The French revolution as mirrored in the German press and in political journalism (1789–1801)

Hismy of European Ideas, Printed in Great Bmain

Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 509424,

0191-6599/91 $3.00+0.00 Pergamon Press plc

1991

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AS MIRRORED IN THE GERMAN PRESS AND IN POLITICAL JOURNALISM (1789-1801) HEINZ-OTTO SIEBURG* Translated

by Jennifer

Miller-Macbeth

The French Revolution and the ensuing radical restructure of France’s political institutions led relatively rapidly not only to a long lasting military conflict between the new France and the powers of a conservative Europe, but also gave rise to an intellectual debate of principle between the partisans of the Revolution and those of the Establishment. This took place in the whole of Europe and above all, as is well known, in England where Edmund Burke’s ‘Reflections on the French Revolution’ published in 1790, revealed him to be the most famous advocate of traditional values as opposed to the claims of the new ones. Germany, no less than England, experienced the same. The media, in which, and by means of which, this discussion on the pros and cons of the phenomenon ‘revolution’ found expression, were newspapers, magazines and books. It is my intention in this paper to outline and illustrate moreclosely, by means of a few examples, the attitude of the German press and of political journalism towards the French Revolution from its outbreak to the Peace of Luniville (1789-1801). I realise that little new insight can be gained, as extensive research has already been made on the subject. Research on the history of Edmund Burke’s influence in Germany was made as early as during the First World War and the years following it.’ Journalists such as the so-called ‘Cisrhenanes’, for example Joseph Gorres, have been recognised by both France and Germany since the 1920’s, in particular Alfred Stern and Jacques Droz.* German newspapers and journals in the period of the ‘Great Revolution’ have also been discussed in broad outlines at least, as for example, by Margot Lindemann: although there is a noteable lack of specialised research in this field too. Josef Hansen’s ‘Quellen zur Geschichte des Rheinlandes zur Zeit der franziisischen Revolution, 1780-1801’,4 is an exception and gives a detailed documentation and commentary on the press. Today, however, the results of earlier research seem so dated in many aspects that it is difficult to accept them in view of the significant change in our concept of history which has occurred during the last few decades. This paper aims therefore to present the subject succintly in keeping with the latest research and under the following aspects: I.

An outline

of the German

press at the time of the French

*Bayernstrasse 12, D-6600 Saarbriicken 3, F.R.G.

Revolution,

510

II. III. IV.

Heinz-Otto

Changes in the image of the French Revolution in the German particular the Rhineland press from 1789 to the end of 1791, Leading German authors writing in journals and their attitude French Revolution, Contemporary German publications on the French Revolution.

Sieburg

and in to the

The paper concludes with a reference to the effects this debate on the French Revolution had on the relations between Germany and France in the nineteenth century.

Margot Lindemann in ‘Geschichte der deutschen Presse’5 points out that the structural, quantitative and formative criteria in the German press, which emerged during the eighteenth century, remained valid in the Revolution for the time being. Political journalists, therefore, continued to see ‘die Zeitung oft als eine Form der Geschichtsschreibung’ a ‘Weltchronik’6 as it were, and although the prototype ‘Zeitschrift’ had already developed out of the ‘Zeitung’ in its own right, very little differentiation was made between these two types ofpublication. ‘Intelligenzblatter’, first seen during the ‘Aufklarung’, continued their publication unhindered during the Revolution and under Napoleonic rule, as too the famous German newspapers of the eighteenth century, for example ‘Der Hamburgische Correspondent’, ‘Die Kolnische Zeitung’ or ‘Der Schwabische Merkur’.’ As regards presentation, the newspapers continued to appear in the characteristic small size. Decisive, however, as Lindemann stresses, was the change of emphasis with regards to content after 1789, unmistakeably indicating the dawn of a new era.’ By and large the outbreak of the French Revolution is welcomed with enthusiasm in Germany initially. This, however, soon gives way to a ‘entsetzte Erntichterung” as it becomes evident that the tremendous upheaval is liable to governments fear the incite violence in Germany too. Above all German influence of the revolutionary ideology in the states of the Holy Roman Empire and endeavour to prevent this by introducing censorship. To this end, the ‘Schwabischer Merkur’ which had been edited and also to a large extent written by M. Christian Gottfried Elben since 30 September 1789, publishes an article titled: ‘Deutsches Reich. Die Reichsgerichte sind mit den von vorgenommenen Staatsveranderungen nicht eigenmachtig Unterthanen zufrieden’. Here he makes the semi-official ‘statement’: ‘ . . . indem man es nicht gleichgtiltig ansehen kann, da13 Fursten gezungen werden, auf Rechte Verzicht zu thun, deren Veraul3erung nicht in der Gewalt der gegenwartigen zeitlichen Besitzer steht. Man geht daher mit ernsthaften Vorschlagen urn, diesem Abel und den daraus zu befiirchtenden weit aussehenden Folgen vorzubeugen, und zugleich den beiden hbchsten Reichsgerichten hinlanglichen Nachdruck in dem erforderlichen Verfahren zu verschaffen, weil hieran dem ganzen ReichsStaatskiirper nur zu vie1 gelegen ist’.‘” The most influential German states soon put the proclamation of the ‘Schwabischer Merkur’ into effect: in 1791 the Kaiser issues appropriate terms of

