396 Besprechungen / Reviews im freundschaftlichen Umgang festzuhalten. So erläutert Bernd Auerochs in einem sehr gelungenen Beitrag zu Gleim und Herder, wie Spannungen zwischen beiden auf Grund von Herders Anbindung an den Sturm und Drang entstehen. Die von Gleim favorisierte Geselligkeit etwa ist für die Stürmer und Dränger von deutlich geringerer Bedeutung als Authentizität in der Freundschaft. Auch Andrea Heinz spricht diesen Wandel an, wenn sie über den wechselnden Ton in Wielands Briefen schreibt, daß dieser das «Du» ab Mitte der 70er Jahre dem formalen «Sie» in seinen Briefen vorzieht, um so der Recodierung von Intimität gerecht zu werden. «‹Bruder› als Zeichen der Intimität und der Verwandtschaft erscheint als eine Art Steigerung von ‹Freund,› und die männliche Brüderschaft löst die empfindsame Freundschaft ab» (173). Freundschafts- und Erinnerungskultur sind im 18. Jahrhundert eng miteinander verbunden, und das Denkmal in seiner sozialen und politischen Dimension spielt in dieser Beziehung eine herausragende Rolle. Gleims Freundschaftstempel, ein Denkmal besonderer Art und gleichwohl ein Denkmal, weist seiner Zeit voraus. Während die literarische Bedeutung des «deutschen Anakreon» noch zu Lebzeiten deutlich abnahm, agierte Gleim, so Doris Schumacher, «hinsichtlich der Denkmalskultur genau umgekehrt immer kreativer und zukunftsweisender» (251). Dies tat er, indem er bürgerlichen Schriftstellern Denkmalswürdigkeit zusprach und das Denkmal in einen neuen nationalen Kontext einband. Denn der Freundschaftstempel ist zugleich ein Musentempel und die Aufnahme darin ein nationales Verdienst. Daß die Ausstellung solcher Verdienste zugleich das exemplarisch Menschliche erfassen sollte, erzeugte einen Widerspruch in der Denkmalskonzeption, der, so zeigt es Martin Disselkamp in seinem klugen Beitrag, die besondere «Ortlosigkeit» (191) des Freundschaftsmonuments erklärt. Die gesellschaftlich exzentrische Position lebensferner Perfektionsideale läßt, mit anderen Worten, die Verortung des Denkmals in der Gesellschaft nur mittelbar zu. Was der Titel verspricht, eine Analyse der Rituale der Freundschaft, hält der Band insgesamt nicht. Hier spiegelt sich ein Mangel an Konzeption, der offenbar schon dem Colloquium selbst unterlag. Möglicherweise hatten die Herausgeber einfach unterschätzt, wie schwierig es ist, Freundschaft theoretisch zu erfassen und auch konzeptionell in eine klar umrissene Diskussion einzubinden. So zerfällt der Band weitgehend in eine Sammlung von Einzelbeträgen, von denen man einige freilich nicht missen wollte. University of Georgia Martin Kagel L AURA M ARTIN : Benedikte Nauberts Neue Volksmärchen der Deutschen: Strukturen des Wandels. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2006. 379 pp. € 49,80. Benedikte Naubert, the late eighteenth-century author of novels and fairy tales, gained scholarly attention in the mid-1980s when feminist scholars were (re)discovering early female writers who had been excluded or simply ignored in the literary canon, and when studies like Manfred Grätz’s Das Märchen in der deutschen Aufklärung (1988) were exploring the development of the Märchen before the Grimms. Laura Martin’s study draws from and builds upon that scholarship. Besprechungen / Reviews 397 Martin’s subject is the Neue Volksmärchen der Deutschen, Naubert’s four-volume collection published between 1789 and 1792, on the heels of her better-known contemporary Musäus’s Volksmärchen der Deutschen (1782-87). Martin, like all other Naubert scholars, wrestles with situating this author in German life and letters. Literary boundaries at the time were fluid, ebbing and flowing between the Enlightenment, Classicism, and Romanticism. Naubert’s Märchen were avowedly of literary, not oral, provenience - her sources were medieval romances, chapbooks, sagas and legends of the saints. And she jealously guarded her identity as a woman, writing for several decades under a presumptive male nom de plume. These are issues Martin treats in Chapter 1, and they inform much of the next two chapters, as well as the final chapter of the book. After providing a short biography, she goes on to discuss the mystification of Naubert’s authorship, her presumed attitudes about female authorship (revealed through letters), her clever decisions on dealing with the reading public, and possible reasons for her exclusion from the literary canon. There is an excellent overview of the body of feminist scholarship on Naubert since 1986. Then, finally, she promises to place Naubert’s early works in the context of production of German folktales and fairytales at the end of the eighteenth century (a promise she keeps) and to make comparisons to the works of contemporary writers Herder, Wieland, Musäus, Goethe and the newly rediscovered female writers (a promise only marginally fulfilled). Above all, Martin wants to examine what Naubert’s collection accomplishes through the specifically female point of view. Chapter 2, «Das Wunderbare im 18. Jahrhundert,» is based largely on Grätz. Here the author situates Naubert in her