Writing on the Wall: Letters of Rahel Varnhagen Author(S): Liliane Weissberg and Rahel Varnhagen Reviewed Work(S): Source: New German Critique, No

Writing on the Wall: Letters of Rahel Varnhagen Author(s): Liliane Weissberg and Rahel Varnhagen Reviewed work(s): Source: New German Critique, No. 36, Special Issue on Heimat (Autumn, 1985), pp. 157-173 Published by: New German Critique Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/488307 . Accessed: 26/12/2012 14:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New German Critique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Writingon the Wall: Letters of Rahel Varnhagen*

by Liliane Weissberg

Les motssont devenus dans les langueshumaines ce que la pens6e est devenue dans l'espritdes hommes. Ces mots sont devenue comme autant de mortsqui enterrentdes morts,et qui souvent meme enterrentdes vivants,ou ceux qui auraient le desirde l'etre.Aussi l'homme s'enterre-t-illui- meme journellement avec ses propres mots alte~rs et qui ont perdu tous leurs sens. Aussi enterre-t-iljournellement et continuellementla parole. Saint-Martin Ja! Sprache,-ein Rest und ein Anfang. Rahel Varnhagen, a noteto Saint-Martin**

In a letterto Karl AugustVarnhagen, Rahel Varnhagen,while de- scribingherself, offers an adviceto herhusband: "I see, I love truth;am simple,strict, but soft; have no resultsbeforehand in my eye and mind; andam always willing to grasp things innocently. Think therefore only ofsuch a humanbeing; and so, with your other talents and skills, in this large,literary, baked-together-with-lies world, there must be pro- ducedthings that are worthwhile reading."' Karl August Varnhagen

*Thispaper was presentedas theLouis B. Kaplan seminarat theBaltimore Hebrew College on April 17, 1985. "*The passage fromSaint-Martin and Rahel Varnhagen'sannotation is quoted fromLe Ministerede l'homme-esprit,in Angelus Silesius und Saint-Martin.Ausziiqe und Bemerkungenvon Rahel, ed. by K.A. Varnhagenvon Ense (Berlin:Diimmler, 1849), p. 248. The volume is reprintedin Rahel-Bibliothek. Gesammelte Werke VIII, ed. by Konrad Feilchenfeldtet al. (Munich: Matthes& Seitz, 1983). 1. Letterto Varnhagen,November 17, 1813. Rahel.Ein Buchdes Andenkensfiir ihre Freunde,II (Berlin:Duncker and Humblot, 1834),p. 145.The collectionsof Rahel's let- terswere reprintedin Rahel-Bibliothek,Gesammelte Werke, eds. Konrad Feilchenfeldt, Uwe Schweikertand Rahel E. Steiner(Munich: Matthes& Seitz, 1983). This and the followingtranslations are mine.

157

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 158 Writingon theWall tookthis advice quite seriously. His mostpopular novel, Rahel. Ein Buch desAndenkens fir ihreFreunde, was writtenin 1833, shortlyafter Rahel's death,and he enlargedthe work to a threevolume editionin 1834.2 The materialfor this book was indeedtaken from life. Varnhagen's dis- cerningeye selected a few hundred of Rahel's letters;he cut and changedthem into the proper literary form of the epistolary novel, to exhibitRahel's properinnocence and truthfulness.He also changed the positionof Rahel's correspondentsin a post-mortemsocializing process; while stressingher company withfamous and aristocratic people, Varnhagenburied those friendshipsthat no longerfit into a popular understandingof social respectability.3In silencingalso any othervoices in theAndenken, Varnhagen turned Rahel's lettersfrom a series of dialogues into a monologue, into a seeminglyendless self- reflectionof an individualattempting to livea "truthful"life, and thus probingthe meaningof thisphrase. We can onlyguess the degreeof mutilationdone to Rahel's letters- most of themdisappeared after the Second World War and only quite recentlylocated in a Polish archive- butless guesswork is necessaryin regardto thesuccess of the novel.4 Paradoxically,Rahel's letterscelebrate the individual in general througha concept of shared confidence.Rahel was one of the most famousJewish women of hertime in Berlin,who, like Henriette Herz or DorotheaMendelssohn-Veit, kept her doors open fora socialmeet- ingof aristocrats, artists, and assimilatingJews,arid hersalon was regarded as the most intellectuallychallenging of thegroup. In contrastto the other women, Rahel startedher social gatheringsas a veryyoung unmarriedwoman, while still living in herparents' home. Her letters, turnedby Varnhageninto souvenirsand mementos,offer an idea of thekind of friendship pursued in Rahel'ssalons in Berlin.It is a model similarto thatof HenrietteHerz's "group ofvirtuous people" who in propagatinga secretrelationship of mindswould be able to sense - and read - each other'sinnermost wishes.' In the Andenken,Rahel

2. Fora publishinghistory, see KonradFeilchenfeldt and Rahel E. Steiner,"Rahel Varnhagens'Werke'," Rahel-Bibliothek, X, pp. 75-127. 3. Most dramatically,Varnhagen excluded all referencesto PaulineWiesel, a close friendof Rahel's and thelover of Prince Louis Ferdinand.New names,initials, aristo- cratictitles were also introducedin the referencesto Rahel'sJewish friends. 4. Mostof Rahel's survivingletters are partofVarnhagen's collection, stored in the cloisterGriissau during the war, and rediscoveredin theJagellonianlibrary in Cracow in 1977. See Deborah Hertz,"The VarnhagenCollection is in Krakow,"The American Archvist,44 (1981), 223-228. 5. For a sociological studyon the salons,see Deborah Hertz, "Salonieres and LiteraryWomen in Late Eighteenth-CenturyBerlin," New GermanCritique, 14 (1978),