The French Revolution in the German Press

511

censorship for the Reich and in the same year the Viennese Chancellery gives orders that printed matter is to be subject to censorship. In 1791 censorship is enforced by law in Wiirttemberg too and measures of censorship in Prussia are increasingly enforced. ii Other German states, too, introduce similar measures in the course of time. In order to give a brief survey of contemporary German press, it is necessary to consider first those territories which were directly annexed to France during the Revolution and remained so until the end of the epoch 1814115. After the German Rhineland became de facto French at the Treaty of Campo Formio in 1797-a position legalised in the Peace of Luntville in 1801--it was divided into four ‘departements in 1789, namely Roer, Rhin-et-Moselle, Sarre and Mont-Tonnerre and these remained integral parts of the French Republic, or later Empire, until 1814. The press in these new provinces followed the guidelines valid in France itself. Thus there was only one main state newspaper in each ‘departement as for example the ‘Gazette universelle’ for the Roer, the ‘Allgemeine Zeitung’ or ‘Der Donnersberger-Journal du Mont-Tonnerre’. These local newspapers appeared in two languages, that is in French and German versions. Their contents were predominantly political and naturally concerned with the assertion of French interests.‘* On the other hand, other journals, apart from these as it were semi-official newspapers, still held their ground. These were largely of local character and dated from before the Revolution. One, for example, was the ‘Mainzer Zeitung’ (since 1767) or the ‘Saarbriicker Intelligenzblatt’ founded in 1761. Some retained their original names, others had to replace them with French names as for example, the ‘Hamburgischer Correspondent’ which after the annexation of the German North Sea coast by Napoleon in 1810 became the ‘Journal officiel du Departement des Bouches d’Elbe’. In addition, newspapers printed solely in French were founded, as for example, the-albeit short-lived-‘Gazette du Bas Rhin’ in Krefeld.13 Political journals14, even more than newspapers, played a leading role as the mouthpiece of German intellectuals in the ideological debate on the ideas and events of the French Revolution. As Joachim KirchnerI justifiably emphasizes, a clear confrontation between supporters and opponents of revolutionary change emerged. The position of the impartial purely analytical observer or chronicler can be included as a third possibility. The most famous of all the exponents of the Revolution and journalists of the time is Joseph Gorres. In the context of this paper it is the young Gorres who is of most interest and who enthusiastically promotes the new France in his journals ‘Das rothe Blatt’ and ‘Der Rtibezahl’.‘6 In contrast to Gorres who indeed later opposes the Revolution and its land of origin, Andreas Georg Friedrich Rebmann remains loyal to the revolutionary ideals his whole life and publishes them in his journal ‘Das neue graue Ungeheuer’ in the years from 1795-1800.” Rebmann is a qualified lawyer and, as such, propagates intellectual as well as religious freedom, not omitting attacks against the German ruling classes. This militant journalism earns him such hostility that he is obliged to emigrate to France temporarily. Later he serves as the presiding judge in Trier, the capital of the Saar departement, and it is from Trier as ‘deutscher Burger der fr~nkischen Republik’ that he continues to publish his ideas on the sovereignty of the people

512

Heinz-Otto

Sieburg

and the rights of the individual. Christoph Friedrich Cotta defends the ideas of the French Revolution along the same lines as Rebmann in his short-lived ‘Strafiurgisches politisches Journal’. His work is soon terminated, however, when the sale of the journal is forbidden in German.ix One of the earliest representatives of the journalistic counter trend is Moritz Flavius Trenk von Tonder. His journal called ‘Politische Gesprache im Reiche der Todten’ appears between 1786 and 1810, its publishing house undergoing several changes of place. Its circulation reaches 3000 at times thus showing that its anti-revolutionary tendency appeals to a circle of readers which, for those days, was remarkably large. In 1792 therefore, faced with French occupation, Tonder has no choice but to leave his country and settle on the right of the Rhine in Germany.” Friedrich Gentz, who is unquestionably the main representative of antirevolutionary, conservative German journalism, stresses his views as early as this by publishing several political journals which, however, do not survive for long. Of these the first, the ‘Neue Deutsche Monatsschrift’, is published in Berlin in 1795. The ‘Historisches Journal’ published likewise in Berlin between 1799 and 1800, attains a comparatively large circulation of 2000 copies. Both journals cover systematically the last phase of the Revolution from 1795-1800, in which description is synonymous with criticism, without, however, lapsing into polemics. The fundamental idea behind all these descriptions and reflections is defined in the first copy of the ‘Neue Deutsche Monatsschrift’ in January 1795 which reviews the events of 1794 as follows: ’ “Mir ekelt vor der Geschichte”, sagte ehmals ein geistvoller Mann in Frankreich, “wenn ich bedenke, da13 das, was jetzt geschieht, dereinst die Geschichte seyn wird”. Wer mit aufgeklartem Auge, unbefangenem Sinn, und geftihvollem Herzen das tragische Schauspiel des Jahrs 1794 beobachtet hat, wird sich nicht enthalten kiinnen, der Wahrheit in dieser to other journals as, for Bermerkung zu huldigen’.20 Gentz also contributes example, to ‘Minerva’ which was founded in 1792 in Hamburg by the Prussian captain Wilhelm von Archenholtz, the famous author of ‘Geschichte des Siebenjahrigen Krieges’. ‘Minerva’ was published until 1858 with at times an extremely high circulation. Many of the writers mentioned in this paper worked on this journal. ‘Minerva’ ranks as the most selective source of information for this period due to the factual and well documented reports on contemporary politics.2’ Apart from these journals which report by and large on foreign affairs, there are two Prussian journals concerned more with domestic affairs and which in some respects foreshadow the work of Stein, namely the ‘Jahrbticher der Preuflischen Monarchic unter der Regierung Friedrich Wilhelms des Dritten’. These are published by the Berlin professor Eberhard Rambach between 1798 and 1801 in the spirit of cameralistics and according to scientific criteria. Secondly, there is the ‘Preuflischer Volksfreund, eine National Monatsschrift fur August den preufiischen Staat’ ( 1798-1800)22 edited by the theologian Riefenstahl. Both journals support the monarchy which, however, they concede is in need of reform in order to adapt to the present day.

The French Revolution

in the German Press

513

II The essential aspects of the German press of the time having been reviewed, it is now necessary to illustrate the shift of opinion on the Revolution in France with some examples as documented in newspapers and journals up to the end of 1791. Let us first consider the Rhineland which was most directly involved and most strongly influenced by events. Leading German intellectuals of the period, such as Eulogius Schneider, Georg Forster and Johannes von Miiller in Mainz and F.M. Jakobi in Dusseldorf, enthusiastically welcome the initial phase of the Revolution.23 They show a benevolent interest in the Rhineland territorial princes, regarded by the intellectuals of the period as liberal sovereigns. After all, the first move to reform in France was set in motion by the king himself, that is by representatives of a monarchy whose absolutism they sympathise with. An exception here is the Elector of Trier, Clemens Wenzeslaus, who from April 1789 on-that is before the meeting of the Estates General in Versailles on 5 May 1789-issued orders which betray anxiety for the future. The initial caution of both religious and secular governments changes into one of unmistakeable rejection after the outbreak of the Revolution proper, above all since the storming of the Bastille. This change of attitude entails the abrupt curtail of their hitherto enlightened policy on education. As the Revolution continues and spreads to neighbouring German territories, where especially on the middle Rhine there are numerous insurrections, this condemnation intensifies into outright hostility. A direct result of this is that a number of military measures (i.e. Reichsexekution) are decreed in the centres of revolt in the German Reich as Liege, Malmtdy and other territories in the Austrian Netherlands.24 The attitude of the Rhineland press is more differentiated.25 While expressing horror since July 1789 at the violent events in France, it is almost unanimous in its refusal to question the principles of the Revolution itself. Most of the Rhineland press wish the monarch and the national assembly to come to an agreement on the question of constitution. It does not, however, discuss the question as to whether in future sovereignty should issue from the king or the nation. In addition, the press reports cautiously, but without raising any objections, on the decisions of the national assembly as regards the restructuring of the Church. On the whole, therefore, the attitude of the press towards the Revolution is benevolent, contrasting with that of the governments of the Rhineland princes who intensify protective measures from 1790 onwards.26 Thus the ‘Punctation of Ems’, in which the three bishops had professed a policy of more independence from the Roman Curia, in other words a form of German national Catholicism, is repealed in 1791 by the Electorate of Trier and the educational system once more placed under church jurisdiction. Cologne and Mainz issue similar antiliberal decrees. This, in its turn, turns many supporters of Church rule in the Rhineland into bitter opponents, some of whom, such as Georg Forster, look to France and emigrate, returning later as ‘Cisrhenanes’ or ‘deutsche Jakobiner’. The press27 follows the reactionary swing of the government only in part; most of

