National Identity and Gender: Reading Johanna Franul von Weissenthurn’s Herrmann (1817) alongside Johann Elias Schlegel’s Herrmann (1743) Edward Potter Mississippi State University Abstract: Johanna Franul von Weissenthurn’s Herrmann (1817) takes up a topic fraught with significance for the portrayal of gender roles and national identity: the figure of Hermann, or Arminius, the first-century leader of the Germanic Cherusci tribe. Weissenthurn is writing in the early nineteenth century, a period in which conceptions of gender roles and conceptions of national identity are in flux. Her text places itself in dialogue with a long tradition of dramatic production surrounding this important historical figure, stretching backt to Johann Elias Schlegel’s Herrmann (1743). An examination of Weissenthurn’s historical drama within the context of the literary tradition on Arminius, particularly in connection with Schlegel’s play, will bring to light the ways in with her text articulates conceptions of gender and national identity. It will be shown that each of these two Herrmann dramas are products of their own time. While Schlegel had portrayed strong female characters and admirable Germanic figures as part of his project to use national history as literary material, Weissenthurn’s play, seventy-four years later, promotes Pan-German nationalism and subscribes to the medical-biological concept of gender dimorphism, depicting the genders as complementary but very different in nature. Keywords: Johanna Franul von Weissenthurn, Johann Elias Schlegel, Herrmann, Arminius, national identity, gender Johanna Franul von Weissenthurn (1772-1847) was born into an acting family and performed as a child actress in Germany before eventually finding her way to Vienna, where she acted in plays at the Burgtheater from 1789 to 1842 (Toit 4-18; Yates 54). Her performances impressed notable audience members such 60 Edward Potter as the monarchs Joseph II and Napoleon and the literary author Ludwig Tieck (Wurzbach 341-42; Toit 32; Yates 54). In 1809, Napoleon saw her perform in the title role of Racine’s Phaedra, in an adaptation by Schiller, at the palace theater in Schönbrunn; Napoleon was so impressed that he gave Weissenthurn an honorarium of 3000 francs (Toit 32; Wurzbach 341). It should, however, be noted that she had her critics as well; writers such as August von Kotzebue, E. M. Arndt, and Clemens Brentano all were at least somewhat critical of her acting abilities (Toit 30-31). Nonetheless, most contemporaneous critics had high praise for Weissenthurn’s work as both an actress and a dramatist (Kugele 25; Kord, “Die Gelehrte als Zwitterwesen” 170). At the age of twenty-five, Weissenthurn wrote her first play, Die Drusen (1798), in order to win a bet, and this was the beginning of her prolific career as a playwright, during which she published some sixty plays (Toit 32; Wurzbach 341-42; Gugitz 357-58; and Kürschner 276-77). As both an actress and a dramatist, she was most well-known for her comic acting and her comedies (Yates 54; Vestli 167, 169). As a dramatist, she created many comedies (Lustspiele), but she also wrote serious dramas (Schauspiele), including a five-act verse drama in iambic pentameter, Herrmann (1817), which she termed “ein geschichtliches Schauspiel” (Weissenthurn, Herrmann [hereafter: W], 1). 1 Weissenthurn prefaces the first published volume of her plays with a programmatic portrayal of herself as a woman author bravely taking up the pen despite criticism and repressive expectations regarding women’s role in society: “Ich habe allerdings wider die Kleiderordnung gefehlt und - statt Strümpfe zu stricken, ein paar Federn stumpf geschrieben. Die Männer sehen nun ein Mahl die Federn lieber auf unsern Köpfen, und wollen nicht dulden, daß wir sie in die Dinte tauchen […] und ich sehe schon im Geiste hundert Federn spitzen, die meine neue Schriftstellerschaft gleich giftigen Pfeilen verwunden” (Weissenthurn, “Vorrede” 1: v). Susanne Kord has analyzed Weissenthurn’s preface in terms of the author’s portrayal of herself as having both masculine and feminine characteristics; as Kord clearly demonstrates, Weissenthurn portrays herself ironically with “ostentativer Anpassung an die kulturelle Weiblichkeitsvorstellung” in order to demonstrate her own indifference both to this normative conception of gender and also to the criticism of men that she, as a successful female author, anticipates (Kord, “Die Gelehrte als Zwitterwesen” 173; also 170-73). Scholars have pointed out that Weissenthurn enjoyed great popularity during her lifetime, as her plays were, in the first half of the nineteenth century, among the most performed plays in the German-speaking lands, and her literary production not only was published, often in multiple editions, but was also translated into English, French, Italian, Danish, Russian, and Polish (Vestli 166, 169; Kugele 25). One scholar sees in Weissenthurn the only German-speaking woman of this era who successfully combined a career as an actress with the National Identity and Gender in Weissenthurn and Schlegel 61 “männlich konnotierten Dramatikerberuf” (Vestli 168). In fact, between 1800 and 1853, Weissenthurn’s plays were performed in the Wiener Burgtheater for a total of 912 times (Vestli 169). They were also popular in the German-language theater in Budapest and throughout the German lands, as her “Stücke ja das gesamte Theater im deutschsprachigen Raum überschwemmten” (Binal 115). Nonetheless, after her death, her dramatic oeuvre disappeared from both the stage and from literary histories. Vestli sees this as a result of the historical break caused by the revolutions of 1848, a break which also, according to her, had an effect on theater history, in that tastes changed and Weissenthurn’s plays were seen as oudated (Vestli 166, 179). According to one biographer, Weissenthurn wrote “bühnengewandte Lustspiele, Familienstücke im Ifflandstil und romantische Spektakelstücke aus der Geschichte ohne höher gesteckte Ziele” (Gugitz 357). Writing in 1858, Wurzbach finds that Weissenthurn’s plays were becoming less popular because the late sentimental dramatic style of her works and of the period in general in which she was writing was already falling out of fashion (Wurzbach 342). It is particularly interesting that, in Herrmann, Weissenthurn takes up a topic fraught with significance for the portrayal of gender roles and national identity: the figure of Hermann, or Arminius, the first-century leader of the Germanic Cherusci tribe. Weissenthurn is writing in the early nineteenth century, a period in which conceptions of gender roles and conceptions of national identity are in flux, and her text places itself in dialogue with a long tradition of dramatic production surrounding this important historical figure, a figure who becomes the site for articulating conceptions of gender and German national identity, in a tradition stretching from Johann Elias Schlegel’s Herrmann (1743) to Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock’s trilogy, Hermanns Schlacht (1769), Hermann und die Fürsten (1784), and Hermanns Tod (1787) to Heinrich von Kleist’s Hermannsschlacht (1808). An examination of Weissenthurn’s historical drama within the context of the literary tradition on Arminius, particularly in connection with Schlegel’s play, will bring to light the ways in with her text articulates conceptions of gender and national identity. It will be shown that each of these two Herrmann dramas are products of their own time. While Schlegel had portrayed strong female characters and admirable Germanic figures as part of his project to use national history as literary material, Weissenthurn’s play, seventy-four years later, promotes Pan-German