the catalog, by the special needs of the students. I take Platner's Aphorisms on Logic and Metaphysics as a basis for this, and read from 6 to 7 o'clock.

The Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy Mr.. H. R. Ulrich informs me officialite r that I am requested to refrain from this mischief, so that Mr.. H. R, Reichardt could use the hour from 6 to 7 to - "duplicate" the pandects. The hour from 3 to 4 is set for logic. - I reply 1.) that no such law has been made known to me, nor have I accepted it 2.) that from 3 to 4 o'clock I really read what our good forefathers may have thought of as logic, theoretical philosophy 3.) that therefore this imposition actually says as much: I should not read at all; and that I can say with more right that Mr. Reichardt should only not duplicate. Reichardt should only not duplicate, but arrange himself in such a way that he gets by.

This is exactly how you play with Prof. Woltmann. He reads State History from 6 to 7 o'clock. For the sake of the same duplication, he is expected to read it from 4 to 5 o'clock, which hour is set for this. During this hour he reads universal history, which is also scheduled for this time. - Therefore, this imposition means that he should not read State History at all, so that Mr. Reichardt can duplicate the Pandects. Reichardt could duplicate the Pandects. Those people dare to offer us that, and we are left without rights.

III. My public lectures have often been attended by around 500 people. Last summer I requested the Griesbach Auditorium, which has always been used for numerous meetings. Mr. G. K. R. Griesbach has since found that the benches have been worn out and he is taking it away from me with his full rights. I, likewise with my full right, ask for a public philosophical auditorium; assuming that this must be a possible place for people to stay, I go there last Sunday at 9 o'clock in the morning in the heaviest rain. I find my audience at the door, who tell me that the windows are smashed in the auditorium, that it is full of rubbish, etc., and they ask me to go to my house and read there. I go back in this heavy rain because I find their request humane; and the troop of my listeners with me. If this has made a noise in the streets, where is the fault?

IV. It will be said that the hour from 9 to ı0 falls during church meetings. - 1) Just tell me another one. It would be most unhealthy for me to read at 9 o'clock, immediately after table; I also want the open mind of my listeners for my reflections in the morning hours; not their full bellies, which have no ears. In the late afternoon and evening hours there are also church meetings, concerts and clubs. - In the early morning hours the students are still asleep because they have this only day to sleep in. 2) The city church is not for the students, but the Colleagues' Church. This is from 11 to ı2 o'clock; and that is why I did not choose this most convenient hour. From now on, I myself will be attending my colleagues' church, and perhaps some of my listeners with me. 3) The Physical Society also has its meetings on Sundays during the afternoon sermon, and I would not know that anyone has done it a crime. No doubt it has had to move its meetings to this day for the same reason, because there is no time for numerous meetings on weekdays. At our university, thank God, all hours are occupied.

From the moral point of view, however, it would have to turn every intelligent man against me if he could believe that I wanted to afflict I know not what enlightenment through this undertaking; and indeed, many among the reproachful, according to the analogy of their own small-mindedness, might believe me capable of such a thing. Such a suspicion is so ridiculous to me that I have no patience to refute it. I went to school when I was already past such enlightenment. - I went to it with difficulty before I chose Sunday. This is proved by my postponement of the opening of these lectures, notwithstanding I was very often requested by the students to do so; because I still hoped to find out an hour in the week: this is proved by my diligent repeated inquiries to several.

6 These people are not interested in either real or imaginary religion. My real crime is that I have influence and respect among students and listeners. Would that I could always read on the highest holidays, if it were before empty benches! Therefore they take every pretext to hinder me; and out of mere odio academico become old-orthodox Christians even.

My profound and complete confidence in you, my most reverend Privy Councillor, prompted me to turn to you without further formality. Notwithstanding this, I request you to make every useful use of this letter, and to regard it, in so far as it can be, as official; or to let me know most graciously what course I have to pursue in order to achieve my purpose within here and Sunday.

My mind is quite made up, by the way. Without prejudice to my honor, I cannot, after these events, secretly and in silence give myself a denial; but I will obey the law without reluctance, without remarks, with joy, like a good citizen; now, as always. -- Except in the case of the law, however, I am prepared for the utmost.

With sincere and true respect

Your most obedient servant

J. G. Fichte, Prof.
Jena, November 19, 1794

Fichte to Schiller

Berlin, February 2, 1800

Thank you, my dear friend, for the prospects you have opened up for me and for literature.

Without being able to present a specific plan, my thoughts for a critical institute were as follows.

Science in general, it seems to me, must be taken under strict supervision as soon as possible, if the few good seeds that have been sown are not to perish in a short time among the abundant weeds that are springing up. In the field of the first science, philosophy, which should help all others out of their confusion, the old sermon is being chattered away as if nothing had ever been remembered against it, and the new is being twisted so that it is no longer at all like itself. Fortunately one is so cowardly that one is frightened and pulls oneself together as soon as someone seriously rebukes the mischief, but drives it away again as soon as the supervision seems to fall asleep. I think it very possible, by two or three years of continued severe criticism, to silence the babblers in the field of philosophy and make way for the better ones. Now that it is possible, it must be done.