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LilianeWeissberg 159 appears as the Romanticmodel of inwardreflection. She displaysa sensitivitywith which she would understandher address to otherper- sons as a continuationof an innerconversation. Rahel findsher place as a followerof Schleiermacher's rules for sociability, Geselligkeit; rules thatturned, as Heine wouldafterwards describe, into the laws of a secret circlethat are lostto thelater world: "We, we understoodeach otherby simple glances, we looked at each other and knew our innermost concerns- thislanguage of theeyes will soon be lost,and thewritten monuments[Schriftmiihler] thatwe leave behind,for example Rahel's letters,will be nothingfor those who are born afterus but indecipher- able hieroglyphs- I knowthis, and I thinkof this with each new person departing,and returninghome."' Heine's nostalgicfarewell to silenceis Varnhagen'scelebration of Rahel's eloquence. Both seem to mournwith Rahel's deathnot only the masterful conversationalist, but also a person much more willingto retreatfor the sake of othersthan Heine is willingto give up the othersof his past. Not only Rahel is celebratedtherefore, but thosewho have enteredRahel's salonof lettersas well. Her silenceas well as herletters offered them the oppor- tunityto speak,became themode oftheir exposition. In Varnhagen's book, Rahel emergesas a givinghostess even in therepresentation of herletters themselves. She is,in all ofthat, an exampleofwomanhood, not theleast to Varnhagen'stwo fianc6es with whom he formedbrief engagementsexactly at theperiods of publication of two collections of Rahel's letters.7 WhileVarnhagen's publication was supposed to revealRahel's true character,Rahel herselfseefusto havebeen obsessedwith the problem of writing,and with the question of whetherwriting could indeed

13-15. A more detailed descriptionof Rahel's salon is provided in HerbertScurla, RahelVarnhagen. Die grosseFrauengestalt der detuschen Romantik (Berlin GDR 1962, repr. Diisseldorf:Claassen, 1968). 6. HeinrichHeine, Sdkularausgabe,XXI (Berlin,Paris: Akademie Verlag/Editions du CNRS, 1970),p. 345f.;see NorbertAltenhofer, "Geselligkeit als Utopie. Rahel und Schleiermacher,"in Berlin zwischen 1789 und1848: Facetteneiner Epoche (catalogue to the exhibition,Berlin: Akademie der Kiinste,1981), 37-42. 7. See Konrad Feilchenfeldt,"Die Anfdingedes Kultsum Rahel Varnhagenund seine Kritiker,"Walter Grab and JuliusH. Schoeps, eds.,Judenim Vormdrzund in der Revolutionvon 1848 (Stuttgart,Bonn: BurgVerlag, 1983), 214-232, especially227ff. In regardto Rahel's viewson women's emancipation,see Doris StarrGuilleton, "Rachel Varnhagenund die Frauenfragein der deutschenRomantik: Eine Untersuchung ihrerBriefe und Tagebuchnotizen,"Monatschefte, 69 (1977), 391-403. Her impacton womenof her period is describedin KayGoodman, "The Impactof Rahel Varnhagen on Women in the NineteenthCentury," in MarianneBurkhard, ed., Gestalteteund ge- staltendeFrauen in derdeutschen Literatur, Amsterdamer Beitriige zur Germanistik, 10 (1980), 125-53.

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 160 Writingon theWall transmitany truthful representation of herself. Although she was proud ofsome ofher letters and eagerfor their public reading, she reflectsin a largenumber of themon inabilityto describeher thoughts properly, be it because of an illness,or because of variousinterruptions when "life" itselfentered disturbing and disturbinglyinto the scene. The verytopic seemed not to fitany possible description.There is indeed an uncannyrelationship between Varnhagen's success and Rahel's failure. In Rahel's attemptto writeher own "ConfessionsdeJ J. Rahel"in a seriesof letters," we can finda verypeculiar anecdote about writing and truth.Rahel, then a young woman of twenty-two,narrates a story about her youngerbrother Moritz. The storyis addressed to David Veit,aJewish friend from Berlin who, at thistime, is a medicalstudent in Gi ttingen:"May I tellyou a story?- because myletter will turn out to be quite long again. This noon, at the table,Markus subjected the childrento a greatinterrogation [Verhir], because he had foundreally a greatact of mischief[Unart], namely the name Levin scribbledon the wall ofmy corridor [Flurl upstairs. R6schen said freelyand laughingly: 'It was not me;' Ludwig as well: 'Me neither;'only Moritz denied it, namelyhe said: 'But I don't have a pencil,' and he stuckto this;he answeredit a good sixteenor seventeentimes to all thequestions that werenow put to him,coming from all directions[Kreuz und Quere] and sides, forthand back, like a real interrogation,and it was fearsome, withreason, for him; his color spoke againsthim, but he suppressed even his blushing[Rothwerden], and he stuckquite prettilyto his statement:'But I don'thave a pencil.'He finallycame quite close to confessing, and althougha veilof fun [Flor von Spass] rested on thewhole story, they wantedto frightenhim to thefullest confession; and so I said: 'Well,he cannot confess it now, it should sufficethat he has denied it.' I liked thatvery much."9 The storyrelates a truefamily affair, a scene at the dinnertable concerningthe descriptionof a past deed and theestab- lishmentof its authorship. Although everybody seems to be convinced of Moritz'sguilt, his confessionis no confessionof his - or any - crime,but indeeda statementabout absence.Moritz denies possessing thetool thatis necessaryfor the deed. Withouta pencil,Moritz cannot write.For Rahel,this statement is theonly proper rejection of the writ-

8. Letter to David Veit, October 16, 1794. Briefwechselzwischen Rahel und David Veit, I, ed. by Karl August von Varnhagen (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1861), p. 240. 9. Letter to David Veit, February 18, 1794. Buchdes Andenkens,pp. 67-68. A more complete version of this letter is reprinted in Briefwechsel,pp. 164-181, here 168. Varnhagen does not only cut the letter in his firstedition, he also replaces names: Rahel's brother Markus becomes, for example, Theodor, this is Markus's second name (see p. 69).