nationalism and subscribes to the medical-biological concept of gender dimorphism, depicting the genders as complementary but very different in nature (Laqueur 5-6, 11, 22-23, 151-54). As literary scholars have pointed out, Weissenthurn’s comedies were much more popular both in terms of the number of performances and in terms of critical reception than were her serious dramas (Roe 43, 47; Vestli 169). Herrmann 62 Edward Potter was performed fewer than ten times (Roe 43). One reviewer of Herrmann complained that “Frau von Weissenthurn scheint der Aufgabe nicht gewachsen, die höchste Manneskraft mit voller männlicher Energie auszusprechen” (qtd. in Roe 47). This statement emphasizes precisely the issue that forms the focus of the current investigation: how exactly does Weissenthurn’s historical drama Herrmann engage with the literary tradition on this historical figure, particularly as exemplified by Schlegel’s play, and how does this text by a woman writer engage with the depiction of gender and its interaction with the depiction of national identity? Schlegel’s Herrmann provides an excellent foil to Weissenthurn’s Herrmann in that Schlegel’s neoclassical tragedy provides us not only with a text by a male author but also with a text from a different historical period, one in which the political situation and the conceptions of gender roles were different than in the years immediately following Napoleon’s defeat, when Weissenthurn penned her own Arminius drama. It will also be useful to place Weissenthurn’s historical drama Herrmann in dialogue with Schlegel’s play, as Schlegel’s is the oldest Arminius tragedy in German literature that is considered canonical, as can be seen in examinations by a variety of scholars (Bland 568; Heitner 95-96; also Essen; Griffiths; H. P. Herrmann). Arminius, or Hermann der Cherusker, was born in either 18 or 16 BC and died in either 19 or 21 AD; he received military training in Rome, hence his Roman name, Arminius, and from 4-6 AD, he led Germanic warriors as auxiliary troops into battle for Rome, against other Germanic tribes (Müller 19-20). In 9 AD, he led Germanic tribes in the famous battle of Teutoburg Forest, this time against the Romans, who were led by Publius Quinctilius Varus; in this battle, the Romans under Varus lost three legions, or approximately 20,000 soldiers (Müller 20). Although there were some later attempts by Romans to gain ground in Germania, or the area between the Rhine and the Elbe, the victory of Arminius ultimately resulted in Rome’s no longer seeking to conquer the area that they called Germania (Müller 20). Tacitus describes Arminius in The Annals as “the troublemaker of Germany,” an individual full of “ferocity” who was “recklessly aggressive” and admired for it (Tacitus 34-35; book 1.55, 1.57). Arminius died at age thirty-seven, killed by disloyal relatives, but the Germanic tribes of the day commemorated him in song, as Tacitus says: “[H]e is still a subject of song amongst the barbarian tribes” (Tacitus 94; book 2.88). Arminius later became an important cultural icon and the subject of a rather lengthy literary tradition. According to Caroline Bland, the work of Tacitus made Arminius known to Reformation-era Germany, where Arminius “became a rallying figure for the Lutheran reformers as a model for the fight against the influence of Rome” (Bland 568). Already in the seventeenth century, German writers were calling Arminius "Hermann," since they did not want to use a Roman name to refer to National Identity and Gender in Weissenthurn and Schlegel 63 this prominent symbol of German identity (Wagner-Egelhaaf 8). One scholar traces the invention of the German version of Arminius’ name to the sixteenth century (H. P. Herrmann 161). Later writers, such as Schlegel, Klopstock, Kleist, Weissenthurn, and Christian Dietrich Grabbe, among others, structured literary dramas around this historical figure which represent Hermann as an icon of German national and cultural identity. Literary scholars have examined this tradition, mostly concentrating on the male authors whose texts are considered canonical. Gesa von Essen has examined representations of Germanic peoples and Romans in the plays of Schlegel, Klopstock, Kleist, and Grabbe. Hans Peter Herrmann has discussed the dramatic tradition surrounding Hermann as a site where conceptions of patriotism and masculinity converge, and he sees the tradition promoting increasingly strident notions of nationalism, whereby female characters, especially Thusnelda, the wife of Hermann, become increasingly disempowered, marginalized, and dehumanized, as egalitarian social behaviors give way to authoritarian social relationships, all part of “eine Steigerungslinie von Schlegel über Klopstock zu Kleist” (H. P. Herrmann 189-90; here: 189). In a 1995 article in Der Deutschunterricht, H. P. Herrmann discusses Arminius plays by Schlegel, Klopstock, and Kleist; in a 1996 version of the same article that appeared as a book chapter, he adds to his discussion a poem by Herder and a cursory discussion of Weissenthurn’s play that raises a variety of questions without examining the play in depth (H. P. Herrmann 184-85). 2 More recently, Elystan Griffiths has looked specifically at the depiction of gender and its interconnection with culture and German national identity in the Hermann dramas of Schlegel, Klopstock, and Kleist. In this welcome contribution to the representation of gender in Hermann dramas, Griffiths identifies three very different models of German society, and he sees the representation of gender in the plays not in terms of the development of masculinity, as Hans Peter Herrmann had done, but, instead, Griffiths sees the depiction of gender as a function of the type of political society that each text propagates (Griffiths, esp. 135-36). Klopstock’s bardic play, Hermanns Schlacht (1769), was written shortly after the Seven Years’ War (1756-63), a war which saw the rise of the lyric subgenre of patriotische preußische Kriegslieder initiated by Johann Wilhelm Ludwig Gleim in 1758 (De Boor and Newald 5: 473, 6.1: 32-33). In this play by Klopstock, as Griffiths has pointed out, the bards, who are present on the stage throughout the play, are not merely a tragic chorus commenting on the action, but instead spur the warriors into action, inspiring patriotism in them, thereby representing the cultural and literary elites who convert cultural capital in the form of literary creativity into political influence on the ruling aristocracy (Griffiths 125-130, esp. 126-27). Gesa von Essen has pointed out the significant connection be- 64 Edward Potter tween the bards and the landscape around them, even to the extent that nature seems to aid the Germanic tribes in battle (Essen 127-31). Scholars’ comments on the bards in Klopstock’s play similarly apply to the bards in Weissenthurn’s play (Kugele 26). For example, the fourth act of Weissenthurn’s Herrmann begins with the music and the songs of the bards before the curtain goes up. After the curtain has risen, one sees the bards on a cliff in the background, and they sing a bloodthirsty song to spur the Germanic warriors to victory: “Zur Schlacht! zur Schlacht! Heut fließe Blut, / Und räche unsre Schmach; / Es ende Römer-Übermuth, / Ereilt den Feind mit Kraft und Wuth, / Verewigt diesen Tag” (W, IV.i., 69). The bards are thus participating in the construction of a national identity based on violence toward the “other.” In a recent contribution on Weissenthurn’s Herrmann, Jens Kugele analyzes Weissenthurn’s Herrmann mainly in contrast to Kleist’s Die Hermannsschlacht, finding that, in Kleist’s play, the female characters are almost completely subordinated to the male characters or to the “männlich konnotierte