Ute Pott (review)

Abstract

MLR,96.3,200I 88I Brtefgesprache. Uber den Brieechsel zwaschen Anna Louisa Karsch undiohann Wilhelm Ludwig Gleim. Miteinem Anhang btslang ungedruckter Brzefe ausder Xorrespondenz zwzschen Gleim und C]aroline Luise von KZencke. BYUTEPOTT. Gottingen: Wallstein. I998. 2I6 PP. DM 48. In I996,ReginaNortemann andUtePott published a two-volume edition ofthe correspondence between AnnaLouisaKarsch andJohann Wilhelm Ludwig Gleim (reviewed inMLR,93 [I998],II52-55).Thisedition included an afterword by Regina Nortemann which commented inparticular onthe early years ofthe GleimKarsch correspondence andreferred repeatedly topoints inUtePott's analysis of the roleofKarsch's daughter, Caroline LuisevonKlencke, inthe later correspondenceandtoPott 's exploration ofKarsch's prosestyle inherletters. Yetwhen the edition oftheletters appeared, Pott's analysis wasnotyetinprint: itwasonly published two years subsequently. Thebook that wassolong inthe making contains anessay onthecorrespondence andanappendix, publishing a selection oftwentyeight letters oftheGleim-Klencke correspondence for the first time. Themain part ofthe bookbuilds onanessay byPott from I992which foreshadows the topics dealt with here:themother-daughter relationship andthedifferent attitudes ofboth women authors toGleim asexemplified inthediscussion oftheir publications and intended publications, their artistic self-conception, andprovision bytheking for Karsch. Pott analyses theletters bythethree authors with regard totheir historical and aesthetic, their communicative andliterary importance. Shestresses that allthree letter-writers exploited thedialogic nature ofthegenre inrole-plays. Gleim tended toswitch between a friendly dialogic style anda formal stiSoneifhewanted to express annoyance, ortothird-person narratives offixed types. Pott reads the latter asanexpression ofhisattempt tomake thecommunication objective, general and binding, andhence suitable for hisliterary archive which wastoserve asa chronicle offriendship andliterature intheeighteenth century. Itishisroleas an archivist that Pott stresses as hismost important contribution toliterary history inhernot entirely convincing attempt todefend theoften criticized stiiness ofGleim's letterwriting . Karsch's style ofrole-play inher letters isdescribed asmuch more flexible, spontaneous andhumorous. Theeasewith which Karsch narrates anddramatizes, mixes proseandverse, as wellas hersuccessful employment oftheprinciple of associative combination, andhertalent for precise observation andaptdescription, allraise herabovemany correspondents ofhertime inPott's eyes. Pott alsonotices something inKarsch's letter-writing that isnotinherpoetry: 'eineMischung aus Raffinesse undNaivitat' (p. 35). Pottemphasizes theletters as documents of Karsch's self-confidence inher professional role as'Gelegenheitsdichterin'. Karsch's daughter, Klencke, onthe other hand, presented her own work assomething private andintimate, employing sexual innuendo, flirtatiousness, andthemask ofshyness while denying herownartistic ambitions behind formulas ofmodesty, contrasting with anapotheosis ofGleim, the addressee. Klencke wasthus steering the reception ofherwork ina gender-specific way,offering Gleima roleas mentor, which he, however, rejected. Pott shows that thedynamics ofthecorrespondence between Gleim andKarsch inpartdepended on Gleim's correspondence with Karsch's daughter. Klencke, adaptable tothepoint ofself-denial, usedherknowledge ofconflicts between her mother and Gleimin orderto distance herself from hermother and to fulfil contemporary concepts offemininity. The conflicts between KarschandGleim revolve aroundthecritique ofeach other's publications, theinterpretation of Karsch's unpublished Sapphicpoemsto Gleimas either playful or serious, the Reviews 882 reasons Gleim never edited a second volume ofKarsch's poems orherletters, and, aboveall,Karsch's wish togeta provision for her oldagefrom the king which went against Gleim's viewoftherelationship between writers andthemonarch. What fascinates Pott abouttheKarsch-Gleim correspondence isaboveallthelackofa hierarchical roledivision: 'Gleim undKarsch fuhrten eineKorrespondenz, beider eineRollenverteilung vonmannlicher Dominanz undweiblicher Unterlegenheit kaum feststellbar ist'(p. II8).Thepersonal andhistorical reasons for this equality, as wellas theproblems in their relationship, are convincingly and sensitively explored inPott's essay. UNIVERSITY OFMANCHESTER RICARDA SCHMIDT Unpopular Virtues: TheCritical Reception of j}. M. R.Lenz.ByALAN C. LEIDNER and KARIN A. WURST.(Literary Criticism in Perspective) Columbia: Camden House. I999. XVi + I67PP. $ 55. Writing to Herderin I775,Lenz describes himself as being'meinen edelsten Freunden einRatsel', andhehasremained so tofriend andfoealikeeversince. AlanC. Leidner and KarinA. Wurst attempt to recount thestory ofLenz's reception, thus following a number ofsimilar studies published overthelasttwo decades, yet this volume claims topresent 'anexperiment incultural history' (p.xi), aswellasgiving anupdate onthemany recent developments inLenzscholarship. The'unpopular virtues' ofthe title, especially those ofsocial critique, aredefined as 'hisstrikingly modern attitudes' (p.xi).Theyalsoprovetobe a highly sensitive instrument, though perhaps pronetodistortion, with which theauthors hopeto measure 'thenature ofcriticism itself byshowing howaesthetic judgement reflects socialandhistorical currents, andthevalues that determine a writer's reputation through the centuries' (p.xiv). Theauthors duly give a concise andinformative overview, which actsasa helpful preliminary guidetoLenzcriticism andtothemost important work todateon Lenz'sreception: Peter Muller's andJurgen Stotzer's extensive three volumes, Jakob Michael Reinhold Lenz im Urteil dreier iahrhunderte (Frankfurt a.M...