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LilianeWeissberg 161 ten work:"Only Moritz denied it." Moritz's confession,however, is notquite relatedto thecrime, for his speech denies theownership of a pencil,and not the act of writingitself. His statementappears to be independentfrom what may have been his deed. Rahel does not,like the other family members, want to frightenthe boy into confessingthe deed; she triesto save the textureof fun,the narrativeitself, by producinga paradoxicalending: if the rejection of thedeed would exclude a confession,this rejection would be enough fora happyend. SavingMoritz's narrative - and thenarrative, Geschichte, of thisanecdote - Rahel cannotrefrain from a speculationon itshis- toricalsequence - its Geschichte.If Moritz's rejectionof ownership seems to have establisheda separationbetween his words and the deed, Rahel's conclusioninsists on thesimilar separation for the sake of a narrativestructure; she is, indeed, not quite the owner of her words.Rahel is unclearabout theirorigin as well as surprisedby their effect,and she does not seem to be as startledby thewritten word on thewall as by the sound of her own savingand concludingremarks: "As soon as I heard thewords, I myselfhad to laugh dreadfully.(Tell me, howcan I laughabout itmyself? I musthave thought these words, afterall, beforeI said them!O well! thesound! --)"10 Rephrasingthe scene,and quotingit to Veit,Rahel is less interestedin Moritz'sUnart thanin Moritz'sart, his verbal excursions, the strange lie with which he seems to avoid confessionin an artisticway: "But I don't have a pencil." She is thereforenot satisfied with Moritz's final confessions of the deed, althoughshe is amused by his statementthat he wantedfirst to see ifhis firstanswer would hold, "ob'sso geht." Rahel is carriedby her own laughter,and she turnsthe trickplayed by a littlechild into an educationalenterprise. Moritz's words are "pretty"but theycan still be improved.While Rahel's mother,with whom she is not livingon verygood terms,is lecturingon truthand lies, Rahel is modifyingthe crimeinto a lesson,the search for the author into a linguisticexercise. The introductionof Frenchwords turnsthe familyaffair into a model, a linguisticdance:11 "All together,he denied itprettily; you should have seen it. I have thoughta lot on thisoccasion; also, I triedto softenthe interrogationas much as possible, and withall my effortsto hold a thickcoat [eindickes Gewand] over it,they managed anywayto reduce it to a veil [zu Florzu zerreiben];because thisdenial did not please me, because theboy (likea child)was not sureof his case, and because the greatcrime that one keptmoving in his directionfrightened him anew

10. Briefivechsel,p. 168. 11. Compare Rahel's descriptionof herdancing lessons during the same period, and her discussionwith David Veit on the conditionsand effectsof thewaltz.

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 162 Writingon the Wall everyminute, despite the factthat he was takinghold of himself/his word so well [sogut er sich auchfasste], and thisfear and embarrassment [Schreckund Verlegenheit] always have a verybad effecton thecharacter, and thereforeit was so verypainful for me to watchit, I made every effortto transform,as muchas possible,this thoughtless interrogation into an exerciceof excuses,with public approval: I was, however,the more misunderstoodbecause of this, but it still went on madly, Markus guessedthings somewhat. -" 12 Rahel's laughtermay have followed her own thought,but also Rdschen's lead. Rahel's attemptto cover the interrogationwith her own coat of reflectionsdoes not quite work.Her statementsbecome thevictims of the interrogation itself, thinning away to exactlythat veil - Flor- of irritationpreviously described as Spass and thathas gained now a rathertragic sense. Althoughthe conversation is stilldescribed in itsveiling function, hiding the deed has no longerbecome Moritz's taskbut Rahel's.With her protective measures, the crime has changed places; the interrogationitself has become somethingfrom which Moritzshould be saved. Rahel triesto turnthe legal discourse - Verhiir - intoa linguisticplay that should regainthe innocence of conversation. Instead of concerningherself with the questions of originand authorship,Rahel is now concernedwith their effect: these questions may corrupt Mortiz's character. Who then - or what - has commit- tedthe crime? Moritz, in hischildlike innocence, may have written the word withoutconceiving that his writingshould have a different,less public place. The interrogationitself establishes its moral evaluation, triesto call writingto orderby sayingwhere it should not belong. Rahel's exchangeof words tries to come close to Mortiz'sinnocence. It is in vain, however,that she attemptsto regainit. Her strivingfor innocenceresults in furthermisunderstanding, and whileher brother Markusmay indeed guess Mortiz'sstand, it is Rahel who occupies the wrongplace. Her publicword should not have received public approval. WhileRahel adds furtherconcluding remarks on thematter, her story is stillnot at an end. Rahel quicklyexchanges the position of innocence forthat of guilt. Mortiz's blushing - rothwerden- becomes the sign for an innocentheart - einrothes Herz - thatcannot possibly finda place in thisworld: "- Why does one forbidchildren so explicitlyto deny thingsand to findexcuses [Ausreden]which (unfortunately! but) one needs: because one educates them for the turmoil[Tummel] of the world,and not fora positiveheaven thatwould accuratelyreward an innocentheart [rothes Herz], and a clean conscience?"'"The word on