Macht,” whereby the female characters in Weissenthurn’s drama receive a positive revaluation and play a central role in the drama (Kugele 27). One should note that literary scholars have interpreted Kleist’s play Die Hermannsschlacht in a variety of ways. For many years, the play was seen as a call to arms, as a battle cry for the people of the German lands to rise up and fight against Napoleon and his army, but more recently, scholars such as Elisabeth Krimmer and Elystan Griffiths have pointed out the implicit criticism of war as a totalistic terror-based enterprise that dehumanizes all who participate in it (Krimmer 66-76, 80-81; Griffiths 130-34). Kleist’s play was written in 1808, and he had hoped that it would be performed right away, but the play was not published until 1821, after Kleist’s death, and it was not performed until 1860 (Bland 568; Griffiths 130). Thus, it is rather unlikely that Weissenthurn could have been aware of Kleist’s play, or that it could have had an influence on her own Arminius drama. A more interesting foil for Weissenthurn’s text would be Johann Elias Schlegel’s neoclassical tragedy Herrmann. In his article on Weissenthurn’s Herrmann from 2006, Kugele maintains that “[i]nnerhalb des […] Arminius-Diskurses finden sich inhaltlich die meisten Parallelen zu Schlegel” (Kugele 25). The ensuing analysis will test this hypothesis by examining conceptions of nationalism, love, forgiveness or revenge, and the depictions of the female characters Thusnelda and Adelheid in both Weissenthurn’s and Schlegel’s Herrmann plays. National identity plays a significant role in these plays. Johann Elias Schlegel’s (1719-49) neoclassical tragedy Herrmann was written, according to his brother and the editor of his collected works, Johann Heinrich Schlegel, in 1740 and 1741 (Schubert 601). The play was first published in 1743 in the fourth vol- National Identity and Gender in Weissenthurn and Schlegel 65 ume of Johann Christoph Gottsched’s influential anthology of original German plays, Die Deutsche Schaubühne (Schubert 601). The Neues Theater in Leipzig opened its doors in 1766 with a performance of Schlegel’s Herrmann (Schubert 604), and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe described, in the paralipomena of his autobiography Dichtung und Wahrheit, how he was inspired ex negativo by a performance of Schlegel’s Herrmann to pen his first play, Götz von Berlichingen (1773) (Goethe 963-64). In Schlegel’s Herrmann, the German tribes are depicted as virtuous, particularly in their simple lifestyle and their morality, despite lacking official laws such as those of the Romans. The Germanic tribes are contrasted with Romans, who are portrayed as weak, lustful, greedy, and eager to corrupt the morals of others with their luxurious lifestyle. Schlegel presents the audience with a vivid contrast between, on the one hand, a Germanic community founded on the principles of virtue, selflessness, patriotism, and communal reason and, on the other hand, a Roman society based on individuals’ self-interest in what Griffiths has termed “a stark choice between a virtuous German ‘Volk’ and a degenerate Roman empire” (Griffiths 125; Ranke 244; Lamport 157). In this way, Schlegel’s play is participating in the construction of national identities that are strongly associated with either virtue or immorality. Herrmann’s father Siegmar points out the moral discrepancy between the two demographic groups by emphasizing that the Germanic tribes are brave and virtuous but that Romans are focused on wealth and sexual desire and they ridicule the innocence of the Germanic tribes. Siegmar speaks of “der deutsche Muth” (Schlegel, I.i., 124) and of the morally corrupting influence of Rome: “Rom, welches herrschen will, erkauft sich unsre Fürsten, / Lehrt sie nach Golde sehn, und nach der Wollust dürsten. / Die Unschuld wird verjagt, die Einfalt ist verlacht, / Die unsre Väter doch beglückt und groß gemacht” (Schlegel [hereafter: S], I.i., 125). 3 In historical reality, of course, Arminius and his contemporaries were members of Germanic tribes living in an area called by the Romans Germania, but certainly not in a modern nation-state. Nonetheless, in both Schlegel’s and Weissenthurn’s plays, the people are referred to as “Deutsche” living in a country called “Deutschland,” even though there was no unified political entity called “Germany” even during Schlegel’s or Weissenthurn’s lifetimes. In the following discussion, “Germans” will at times be used to refer to the Germanic tribes in both plays, as this superregional cultural-linguistic designation plays a significant role in the identity formation that is at work in both texts. In Schlegel’s play, there is a rather nuanced depiction of Germanic loyalties to one’s own Volk or to the Romans. Griffiths maintains that the older generation in Schlegel’s play is more fixed in its identification with the nation, whereas the younger generation is more fluid and searching for identity (Griffiths 120). Upon closer examination, however, one finds that each generation has fervently 66 Edward Potter patriotic characters and characters that are less stable in their loyalties. In the generation of the parents, Herrmann’s parents, Siegmar and Adelheid, are particularly staunch proponents of patriotic feelings, whereas Segest, the father of Siegmund and Thusnelde 4 , is a Machiavellian plotter who seeks to betray the Germans in order to become their ruler once the Romans have conquered them: “Wie glücklich hat mein Rath sie in dieß Netz verstrickt! / […] / Von allem will ich nun dem Varus Nachricht geben: / Ihr Eifer sey ihr Fall, und bringe sie ums Leben, / Uns aber auf den Thron” (S, II.vii., 143). Among the younger generation, Herrmann and Thusnelde are both patriotic supporters of the German cause of fighting for freedom from the Romans, but each of their brothers, Flavius and Siegmund, respectively, are more conflicted in their loyalties. Siegmund has been made a priest by the Romans despite his own reluctance, and his father Segest attempts to win him over to his plan to rule over the Germanic tribes once Rome has conquered them, but ultimately, Siegmund fights with the Germanic tribes against the Romans and returns from battle a hero. Flavius, on the other hand, appreciates Roman culture and civilization and defends them to his family members: “Mein Vater, ich bin deutsch; doch haß ich Rom auch nicht” (S, I.ii., 128). Flavius is, however, depicted as soft and weak, and this is the result of his time in and appreciation of Rome; Siegmar comments that Flavius has become “feig und weibisch” due to Rome’s detrimental influence (S, I.ii., 129). Flavius is ultimately shocked when he learns of Segest’s treacherous plans, and he eventually decides to join the Germanic tribes in battle against the Romans, mostly out of filial piety, for he hopes to support his father, Siegmar, in his struggle. Flavius has, however, vacillated for so long that his father, Siegmar, has already been killed in battle. Gottsched suggested, in the preface to Schlegel’s Herrmann, that “der Herr Verfasser mit Fleiß sein Stück auf die itzigen Umstände eingerichtet,” by drawing parallels between ancient Rome and modern Paris (qtd. in Schubert 603- 604). Schlegel, however, disavowed this in a letter to his brother (Griffiths 125). Schlegel would later discuss the need for writers to dramatize material that was relevant to their audience, and he recommended using figures from the nation’s history, which led him not only to dramatize the Arminius material for German audiences, but also, when he was living in Denmark and became instrumental in the foundation of a Danish national theater, to dramatize medieval Danish history in his neoclassical