514

Heinz-Otto

Sieburg

the journals do not alter their basically liberal attitude to the French Revolution, albeit they judge it somewhat more cautiously and at times with more objectivity. In contrast, the peasant majority of the Rhineland population react with indignation at the news of the bloodbaths as well as the tragic fate of the king and his family, which, however, does not preclude the bourgeoisie from considering constitutional monarchy to be the best form of government. Newspapers, pamphlets and political verse exerted a considerable and lasting influence on the population. This led to catch slogans of the Revolution such as ‘Freiheit, Gleichheit und Brtiderlichkeit inciting revolts in parts of the Rhineland as early as 1789. This in turn triggered off not only measures ofpolice and military repression on the part of the upper ruling classes but also an ideological offensive reported by some of the press. They issued urgent warnings against the advertising campaign which French revolutionaries, above all the ‘Propaganda Club’ in Paris, were driving to set the whole of Europe in turmoil and published a vigorous counter propaganda. Their mouthpiece was the ‘Journal von und fur Deutschland’ a liberal Catholic journal which appeared in Fulda and the ‘Politisches Journal nebst Anzeigen von gelehrten und anderen Sachen’, which was published in Hamburg. In July and August of 1790 a series of articles appeared in both newspapers making a passionate stand against the Revolution, in which some passages, in their condemnation, remind one of Edmund Burke’s ‘Reflections on the French Revolution’.** The ‘Journal von und fur Deutschland’ begins with a review of the American Revolution which is seen linked with the revolutionary unrest filling France. In America the upheaval started when political prophecies of equality and freedom were preached, aimed at subjugating and at depopulating Europe in favour of an underpopulated America. In this interpretation a tendency emerges which is characteristic of conservative criticism of the Revolution, that is the so-called theory of conspiracy! Subsequently, to the astonishment and terror of Europe, France which had become so powerful on account of its monarchy, subsided in revolutionary uprising. Yet it is precisely France as a nation-as is emphasised in the spirit of classical antiquity-that is not destined for freedom, according to Caesar’s ‘Bellum gallicum’. Present day France had neither an army nor a navy, it was bankrupt and above all it lacked religion and morale. It was destroying itself with its own weapons and was doomed to ruin. As a result, it was ascertained with regret, that the balance of power in Europe was disturbed, a balance which had been established in the Peace of Westfalia and which France had guaranteed. A congress would have to take place to call France to account. In order, however, to avoid such an inevitably horrific retribution, the revolutionaries would try to topple the throne and thus set Europe in a furore. The Hamburg ‘Politisches Journal’ accused the ‘Club de la propagande’ in the Palais Royal of attempting to spread the principles of a liberal constitution and of mobilising all forces in favour of the new social order. In Paris, 600 people formed a committee of six sections which set itself the task of forming committees everywhere, in order to prepare a wide spread revolutionising. This was to spread far beyond the frontiers of France by means of propagandistic infiltration and espionage in foreign governments. These ideas were reinforced by the printing of reputedly original documents,

The French R~v~~u~ionin the German Press

51.5

such as extracts from statutes and speeches. Both newspapers quote, as proof, the speech supposedly held on 21 May 1790 by the member ‘MD’ of the Paris Club, because of the sentence: ‘Wir werden wieder Sklaven, wenn wir Sklaven in Europa i_ibriglassen’.29 At the same time the existence of such a Parisian ‘Propaganda Klub’ accused of intrigue and conspiracy in the Rhineland, was by no means proven. On the other hand, the fascination emanating from the French Revolution itself sufficed to incite unrest in Germany. It is self-evident that societies, clubs and institutions such as the ‘Gesellschaft von 1789’ inspired by Sieyes, or later the Jacobine Club, played a decisive role in spreading revolutionary ideas. The fact that this general propaganda outside French frontiers, too, was vigorously encouraged by Paris, as early as mid 1790, has been recognised unequivocaily by no less than the classical historian of foreign policy during the period of the Revolution, namely Alfred Sore1 in his comprehensive work: ‘L’Europe et la Revolution Francaise’.30

III The German attitude to the French Revolution was expressed even more saliently in political journals and books than in newspapers.31 To begin with, the majority of writers welcomed the radicai change. However, even in the early phases, as J. Droz in particular has proved, it emerged that German Iiberaiism would never be prepared to accept the dogma of democracy, that it would avoid any such rupture with the past, preferring instead to advocate historical rights.32 This position is clearly shown by Konrad Engelbert Oelsner3’ who, together with Joachim Heinrich Campe34, Gerhard Anton von Halem3s, Karl Friedrich Reinhard and Johann Wilhelm von Archenholtz37 is the most significant German eye-witness of the Revolution and in his native-country one of the most brilliant commentators on its course of events.38 Oelsner is among the German supporters of the Revolution who, like the Silesian Graf SchlabrendorP9 or the Swabian Georg Kerner40, left for France in order to witness such great events from close proximity. For many years he recorded his impressions in a collection called ‘Luzifer’, which he published towards the end of the Revolution. 41 This remarkable source shows that Oelsner’s sympathies lay with the Girondistes. In the early years Oelsner is overwhelmed by the Revolution and welcomes the Republic which he expects to be an ‘athenische Republik’, guided by a virtuous aristocracy. When, however, the form of government changes radically into an egalitarian democracy dominated by terror, he evinces an emphatic dislike of the Sansculottes and in particular of Robespierre, whom he accuses of fanaticism and extravagant convictions. After the fall of the Girondistes, which he considers a catastrophe for the Revolution, he flees to Switzerland where he remains until the 9th Thermidor. On his return to Paris he sides with Sieyb whom he introduces to the German public in Swiss journals as the man who could restitute justice in which freedom and authority could once more attain a balance. It is clear that Oelsner wishes to see a bourgeoisie characterised by education and wealth at the summit of a state whose gove~ment excluded the masses. J. Droz’ comment on this German Gironde attitude is that they were more interested in the ‘Triumph der