12. Briefwechsel,p. 169. 13. Briefwechsel,p. 169.

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LilianeWeissberg 163 thewall of the corridor above mayfind a rewardin heaven,but it has to switchplaces to be recognizedbelow. With this word, innocence itself is in need ofdisplacement, a displacementthat is necessarynot only to gain a reward,but also to make itsown recognitionpossible. Interruptedby the sudden need to visitsomebody, Rahel continues herletter to David Veitlater in theday. Afraid of being misunderstood by him as well, she has not yetquite finished - ausgeredet- and takes up theanecdote again: "Now I am startingagain with my children. Why does one notteach them to lie [Liugen],to denythings [Liiugnen], and to findexcuses [Ausreden],as a necessaryevil, and show it to themat the same time,like other heavywork, which one would leave aside on one's own, ifone did not have to do it,to protectone's delicatehands - in this way, one would then care for one's conscience. Terrible moral, at some educated inquisitionmy Renommiecould at leastbe slowlyburned? And thiswould not even be theworst; it has also here theappearance of foolishness[Thorheit] or stupidity,because it seems thatone could notgo throughwith it; in thestrictest sense of the words, yes,this I feelas wellas anybodyelse who mayhear it;but that one can make itunderstandable for children, without preaching, and thatone can preach it to them,without making it attractiveto them,and pre- ciselyas itis a sermonto presentit to themas useful,but notbeautiful, and to do itall withactions, and reluctance,pointed out at theproper place [amrechten Ort], - thisI do believe; untilyou or somebodyelse mayventure properly to provethe opposite to me!"'" The taskof pre- servingthe student'sinnocence becomes an issue threateningthe moralityof the teacher.Rahel's conceptmay endagnerher Renommge notjust as herintellectual reputation: she may show herself during that religious interrogation - inquisition - as corrupted, tested by that realm to which preachingalso belongs. But the searchfor a reward returnsto the question of ownership.Social recognitionbecomes a question of epistemology.Where does one findthe originalplaces if one, indeed, does not even own the word? Rahel cannotpreach a truthshe does not know.Paradoxically, the - - lie as Liige,Liiugnen, Ausrede guaranteesnot just survival,but the survival of innocence. Innocence is for Rahel here no longerwashing one's hands ofguilt, but keepingone's hands pure of hardwork. The teachercan onlypreserve innocence in corruptingit. Not onlycan the lie be rejected,but theconfession of truth as well.And herewe feelthe true Thorheitof Rahel's educational program: if Moritz proves his innocence by not understandingthe natureof his crime,Rahel can

14. Briefwechsel,pp. 169-170.

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 164 Writingon theWall

only save her truthby preachingand unpreachingits moral impli- cationsand values. Moritz'sinnocence has become a matterof place, and thisplace is shifting.Rahel's lesson, as an anecdote about the searchof her own truthoffers the memory of how itcould have been in a processof veil- ingand unveiling,and ina processof exchange. The conversationitself has to move on, leave places, provokemisunderstanding to followits goal. The rulesof language already provide the interrogator as wellas the person questioned withthe Ausrede,the ethical statusof which Rahel shouldand does notwant to decide. How shouldone, forexample, understand - and thismeans place - her laughter? Groping fora theoryof her experience,Rahel mustrightly be at a loss: she herself cannotexplain the origin of her words or laughter,the mechanisms of herplay. Her performanceitself denies herthe masterful position of a teacher. If Moritz's crime has already been the use of language, Moritz's answer - which is a refusal to answer - teaches Rahel how to teach.Rahel discussesthe interrogation not as a searchfor an error committedoutside language, but turnsit into an investigationof language itself.Can language,maybe, tell us whatwe do not know? Rahel's questionsand answersthemselves reject damaging pedagogy in an anarchisticway, a way thatresembles nothing else but the psy- choanalyticdiscourse." Rahel, the teacher,is also a woman,a factthat should not be overlooked in hereducation of her brother, or in thefact that she presents thisincident - "May I tellyou a story?"- as a seductiveoffer to her friendDavid Veit,to provokehis comments,corrections, and further correspondence.Moritz's letter is notonly a textto be discussed,but a pretextfor further letters. Are those otherletters, then, without any crime? Rahel's lesson is indeed partof a lesson. If Rahel and Moritzestab- lished and exchanged theirroles of studentand teacher,Moritz's lesson for Rahel becomes Rahel's homeworkfor David Veit. The Jewishstudent advises Rahel towrite to himnot only for his own enter- tainmentand information,but for Rahel's religious,social, individual

15. Fora discussionof the relationship between psychoanalysis and pedagogy,see Shoshana Felman,"Psychoanalysis and Education:Teaching Terminable and Inter- minable," YaleFrench Studies, 63 (1982), 21-44. My use of the notionof a "psycho- analyticdiscourse" is largelyindebted to thisessay. In a more generaldiscussion of Rahel's letters,Kay Goodman describednot only the need ofa psychoanalyticalread- ingof Rahel's letters,but also parallelsbetween her theory of writing and Lacan's con- ceptof language: see KayGoodman, "Poesis and Praxisin RahelVarnhagen's Letters," New GermanCritique, 27 (1982), 123-139.

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LilianeWeissberg 165 emancipation.Here, again,we are dealingwith a "familyaffair." Her lettersare subjectto his corrections,his laboriously acquired model of a German text.Moritz has lacked a pencil, but Rahel seems to lack style.Not only her intellectualargument is subjectedto Veit'sjudg- ment,her narrativeitself becomes a testfor social acceptability. The letterhad developed in the 18thcentury into a highlyartistic formwith many conventions; if "naturalness" became a desiredattri- bute in writing,it had to followcertain rules. The writingheroines of manyepistoloary novels may confirm for us thefact that women were allowed to use thisliterary form, even ifit was notacceptable for them to write much else.16The report of familyaffairs was, indeed, a woman'srealm, and, followinga dichotomyof head and heart,the let- terscould expose theemotions of thosewomen who, as Rahel would claim ofherself, lacked the opportunities of thehead: thetruthfulness of the heartserved as an alternativeaim forthe displayof education, Bildung. AlthoughRahel oftencomplains of her ignorance,she did receive instruction.Her lettersto David Veit are filledwith reportsabout lessons - English, French, waltz dancing - as well as autodidactic attemptsto masterclassical literature and philosophy." But Rahel the educationalphilosopher is a difficultstudent. She describesher thoughts and feelingsin a language fullof exclamationmarks, peculiar twists, and foreignwords; insteadof followingthe guidelinesfor epistolary decorumand stylisticform, Rahel simulatesan oral communication. Her styleoffers an emancipationquite differentfrom Veit's assimila- tion to Germanliterature. Venturing into Germanand Frenchfrom hernative Yiddish, the languages themselves merge one intothe other, and theyproduce a foreignrealm that has to be conquered again and again. Under her self-cutpen, the Latin alphabet itselfturns into an anarchisticrabble againsther own Prussianpatriotism. She writesto