tragedy Canut (1747). Thus, for Schlegel, in his dramaturgical writings and also on the narrative level of Herrmann, in the figures of Flavius and Siegmund, national identity can be fluid. The case is very different in Weissenthurn’s Herrmann, in which national identity is a product of the landscape of the place where one was born, thus representing a naturalization or essentialization of national identity. Thusnelda National Identity and Gender in Weissenthurn and Schlegel 67 expresses this idea eloquently with reference to the oak tree, which was typically associated with the Germans: “Die Staude blühe, wo ihr Keim gelegt, / Und ihre Frucht gehört demselben Boden. / Im Eichenwalde lernt’ ich Worte lallen, / Zur Eiche ward mein erster Schritt gelenkt; / So laß mich auch in ihrem Dunkel leben, / Kein andrer Baum soll je mir Schatten geben” (W, II.vii., 42-43). Trees and forests were considered sacred by the Germanic tribes, and oak trees were associated with the sky god or the thunder god, Donar or Thor; it was also a sacred oak tree that St. Boniface caused to be chopped down as part of his missionary efforts in the early middle ages (Davidson 56, 69, 101; Vries 1: 351-52 [§ 250], 2: 128 [§ 427]). In contrast to the Germans’ connectedness to their local landscape, the Romans, with their vast colonial empire, are untrue to their natural provenance and will suffer accordingly, as Herrmann makes clear: “Das Volk, das stets auf fremdem Boden lebt, / Der Nachbarn Glück und Freyheit untergräbt, / Und thront es auch in großen Säulenhallen, / Sie müssen endlich brechen, müssen fallen, / Indeß die Eiche kühn ihr Haupt erhebt, / Das Volk zu schützen, das nach Freyheit strebt” (W, I.ii., 19). In contrast to Schlegel, the Romans are portrayed in a much more consistently negative manner in Weissenthurn’s play. In 1812, Weissenthurn described, in her “Selbstbiographie” her own development as having been influenced by the landscape in which she was raised: Den grössten Teil meiner Kindheit habe ich in den Rheingegenden erlebt; dieser stolze Fluss, an welchem blühende Städte mit den herrlichsten Landschaften wechseln, machte einen Eindruck auf mein jugendliches Gemüt, welcher jetzt mir noch nicht ganz entschwunden ist. Wer die Natur in ihrer Grösse, in ihrer erhabensten Schönheit sah, wer im Entwickeln seiner Kräfte ihr gegenüber stand, der strebt ihr nach - dem entschwinden kleinliche Flächen, gebahnte, fahrbare Wege; der Fusssteig nimmt ihn auf, der ihn höher führt. Ja, ich ging meinen Weg, ohne Führer, oft ohne Freund, oft in Mangel und Elend -aber mein Mut erlag nicht. (qtd. in Toit 3) Weissenthurn thus sees the German landscape as an essential element that helped her to develop her character and as the inspiration for her independence, her resilience, and her progress throughout life. This essentialized, character-building perspective on nature finds its way into her drama as well, for there is a considerable amount of nature symbolism in Weissenthurn’s play. The oak tree, sacred in Germanic religion, is, for example, often invoked in the play as a means of symbolizing the Germans. Critics have noted the central metaphorical role played by the oak tree and also the sun, which are both connected to the Germanic tribes (Kugele 27, 33n11). Another example, also noted by Kugele, are the comments by Sigismar, Herrmann’s father, who is, in Weissenthurn’s version, blind; Sigismar equates Germany with the sun, tying his own fate to that 68 Edward Potter of his native land by claiming that Germany’s loss of freedom through Roman domination has led to his blindness: “Als Deutschland’s Sonne unterging, / Sah ich zu starr in ihre letzten Strahlen, / Mit ihrem Schimmer wich der Deutschen Glück, / Und seit dem ist es Nacht vor meinem Blick” (W, I.ii., 15; also Kugele 33 n. 11). Sigismar thus sees his fate tied up with the natural phenomena that are part of the landscape in which he was born. This essentialized national identity arises from within the contemporary historical context, in which desires for a German nation-state began to be expressed. Weissenthurn, a German woman born in Koblenz who lived for most of her life in Vienna, wrote a play that consistently emphasizes the need for German unity. The play begins with Sigismar comparing the fate of the Germanic tribes to trees in a storm: “Wo Zweig mit Zweig’ zur Schutzwehr sich verbindet, / Wird man die Eiche nicht entwurzelt sehen. / So müßt’ es Deutschlands Völkern wohl ergehen, / Säh’ man sie dicht, wie ihre Wälder stehen” (W, I.i., 4), and the play ends with Herrmann promoting militarism and German unity: “Das Eisen nur gibt Freyheit diesem Leben. / Stets müsse Eintracht eure Schritte leiten, / […] / Wenn Herz und Sinn, und Hände sich verketten, / Dann ist es leicht das Vaterland zu retten” (W, V.xii., 121; emphasis in original). Thus, national identity, Pan-Germanism, and militarism are tied together. Weissenthurn, who had once received a stipend from Napoleon for her acting, was nevertheless inspired during the period of the Napoleonic Wars to pen a stridently nationalistic play, which made use of essentializing depictions of virtuous, patriotic Germans intent on national unity and of decadent, immoral, cosmopolitan Romans. In light of the historical context in which Weissenthurn was writing, it is clear that in her play, the Romans represent the French - as Gottsched had suggested of Schlegel’s play, but which Schlegel refuted - and also that the “Germans” represent the German-speaking people of Central Europe, who, in Weissenthurn’s version, are, on a metaphorical level, striving to overcome their French conquerors and forge a Pan-German nation-state. Historians have demonstrated that contemporary German-language political writing demonized the French, using attributes such as “‘false’, ‘superficial’, ‘lascivious’ and ‘indecent’” (Hagemann 185); this new nationalistic discourse took place more intensely in Prussia, but it was happening in Austria as well ( Judson 91-92). Susanne Kord has noted that one can see this dynamic at work in other plays by Weissenthurn; Kord finds that some of Weissenthurn’s work suggests that German national identity is thoroughly intertwined both culturally and militarily with France, indeed, to such an extent that German national identity is unthinkable without reference to France (Kord, “Defining Cultural Exchange” 12-16). Although Weissenthurn’s Herrmann was performed fewer than ten times, it was performed on a particularly prestigious occasion, i.e., at National Identity and Gender in Weissenthurn and Schlegel 69 the Burgtheater in Vienna in 1815 in order to celebrate the defeat of Napoleon and the French (Roe 43; Bland 572), thereby cementing the symbolic connection of the Cherusci to the Germans throughout Central Europe, on the one hand, as well as the symbolic connection of the Romans to the French, on the other hand. In addition to nascent conceptions of nationalism, the conception of love is an important thematic aspect in the tradition of Arminius dramas that plays a significant role in both Schlegel’s and Weissenthurn’s plays. Dramaturgical theorists of the early Enlightenment such as Gottsched and Schlegel, among other writers, did not consider love to be an appropriate topic for neoclassical tragedy, and this view was to remain current up until Lessing inaugurated the domestic tragedy, or bürgerliches Trauerspiel, with Miß Sara Sampson in 1755 (Heitner 43, 90-94, 170, 413n11). Schlegel, writing around 1739, maintained that the depiction of lovers in tragedy hinders the genre in its moral education of the audience, or Wirkungsästhetik, and he also gave voice to patriarchal anxiety that love in tragedy might “feminize” the audience: “[W]ir thun den Deutschen