-516

Heitrz-Otto Siebwg

Aufkt~rung ats an der Emanzipation eines Volkes, das von oben bis unten eine hu~d~~j~hrige Sklaverei abs~h~tt~lte und seine eigene Souver&itPt begriindete’,42 At the outbreak of the Revotution, politically liberal circles in Prussia too sympathised with it, among whom can be included the publishers and friends of the ‘Berlinische Monatsschrift’. The most famous of these was Suarez, the editor of the Prussian lawbook. They met in the so-called ‘Mittwoch-Gesellschaft’ and openly supported the Revolution-” rn protest against the reactionary, obscurantist policy of the influential minister Wtillner. They went as far as to state that a war against France now would be a betrayal of the legacy of Frederick the Great.43 On the contrary, an alliance with France was necessary, as thejournalist Andreas Riem mainta~ned~ because there were certain goals common to the liberai Prussia of Frederick fI and the revolutionary power in the West. Consequently there was a possibility of driving Austria out of Germany with French aid, which could be compensated for by renouncing the left. bank of the Rhine in order to establish Prussian supremacy there. Such ideas had repercussions in Huber’s ‘Friedenspraliminarien’ (1794-96) which coincided with the finalising of the Treaty of Basel. In contrast to this attitude prevalent among some of the Prussian ruling classes, an attitude stemming from a level-headed foreign policy, the spontaneous enthusiasm for the Revolution among many young intellectuals in South Germany, soon became tinged with ‘Intyrannos-Gesinnung’ as foreshadowed by the Sturm and Drang and the young Schiller. ft spread most of all in Wiirttemberg, whose Constitution was formally corporate but which in reality stood under the absofute ruie of the tyrannical Duke Karl Eugen,44 Schubart’s ‘Chronik’ records this attitude which inspired the young Hiilderhn and Hegel to plant ‘freedom trees’ in Tubingen. This enthusiasm for the Revolution was soon to swing over to abhorrence as recognition dawned on people that the French were perhaps not worthy of the freedom they propagated. Thus arose the tragic dilemma which broke no less a man than Georg Forster.45 Of all Germans who acclaimed the Revolution, it is Forster who goes furthest in his enthusiasm for radical change. When the army of Custine seizes the stronghold of Mainz for the second time in 1793, the university librarian proves to be the spokesman, as it were, of the ‘Mainzer Ciubisten’and it is Forster who contributes to the fact that the Rhine German Convention proclaims the annexation of the territories from Landau to Bingen to the French Republic. He himself goes to Parish to offer Mainz to the National Convention, Here it is that Forster starts to question his ideals, faced with the anarchy and terror he witnesses in the metropol of revolutionary France. In January 1794 and bitterly disillusioned, Forster dies after a brief illness in Paris, his friend Adam Lux already having died as a victim of the Revolutionary Tribunal. Like many revolutionaries, he interpreted ‘Freiheit’ as an unimpeded development of this own personality, but not as political emancipation. As is well known, this false interpretation also lies behind Joseph Giirres’ initial acclaim for the Revolution. Like Forster, the young Gijrres and the group of so-called ‘Cisrhenanes’ attempted a few years later to found a ‘Cisrehenanische Republik’ under the protectorate of General Hoche and to attain its annexation to France. Giirres advocated these aims in the journals ‘Das rothe Blatt’ and ‘Riibezahl’ published in 1797 and I798 and which he dedicated to the fight

against secular and religious absolutism, advocating a sythesis of French liberty and the German categorical imperative. Here too disillusionment was soon felt and caused an inner change which later was to make Gljrres become Napoieon’s most embittered journalistic opponent. In the above mentioned journals but above all in the programmatic paper ‘Mein Glaubensbekenntnis’ (1798)46 he criticised the ruthless conduct and the administrative blunders of the occupying French forces in the Rhineland. He drew attention to the discrepancy between this and the ideals of the Revolution, When he went back to Paris in November 1799 to effect the annexation of the Rhineland to the French Republic, he experienced profound disappointment at conditions in France, documented in the paper ‘Resultate meiner Sendung nach Paris’. Here Gifrres not only declares the whofe French Revolution to be abortive, but goes as far as to emphasise ‘die tiefe Kluft zwischen dem franziisischen und deutschen Nationalcharakter’. This heralds the change from supporter of the Revolution to militant anti-French German patriot.47 While these minor writers acknowledged the Revolution in principle at least, even though many of them were later to be disillusioned, the great advocates of German humanism, like Goethe and Wilhelm von Humboldt condemned it outright from the start because in the political change in France they recognised a threat to the structure of their personal culture. A notable exception is Christoph Martin Wieland who can be regarded as the most liberal poet of German classicism. For many years (17904794) Wieland had researched the subject ‘Franzosische Revolution’ and published hundreds of lengthy essays on it in ‘Neuer Teutscher Merkur’.48 For the sake of brevity, only two particularly characteristic essays will be considered which originated in the years 1790 and 1792: ‘Unparteiische Betrachtungen tiber die damalige Staats-Revolution in Frankreich’ and ‘Die Franzosische Revolution’. These papers-and this is also valid for those others which cannot be considered here-stand out from the numerous eyewitness accounts by writers mentioned already, in that they contain scarcely any description of events. Instead the writers-writing after ail far away from the scene of events--considers and analyses the Revolution by applying to it the system of categories of classical theorists as for example Lukian, translated into German by Wieland. Wieland’s superb style, his historic intuition and the ability to elucidate even compiex correlations to the reader impart-as H. Gunther has said-‘ein hohes lsthetisches Vergniigen. 4q In spite of his detailed theoretical explanations of the Utopia of state and society, Wieland emphasises in the above mentioned papers that he had never envisaged such ideal concept becoming political reality. Prerevolutionary France had in no way given any indication of the political change which was to follow, even if in hindsight this seems to be the case to some of today’s historians.50 As far as Wieland’s basic assessment of the French Revolution is concerned, the following quotation illustrates that he is indeed well aware of its negative aspects, yet nevertheless welcomes and affirms it unreservedly in terms of its totality and historic necessity, emphasising at the same time his own ~Unpartei~~hkeit~: ‘Wiewohl mir in Riieksicht aufeigenen unmittelb~ren Vorteil ebenso glei~hg~ltig sein kann, ob die Aristokratische oder Demokratische Partei

518

Heinz-Otto

Sieburg

in Frankreich die Oberhand behalte, . . ., so habe ich es doch bis jetzt noch nicht so weit im Egoismus gebracht, da13 ich das Wohl oder Wehe aller Menschen . . . als etwas --das mich nicht angehe betrachten kiinnte, . . . Es ist mir . . , schlechterdings unmiiglich, urn aller jener wirklichen und erdichteten Greuel willen, deren sich der Pariser Pobel, die Damen von den Hallen. . . und hier und da einige zur Ungeduld gereizte Burger und Bauern im Verlauf der letzten zehn Monate schuldig gemacht haben mogen, weniger tiberzeugt zu sein, da13 die Revolution ein notwendiges und heilsames Werk, oder vielmehr das enzige Mittel war, die Nation zu retten, wiederherzustellen und aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach glticklicher zu machen als es noch keine andere jemals gewesen ist.51

IV This affirmation of the French Revolution in principle, which Wieland never refuted, set him apart from contemporary German exponents of the Revolution. As already mentioned, in most cases initial approbation later gave way to definite disillusionment. From the outset, a not insignificant number of particularly competent representatives of German intellectual life adopted a critical stance towards revolutionary change in France. In this context, this empirical reaction to the Revolution can be considered as its antithesis, in Germany a view first held by Ernst Brandes and August Wilhelm Rehberg, which was to culminate in the well-known translation and commentary of Burke’s ‘Reflections’ by Friedrich Gentz.52 The two Hannover friends, Brandes and Rehberg, whose intellectual and in part professional home was Gottingen University, attempted in their writings to prevent the spread of revolutionary ideas in Germany. They thus influenced considerably-particulary Rehberg-the young Baron vom Stein.53 AS far as Brandes is concerned, his relationship to Burke was frequently misinterpreted as for his ‘Politische Betrachtungen iiber die too intellectually dependent, franzosische Revolution’ appeared shortly before and independent of Burke’s ‘Reflections’.54 His later works do indeed reflect Burke’s influence, while at the same time continuing to differ in many aspects as, for example, in their refusal to support the theory of conspiracy. Without doubt autochtonous German ideas had already led the way. These are evident in the ‘Patriotische Phantasien’ of Justus M6ser,55 namely in his rejection of the philosophy of the Enlightenment which artifically separates a person from society. They are evident, too, in his acceptance of the diversity of structural growth and in his admiration of a landed gentry which upheld political and historical life. Finally they are evident in his acknowledgement of Christianity. This organolistic, anti-revolutionary and conservative concept of history which brought Burke triumphant acclaim in Europe, had important roots in Germany from which the historic school developed and thus the political romanticism in which the intellectual opposition to revolutionary ideology was to appear. Ernst Brandes denotes clearly the beginnings of this trend, basing his work on the theory of state and the English constitution as a model, which he was convinced had developed historically and therefore was perfectly adapted to the needs of the Brandes raises the question as to people. 56 In his ‘Politische Betrachtungen’

The French Revolution in the German Press

519

whether a radical change of the French constitution had been necessary. He goes on to affirm this because in the light of the increasingly deplorable state of affairs under the Ancien Regime the convocation of the Estates-General had therefore been urgently needed. The fact that, in the end-in spite of the readiness of the nobility and the clergy to renounce their offensive tax privileges-revolution resulted instead of peaceful reform, can be traced back to grave mistakes on the part of the crown (no decision on the form of voting, the dismissal of Necker) which had caused the ‘dam’ to burst, in other words the intervention of the armed population. The question as to how the National Convention had used its thus aquired freedom and as to whether the constitution they drew up seemed ‘der Beschaffenheit des Reiches angemessen”’ leads Brandes to the third part of his paper in which, after a comparative analysis of the earlier and the present state of affairs, he comes to the following resigned conclusion: ‘Man kann nicht umhin, die neue Franzosische Constitution von manchen Seiten nur als ein metaphysisches Experiment zu betrachten, das sich zwar in der Spekulation schon genug ausnimmt, dem man aber schwerlich zutrauen kann, da8 der Versuch, so wie er geschehen, in der Wtirklichkeit Bestand haben wird’.58 This critical but by no means condemnatory attitude gives way in the second paper ‘Uber einige bisherige Folgen der Franzosischen Revolution in Rticksicht auf Deutschland’59 to an uncompromising, negative assessment. Brandes himself attributes this to the fact that Germany was by now at war with France, that he was repelled by the continuing spreading excesses of the masses and finally that he had been strongly influenced by Burke’s ‘Reflections’.60 Thus he contradicts his earlier statements which at least show sympathy for the causes and objectives of the Revolution when he says: ‘Nach allem, was ich las, ward ich auf das gewisseste tiberzeugt, da8 die Revolution-die gewaltthatige Einmischung des Volkes-von Anfang an vdllig unnothig war, weil keine Spuren vorhanden sind, die es wahrscheinlich machen, da13 der Hof Gedanken gefafit hatte, Gewalt gegen die Stande zu gebrauchen. Das Gute, was mitunter durch die Nationalversammlung hervorgebracht wurde, ware ohne die Revolution zu Stande gekommen’.61 With the translation of and commentary on Edmund Burke’s ‘Betrachtungen tiber die Franzosische Revolution’ by Friedrich Gentz, whose work has already been mentioned,‘j2 the criticism of the French Revolution in Germany received a decisive impulse. As early as December 1792, that is before the start of the reign of terror proper, Friedrich Gentz-interpreting Burke-maintains on the occasion of the debates on the constitution by the National Assembly: ‘Der Zustand, worin sich Frankreich in diesem Augenblick befindet, hat von mehr als einer wesentlichen Seite betrachtet, eine auffallende und Ungltick-weissagende Analogie mit dem, worin es sich in der letzten Halfte des Jahres 1789 befand. Gerade wie damals hat man in wenigen Minuten umgesttirzt und vertilgt, ohne zu wissen, wie man wieder aufhauen wird, gerade wie damals lal3t man alle Welttheile vom Lobe einer Staatsverfassung ertonen-die erst entworfen werden solI; gerade wie damals wird fur eine Konstitution, die nicht existiert, geschworen, gekampft, verfolgt und gemordet; gerade wie damals macht man sich den Ubergang von einer Regierungsform zur anderen zu Nutze, urn das Schattenbild vollkommener Freiheit und Gleichheit, das nur in dieser schauervollen Luft gedeihen kann, fur das Fundament eines neuen Staatssystems