16. See Georg Steinhausen,Geschichte des deutschen Briefes, II (1891, repr. Zfirich: Weidmann, 1968), pp. 245ff.,and Leo Balet and E. Gerhard,Die Verbiirgerlichungder deutschenKunst. Literatur und Musik im 18. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt am Main, Berlin,Wien: Ullstein,1972), pp. 180ff. 17. See especiallythe first volume oftheBriefivechsel. Rahel did notonly provide the opportunityfor others - Fichte,Humboldt, Schlegel - to writelectures. Rahel's accountcorrects, indeed, PercyMatenko's belief in Rahel's complaints,see "Ludwig Tieck and Rahel Varnhagen:A Re-Examination,"Leo BaeckInstitute Year Book, XX (1975), 225-246. For a discussion of women's education and reading during this period, see RolfEngelsing, Der Bilrgerals Leser(Stuttgart: Metzler, 1974). Compared withother bourgeois women of her period, Rahel may have had theadvantage of being freeto transgressthe concepts of "Christian behavior" with her reading, exactly by vir- tue of her own positionas a social and religiousoutsider.

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 166 Writingon theWall

Fouqu6: "I know quite well thatI am writingto you thingsthat are worthreading; but mywords, and yours!Like exercized soldiers [exer- zirteSoldaten] in beautifuluniforms, everything of yours is standing there;and everythingof mine, like an unrulymob ofrebels with sticks fzusammengelaufeneRebellen mit Knittlen]! - And, I am not changing. Because I cannot change,and I do not understandwhy."'" Rahel's earlyteacher David Veit advises her in readinglists and methodsof readingand writing,advises her on theEtikette of answering letters, cut- tingpens and paper,closing and addressingenvelopes. Rahel, in turn, complainsthat she cannotpay anyattention to theway the words are structuredand formedwhile she is tryingto grasptheir sense.'9 Her new knowledgeof Etikette does not reformher writing: "How can one know so exactly,so punctually,so thoroughly,so aesthetically I might almostsay, what beautiful writing is, and stillnot change oneself .. ."20 Her complaintsare notfollowed by her improvements. Veit's preachingand Rahel's practicediverge because Rahel insistson herown for- mulationsand vocabulary:"By theway, sir, I willuse theword "thing" [Ding]and "enjoyment"[Genuss] as oftenas I want. Two charming words!What does itconcern you! The enjoymentof every thing at its propertime, is some-thingthat is permissableenjoyment, and there- forea fullone, because an enjoymentin itselfis alreadya pleasure,and therefore,the right one is a beautifulthing. There, with your authority! nobodycan commandme! I am not such a th...g!and you should not have the e...t of forbiddingme words!!"21 Rahel'sand David Veit'scorrespondence acquires a peculiarnature. David Veit- likeRahel' s latercensorVarnhagen - correctsher letters forpublic readings, but Rahel findsVeit's handwriting in turnunread- able and sendshis letters back for further explanation. She also advises himin thecorrection of a poem, or in hisdrafts of letters to hisbenefac- tors, and asks him - as she would ask later correspondents - to answerher letters in theproper order: question afterquestion.22 The

18. Letter to Fouqu6, December 31, 1811. Buch des Andenkens,I, p. 585. 19. See Rahel's letterto David Veit, November 18, 1793, Buchdes Andenkens, I, pp. 64-65. 20. Letter to Veit, August 28, 1795. AndenkenI, p. 153 and BriefiwechselII, p. 177. 21. Letter to David Veit, November 17, 1794 (the letterwas begun on November 15). BriefwechselII, p. 17. 22. See, forexample, Rahel's letterto David Veit writtenMarch 11, 1794 (the letter was begun on March 10), in which Rahel writes again about the tasks of education. Briefiwechsel,p. 203. Compare Rahel's letter to Fouqu6, September 14, 1809. Buch des Andenkens,I, p. 441.

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LilianeWeissberg 167 roles of teacherand studentseem again reversed.It is thereforenot surprisingthat one mayhave troublereading in anyconventional way about thewoman Rahel in her letters.Although she repeatedlystates and deplores her social limitationsas a woman, Goethe suspected Varnhagenas thewoman and Rahel as theman on theoccasion of the anonymouspublic presentation of their opinions on Goethe'swritings." Turninganti-pedagogy into the pedagogy of conversation itself, Rahel seems to derivestrength from her weakness, from the fact that if any- thingwould be masterful,it would be theway in whichshe would put her questions,write about herselfwhile effacingherself as a person. Rahelwonders about herposition: "That's peculiar about me; normal- ly,authors are visited, I am a wretchedreader, and thewriters are calling on me. - Really,I believethat I understandthe art of being silent; with the pen like othersskillfully with their mouth! -""24 Rahel's defensivetwists on the use of enjoyment - Genuss- seem to providea successfulseduction: further letters, and pleasure forher correspondent.Veit answers Rahel's resistance by reading her position as thatof a teacherwhom he is able to accept.He suspectsthat Rahel's thoughtsmay indeed have foundan adequate representationin her writing;the absence of artmay be an artificeof some sort.If Rahel's concept of truthfulnesscenters on the definitionof herselfas an individual- "I am as unique as thegreatest figure [Erscheinung] ofthis earth!"25- Rahel'ssearch for her origin becomes the establishment of an originallanguage. Veit is willingto accept Rahel's partin an act of creation,and drawsevidence fromRahel's confessionof her action, herdeed ofwriting: "Do you believethat I don't thinkabout it,when I am writingto you, how you immediately,while readingit, without evenwanting to do it,put myperiods in place, thosethat I am turning around? and how you place everythingin order? but to be fairto myself:sometimes, I knowmyself, that they are notcorrect, but I leave them,as theyare, to inserta certainexpression, and to give thema