In order to have a firm point, I am currently working on a new exposition of the doctrine of science, which I hope will be so clear that anyone with a scientific mind will be able to understand it. I will continue to observe and report on what it does in the scientific literature. I shall spread myself over the whole field of science as far as my own ability and collaborators, whom a similar attitude will gradually bring to us, allow, without claiming universality. What cannot be done thoroughly must rather be omitted.

I am thinking of beginning with a report on the present state of German literature, in which I would like to highlight the rotten

spots of it, - the factory-like operation of writing by booksellers and authors, the ridiculousness of the reviewing institutes, the miserable motives for writing, etc., and make suggestions for improvement. In this report, I will state the critical measures of our institute from a scientific point of view. I will submit it in manuscript to your and Goethe's judgment.

I do not presume to judge what can be done from the side of criticism in art, in which we now know what is important through Goethe's and your example and through some quite good philosophers of modern philosophy. It falls to you both to decide what the most necessary lessons are for the art disciples of our time, and how these must be illustrated by the phenomena of the time. Goethe, in his Propylaea and other of his latest writings, has also set up models in this respect. Universality, I believe, should not be the intention here either, but only to say what is necessary now.

Schelling insists that a scientific journal by both of us should begin at Easter next year and, as I cannot deliver anything by then, has offered to provide the first part himself. Since, however, I am also of the opinion that immediately after the appearance of an elementary philosophy, which claims to be generally comprehensible, the supervision must begin and one must observe the first statements, I will join in immediately afterwards. If it is not possible for you and Goethe to join so soon, let us at least hope for a later union. The former will then only be allowed to enter into a scientific institute, will be given a different title, etc.

I have no doubt that Cotta should not eagerly accept the proposal. Would you not have the kindness to suggest to me what conditions I should demand for you and Goethe

if you would not prefer to negotiate with him directly in his own time.

I enclose two copies of my latest writing for you and Goethe, both in Cotta's name and mine. This writing makes no pretensions at all and was prompted by the occasional silly conversations that I had to listen to around me about the subject in question.

I beg your pardon for including the destiny of man, which is no longer a novelty.

Live well with yours, enjoy the best of health and keep me dear.

All yours, Fichte

Berlin, August 18, 1803

One point of this letter to you, my venerable friend, was addressed by Hr. Zelter in a letter to Hırrr. G. R. Goethe, and I hastily accepted the commission, although I suspect that Goethe was more concerned with Zeiters judgment than with a judgment at all. The second concerns my affair; and I beg your pardon for interrupting you with it. I would have written about it either to the Government Councillor (not Privy Councillor, as Z. wrote to Goethe by mistake) Voigt, who has already been kind in the matter, or to D. Niethammer, if I did not doubt whether the former was already back from his journey to Dresden, and suspected that the latter was also absent. I am writing about this on a separate sheet so that it can be communicated to Mr. Voigt or, in the event of his absence, to another legal friend whom you or Goethe are interested in my matter; I am only asking and imploring you and Goethe here not to let your interest in this matter tire yet, so that what has happened so far does not merely accelerate the loss of it, as Mr. Salzmann's reply suggests. The matter seems fair to me, it seems to me to be of general example, and I would like you and Goethe to find an hour to read through my enclosed instructions together, which are of course initially calculated for the comprehension of an advocate and are therefore somewhat too clear.

I have seen Goethe's "Natural Daughter" twice, since it was performed here, with all my attention, and I believe that I have risen to every possible view of the work through this medium. As much as I have revered and loved Goethe's Iphigenia, Tasso and, from another subject, Hermann and D., and have hardly thought anything higher possible, I prefer this work to all his others and consider it the master's highest masterpiece to date. It is as clear as light and just as unfathomable, drawing itself together vividly in each of its parts into absolute unity, at the same time melting into infinity, like the latter. This strictly organic connection makes it quite impossible for me to think of or want to do without any part of it. What is not yet fully explained in the first part, as the mysterious hints of a hidden relationship between the duke and his son, both of them, and still other, secret machinations, undoubtedly prepare the future and already fill the mind with a wonderful shiver.