einen schlechten Dienst, wenn wir sie zu Weibern machen, und ihnen Leute als Muster der Helden vorstellen wollen, deren Leben an dem Blicke ihrer Geliebten als an einem Faden hängt” (Schlegel, “Auszug eines Briefs” 405; see Schubert 621 for dating of this text). Many of the theatergoers in Schlegel’s time were, in fact, women, but in the earlier part of the eighteenth century the audience was often spoken of as masculine, since there was a division of the genders, where the largest portion of the theater, the orchestra seating, was mainly occupied by men, and women were seated in the boxes (Maurer-Schmoock 81). With respect to the inappropriateness of love in tragedy, Schlegel also specifically noted that an overemphasis on love in serious tragic drama endangers the moral-pedagogical project of eighteenth-century theater: “In der That ist unsere Schaubühne noch zur Zeit eine schlechte Schule guter Sitten, wie sie doch eigentlich seyn soll. Denn das ist nicht genug, daß Unflätereyen daraus verbannt sind; Liebesverwirrungen, Intriguen der Helden, und die Sprüche der Opernmoral, wovon auch die Tragödien voll sind, sind eben so gefährlich” (Schlegel, “Auszug eines Briefs” 407). The danger of subverting the moral message of the play was a serious one for Schlegel, as early Enlightenment tragedy was meant to morally educate its audiences, as Gottsched espoused in his Critische Dichtkunst (1730; 4 th ed. 1751), and as Schlegel undertook in his plays, although it has recently been demonstrated that the moral efficacy of neoclassical tragedies functioned somewhat differently than the contemporary dramaturgical theory tended to suggest (Ranke 193-266, 303). As Wolfgang Ranke has demonstrated, neoclassical tragedy was not always successful in its moral-didactic aims (i.e., admiration of virtue, moral edification of the audience), as it staged material from Greco-Roman (or other ancient) 70 Edward Potter sources that, at times, conflicted with Enlightenment conceptions of morality (Ranke 243, 253-54). Considerations of genre also play a significant role in this discrepancy between eighteenth-century Wirkungsästhetik and the material of the drama. For example, the catastrophe required by tragedy is difficult to reconcile with the Enlightenment poetological desire for a (perfectly) admirable protagonist coupled with poetic justice in order to educate the audience morally. In Schlegel’s Herrmann, the happy ending for everyone, including complete forgiveness for the antagonists Flavius and Segest, puts Gottschedian morality into practice but fails to conform to the genre of tragedy (Heitner 100), performing instead what Ranke calls “ein[e] den Stoff moralisierend[e] Bewunderungsdramaturgie” (Ranke 254). Despite his skepticism regarding love as worthy of depiction in tragedy, Schlegel included a subplot in Herrmann dealing with love. Both Herrmann and his brother Flavius are in love with Thusnelde, which, in addition to national loyalties, provides a source of conflict between the brothers and also a means of delineating their contrasting characters. Flavius describes his feelings thus: “Rom kann ein deutsches Herz auf römisch lieben, lehren. / Thusnelda hat in mir nicht deutsche Lieb erregt, / Die der Geliebten nie ein Herz zu Füssen legt; / […] / Mein Trieb herrscht über mich” (S, I.iv., 132). In Rome, Flavius has learned how to feel Roman love, or passionate love, not German love, which corresponds to the “vernünftige Liebe” that was promoted in the dramas of the early Enlightenment (Saße 30-37; H. P. Herrmann 166-167). Flavius, with his passionate “Roman” love, is consumed with desire and made an unproductive member of society. “German” love, in Schlegel, is not all-consuming and allows lovers to be productive members of society. Critics have noted that, in this German conception of love, patriotism, masculinity, and “rigidly controlled sexuality” go hand in hand (Griffiths 123). It is, moreover, clear in Schlegel’s play that German love is based on heroism. When Adelheid and Thusnelde discuss love, Thusnelde makes clear that she loves Herrmann for his heroism: “Das ist ein fauler Held, den nur die Liebe zieht. / Den edler Thaten Reiz nicht von sich selbst beweget, / […] / Mein Herz ist nicht für den, der seine Pflicht vergißt: / Du weist, wem meine Treu auf immer heilig ist” (S, III.iii., 149). In this speech, Thusnelde also draws attention to the fact that Herrmann’s virtue and heroism are not only important to her as his betrothed, but also to the German people as a whole, thereby drawing a connection to the goal of neoclassical tragedy, that of representing figures whose fate is important because the fate of the entire state depends on it. Herrmann, similarly, values his love for Thusnelde very highly, but not quite as highly as his patriotic duty: “Man sage, wenn man einst von meinen Thaten spricht: / Thusnelden liebt er sehr: doch mehr noch seine Pflicht” (S, III.iv., 150). Love represents a selfish desire if it is in competition National Identity and Gender in Weissenthurn and Schlegel 71 with the more serious virtue of duty (Heitner 99). This similarity in perspective and values demonstrates that Herrmann and Thusnelde are ideal partners for a mid-eighteenth-century marriage based on love, virtue, and mutual respect, or “vernünftige Liebe” (Saße 30-37). Weissenthurn’s play has a similar subplot, but here, it is not Flavius, Herrmann’s brother, who vies for Thusnelda’s love, but instead, it is the Roman Lulius. Here, love becomes a function of national identity, for Thusnelda repeatedly states that she can only love and marry a German, never a Roman: “Kein Römer hat ein Recht auf diese Hand; / Dem deutschen Vaterland gehör’ ich an, / Nur seine Helden dürfen um mich werben” (W, II.vii., 42). When her father Segest orders her to marry Lulius, Thusnelda makes the radical decision to leave her father and the Roman camp in order to live among the Germanic tribes as a free woman: “Frey lebt Thusnelda jetzt dem Vaterland, / Frey darf sie nun den deutschen Mann umfassen” (W, II.vii., 48). Here, too, love is based on heroism, for Thusnelda describes her attraction to Herrmann as being based on similar values, a love of freedom, and patriotism: “Da schlang ein Band der Achtung und der Liebe / Sich um das Herz der gelichgesinnten Gatten; / […] / Das ist der Mann, der unsre Freyheit rettet, / Und aller Deutschen Herzen an sich kettet” (W, IV.ii., 83). For Herrmann, love is also based on patriotic, heroic values, since a desire for freedom comes first, and then love can develop out of that: “Der Gattinn Wahl bürgt euch des Feldherrn Sinn; / Eh’ unsre Herzen liebend sich gefunden, / Hat uns der Wunsch nach Freyheit schon verbunden” (W, IV.ii., 83). This is in contrast to the Roman conceptions of love, as evidenced in scene V.i., in which Lulius claims that national and cultural identity are irrelevant in love: “Das Herz fragt nicht nach Vaterland und Sitte. / Ein gleich Gewand verbirgt nicht gleichen Sinn” (W, V.i., 89; emphasis in original). In this same scene, the Roman commander Varus claims that love is a form of sickness or insanity, thereby providing a significant contrast to the Germanic conception of love based on heroism and patriotism. For the Germanic tribes in Weissenthurn’s play, love and sexual activity are subordinated to war and military activity, for Herrmann and Thusnelda will not consummate their marriage until after a German victory over the Romans, as Herrmann says: “Erst nach dem Kampf dich in die Arme schließen. / Jetzt laßt mich stolz der Deutschen Freyheit gründen, / Und dann den Lohn in deinen Armen finden” (W, IV.ii., 86). Thus, sexual activity becomes both a motivation for and a reward for success in battle. Sexual attraction based on demonstrated prowess in battle could already be seen in Klopstock’s 1753 poem “Hermann und Thusnelda,” in which Thusnelda’s desire for Hermann is clearly motivated by his successful performance in battle: “‘Ha, dort kömmt er mit Schweiß, mit Römerblute, / Mit dem Staube der Schlacht bedeckt! So schön war / Hermann 72 Edward Potter niemals! […] / […] / Komm! ich bebe vor Lust, reich mir den Adler / Und das triefende Schwert! komm, atm’ und ruh hier / Aus in meiner Umarmung” (Klopstock 71). This bloodthirsty love scene seems to have been more of an inspiration for Weissenthurn in her conception of the love between Herrmann and Thusnelda than the rational, sensible love based on virtue that Schlegel’s play depicts, since Weissenthurn’s play not only emphasizes sexual restraint until victory in battle has been achieved but also depicts war and military activity as a type of aphrodisiac, as Thusnelda says to Herrmann: “Auf hochgethürmten Leichen wirst du stehen, / Als freyer Mensch ins freye Leben sehen; / Dann schmücke ich dein Haupt mit Eichenkränzen, / Ich ordne jubelnd festlich frohe Tänze” (W, IV.ii., 86). Thus, for the “Germans,” love is intricately intertwined with war and military prowess. Another concept that plays an essential role in both Schlegel’s and Weissenthurn’s Arminius plays is that of either forgiveness or revenge. In Schlegel, there is forgiveness for the Machiavellian traitor Segest and also for the wavering Rome enthusiast Flavius. Like the title hero of Schlegel’s Canut, Herrmann extends forgiveness to those who have demonstrated regret, even though it would seem to run counter to his political interests. In this manner, Schlegel’s text transports Enlightenment values into a Germanic past that would likely not have understood them. Schlegel’s Segest is to remain a chieftain but is to refrain from treachery and deception: “Segest, drum bleib ein Fürst, wie du gewesen bist, / Doch ohne Dienstbarkeit, Verrätherey und List” (S, V.iv., 170). Similarly, Flavius is forgiven for his weakness: “Du, Bruder, warst zu schwach, und gabst der List Gehör. / Als Herzog schenk ich dirs; als Bruder thu ich mehr: / Mein Herz entschuldigt dich” (S, V.iv., 170). Herrmann’s forgiveness even extends to the fact that neither his brother nor his future father-in-law comment on Herrmann’s generosity, which he interprets for the others onstage and in the audience as a sign of the two men’s repentance. In Weissenthurn’s play, there is no forgiveness for the Romans. Segest is elided from the drama; he complains that Varus is not heeding his warnings about the Germans’ plans, and he predicts Varus’s downfall, then exits the stage and does not return. Flavius, Herrmann’s brother, experiences a different fate, for a horrific pair of scenes awaits him. He dies in battle, and his corpse is brought into the Germans’ camp at Herrmann’s orders. No one recognizes the corpse in Roman garb, and the blind Sigismar, the man’s own father, exults in the death of a Roman, plants his foot on the corpse, and proceeds to curse the man and his parents: “Das Römerjoch tret’ ich im Tod mit Füßen, / […] / Fluch, Fluch dem Mutterschooß, der dich gebar! / […] / Dem Vater fluch ich, der die Schlange zeugte” (W, V.viii., 109). When Thusnelda arrives and recognizes Flavius, she tries to stop Sigismar, who only exults even more at his own son’s death: “Auf, senkt National Identity and Gender in Weissenthurn and Schlegel 73 ihn in des Sumpfes schlamm’ge Erde, / Daß mit ihm seine Schmach versenket werde; / Vertilgt von dem Verräther jede Spur! / Mir starb kein Sohn-ich habe einen nur” (W, V.viii., 110; emphasis in original). Thus, Flavius earns contempt, curses, and postmortal desecration for his lack of patriotic feeling for the Germanic tribes and his wavering admiration for Rome. Finally, I would like to turn my attention to the depiction of the female characters Thusnelda and Adelheid, Herrmann’s mother, in these dramas. In Tacitus’s The Annals, Thusnelda is not named, but she is described as stoically heroic when she is brought by her father “under duress” to the Romans: “[T]he wife of Arminius, who was also the daughter of Segestes, but who had more of her husband’s spirit than her father’s - she was not reduced to tears and uttered not a word of entreaty” (Tacitus 36; book 1.58; and 35; book 1.57). Schlegel’s Thusnelde is not only a strong female character who supports the Germanic tribes in their struggle against Rome; she also becomes an actual warrior on the battlefield in his play and seems to die a heroic death. Since Schlegel’s Thusnelde actually fights at the end of the play, it is not technically the case that “Thusnelde’s role in battle consists essentially of preserving the […] lives of other fighters rather than in fighting herself” (Griffiths 123). Herrmann receives this report: “Ein Degen, welchen sie aus einer Leiche riß, / Macht ihren Arm bewehrt; doch ihren Tod gewiß. / Ihr Muth hat sie verderbt. Wer so zum Tod entschlossen, / Und so umringet war, hat sein Blut wohl vergossen! ” (S, V.iv, 170). The readers or spectators learn, in the final scene, that Thusnelde has survived the battle after all; she was captured and kept prisoner, then freed by Siegmund, to Herrmann’s great relief. Thusnelde, in Schlegel’s version, is thus "eine-nur zufällig weibliche-Mitkämpferin" (Essen 76) and a "Heroine, […] femme forte, die im Kampf für das Vaterland patriotisch in Wort und Tat in Erscheinung tritt" (Heuer 86; italicization in original). Caren Heuer asserts that Thusnelde is forced back into the role of "weiblicher Passivität" once she becomes a prisoner of the Romans (Heuer 88), but, in my view, Schlegel’s play depicts her as steadfastly ready for service in battle, either to give moral support and inspiration to the Germanic warriors or to allow her corpse to be used as a shield to protect the warriors, should she fall victim in the battle, which she already states before entering the battlefield (S, IV.iv, 159-60). In the work of Tacitus, Arminius’s mother, who, like Thusnelda, is unnamed, is patriotic and wants her two sons, Arminius and Flavus, to remain loyal to the culture of the Germanic tribes. In a memorable scene in The Annals, Arminius and Flavus stand on either side of the Weser River and discuss their attitudes towards Rome. Flavus defends Rome’s greatness, prowess in battle, and powerful imperial monarchy, while Arminius praises the “fatherland,” freedom, the Germanic gods, and family, pointing out that “their mother […] shared his prayers, 74 Edward Potter namely that Flavus not prefer to desert and betray his kinsmen and relations, and indeed his entire race, than to be their leader” (Tacitus 54; book 2.10). 