23. Varnhagenhad showna transcriptof his and Rahel's lettersto Goethe,before publishing"Uber Goethe. Bruchstfickeaus Briefen"in July 1812 in Morgenblattfiir gebildeteStiinde. The changeof gender roles has oftenbeen applied fora descriptionof Rahel's privatelife as well.Most ofthe biographers describe Varnhagen - likeRahel's earliermale friends- as weak recipientsof her intellectualfavors; see forexample Hannah Arendt,Rahel Varnhagen. Lebensgeschichte einer deutschenJ iidin aus derRomantik, (Munich:Piper, 1959). Clara Malraux'sRahel, ma grande soeur. Un salon Littiraire a Berlin au tempsdu romantisme(Paris: Ramsay,1980) providesan exception;both studiesare, however,as much studiesabout theirauthors as theyare about Rahel. 24. Letterto Varnhagen,March 19, 1810. Buchdes Andenkens, I, p. 468. 25. Letterto David Veit,February 16, 1805. Buchdes Andenkens, I, p. 266; Brief- wechsel,I, p. 260.

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 168 Writingon the Wall physiognomy,the one whichI would like themto have, and to give somethingin the same way in whichI am takingit."26 Veit, learning fromRahel, regardsher styleas necessarilydisplaced, "verriickt."' Odd grammaticalphrases or orthographicinconsistencies turn for him intothe advantage of representing a spontaneity and newinsights, giv- ing license to linguisticpuns while offeringthe image of straight- forwardness.28 A fewmonths after Moritz's Untat,Rahel complains to Veit of a similiarcrime, as she describesa conversationthat seems to consistof misdirectedquestions and answerswhose originshe cannotexplain. This conversationitself is now presentedto Veit as a confession,a telling tale about Rahel's character:"In manycases, I am surprisinglycalm and patient,and I havealso managedto get rid of many of my ways that I could not stand;but in one thing,I have not managed to make any progress,to ridmyself of the irresistible passion to answermisdirected [verkehrte]questions - and especially,and nearlyalways, if they are concerningmyself - alwayswith misdirected [verkehrte] answers, even if onlyby a facialexpression, or bya repressedor forcedsmile, in short, by nothing[durch ein Nichts], but I have to givethem. It neveroccurs to me, and itis also notmy pleasure, to makea foolof somebody(as one says),as muchas people are blamingme fordoing this and are afraidof me, but if somebody - as people are unfailinglydoing it at times - runs into my net (mirins Garn liiuft),then it happens, thatI wind my threada bit betteraround him,just because of theimprobability, also, italways seems to mejustas impoliteto lead himback. I cannotdo it,in all seriousness,because I tryto be polite;and I stillcannot call myself totally unsusceptible[unangefacht] at comical occasions. Is this a crime?"29In readingRahel's lettersas honestrepresentations of herself,Veit may have alreadygone intothe trapof theirspecial texture, Rahel's Garn.This newconfession seems to contradicther confessional style.Rahel's displaced stylemay be the answerto Veit's displaced questions. Questionsand answershave again switchedplaces in thisinterroga- tion.Rahel does notwant to discuss the status of the possibly damaging

26. Letterto David Veit,27 January1794 (the letterwas begun on January25). Briefwiechsel,I, pp. 138-9. 27. See Veit'sletter to Rahel,March 4, 1794. Briefivechsel,I, p. 192. 28. See Veit'sletter to Rahel, November 11, 1793, Briefwechsel,I, pp. 50-1; and Rahel's answerto Veit,November 18, 1793, Briefvechsel,I, pp. 58-60. 29. Letterto Veit, December 11, 1794(the letter was begunon December 10).Buch desAndenkens, I, p. 123;Briefwechsel, II, pp. 34-35.See thecontinuation of her reflection on herself,Buch des Andenkens,I, p. 125ff.