There is no doubt that a work of this depth and simplicity at the same time should be grasped and represented in its inner spirit by any existing company of actors. But the right spectator should see the ideal of the representation through the limitations of the representation and the work through this. This is the path I have had to take, and it seems to me the right one for dramatic works of art. Hence it may be that Zelter, who began by reading and from this formed his own idealized representation, was less frugal in seeing the real than I, who otherwise cannot boast of great frugality. - Now to the common spectator this elevation above the narrowness of the representation is first of all expected - in the case of common works he is relieved of it, where the representation and the matter, because both are common and shallow, coincide very properly - furthermore, he is expected to pay strict attention for 2 to 3 hours, because the whole is a whole, and he does not understand any part if he does not understand all - whereas in the case of common plays he can be absent, if he wants to, and again pay attention if he wants to, and yet always a whole grain of sand, - happily encounters - finally, he is suspected of a completely lacking sense for the internal in man, and the plot that takes place on this stage - therefore the management, city and court believe that there is no plot in the last two acts of this work, and indeed Goethe would have had no plot for these two acts, through the simple narration: Eugenia gives her hand to a councillor of justice, could have spared - all these graces, it is understandable with what faces they are received. For my part, however, the older I grow, and the more some stupidity presses me here every day, and the more masterpieces they send us from there, the more I am strengthened in the merciless opinion that the highest, and only the highest, should be brought before the eyes of the public, without all pity for boredom, and discomfort of uneducation, that one should not patch up the bad and attach the good to it, God willing, but destroy it purely and create the good purely, and that it will never get better with the bad until one takes no further notice of the fact that the bad exists.

Among the actors, in my opinion, Madame Fleck as Eugenie won the prize by far. Her acting was particularly enthusiastic and inspiring in the second act, in the expression of joyful expectation in the sonnet, in the poetic fantasy that followed - then when she put on the jewels, when her aristocratic, generous disposition came to the fore, and so on. She did not actually spoil anything that I remember. Ifland portrayed the tender father very well, especially in the third act, the one melting in the thought of the believed loss, and made a powerful impression on his audience: but it always remained a tender father from one of his mountain family plays: the nobility of the first vassal, secret husband of the proud princess, father of the high daughter, the importance of the darkly threatening star on the political horizon of this realm, were lost - not to the detriment of the play, as it seems to me, with the true spectator; for whoever knows Ifflanden besides, will not take him for identical with such a person, and at the poet's hint will gladly supplant dignity, and majesty, and depth. Mattausch, as king, was quite handsome. Bessel (who otherwise plays insignificant roles) also deserves mention as a clergyman. He did not play without strength; and the favorable spectator might attribute some roughness in his behavior to the village life of the spiritual lord. Bethman n, as a court physician, did not play carelessly, as he has been accused of, but what can be made of this clumsy, monotonous organ? Herdt, as a monk, did not allow his nature to set the accents as natural breathing requires; yet one understood him completely, and one could now speak the role differently and correctly. Beschart played the Governor smoothly and gallantly, as is his manner; and this did the role no harm. The part of the court mistress was given to a singer, Madame Schie l, who, out of a very laudable caution for the time when her singing voice might come to an end, wanted to concentrate on recitation. She brought the gesticulation from the opera theater, but she was not allowed to sing, and she could not speak. I think I have guessed the intention and meaning of this role, but I did not hear the words either time; therefore, there is a gap in my knowledge. No Goethean character can be made out of Schwadke's - who played the secretary - thorough shallowness. This man would have to be exiled entirely to the English conversation pieces.

Another anecdote that was very edifying and instructive for me. The role of the nun was played the first day by Madame Herdt, who behaved in such a way that the audience burst out laughing - and this time with perfect justification. How does the management help itself on the second day? Well, it leaves out this role completely - only one of the useless characters, it might think, who appear in the last two acts - (how first, in increasing fear, all means of salvation must be tried before the last strange one is resorted to, and how, in addition, all the estates of the kingdom approaching its downfall are to be passed before the spectator's eyes according to their least spirit, such judges certainly do not realize), - but leaves the role of Eugenia unchanged; in such a way that now the daring glance into the companion's violent letter takes place without an intermediary and directly upon the refusal to see it, for fear of seeing one of the two beloved names. Let Goethe now learn from this how to do it in order to make the plot, so often hesitant in his works, proceed more quickly!

One question: how does the author conceive the external representation of the nation in the group, this chorus, from which its individual representatives wriggle free and intertwine themselves in the plot? (which, in passing, local people do not grasp either, and in the Ungersche Zeitung, for example, it is said that they come and disappear like idle strollers). Should at least a beginning of the immeasurable life and activity really be visible, which the imagination now continues into the infinite; or should the spectator see this heap as if with the eye of fantasy? In the performance here, it was only towards the end of the fourth act, when Eugenia was preparing to call the people, that two or three ragged fellows suddenly carried a suitcase of student's goods and a few small bales decorated with merchant's signs to the back of the stage, which remained empty of living beings for the rest of the time. This seemed to me either too much or too little. Am I right or wrong?

Since I mentioned in my last letter that the "Auspochen" were at the first performance, I would like to correct this - for I myself would not like to accuse the Berlin crowd of more evil than is true - the following: it is quite notorious that Schadow ordered the "Auspocher", properly recruited and organized them beforehand. I am writing this to you for any use, if you do not already know it, for it is common knowledge; only I would not like to be the one who would have written it to you. It is also claimed that Ifland, not Woltmann, is the author of the recently mentioned assessment in the Ungersche Zeitung. Similarly, both historical partisanship for good and bad.

I commend myself to your benevolence.

Yours sincerely, Fichte