5 In Schlegel’s Herrmann, the character Adelheid is drawn perhaps more strongly along these lines. Schlegel’s Adelheid is extremely patriotic and enforces patriotism among others: “Thusnelde, laß dich nicht durch deine Liebe führen: / Die Freyheit deines Volks muß dich am meisten rühren. / Was schadets, ob mein Sohn geringern Ruhm erhält? / Wenn Deutschland nur sich hebt, und Rom zu Boden fällt” (S, IV.i., 153). Critics such as Hans Peter Herrmann have commented on the fact that Herrmann’s supposed “masculine” values are really “geschlechterübergreifend, allgemeinmenschlich” and are shared by Adelheid and Thusnelde as well (H. P. Herrmann 164). One definitely sees this in the case of Adelheid’s patriotism. She sings the praises of her husband, Siegmar, who has died in battle, and she exults in the fact that he did not die “krank und fruchtlos” like many older men, but was instead able to give his blood for the “Volk” and his last breath “fürs Vaterland” (S, V.ii., 164). Weissenthurn’s Thusnelda is extremely independent - as we have seen, she leaves her father and strikes out on her own - but she is not a warrior. She functions, however, as a partial warrior, not only giving enthusiastic moral support as her contribution to the war effort, but also participating from the sidelines. Sigismar lists for her her wifely duties: “Dem Kampfgewühle darfst du nicht enteilen, / In kluger Nähe muß die Gattinn weilen, / Den Zagenden zum muth’gen Angriff mahnen, / Ihm so den Weg zum Ruhm, zum Siege bahnen” (W, IV.ii., 84). A wife, in the symbolic universe of Weissenthurn’s play, is thus a sort of pseudo-warrior whose duties as a wife are, to a certain extent, military in nature. This active, patriotic, supportive role reflects the growing patriotism and increased activity among women in the German lands during the Napoleonic Wars, as historians of the period have documented (Hagemann 193). The fact that Weissenthurn’s Thusnelda, unlike her counterpart in Schlegel’s play, does not actually fight in battle herself, is also a reflection of the historical situation. The historian Karen Hagemann discusses the role of “heroic maidens” - a small number of women who fought in battle during the Napoleonic Wars - and points out that efforts to organize women warriors undermined the hierarchical gender ideology of the day and were generally "met with outrage" (Hagemann 193). This was, in part, a result of the differing perspective on gender in the period around 1800, as compared to the mid-eighteenth century. Hagemann identifies "intense efforts at redefining gender differences" in this period (Hagemann 191). The medical-biological concept of gender dimorphism was becoming more established (Laqueur 5-6, 11, 22-23, 151-54). Conceptions of gender were developing, in Weissenthurn’s time, into a more rigid dichotomy National Identity and Gender in Weissenthurn and Schlegel 75 of the genders, justifying the ideological use of anatomy and biology in order to exclude women from the public sphere (Hagemann 191-92). In Weissenthurn’s Herrmann, the eponymous hero’s unnamed mother has already died before the play begins, yet she exerts a patriotic influence over her sons. Herrmann is told that she died of grief, since both of her sons rejected Germany for Rome: “Sie starb für Gram, daß sie dir Leben gab” (W, I.ii., 12; emphasis in original). The Druid Brenno is Herrmann’s source of information, and Brenno speaks metaphorically of the two sons, Herrmann and Flavius, as two young trees carefully tended by their mother, only to be infested with insects and to have their sweet fruit stolen by foreigners. Herrmann later tells his brother Flavius that Flavius’s devotion to Rome was the sole cause of their mother’s death, thereby erasing his own purported responsibility for her death: FLAVIUS: Sie starb? HERRMANN: Weil einem Römer sie das Leben gab. (W, III.i., 57) Herrmann believes that he can hear his mother’s spirit in the rustling of leaves: “Der Mutter Geist rauscht in dem Eichenlaub” (W, IV.ii., 83). The spirit of the absent mother speaks through the oak tree, the symbol of German nationalism and the Germanic pagan religion. The Germanic tribes considered trees - especially oak trees - holy and worshipped them; trees were thought to harbor supernatural, divine beings (Vries 350-351 [§ 249]; Davidson 56, 69, 101). Weissenthurn taps into this spiritual tradition in depicting the pervasive influence of Herrmann’s unnamed mother, but it must also be noted that the author partially erases the character of Herrmann’s mother, giving her voice only through the ways in which male characters interpret her meaning. Critics have rightly pointed out the independence, the strength, and the embodiment of virtues in Weissenthurn’s Thusnelda (H. P. Herrmann 184; Kugele 26-29), particularly when compared with her counterpart in Klopstock’s or Kleist’s Arminius plays. Kugele argues against Hans Peter Herrmann’s thesis that the female characters in Arminius dramas become progressively less independent after Schlegel’s Herrmann (Kugele 31-32), and Kugele’s comparison of the contemporaneous Arminius dramas by Kleist and Weissenthurn indeed demonstrates the strength of Thusnelda in Weissenthurn’s play. Nonetheless, Kugele does not look in-depth into Schlegel’s drama, as I have done here. When one compares Weissenthurn’s early nineteenth-century play to that of Schlegel from the mid-eighteenth century, one notes that the female characters in Schlegel’s play are certainly stronger and more independent. One could posit that this is a result of the political climate in which the plays were created. In the mid-eighteenth-century Holy Roman Empire, men and women were equally politically powerless subjects within a loose confederation of monar- 76 Edward Potter chical governments. In Restoration Austria, on the other hand, the political situation was in transition. After the prospect of more egalitarian treatment under the Napoleonic Code had been defeated, the previous, more repressive political system was in the process of being reinstated. Not only was the political system being redesigned, but the ways in which people thought about gender was also in flux, for the medical-biological concept of gender dimorphism was becoming more established. In conclusion, both Schlegel’s and Weissenthurn’s Herrmann dramas provide the audience with strong female characters and the promotion of a German national identity. Each play is, however, most definitely a product of its time. We see the warrior Thusnelde in Schlegel’s play replaced with the fiercely independent Thusnelda lending only moral support in Weissenthurn’s drama. We also find the adoption of native history as the material for literary production in Schlegel’s play replaced with propaganda in favor of the formation of a Pan-German nation-state in Weissenthurn’s Herrmann. The Arminius material thus becomes a screen onto which each era projects its own conceptions of national identity and gender identity. When one reads Weissenthurn’s Arminius play alongside that of Schlegel, one sees the innovative nature of Weissenthurn’s work. Weissenthurn presents the readers and/ or spectators with a vision of independent femininity, albeit not quite as militarily active as in Schlegel’s play, and she also propagates German national unity at a time when German national identity is coming into being as defined against Napoleonic France. Notes 1 I will designate Weissenthurn’s Herrmann within the text of this article as follows: W, followed by act and scene number, if applicable (in Roman numerals); followed by page number(s) (in Arabic numerals). 2 Page references to Hans Peter Herrmann's essay will be to the second version, which appeared as a chapter in Machtphantasie Deutschland, ed. Herrmann (1996). 3 I will designate Schlegel’s Herrmann within the text of this article as follows: S, followed by act and scene number, if applicable (in Roman numerals); followed by page number(s) (in Arabic numerals). Although Werner Schubert uses the spelling “Hermann” for Schlegel’s play and main character, I will use Schlegel’s original spelling “Herrmann” in this article (Schubert 604). 4 In Schlegel's play, this character's name is spelled “Thusnelde,” and in Weissenthurn's play, it is spelled “Thusnelda.” I will maintain this distinction in this article as well. National Identity and Gender in Weissenthurn and Schlegel 77 5 Scholars have pointed out that this scene in Tacitus is likely fictional, as it would be very difficult to conduct a discussion or to see physical features such as Flavus's missing eye across a major river (Suerbaum 44-46; Sailor 120-121, 120n124). Nonetheless, artists such as Daniel Nikolaus Chodowiecki and Peter Janssen have depicted this scene, in Chodowiecki's engraving Herrmann and Flavus an der Weser (1800) and in Janssen's painting Armin sucht seinen Bruder Flavus an der Weser für die vaterländische Sache zu bekehren (1871-1874) (Essen 86n90). Works Cited Binal, Wolfgang. Deutschsprachiges Theater in Budapest: Von den Anfängen bis zum Brand des Theaters in der Wollgasse (1889). Vienna: Böhlaus Nachf.-Kommissionsverlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1972. Theatergeschichte Österreichs 10.1. Bland, Caroline. “Hermann’s Handmaidens? Male Archetypes and German Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Women’s Writing.” Women’s Writing 20.4 (2013): 567-85. Davidson, Hilda Ellis. The Lost Beliefs of Northern Europe. London: Routledge, 1993. De Boor, Helmut, and Richard Newald. Geschichte der deutschen Literatur von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. 12 vols. to date. Munich: Beck, 1957-. Essen, Gesa von. Hermannsschlachten: Germanen- und Römerbilder in der Literatur des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: Wallstein, 1998. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Aus meinem Leben: Dichtung und Wahrheit. Ed. Klaus-Detlef Müller. Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1986. Vol. 1.14 of Sämtliche Werke, Briefe, Tagebücher und Gespräche. Ed. Dieter Borchmeyer et al. 40 vols. 1985-. Griffiths, Elystan. “Hermanns Schlachten: Gender, Culture and the German Nation in the Long Eighteenth Century.” German Life and Letters 61.1 (2008): 118-136. Gugitz, Gustav. “Franul v. Weißenthurn, Johanna Rachel Theresia, geb. Grünberg.” Neue deutsche Biographie. Vol. 5. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1961. 357-58. Hagemann, Karen. “A Valorous Volk Family: The Nation, the Military, and the Gender Order in Prussia in the Time of the Anti-Napoleonic Wars, 1806-15.” Trans. Pamela Selwyn. Gendered Nations: Nationalisms and Gender Order in the Long Nineteenth Century. Ed. Ida Blom, Karen Hagemann, and Catherine Hall. Oxford: Berg, 2000. 179-205. Heitner, Robert R. German Tragedy in the Age of Enlightenment: A Study in the Development of Original Tragedies, 1724-1768. Berkeley: U of California P, 1963. Herrmann, Hans Peter. “Arminius und die Erfindung der Männlichkeit im 18. Jahrhundert.” Der Deutschunterricht 47.2 (1995): 32-47. —. “Arminius und die Erfindung der Männlichkeit im 18. Jahrhundert.” Machtphantasie Deutschland: Nationalismus, Männlichkeit und Fremdenhass im Vaterlandsdiskurs 78 Edward Potter deutscher Schriftsteller des 18. Jahrhunderts. Ed. Hans Peter Herrmann. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1996. 160-191. Heuer, Caren. “‘Du Furie, gräßlicher als Worte sagen! ’: Thusnelda und die Nation in Hermannsschlacht-Dramen.” Hermanns Schlachten: Zur Literaturgeschichte eines nationalen Mythos. Ed. Martina Wagner-Egelhaaf. Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 2008. 81-105. Veröffentlichungen der Literaturkommission für Westfalen 32. Judson, Pieter M. The Habsburg Empire: A New History. Cambridge: Belknap-Harvard UP, 2016. Klopstock, Friedrich Gottlieb. Ausgewählte Werke. Ed. Karl August Schleiden. Afterword by Friedrich Georg Jünger. Munich: Hanser, 1962. Kord, Susanne. “Defining Cultural Exchange: Of Gender, the Power of Definition, and the Long Road Home.” Edinburgh German Yearbook 1 (2007): 7-26. —. “Die Gelehrte als Zwitterwesen in Schriften von Autorinnen des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts.” Querelles: Jahrbuch für Frauenforschung 1 (1996): 158-89. Krimmer, Elisabeth. “The Gender of Terror: War as (Im)Moral Institution in Kleist’s Hermannsschlacht and Penthesilea.” German Quarterly 81.1 (2008): 66-85. Kugele, Jens. “Arminius, Thusnelda und die Erfindung der Heimat: Johanna Franul von Weißenthurns Drama Herrmann.” New German Review 21 (2005/ 2006): 21-35. Kürschner, Joseph. “Franul von Weißenthurn, Johanna.” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 7 (1878): 276-77. Web. 9 Nov. 2018. <https: / / www.deutsche-biographie.de/ pnd116752505.html#adbcontent> Lamport, Francis. “Lessing, Bourgeois Drama, and the National Theater.” German Literature of the Eighteenth Century: The Enlightenment and Sensibility. Ed. Barbara Becker-Cantarino. Rochester: Camden House, 2005. 155-82. The Camden House History of German Literature 5. Laqueur, Thomas. Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1990. Maurer-Schmoock, Sybille. Deutsches Theater im 18. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1982� Müller, Helmut M. Schlaglichter der deutschen Geschichte. 2nd ed. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 1990. Ranke, Wolfgang. Theatermoral: Moralische Argumentation und dramatische Kommunikation in der Tragödie der Aufklärung. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2009� Roe, Ian F. “The Comedies of Johanna von Weissenthurn.” The Austrian Comic Tradition: Studies in Honour of W. E. Yates. Ed. John R. P. McKenzie and Lesley Sharpe. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1998. 41-57. Sailor, Dylan. “Arminius and Flavus across the Weser.” TAPA 149 (2019): 77-126. Saße, Günter. Die Ordnung der Gefühle: Das Drama der Liebesheirat im 18. Jahrhundert� Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1996. Schlegel, Johann Elias. “Auszug eines Briefs, welcher einige kritische Anmerkungen über die Trauerspiele der Alten und Neuern enthält.” Ausgewählte Werke. Ed. Werner Schubert. Weimar: Arion, 1963. 403-407. Textausgaben zur deutschen Klassik 2. National Identity and Gender in Weissenthurn and Schlegel 79 —� Hermann� Ausgewählte Werke. Ed. Werner Schubert. Weimar: Arion, 1963. 124-71. Textausgaben zur deutschen Klassik 2. Schubert, Werner, ed. Ausgewählte Werke. By Johann Elias Schlegel. Weimar: Arion, 1963. Textausgaben zur deutschen Klassik 2. Suerbaum, Werner. “Germanischer Bruderstreit an der Weser: Arminius contra Flavus bei Tacitus (ann. 2.9-10) und bei Robert Ranke-Graves.” Gymnasium 125.1 (2018): 41-55. Tacitus. The Annals: The Reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero. Trans. J. C. Yardley. Intro. and notes by Anthony A. Barrett. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. Oxford World’s Classics. Toit, Johannes du. Johanna von Weissenthurn. Diss. Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen, 1923. Vestli, Elin Nesje. “‘Nun schrieb ich und schrieb glücklich - das heißt meine Stücke gefielen’: Johanna Franul von Weißenthurn und das Lustspiel um 1800.” Das Unterhaltungsstück um 1800: Literaturhistorische Konfigurationen - Signaturen der Moderne: Zur Geschichte des Theaters als Reflexionsmedium von Gesellschaft, Politik und Ästhetik. Ed. Johannes Birgfeld and Claude D. Conter. Hannover: Wehrhahn, 2007. 166-85. Vries, Jan de. Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1970� Wagner-Egelhaaf, Martina. “Einleitung: 2000 Jahre Hermann.” Hermanns Schlachten: Zur Literaturgeschichte eines nationalen Mythos. Ed. Wagner-Egelhaaf. Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 2008. 7-16. Veröffentlichungen der Literaturkommission für Westfalen 32. Weissenthurn, Johanna Franul von. Herrmann: Ein geschichtliches Schauspiel in fünf Aufzügen, in Jamben� Schauspiele. Vol. 8; Neue Schauspiele. Vol. 2. Vienna: Kaulfuß und Armbruster, 1817. 1-122. PDF. —. Vorrede. Schauspiele. Vol. 1. Vienna: Degen, 1810. iii-vi. PDF. Wurzbach, Constant von. “Franul von Weissenthurn, Johanna.” Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, enthaltend die Lebensskizzen der denkwürdigen Personen, welche 1750 bis 1850 im Kaiserstaate und in seinen Kronländern gelebt haben. Vol. 4. Vienna: Druck und Verlag der typogr.-literar.-artist. Anstalt, 1858. 341-42. Yates, W. E. Theatre in Vienna: A Critical History, 1776-1995. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Cambridge Studies in German.