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LilianeWeissberg 169 questions,but the originof her answers.They insiston and carryon questionswithout re-direction, and Rahel's own selfappears like the "reverse"question of unknownorigin that provokes further excursions into language. Rahel's negation,much like Moritz's, shows the Nichts, the silence as an action,a holdingback ofinformation, something that Rahel - like Moritz - knowsand does not know. Her crimeis representedas a possiblyirreparable general flaw of character, with no apparentorigin, onlythe apparent linguistic effect. Like a trueanalyst, Rahel putsher- selfagain intoMoritz's position, replacing his, however, with that of a namelessgeneralization, the partner of any conversation in whichshe could be involved.Thus, withher questionsabout thequestions of a stranger,she probesher own unconsciousrefusal to speakthe "truth." Moritz'sand Rahel's pointsof resistanceseem similarfrom her per- spective.Rahel, indeed, repeatsthe question Moritz was supposed to ask - "Is this a crime?" - and cannot answer either. Fear and shame or embarrassment,Schreck and Verlegenheit,had been whatRahel wanted to preventin the previous interrogation,as the damaging effectof questionson Moritz'scharacter. Fear and shame seem to be evoked again,in thesecond interrogation,this time to findout who she is, and whyshe acts as she does. And therecan be no furtherresult for her than answeringthe questions shamefully, and withguilt, following the rules ofa languagethat seem to constituteher character itself. How can one find,and ask,the proper questions, those that do notdamage butcon- structand represent?The urgeto speakon and theurge to be silent,the urgeto representherself and thewhim to lead othersand herselfastray co-existand can, indeed, neverbe separated.Rahel can do nothing else but quote theconversation. Is thisthen all - and maybewe can now fully understand her Schreckand Verlegenheit- that Rahel can know about herself?Is there no innocence to save and to protect beyond thesewords? Rahel may have already been more involvedwith Moritz's deed thanher previous,playful interrogation made us believe,an involve- ment hidden by the texture - Garn - of her own narrative.In which waydo heranswers also speak about herself?Rahel's playwith questionsand answersthere has shiftedthe question as towho she is toward the - this thesecond, - margin is'exposedby unsatisfactorydialogue in the same way as Moritz's Untat- the act of writing"Levin" - has ceased to be an issue in her linguisticexercise. Her reflectionson didacticismdo not centeron whatMoritz has been writing,and Rahel in thisway seems to returnhis lettersto theirmarginal position on the wall upstairs. By turningthe interrogationinto a play, and into a play on truth,Rahel indeed follows Moritz's trickor crime in her act of re-

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1 70 Writingon theWall direction. Not the word - "Levin" - seems arguable, but its place. Moritz writesit, however, on the wall of the upstairs corridor - Flur- thatserves as theboundary of, as well as entranceway to Rahel's own room,the place ofthe salons in which she is knownto tellher own special truths,the truths of theattic, Dachstubenwahrheiten.0? We may, already, havegone intoRahel's trapby having overlooked the fact that Moritz's writingwas, indeed, directedand addressedto her. Moritzhas senta peculiarletter to his sister;it is nothingelse buther name. Rahel, at this time, is also known as "die Levin." She has acquired the name, which is her father'sfirst name, as a last name accordingto Jewish tradition; it is a name thatbelongs to theinterro- gatingolder brotheras well as the youngerone. The name seems to establishin itselfthe origin that is so muchat stakein theinterrogation, replacingthe question of the author of the writtenword with the establishmentof the father in thename: in bothcases, history is sought afterand introduced.The name indicatesa familybond betweenthe senderand the recipientof thewritten word, a certainshared knowl- edge. Moritz'smessage is not onlya public advertisement,but has a meaningthat does not seem to need any interpretation. By turningthe anecdote into an educationallesson, Rahel herself producesa narrativethat avoids anycomment on thename. Record- ing a processof letterwriting is quite differentfrom reflecting on the meaningof the written message. The name Levin,however, her name and a name thatis not only hers,is also an example of involuntary ownership,the example of a possessionfrom which Rahel will struggle to freeherself because itis in no wayable to representher. Signing her lettersjust with"Rahel," Rahel does not,for example, like her correspondent'sformality in signing"David JosephVeit."3 The formality of "Levin," however,consists for Rahel increasinglyas a tie to that other,rejected education, represented by the inheritance of her father's name. Here, then,considering the name, we see a furtherirony of Rahel's question,of how one (theinnocent child) should knowabout one' s crime. The act ofwriting is also theact ofwriting the name ofauthority, the male,the father, theJewish "origin," with which Rahel is not,and can neverbe, quite at ease. Rahel will change her last name to Robert, followingthe initiative of her brothers, and, upon herbaptism shortly before her wedding withVarnhagen, follow the general custom of changingher firstname as well. With"Friederike Antonie," Rahel

30. See, for example, Rahel's letterto Gustav von Brinckmann, end of May, 1800. Buchdes Andenkens, I, p. 436. 31. Letter to Veit, October 31, 1794. Briefwechsel,I, p. 264.

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LilianeWeissberg 171 replacesher first name withone reminiscentof another father figure, Frederickthe Great,who signifiesfor Rahel the new Germanyand Jewishemancipation. Changing her name fromRahel Levinto Rahel Robertto Friederikevon Varnhagen has been a symbolicstep from the Jewishbourgeoisie to gentile- notquite established- aristocracy.32 The changeof her name seems,indeed, to parallelRahel's local changes, her searchfor placement first dramatized by her move to the attic. That Rahel's "true" being cannotbe statedonce and forall, is not just a matterof social history,as her educationallesson has shown.It providedRahel, however, with that privileged position on themargin thatwould make her experienceobvious. If Rahel anticipateda psy- choanalyticdiscourse in her attemptsto establishherself, she seems alreadyto have been "born" intothe position of an analyst.Rahel is a bourgeois non-bourgeois,a Jewcritical of Jews, a woman, and even this in an unsatisfactoryway: "With the opinion, thatI should be a queen (no reigningone) or a mother:I have to experiencethat I amjust nothing.No daughter,no sister,no lover, no woman, not even a citizen."" Whatshe regardedas her"misdirected" fate was herrecog- nitionof thisnegative, or marginalposition, a position thatin turn could only establishitself in a conversationas a psychoanalyticdis- course: "Proper truthsof the attic[Dachstuben-Wahrheiten] he [Prince Louis Ferdinand]will hear. Untilnow, he onlyknew Mariane, but she is baptized,and a princess,and Frauvon Eibenberg,so whatdoes that mean?!"34If Moritz's letterson the wall are an attemptto reveil,to place his sisteras well as himself,his answers-aswell as Rahel's ques- tionsin thelater interrogation repeat the rules of Rahel's salon. While in searchof a savingfunction of language,conversation provided Rahel witha doubtfulcure. Maybe one would reallyhave to reinventlan- guage, so thatit could serveas a means of emancipation.But Rahel's searchfor placement always provokes displacement; the first question seemsalways already to turnagainst itself and producean automatism of languageon itsown. Rahel's displaced style,her verriickter Stil, leads her to thinkabout the madness of language itself. Instead of the searchfor the authorof the name, Rahel poses the searchfor the origin of language:what makes herwrite and saythese

32. Varnhagen himself changes, avoids Rahel's name in the Andenken,he writes "unsern Namen [ourname]" instead of "den Namen Levin [thename Levin]" in the "re- print" of the letter.Scurla's biography of Rahel's life offersthe most detailed study of her change of names and places. 33. Letterto Fouque,July 26, 1809. Buch des Andenkens,I, p. 436. 34. Letter to Gustav von Brinckmann, the end of May, 1800. Buchdes Andenkens, I, p. 200.