literary milieu and discusses contemporary attitudes toward fantastic literature, Märchen, and various types of novels (historical, chivalric, and picaresque) emerging at the time. Part III, «Naubert im Kontext» is the most interesting section here for understanding the author, as it describes the various literary influences and models she had at her disposal, her specific attitude toward magic, and her unique view of history. Sections IV («Für wen sind sie denn geschrieben? ») and V («Die Neuen Volksmärchen der Deutschen: Gattungsproblematik») in fact focus on the Grimms and their now canonical genre of fairy tale, not on Naubert. The attention Martin pays to the Grimms here and in other sections of the study is possibly a distraction: Naubert antedated the Grimms, and their later (disingenuous) definition of the Märchen as an oral peasant tradition in no way defines what Naubert intended or succeeded in doing. One might imagine a chapter focusing on how the Grimms adapted or transformed stories Naubert also used (though she was never their sole source for a tale), but that would be a different study. Chapter 3 is more useful for understanding Naubert, because here Martin makes interesting comparisons between the author’s work and Musäus’s slightly earlier collection. Martin explores Naubert’s attitude toward use and misuse of power, the relation between the sexes, and her attitude toward the lower classes: Naubert comes from the position of the marginalized and disenfranchised, not from a position of privilege like Musäus. Assuming readers will be unfamiliar with Naubert’s collection, Martin uses Chapters 4-7 to retell and analyze the individual stories. Her aim is to make the stories accessible to modern audiences and to give readers a feel for these wordy, detailed, 398 Besprechungen / Reviews and complex narratives. And in fact, readers will come away with a sense of Naubert’s loquacity and byzantine style, though many might prefer to read the originals over Martin’s equally complex and difficult retellings. In addition, a disequilibrium between the lengths of the retellings and the analyses sometimes makes the study feel imbalanced: a retelling may be twice as long as the analysis, half as long, or even of equal length, and the subject of the analysis may vary each time. Chapters 4-7 might have been better put at the end of the book as an appendix. Chapters 8 and 9 discuss stereotypical gender roles in fairy tales and Western literature; in these two chapters Martin discovers a surprising egalitarianism in Naubert’s fairytale world. Chapter 8 focuses on female curiosity - the context for the Grimms’ Marienkind and Naubert’s Ottilie - and other concomitant offenses such as disobedience, spying and betrayal, and failing a test of virtue. Martin concludes insightfully that women are not punished more frequently or harshly than men for these transgressions - Naubert demands hard work, honesty, modesty and restraint for both genders and across classes. The paradigmatic roles for men as heroes and adventurers are rarely heroic in Naubert’s world: characters discover that to be a hero means to hurt others, to steal from the poor or even one’s own father. Ultimately, her stories explode gender expectations and apply the same yardstick to men’s and women’s behavior. The final chapter summarizes Martin’s findings and asks overarching questions: why should we read Naubert, and how could a reading of Naubert and other female writers expand our knowledge of literary production around 1800 and contribute to our understanding of Märchen and the literary movements of Classicism and Romanticism? She suggests answers to some of these questions, and leaves others to future research. The main predicament to which Martin falls prey is to try to explain or understand the Neue Volksmärchen der Deutschen in the context of Märchen generally and the Grimms specifically. The book’s title, Strukturen des Wandels, is richly enigmatic: what are the structures and what is the change - the loss of Naubert’s unique type of storytelling, or her exclusion from the canon when the Grimms dawned on the horizon? St. Cloud State University Shawn C. Jarvis S TEVEN D. M ARTINSON (E D .): A Companion to the Works of Friedrich Schiller. Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2005. 333 pp. $ 90. The anniversary year 2005, which marked two hundred years since the death of the acclaimed playwright, poet, and theorist Friedrich Schiller, saw a number of tributes to the legendary German artist and intellectual. Among the scholarly contributions to this commemoration was the publication of this book of essays edited by Steven D. Martinson. The volume, which contains an introduction and another essay by Martinson, represents a gathering of a number of Germanistik’s most distinguished minds of the past quarter-century, including Dieter Borchmeyer, Karl Guthke, Walter Hinderer, Wulf Koepke, Norbert Oellers, David Pugh, and Lesley Sharpe, among others. It is certainly an honor roll of scholars who contribute to this book, and with