520

Heinz-Otto

Sieburg

auszugeben; gerade wie man damals glaubte, alles gethan zu haben, nachdem man erklart hatte: “da13 Frankreich eine Monarchic, und diese Monarchic Eins und untheilbar seyn sollte”, so wahnt man jetzt, jede Schwierigkeit besiegt zu haben, nachdem Frankreich als “Republik und diese Republik als Eins und untheilbar” ausgerufen ist’.63 Straight after the proclamation of the Republic, Gentz criticises the new form of state with arguments which were to appear again and again in later criticism of the Revolution, namely: it was extremely doubtful whether the ideas of ‘Freiheit’ and ‘Gleichheit’ were of value in the context of forming a state, particularly when the attempt to realise politically abstract ideas like these came into being under the complete and radical eradication of the old order and elements of the past. Thus a theory of state is found in Burke and Gentz which opposes these disruptive and at the same time creative tendencies of the Revolution stemming from the ideology of the Enlightenment. It opposes them with an ideal of a historically structured society and state which could become the intellectual basis of the traditionalist, romantic conservative concept of history.64 The reason for Burke’s significance-and following him of Gentz-is that from the outset he confronted the turmoil of ideas of the Revolution with an opposing ideology suited to reinforce the anti-revolutionary mentality which was preparing to fight France and did so for more than two decades, In contrast to the mechanistic theory of 1789, the state in Burke’s work seems to be established in the metaphysical sphere and is therefore far removed from the outset from rational discussion with its tendency to abstract reasoning in the style of the ‘Contrat social’. The state’s contractual nature, familiar to Burke too, has therefore a different interpretation to that of Rousseau and his exponents. The unity of mankind forms an arch over all the single states, from whose ‘Urkontrakt’each individuai state contract can be traced. Cosmopolitan ideas of the eighteenth century continue to exert an influence while at the same time the ideas of German Romanticism are already apparent as they later appear for example in Novalis’ ‘Urheimat der Menschen’. In the ‘Urkontrakt’ the socially moral historical world is linked to the transcendental sphere of the universe. In this way the state receives a supernatural sanction as it were. In the master plan of the metaphysical system every event and state individuation has a specific rank in its historic uniqueness. It seems therefore arrogant if individual communities presume to perpetrate arbitrary acts of intervention in this established system. The French Revolution is accused of perpetrating just such a crime and it is from this point of view that it is considered and condemned. Underlying this is the conviction that every single event in social life, every nation, every corporation is obliged to and responsible for not only itself but also the international community. If this commandment is not heeded, it leads perforce to a misdemeanour of the said state against the metaphysical system in history with regard to the other states. To phrase this in more modern terminology: it is the idea of collective guilt and as a direct result, that of collective responsibility which is suggested here as applied at that time to the relationship of a revolutionary France with a conservative Europe. Gentz’ translation of Burke’s philosophy of state spreads this Anglo-Saxon approach rapidly in Germany where, from 18 15 onwards, it influences a number of the numerous historical works on the French Revolution. At the same time it contributes to the fact that a strongly ideological

521

The French Revolution in the German Press element

is

added

to

those

elements

relating

to

power

politics

in

the

German-French awareness of their differences in the 19th century. The question of Germany’s journalistic contribution to the subject of ‘Franzbsische Revolution’ stimulated a long term discussion which did not end with the Revolution itself but on the contrary was to continue well into the twentieth

century. Heinz-Otto

Sieburg

Saarbriicken Universitiit

NOTES 1. Cf. Frieda Braune, Edmund Burke in Deutschland. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des historisch-politischen Denkens, in: Heidelberger Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte (Heidelberg, 1917); Robert Elsasser, ijber die politischen Bildungsreisen der Deutschen nach England. (From the eighteenth century to 1815), in: Heidelberger Abhandlungen (Heidelberg, 1917) und Hanneliese Mayer, England als politisches Vorbild und sein EinfluD auf die politische Entwicklung in Deutschland bis 1830, Diss. (Freiburg 1931). 2. Cf. Alfred Stern, Der EinfluB der Franzosischen Revolution auf das deutsche Geistesleben (Stuttgart u.Berlin 1928); Jacques Droz, L’Allemagne et la Revolution Francaise (Paris 1949); idem, La pens.6 politique et morale des CisrhCnans (Paris 1940) and idem, Deutschland und die Franziisische Revolution (abridged version of the above work), Nr.4 of ‘Vortrage des Institutes fur Europaische Geschichte’ (Mainz/Wiesbaden 1955). 3. Cf. Margot Lindemann, Deutsche Presse bis 18 15, Part I of ‘Geschichte der deutschen Presse’. Vol.5 of ‘Abhandlungen und Materialien zur Publizistik’, ed. Fritz Eberhard (Berlin, Kolloquium-Verlag 1969), particularly chapter VI ‘Die Presse in der Zeit der Franzosischen Revolution und der Napoleonischen &a’, pp. 256-276. 4. Cf. Josef Hansen, Quellen zur Geschichte des Rheinlandes im Zeitalter der Franzosischen Revolution, 1780-1801, 4 vols (Bonn 1931-1938). Each volume of Hansen’s work contains comprehensive commentaries on the quoted sources in which the editor outlines the general historic background of the period in question. Each of these commentaries also includes a sub-chapter on the Rhineland press in the years concerned. Thus the complete works also provide a comprehensive history of the Rhineland press from 1780-1801. This is referred throughout. The same author also considers relatively thoroughly the general historic background of Rhineland history in his paper: ‘Das linke Rheinufer und die Franziisische Revolution 1789-1801’, in: Mitteilungen der Akademie zur wissenschaftlichen Erforschung und zur Pflege des Deutschtums/Deutsche Akademie (research department), Nr. 12, Munich, IV 1927, pp. 421455. 5. Cf. M. Lindemann, loc.cit., ch. IV, p, 107 ff. and ch.V, p. 248 ff. 6. Lindemann, /oc.cit., p. 173 concerning Elben. 7. On individual newspapers cf. Lindemann, loc.cit., p. 146 ff. 8. Lindemann, /oc.cit., p. 256. 9. Ibid. 10. Quoted by Lindemann, Ibid. 11. Cf. ibid. 12. Cf. Lindemann, loccit., p. 270.

522

Heinz-Otto

Sieburg

13. Cf. ibid. loc.cit., pp. 270-276. 14. Cf. here Lindemann, Das deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen, seine Geschichte und seine 15. Joachim Kirchner, Probleme, 2nd. edition, vol.1 (Wiesbaden 1958) p. 214. loc.cit., p. 271. 16. Cf. Lindemann, 17. Cf. ibid. 18. Cf. ibid. 19. Cf. ibid. p. 271f. loc.cit., p. 272. 20. Quoted by Lindemann, and ‘Minerva’ cf. Lindemann, loc.cit., p. 275. 21. On Archenholtz loc.cit., p. 272ff. 22. On Rambach and Riefenstahl cf. Lindermann, 23. Cf. Hansen, Linkes Rheinufer, loc.cit., p. 428ff. 24. On the enlightened absolutism of the Rhineland princes as well as their attitude at the outset of the Revolution cf. Hansen, Linkes Rheinufer, /oc.cit., p. 429ff. passage in the introduction in Hansen, 25. On the Rhineland press cf. appropriate Sources, vol.I., loc.cit., pp. 23-52. of the ecclesiastical princes in the Rhineland and on the 26. On the reaction corresponding changes in their educational policy cf. Hansen, Linkes Rheinufer, loc.cit., p. 429ff. 27. On the attitude of the press on the eve of the outbreak of war 1792 cf. Hansen, Sources, vol.I., loc.cit., pp. 37-46. On the anti-revolutionary press cf. p. 46ff. Sources, vol.I., loc.cit., p. 638ff., where the texts of the 28. Cf. here Hansen, corresponding articles and details of their whereabouts are given. 29. Quoted by Hansen, Sources, vol.I., loc.cit., p. 641. On the ‘Club de propagande’ (Palais Royal) cf. Hansen’s ‘Erlauterung’ ibid., pp. 642-645. Francaise, 13th edn (Paris 1913), 30. Cf. Albert Sorel, L’Europe et la Revolution pp. 105-l 14. authors contain: Horst Gunter, ed., 31. The texts interpreted here of the corresponding Die Franzdsische Revolution-Berichte und Deutungen deutscher Schriftsteller und Historiker, vol.12 of ‘Bibliothek der Geschichte und Politik’, ed. R. Koselleck and H. Gunther, ~01.4, Bibliothek deutscher Klassiker (Frankfurt/M. 1985). The selected texts are unabreviated and are annotated in detail by the editor. u.d. Franz.Rev.‘, loc.cit., p. 8. 32. J. Droz in his lecture ‘Deutschland on K.E. Oelsner (1764-1828) by H. Gunther in 33. Biographical notes and commentary ‘Franz.Rev.-Berichte’, loc.cit., pp. 1325-1375. They include the texts ‘Bruchstticke aus den Papieren eines Augenzeugen’, pp. 245-384 and ‘Historische Briefe tiber die neuesten Begebenheiten Frankreichs’, pp. 385-472. These appeared originally in 1792 and 1793 in ‘Minerva’ and later together in ‘Luzifer oder gereinigte Beitrage zur Geschichte der Franzosischen Revolution’ which consists ofseveral volumes. In 1797 they appeared anonymously and with no indication of place of publication in Leipzig. The texts given here are taken from the first volume of ‘Luzifer’. are 34. The ‘Briefe aus Paris’ covering the years 1789-1790 by J.H. Campe(1746-1818) given here. (Gunther, Franz.Rev.-Berichte . . ., /oc.cit., 9-102.) They were first published by Campe in 1789-90 in the ‘Braunschweigisches Journal’ and in 1790 as separate book. Biographical notes and commentary by Gunther, in ‘Franz.Rev.Berichte ., /oc.cit., pp. 1253-1284. of G.A. von Halem (1752-1819) ‘Blicke auf einen Teil 35. From the correspondence Deutschlands, der Schweiz und Frankreichs bei einer Reise vom Jahre 1790’ the passages (pp. 103-188) which refer to the French Revolution are printed in Gunther, Franz.Rev.,-Berichte loc.cit., . The text selection was taken from the first edition, 2nd vol. published in 179 1 by Carl Ernst Bohn in Hamburg. Biographical notes and commentary in Gunther, Franz.Rev.-Berichte . loc.cit., pp. 1285-1313.

The French ~evo~~~ion in the German Press 36. K. Fr. Reinhard’s

37.

38.

39.

40.

41. 42. 43.

44. 45.

46.

47.

48.

523

(1761-1837) ‘Ubersicht einiger vorber~itenden Ursachen der franzijsischen Staats-verPnderung’ appeared 1791 in the 12th issue of Schiller’s ‘Thalia’ and after this first publication was printed by Gunther, Franz.Rev.Berichte . . . loc.cit., pp. 189-221. Commentary and biographical notes on Reinhard, since 1791 a French citizen and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Gunther, ibid., pp. 1314-1321. The ‘Bemerkungen tiber den Zustand Frankreichs am Ende des Jahres 1791’ by J.W. v. Archenhohz (1745-1812) appeared originally in the magazine ‘Minerva’, ~01.1. (Berlin 1792) published by J. Fr. Unger and printed in Gunther, Franz.Rev.notes and commentary ibid. Berichte.. ., loc.cit., pp. 223-243. Biographical pp. 1322-1324. As well as the works cited in note 33, there is also an exhaustive biography on Oelsner: Klaus Deinert, Konrad Engelbert Oelsner und die Franzosische Revolution. Geschichtserfahrung und Geschichtsdeutung eines deutschen Girondisten, preface by J. Droz (Munich/Vienna 1981). Berichte . ., loc.cit., p. 1325fffor Schlabrendorf, who Refer to Gunther, Franz.Rev.destroyed his daily journal after being arrested in the reign of terror thus leaving no bequest. Biographical notes and commentary on G. Kerner, a brother of Justinus Kerner in Gunther, Franz.Rev.-Berichte, Zoc.cit., pp. 1376-1380. G. Kerner’s ‘Brief an J.G. Reinhold’, originally appeared complete in A. Wohlwill’s paper on ‘G. Kerner’ (Hamburg 1886), in Gunther, loc.cit., pp. 473-483. Cf. note 33. J. Droz, Deutschland, u.d,Franz.Rev., Zocxit., p. 11. Extensive appreciation of Oelsner in Droz, L’AlIemagne.. ., Zoc.cit.,p. 63-78. Here and in the following cf. Droz, ~eutschland und d.Franz.Rev.. . ., locxit., pp. 1 l-14. Detailed analysis of the attitude of Prussian liberals towards the F.R. in Droz, ‘L’Allemagne.. ., locxit., pp. 79-110. ,, loc.cit., Cf. Droz, Deutschland.. ., loc.cit., pp. 14-16 and idem L’Allemagne.. pp. 11 l-134 for Wiirttemberg and South Germany. Georg Forster’s (1754-1794) ‘Parisische Umrisse’ and ‘Briefe’ (only those from Paris) are printed in Gunther, Franz.Rev.-Berichte . . ,, loccit., pp. 597-773. Biographical notes and commentary in Gunther, ibid., pp. 1412-1440. Cf. Droz on Forster, Deutschland u.d.Franz.Rev., loc.cit., pp. 16-18 and idem, L’Allemagne, loc.cit., pp. 187-216. Joseph Giirres’ (1776-1848) political paper ‘Mein Glaubensbekenntnis’ appears in Gunther, Franz.Rev.-Berichte . . ., loc.cit., pp. 841-855. Biographical notes and commentary ibid., pp. 1450-1457. Original text is the first edition (Koblenz 1798). Gorres’ revoIutionary phase cf. too J. Droz, L’AlIemagne, loc.cir., pp. 217-247. A reliable appreciation of J. Gorres’ personality and journalistic work is to be found in: Kurt Koszyk, Deutsche Presse im 19. Jahrhundert-Geschichte der deutschen Presse, Part II, vol.6 of the series ‘Abhandlungen und Materialien zur Publizistik’ (Berlin 1966), ch.11, pp. 22-34. The following essays on the F.R. by Chr. M. Wieland (1733-1813) are printed and commented on in the collection of texts by Gunther, Franz.Rev.-Berichte.. ., Betrachtungen iiber die damalige Staats-Verfassung in l0c.cit.z ‘Uparteiische Frankreich’ (text, pp. 485-517, commentary, pp. 1384-1392), ‘Die franzosische Republik’ (text, pp. 517-536, commentary, pp. 1392-1396), ‘Betrachtungen tiber die gegenwartige Lage des Vaterlandes’ (text, pp. 537-570, commentary, pp. 1396-1407), ‘Uber deutschen Patriotismus’ (text pp. S70-5821, ‘Uber Krieg und Frieden’ (1794) (text, pp. 582-596, commentary, pp. l409-1411), and finally Y&p&he unter vier Augen’ (text pp. 807-839, commentary, pp. 1444-1449). Biographical notes on

524

49. 50. 51. 52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57. 48. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

64.

Heinz-Otto

Sieburg

Wieland in Gunther, loc.cit., pp. 1381-1384. The texts appeared originally in the ‘Neuer Teutscher Merkur’, published by Wieland since 1789 and are based on the Wieland edition by Wilhelm Kurrelmeyer, Wielands Werke, ~01.15, Prosaische Schriften II, 1783-1794 (Berlin 1930). H. Gunther, Franz.Rev.-Berichte.. ., /oc.cit., p. 1238. According to Gunther’s interpretation of Wieland in Franz.Rev.-Berichte, /oc.cit., p. 1238. Wieland in ‘Unparteiische Betrachtungen’ in: Gunther, Franz.Rev.-Berichte ,, loc.cit., pp. 5 10-512. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the French Revolution (originsl!y London 1790,2nd edition, London 1923); Betrachtungen iiber die Franzosische Revolution nach dem Englischen des Herrn Burke, neu bearbeitet mit einer Einleitung, Anmerkungen und politischen Abhandlungen by Friedrich von Gentz in 2 parts, 3rd edition (Braunschweig 1838) recently published in ed. Ulrich Frank-Planitz, ManesseBibliothek der Weltgeschichte (Manesse-Verlag Zurich 1987). Freiherrn vom Stein’s relationship with A.W. Rehberg and also with E. Brandes, cf. Gerhard Ritter, Stein. Eine politische Biographie. Neuausgabe der ‘Neugestalteten Auflage’ von 1958, 4th edition (Stuttgart 1981), particularly p. 1OOff. Rehberg’s political and literary work is to be found in A. W. Rehberg, Samtliche Schriften, Bd.4: Politisch-historische kleine Schriften (Hannover 1829). Cf. Ernst Brandes, Politische Betrachtungen iiber die Franzosische Revolution (Jena 1790). It appeared in July 1790 as the preface indicates. Cf. too ibid., Uber einige bisherige Folgen der Franzosischen Revolution in Rticksicht auf Deutschland (Hannover 1792, 2nd edition Hannover and Osnabriick 1793) in particular the preface of 1793, p.X.-The first edition of ‘Reflections.. .’ by Burke appeared in November 1790, cf. the edition of 1923, loc.cit., p. XI. Cf. The exhaustive chapter ‘Justus Moser’ in: Friedrich Meinecke, Werke, ed. H. Herzfeld, C. Hinrichs, Walter Hofer (Friedrich-Meinecke-Institut der FU Berlin), Die Entstehung des Historismus (ed. C. Hinrichs) (Munchen 1959) p. 303ff.-Moser developed the ideas outlined here in ‘Osnabruckische Geschichte’ which appeared in 1768 and the years following as well as in ‘Patriotische Phantasien’ which appeared irregularly in ‘Osnabrtickische Intelligenzblatter’ founded in 1766 by Moser and edited by him until 1782; cf. Fr. Meinecke, Historismus, loccit., p. 307. Source for the following is Brandes’ work, cited in note 54 (‘Uber einige bisherige Folgen . ,’ is quoted according to the edition of 1793) as well as: idem, Uber den politischen Geist Englands, in: Berlinische Monatsschrift, ~01.7, Jan.-June 1786. On Brandes cf. above all the biography written by his friend: Rehberg, Samtliche Schriften, ~01.4, /oc.cit., and Frieda Braune, E. Burke in Deutschland, /oc.cit. Brandes, Politische Betrachtungen, loc.cit., p. 46. Ibid., p. 133f. Cf. note 54. Cf. Brandes, Folgen, loccit., foreword of 1793, pp. I-X. Ibid., p. X. Cf. H.O. Sieburg, Deutschland und Frankreich in der Geschichtsschreibung des 19. Jahrhunderts, vol. I (Wiesbaden 1954) p. 89f and 310, notes 6 and 7. According to Gentz’ introduction to the German edition of Burke (cf. note 52) entitled: ‘Uber den EinfluD politischer Schriften und den Charakter der Burkischen’, studies on Gentz’ character by: Carl Jacob loc.cit., p, 19ff.-Biographical Burckhardt, Friedrich von Gentz, in: Gestalten und Machte. Reden und Aufsatze (Munchen 1941) pp. 193-222, in particular p. 202ff. On the following cf. H.O. Sieburg, Deutschland und Frankreich.. ~01.1, /oc.cit., p. 89f.