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1 72 Writingon theWall contrarywords? Which truth can Rahel'sturning and returninganswers offer?And can Veit,or Varnhagen,or we, everpose thecorrect questions?Trying to open her heart,Rahel places thesecontrary answers beyondany linguistic consciousness: "There exists a playof colors - I willcall itsuch - inour breast,that is so fragile,that, as soon as wewant to utterit [sobaldwir es aussprechenwollen], it turnsinto a lie; I see the words,when theyhave workedthemselves out of myheart, as ifthey arefloating in the air; and theyform a lie; I am searchingfor others, and the timepasses by; and those,too, would not have been any better! Thishesitation prevents me fromspeaking. - A sensationis beautiful as longas it does not become history/narrative[Geschichte] .. .,35 David Veitcan acceptRahel's languageonly in explainingit as a newconven- tion. Rahel, on the otherhand, relies on Veit's correctionto reveal languageas a lie,a narrativefiction, as hidingwhat she is hopingfor - an extralinguistictruth. For Rahel, paradoxically,Moritz's denial of his deed has been more satisfactorythan a possible confession.This paradox,as a displacementor sprain,Verrenkung, is evoked again in the descriptionof herselfas someone who is unable to findany proper place and thereforerepresentation - Darstellung- at all. To describe herselfas truth,Rahel has to describeherself as a reversequestion: "This week, I inventedwhat a paradox is. A truth,that has not yet foundthe space to presentitself; that forcefully presses into the world, and breaksout witha sprain[mit einer Verrenkung hervorbricht]. Unfor- tunately, I am like this! - in this,there lies my death. ,-"6 If skep- ticismabout language may have been at the root of the idea of a non-linguistic,perfect communication called a languageof sensibility, Rahel wants to test language, its Geschichte,through the dialogue. Language cannotescape itsown narrative/history,but has constantly to be called intopresence, be interruptedand exposed. It is constitut- inga "character"and losingit in itswords: "Often, I read in thisbook; and thenI feel,as ifI weredead, and somebodyelse is readingit. -37 Instead of providing the passageway - Flur - forself-representation, language suffocatesthe self. Rahel's answer to this discoveryis a

35. Letter to hersister Rose, September14, 1806 (theletter was begunSeptember 13). Buchdes Andenkens, I, p. 198. 36. Letterto Varnhagen,February 19, 1809. Buchdes Andenkens, I, p. 400. 37. "Aus einemSchreibbuche," December 19, 1805. Buchdes Andenkens, I, p. 280. Whilhelmvon Humboldt'sreaction to Rahel'sletters has, for example, been similarto Veit's,reversing Rahel's note: "Ich kennekein Buch, in welchem so wie indiesem kein Buchstabeein toterist. [I don'tknow any other book in which no letter is a deadletter, like in this one]"See FriedhelmKemp, "Nachwort." In RahelVarnhagen, Briefwechsel, I (Munich: Winkler,1979), p. 398.

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LilianeWeissberg 1 73 peculiar silence of the pen: a franticattempt to gain lifeby writing thousandsof letters, by producing, as she once formulated,"her lifeas a text."38 Words,Rahel is copying Saint-Martin, bury the living, and have con- stantlyto be buriedby those who are using them. Rahel, commenting on thisquotation, does notread Saint-Martin's vision of death as an end,but a "restand beginning." While Varnhagen is writing his Anden- kenas a Buch of biblical dimensions - Das BuchRahel, as itwas known - Rahel's own testamentdisplays a mysticbelief, an urge to com- municateand toavoid anyenterrement:"The mainthing in regardto my deathVarnhagen has promisedme upon hishonor; namely, to putme withoutany finery into a cheap coffin,one thathas no nailed down lid or a lid thatwould be inthe least difficult to open: thecover of my coffin should be made out ofglass, if only the smallest pieces of greenglass, and that'seven whatI want.The coffinitself will not be buried in the earth, but should be put into a littlehouse - be it ever so tiny- just likethe very unimportant little guardhouses they have for buildings, or thelike - or a souterrain-room,or anothersuch place rc."39Rahel's meansof overcoming limitations turn her into an objectof exhibit, she is exposed behind glass. Her architecturalplans markher place as a room on theground floor, too low forrespectable living, but an attic room fromthe perspectiveof the dead. It resembles,finally, nothing else but a guard house, Wachthiiuschen,a building like a corridor,in whichone could look out forthe trafficof possible signsto come.

38. Letter to Rahel's sister Rose, March 14, 1801. Andenken,I, p. 236. Marianne Schuller reads Rahel's styleand need to express herselfin lettersas a case study of hys- teria, " 'Unsere Sprache ist unser gelebtes Leben.' Randbemerkungen zur Schreib- weise Rahel Varnhagens," Rahel-Bibliothek,X, 43-59. 39. "Verfiigungen," April 23, 1816. Buch des Andenkens,II, pp. 389-390.

This content downloaded on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:59:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions