Graf von Loeben and the Legend of Lorelei
Allen Wilson Porterfield
in the occasion of the birth of Lorelei Kay Lynn Hutchinson.
The images were generously made available by the Bibliotheque
nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)
VOLUME XIII October 1915 NUMBER 6 (pp. 65-92)
ALLEN WILSON PORTERFIELD
GRAF VON LOEBEN AND THE LEGEND OF LORELEI
The devotees of Apollo have to give a good account of themselves in
Olympia before, they can become _persona grata_ on Olympus. They spend
their lives, more or less, at the various games of poetry. Some, like
Goethe, win in the majority of trials, and then we study all of their
records regardless of their individual excellence. Some like Immermann
in _Oberhof_, win only once, but this is sufficient to insure
immortality. Some play and joust, run and wrestle with constancy and
grace; their records, just after starting and just before finishing,
are interesting, but in the end they are always defeated. And when
this is the case, posterity, lay and initiated, forgets their names
and concerns itself in no wise with their records, unless it be for
statistical purposes. It is to the latter class that Graf von
Loeben belongs. For twenty-five years he was a perpetual,
loyal, chivalric contestant in the Olympic vale of poetry. His running
was interesting, but he never won; he never wrote a single thing that
everybody still reads for its own sake.
Aside from his connection with the Lorelei-matter, Graf von Loeben is,
therefore, at present, a wholly obscure, indeed unknown, Poet. The
large _Konversations-Lexikons_ of Meyer and Brockhaus say nothing
about him, unless it be in the discussion of some other poet with whom
he associated. Of the twenty best-known histories of German
literature, some of which treat nothing but the nineteenth century,
only six contain his name, and these simply mention him either as a
member of the Dresden group of pseudo-romanticists, or as one of those
_Afterromantiker_ who did yeoman service by way of bringing real
romanticism into disrepute through their unsubstantial, imitative, and
formless works. And this is true despite the fact that Loeben was an
exceedingly prolific writer and a very popular and influential man in.
his day. Concerning his personality, Muncker says: "Die Tiefe und
WAerme seines leicht erregbaren GemUethes, seine Herzensreinheit, seine
schwAermerische Hingabe an alles SchOene und Edle sowie sein zartes
TactgefUehl erwarben ihm bei Freunden und Bekannten das Lob einer
schOenen Seele in des Wortes schOenster Bedeutung."
As to his poetic ability from the point of view of quantity, one can
only marvel at the amount he produced in the time at his disposal; his
creative works cover all types and sorts of literature. He is best
known for his numerous poems and his _magnus opus_, _Guido_, a novel
of 360 pages, written under the pen-name of "Isidorus Orientalis," and
intended as a continuation of Novalis' _Ofterdingen_; he used Tieck's
notes for this purpose. He wrote also a great number of letters,
between 60 and 70 elaborate reviews, and some critical essays, the
best of which seems to be his commentary to Madame de Stael's _De
l'Allemagne_, while he translated from Anacreon, Dante, Guarini,
Horace, Ovid, Petrarch, Vergil, and others, and left a number of
fragments including the outline of a pretentious novel of which
Heinrich von Veldeke, whom he looked upon as "der Heilige des
Enthusiasmus," was to be the hero. And he was, incidentally, an
omnivorous reader, for, as he naively said:
Viele BUecher muss ich kennen,
Denn die Menschen kenn' ich gern.
As to his originality, another confession is significant:
Ja, es gibt nur wenig Leute,
Deren SchUeler ich nicht bin.
No attempt, however, has as yet been made at even an eclectic edition
of his numerous finished works, a few of which are still unpublished,
many of which are now rare.
As to his standing with his literary contemporaries, Eichendorff
admitted that Loeben influenced him as a man and as a poet; it was
he who induced Eichendorff to write some of his earlier works under
the pen-name of "Florens." And Eichendorff in turn credited Goethe
with the remark that "Loeben war der vorzUeglichste Dichter jener
Zeit." His influence on Platen is not quite so certain; Loeben was
Platen's senior by ten years, and they resembled each other in their
ability to employ difficult verse and strophe forms, and Platen read
Loeben in 1824. Kleist interested himself in Loeben sufficiently to
publish one of his short stories in his _AbendblAetter_, but only after
he had so thoroughly revised it that Reinhold Steig says: "Ich wUerde
als Herausgeber die ErzAehlung sogar unter Kleists _Parerga_
aufnehmen." His connection with, and influence upon, the Dresden
group of romanticists, including Tieck, is a matter of record, and
Fouque looked upon him as a poet of uncommon ability.
But let no one on this account believe that Loeben was a great poet
and that the silence concerning him is therefore grimly unjust.
Goethe, whether he made the foregoing remark or not, at least
received Loeben kindly; but he received others in the same way who
were not poets at all. Eichendorff said: "Loeben. Wunderbar poetische
Natur in stiller VerklAerung." But Eichendorff was then only
nineteen years old, and he later took this back. Herder was moved to
tears on reading Loeben's _Maria_, but Herder was easily moved,
and he died soon after; he would in all probability have changed his
mind too. Friedrich Schlegel, on the other hand, was not justified in
calling the pastoral poems in _Arkadien_ "Schafpoesie." Uhland
praised these same poems; but he reminded Loeben in no uncertain
terms, that the chief characteristic of southern poetry was
"Phantasie," while that of the northern poets was "GemUeth," and that
the attempt to revive the spirit of Guarini, Cervantes, and their kind
was not well taken.
That Loeben has been so totally neglected by historians and
encyclopedists is simply a case of that disproportion that so
frequently characterizes general treatises. Loeben is entitled to some
space in large works on German literature; but he was, like many
another who has been given space, a weak poet. And the sort of
weakness, with which he was endowed can be brought out by a discussion
of two of his novelettes, _Das weisse Ross,_ and _Leda,_ neither
of which is by any means his best work, and neither of which seems to
be his worst. But, to judge from what has been said of his prose works
in general, both are quite typical.
The plot so far as the action is concerned is as follows: Otto
owes the victory he won at a tournament in NUernberg largely to the
beauty and agility of his great white horse Bellerophon. Siegenot von
der Aue had seen him and his horse perform and determined to obtain
Bellerophon, if possible, for, owing to a curse pronounced on his
family by a remote ancestor, Siegenot must either win at the next
tournament or become a monk, which he does not wish to do. Both he and
Otto love Felicitas, the niece of Graf Berthald. Siegenot secures
Bellerophon, is victorious at the tournament, though seriously
wounded, and is nursed back to health by Otto and Felicitas. It is
Otto, however, who wins Felicitas through his chivalric treatment of
his rival. The two are married, while Siegenot rides away on the great
white horse Bellerophon.
It is such creations that make us turn away from Loeben. Alas for
German romanticism if this story were wholly typical of it! It
contains the traditional conceits of the orthodox romanticists, but
applied in such a sweet, lovely, pretty fashion! One woman is placed
between two men, for in that way Loeben could best bring out his
philosophy of friendship. The only change, it seems, that he ever made
in this arrangement was to place one man between two women. The
sick-bed is poetized as the cradle of knowledge, for in it, or on it,
we become introspective and learn life. Old chronicles, tournaments,
jewelry, precious stones, Maryism, nature from every conceivable point
of view, dreams and premonitions, visions and hallucinations, religion
of the renunciatory type, the pain that clarifies, the friendship that
weeps, Catholic painting and lute music, and love--human and
divine--these are the main themes in this tale. Lyrics and episodic
stories are interpolated, obsolete words and stylistic archaisms
occur. In short, the novelette reads like an amalgamation of Novalis
without his philosophy, Waekenroder without his suggestiveness, and
Tieck without his constructive ability.
The story entitled Leda is again typical of Loeben. Briefly
stated, the plot is as follows: Leda, the daughter of a Roman duke,
loves Cephalo, who is a gentleman but not a nobleman, and is loved by
him. Her father, however, has forced her to become engaged to Alberto,
a man of high degree, whom she does not love. The wedding is imminent,
and Leda is sorely perplexed. Her father does not know why she is so
indifferent to the approaching event and accordingly sends her to a
distant and lonely castle in the hope that she may become interested,
at least, in her own nuptials. While there she drowns herself in the
swan lake. Alberto drops out of the story, and Cephalo becomes the
intimate friend of the duke. Previous to this Alberto had ordered a
certain painter to paint a picture of "Leda and the Swan." Danae, the
daughter of an old, unscrupulous antiquarian, was seen by Cephalo
while posing as a model for Leda. Enraged at this, she tells her
father that she will not be appeased until married to Cephalo. But she
loses her life through the falling of an old, dilapidated castle
wherein she has been keeping an unconventional tryst, and Cephalo
becomes the intimate friend of the painter.
Loeben's ideas and technique stand out in every line of this story.
One woman is placed between two men, unexpected friendships are
developed, the lute and the zither are played in the moonlight, love
and longing abound, nature is made a confidant, _der Zaubern der
Kunst_ is overdone, familiar stories--Leda and the Swan, Actaeon and
Danae--are interwoven, there are manifest reminiscences of _Emilia
Galotti_ and _Ofterdingen_, and the prose is uncommonly fluent. The
only character in the entire narrative who has any virility is the
antiquarian, and he is one of the meanest Loeben ever drew. Alberto
has no will at all, Leda not much, Cephalo less than Leda, and Danae
is without character. In short, the only valuable, part of the story
lies in its approach to a development of the psychology of love in
art. But it is only an approach; and it does not make one feel
inclined to read a vast deal more of the prose works of Graf von
As to Loeben's lyrics, they are irregular, inconsistent, and odd
as to orthography, melodious and flowing in form, poor in ideas,
rich in feeling that frequently sounds forced, representative of
nearly all the important Germanic, Romance, and Oriental verse and
strophe forms, reminiscent of his reading in many instances, and
romantic as a whole, especially in their constant portrayal of
longing. Loeben was the poet of _Sehnsucht_. He tried always _das Nahe
zu entfernen und das Ferne sich nahe zu bringen_. With a few
conspicuous exceptions, his lyrics resemble those of Geibel somewhat
in form and treatment. Poetry and individual poets receive grateful
consideration, the seasons are overworked, love rarely fails and
nature never, wine and the Rhine are not forgotten, and the South is
poetized as the land of undying inspiration. Of their kind, and in
their way, Loeben's poems are nearly perfect. There are no
expressions that repel, no verses that jar, no poems that wholly lack
fancy, and there are occasional evidences of the inspiration that
rebounds. It would be presumptuous to ask for a more amiable poem than
"FrUehlingstrost" (46), or for a neater one than "Der NichterhOerte"
(121), or for a more gently roguish one than the triolett entitled
But be his poems never so good, there is no reason why Loeben should
be revived for the general reader. His prose works lack artistic
measure and objective plausibility; his lyrics lack clarity and
virility; his creations in general lack the story-telling property
that holds attention and the human-interest touches that move the
soul. His thirty-nine years were too empty of real experience; his
works are not filled with the matter that endures. And it is for this
reason that they ceased to live after their author had died. His
connection with this earth was always just at the snapping-point. His
works constitute, in many instances, a poetic rearrangement of what he
had just latterly read. And when he is original he is vacuous. To
emphasize his works for their own sake would consequently be to set up
false values. Loeben can be studied with profit only by those people
who believe that great poets can be better understood and appreciated
by a study of the literary than by a study of the economic background.
To know Loeben throws light on some of his much greater
contemporaries--Goethe, Eichendorff, Kleist, Novalis, Arnim, Brentano,
Uhland, GOerres, Tieck, and possibly Heine.
But it is not so much the purpose of this paper to evaluate Loeben's
creations as to locate him in the development of the Lorelei-legend,
and to prove, or disprove, Heine's indebtedness to him in the case of
his own poem of like name. The facts are these:
In 1801 Clemens Brentano published at Bremen the first volume of his
__Godwi_ and in 1802 the second volume at the same place. He had
finished the novel early in 1799--he was then twenty-one years old.
Wieland was instrumental in securing a publisher. Near the close
of the second volume, Violette sings the song beginning:
Zu Bacharach am Rheine
Wohnt eine Zauberin.
That this now well-known ballad of the Lorelei was invented by
Brentano is proved, not so much by his own statement to that effect as
by the fact that the erudite and diligent Grimm brothers, the friends
of Brentano, did not include the Lorelei-legend in their collection of
_579 Deutsche Sagen_, 1816. The name of his heroine Brentano took from
the famous echo-rock near St. Goar, with which locality he became
thoroughly familiar during the years 1780-89. No romanticist knew the
Rhine better or loved it more than Brentano. "Lore" means a small,
squinting elf; and is connected with the verb "lauern." The oldest
form of the word is found in the _Codex Annales Fuldenses_, which goes
back to the year 858, and was first applied to the region around the
modern Kempten near Bingen. "Lei" means a rock; "Loreley" means then
"Elbfels." And what Brentano and his followers have done is to apply
the name of a place to a person.
In _Urania: Taschenbuch auf das Jahr 1821_, Graf von Loebcn published
his "Loreley: Eine Sage vom Rhein." The following ballad introduces
the saga in prose. Heine's ballad is set opposite for the sake of
Da wo der Mondschein blitzet Ich weiss nicht, was soll es bedeuten
Um's hOechste Felsgestein, Dass ich so traurig bin;
Das ZauberfrAeulein sitzet Ein MAerchen aus alten Zeiten,
Und schauet auf den Rhein. Das kommt mir nicht aus dem Sinn.
Es schauet herUeber, hinUeber, Die Luft ist kUehl und es dunkelt,
Es schauet hinab, hinauf, Und ruhig fliesst der Rhein;
Die Schifflein ziehn vorUeber, Der Gipfel des Berges funkelt
Lieb' Knabe, sieh nicht auf! Im Abendsonnenschein.
Sie singt dir hold zum Ohre, Die schOenste Jungfrau sitzet
Sie blickt dich thOericht an, Dort oben wunderbar,
Sie ist die schOene Lore, Ihr goldenes Geschmeide blitzet,
Sie hat dir's angethan. Sie kAemmt ihr goldenes Haar.
Sie schaut wohl nach dem Rheine, Sie kAemmt es mit goldenem Kamme,
Als schaute sie nach dir, Und singt ein Lied dabei;
Glaub's nicht, dass sie dich meine, Das hat eine wundersame
Sich nicht, horch nicht nach ihr! Gewaltige Melodei.
So blickt sie wohl nach allen Den Schiffer im kleinen Schiffe
Mit ihrer Augen Glanz, Ergreift es mit wildem Weh;
LAesst her die Locken wallen Er schaut nicht die Felsenriffe,
Im wilden goldnen Tanz. Er schaut nur hinauf in die HOeh'.
Doch wogt in ihrem Blicke Ich glaube, die Wellen verschlingen
Nur blauer Wellen Spiel, Am Ende Schiffer und Kahn;
Drum scheu die WassertUecke, Und das hat mit ihrem Singen
Denn Flut bleibt falsch und kUehl! Die Lorelei gethan.
The following saga then relates how an old hunter sings this song to a
young man in a boat on the Rhine, warning him against the allurements
of the Lorelei on the rock above. The hunter's good intentions are
fruitless, the young man is drowned.
In the autumn of 1823, Heine wrote, while at Luneburg, his "Die
Lorelei." It was first published in the _Gesellschafter,_ March
26, 1824. Commentators refer to the verse, "Ein MAerchen aus alten
Zeiten," as a bit of fiction, adding that it is not a title of olden
times, but one invented by Brentano about 1800. The statement is true
but misleading, for we naturally infer that Heine derived his initial
inspiration from Brentano's ballad. Concerning this matter there are
three points of view: Some editors and historians point out Brentano's
priority and list his successors without committing themselves as
to intervening influence. This has only bibliographical value and for
our purpose may be omitted. Some trace Heine's ballad direct to
Brentano, some direct to Loeben. Which of these two points of view has
the more argument in its favor and can there be still a third?
In the first place, Heine never knew Brentano personally, and never
mentions him in his letters previous to 1824, nor in his letters
that have thus far been published after 1824. _Godwi_ was repudiated
soon after its publicatipn by Brentano himself, who said there was
only one good thing about it, the title, for, after people had said
"Godwi," they could just keep on talking and say, "Godwi, dumm." On
its account, Caroline called him Demens Brentano, while Dorothea
dubbed him "Angebrenntano." The novel became a rare and unread book
until Anselm Ruest brought out a new edition with a critical and
appreciative introduction in 1906. Diel and Kreiten say "es ging fast
spurlos vorUeber." It was not included in his _Gesammelte Schriften_
(1852-55), though the ballad was. Heine does not mention it in his
_Romantische Schule_, which was, however, written ten years after he
had finished his "Die Lorelei." And as to the contents of Brentano's
ballad, there is precious little in it that resembles Heine's ballad,
aside from the name of the heroine, and even here the similarity is
far from striking.
And yet, despite all this, commentators continue to say that Heine
drew the initial inspiration for his "Lorelei" from Brentano. They may
be right, but no one of them has thus far produced any tenable
argument, to say nothing of positive proof. The most recent supporter
of Brentano's claim is Eduard Thorn (1913), who reasons as
Heine knew Brentano's works in 1824, for in that year he borrowed
_Wunderhorn_ and _TrOesteinsamkeit_ from the library at GOettingen.
These have, however, nothing to do with Brentano's ballad, and it is
one year too late for Heine's ballad. All of Thorn's references to
Heine's _Romantische Schule_, wherein _Godwi_, incidentally, is not
mentioned, though other works are, collapse, for this was written ten
years too late. And then, to quote Thorn: "Loeben's Gedicht lieferte
das direkte Vorbild fUer Heine." He offers no proof except the
statements of Strodtmann, Hessel, and Elster to this effect.
And again: "Der Name Lorelay findet sich bei Loeben nicht als
Eigenname, wenn er auch das Gedicht, 'Der Lurleifels' Ueberschreibt."
But the name Loreley does occur twice on the same page on which
the last strophe of the ballad is published in _Urania_, and here the
ballad is not entitled "Der Lurleifels," but simply "Loreley." Now,
even granting that Loeben entitled his ballad one way in the MS and
Brockhaus published it in another way in _Urania_, it is wholly
improbable that Heine saw Loeben's MS previous to 1823.
And then, after contending that Brentano's _RheinmAerchen_, which,
though written before 1823, were not published until 1846, must have
given Heine the hair-combing motif, Thorn says: "Also kann nur
Brentano das Vorbild geliefert haben." This cannot be correct. What
is, on the contrary, at least possible is that Heine influenced
Brentano. The _RheinmAerchen_ were finished, in first form, in
1816. And Guido GOerres, to whom Brentano willed them, and who first
published them, tells us how Brentano carried them around with him in
his satchel and changed them and polished them as opportunity was
offered and inspiration came. It is therefore reasonable to believe
that Heine helped Brentano to metamorphose his Lorelei of the ballad,
where she is wholly human, into the superhuman Lorelei of the
_RheinmAerchen_ where she does, as a matter of fact, comb her hair with
a golden comb.
And now as to Loeben: Did Heine know and borrow from his ballad? Aside
from the few who do not commit themselves, and those who trace Heine's
poem direct to Brentano, and Oscar F. Walzel to be referred to later,
all commentators, so far as I have looked into the matter, say that he
did. Adolf Strodtmann said it first (1868), in the following
words: "Es leidet wohl keinen Zweifel, dass Heine dies Loeben'sche
Ballade gekannt und bei Abfassung seiner Lorelei-Ballade benutzt hat."
But he produces no proof except similarity of form and content. Of the
others who have followed his lead, ten, for particular reasons, should
be authorities: Franz Muncker, Karl Hessel, Karl Goedeke,
Wilhelm Scherer, Georg MUecke, Wilhelm Hertz, Ernst
Elster, Georg Brandes, Heinrich Spiess, and Herrn. Anders
KrUeger. But no one of them offers any proof except Strodtmann's
statement to this effect.
Now their contention may be substantially correct; but their method of
contending is scientifically wrong. To accept, where verification is
necessary, the unverified statement of any man is wrong. And, that is
the case here. Elster's note is of peculiar interest. He says: "Heine
schloss sich am nAechsten an die Bearbeitung eines Stoffs an, die ein
Graf LOeben 1821 verOeffentlichte." The expression "ein Graf LOeben" is
grammatical evidence, though not proof, of one of two things: that
Loeben was to Elster himself in 1890 a mere name, or that Elster knew
Loeben would be this to the readers of his edition of Heine's works.
Brandes says: "Die Nachahmung ist unzweifelhaft." His proof is
Strodtmann's statement, and similarity of content and form, with
special reference to the two rhymes "sitzet-blitzet" that occur in
both. But this was a very common rhyme with both Heine and Loeben in
other poems. How much importance can be attached then to similarity of
content and form?
The verse and strophe form, the rhyme scheme, the accent, the melody,
except for Heine's superiority, are the same in both. As to length,
the two poems are exactly equal, each containing, by an unimportant
but interesting coincidence, precisely 117 words. But the contents
of the two poems are not nearly so similar as they apparently seemed,
at first blush, to Adolf Strodtmann. The melodious singing, the golden
hair and the golden comb and the use that is made of both, the
irresistibly sweet sadness, the time, "Aus alten Zeiten," and the
subjectivity--Heine himself recites his poem--these indispensable
essentials in Heine's poem are not in Loeben's. Indeed as to content
and of course as to merit, the two poems are far removed from each
And, moreover, literary parallels are the ancestors of that undocile
child, Conjecture. We must remember that sirenic and echo poetry are
almost as old as the tide of the sea, certainly as old as the hills,
while as to the general situation, there is a passage in Milton's
_Comus_ (ll. 880-84) analogous to Heine's ballad, as follows:
And fair Ligea's golden comb,
Wherewith she sits on diamond rocks,
Sleeking her soft alluring locks,
By all the nymphs that nightly dance
Upon thy streams with wily glance,
and so on. And as to the pronounced similarity of form, we must
remember that Heine was here employing his favorite measure, while
Loeben was almost the equal of Ruckert in regard to the number of
verse and strophe forms he effectively and easily controlled. In
short, striking similarity in content is lacking, and as to the same
sort of similarity in form to this but little if any significance can
And if the internal evidence is thin, the external is invisible,
except for the fact that Loeben's ballad was published by Brockhaus,
whom Heine knew by correspondence. But between the years 1818 and
1847, Heine never published anything in _Urania_, which was used
by so many of his contemporaries. Heine and Loeben never knew each
other personally, and between the years 1821 and 1823 they were never
regionally close together. Heine never mentions Loeben in his
letters; nor does he refer to him in his creative works, despite the
fact that he had a habit of alluding to his brothers in Apollo, even
in his poems.
And therefore, though it is fashionable to say that Heine knew
Loeben's ballad in 1823, and though the contention is plausible, it is
impossible to prove it. Impossible also for this reason: Karl Simrock,
Heine's intimate friend, included in his _Rheinsagen_ (1836, 1837,
1841) the ballads on the Lorelei by Brentano, Eichendorff, Heine,
and himself. Why did he exclude the one by Loeben? He made an ardent
appeal in his preface to his colleagues to inform him of any other
ballads that had been written on these themes. The question must be
referred to those who like to skate on flabby ice in things literary.
The most plausible theory in regard to the source of Heine's ballad is
the one proposed by Oscar F. Walzel, who says: "Heine hat den Stoff
wahrscheinlich aus dem ihm wohlbekannten _Handbuch fUer Reisende am
Rhein_ von Aloys Schreiber Uebernommen." The only proof that Walzel
gives that Heine knew Schreiber's manual is a reference to it in
_Lutetia_. But this was written in 1843, and proves nothing as to
1823. His contention, however, that Heine borrowed from Schreiber
has everything in its favor, from the point of view of both external
and internal evidence and deserves, therefore, detailed elaboration.
As to internal evidence, there is only one slight difference between
Heine's ballad and Schreiber's saga: where Heine's Lorelei combs her
hair with a golden comb and has golden jewelry, Schreiber's "bindet
einen Kranz fUer ihre goldenen Locken" and "hat eine Schnur von
Bernstein in der Hand." Even here the color scheme is the same;
otherwise there is no difference: time, place, and events are
precisely the same in both. The mood and style are especially similar.
The only words in Heine not found in Schreiber are "Kamm" and
"bedeuten." Schreiber goes, to be sure, farther than does Heine: he
continues the story after the death of the hero. This, however, is
of no significance, for Heine was simply interested in his favorite
theme of unrequited or hindered love.
Now Heine must have derived his plot from somewhere, else this would
be an uncanny case of coincidence. And the two expressions, "Aus alten
Zeiten," and "Mit ihrem Singen," the latter of which is so important,
Heine could have derived only from Schreiber. Heine was not jesting
when he said it was a fairy tale from the days of old; he was
following, it seems, Schreiber's saga, the first sentence of which
reads as follows: "In alten Zeiten liess sich manchmal auf dem Lureloy
um die AbenddAemmerung und beym Mondschein eine Jungfrau sehen, die mit
so anmuthiger Stimme sang, dass alle, die es hOerten, davon bezaubert
wurden." But Brentano's Lorelei does not sing at all, and Loeben's
just a little, "Sie singt dir hold zum Ohre," while Heine, like
Schreiber, puts his heroine in the prima donna class, and has her work
her charms through her singing. And it seems that Heine was following
Schreiber when the latter wrote as follows: "Viele, die
vorUeberschifften, gingen am Felsenriff oder im Strudel zu Grunde, weil
sie nicht mehr auf den Lauf des Fahrzeugs achteten, sondern von den
himmlischen TOenen der wunderbaren Jungfrau gleichsam vom Leben
abgelOest wurden, wie das zarte Leben der Blume sich im sUessen Duft
And as to her personal appearance, Brentano and Loeben simply tell us
that she was beautiful, Brentano employing the Homeric method of
proving her beauty by its effects. Heine and Schreiber not only
comment upon her physical beauty, they also tell us how she enhanced
her natural charms by zealously attending to her hair and her jewelry
and religiously guarding the color scheme in so doing. In brief, the
similarity is so striking that, if we can prove that Heine knew
Schreiber in 1823, we can definitely assert that Schreiber was his
main, if not his unique, source.
Let us take up the various arguments in favor of the contention that
Heine knew Schreiber's Handbuch in 1823, beginning with the least
convincing. If Heine read Loeben's ballad and saga in "_Urania_ fUer
1821," he could thereby have learned also of Schreiber's _Rheinsagen_,
for, by a peculiar coincidence for our purpose, Brockhaus
discusses these in the introduction in connection with a tragedy
by W. Usener, entitled Die BrUeder, and based upon one of Schreiber's
_Sagen_. Proof, then, that Heine knew Loeben in 1823 is almost proof
that he also knew Schreiber.
But there is better proof than this. In Elementargeister, we find
this sentence: "Ganz genau habe ich die Geschichte nicht im Kopfe;
wenn ich nicht irre, wird sie in Schreibers _Rheinischen Sagen_ aufs
umstAendlichste erzAehlt. Es ist die Sage vom Wisperthal, welches unweit
Lorch am Rheine gelegen ist." And then Heine tells the same story that
is told by Schreiber. It is the eighth of the seventeen _Sagen_ in
question. This, then, is proof that Heine knew Schreiber so long
before 1835 that he was no longer sure he could depend upon his
memory. But it is impossible to say whether Heine's memory was good
for twelve years, or more, or less.
But there is better evidence than this. Heine's _Der Rabbi von
Bacharach_ reaches far back into his life. That he intended to write
this sort of work before 1823 has been proved; just when he
actually began to write this particular work is not so clear, but we
know that he did much preliminary reading by way of preparing himself
for its composition. And the region around and above and below
Bacharach comes in for detailed discussion and elaborate description
in Schreiber's _Rheinsagen_. The crusades, the _Sankt-Wernerskirchen_,
Lorch, the _Fischfang_, Hatto's _MAeuseturm_, the maelstrom at Bingen,
the _Kedrich_, the story of the _Kecker Reuter_ who liberated the maid
that had been abducted by dwarfs, and again, and this is irrefutable,
the story "von dem wunderlicheft Wisperthale drUeben, wo die VOegel ganz
vernUenftig sprechen," all of these and others play a large role in
Schreiber's sagas and in Heine's _Rabbi_. No one can read Schreiber's
_Handbuch_ and Heine's _Rabbi_ without being convinced that the former
stood sponsor for the latter.
And lastly, Heine wrote before 1821 his poem entitled "Die zwei
BrUeder." It is the tenth of the seventeen _Volkssagen_ by
Schreiber, the same theme as the one treated by W. Usener already
referrred to. It is an old story, and Heine could have derived his
material from a number of places, but not from Grimm's _Deutsche_
_Sagen_, indeed from no place so convenient as Schreiber. Heine knew
Schreiber's _Handbuch_ in 1823.
The situation, then, is as follows: Heine had to have a source or
sources, There are three candidates for Heine honors; Brentano,
Loeben, Schreiber. Brentano has a number of supporters, though the
evidence, external and internal, is wholly lacking. It would seem that
lack of attention to chronology has misled investigators. Brentano's
ballad can now be read in many places, but between about 1815 and 1823
it was safely concealed in the pages of an unread and unknown novel.
Loeben has many supporters, though the external evidence, except
for the fact that Heine corresponded with Brockhaus, is wholly
lacking, and the internal weakens on careful study. It would seem that
the striking similarity in form has misled investigators. Schreiber
has only one supporter, despite the fact that the evidence, external
and internal, is as strong as it can be without Heine's ever having
made some such remark as the following: "Yes, in 1823 I knew _only_
Schreiber's saga and borrowed from it." But Heine never made any such
statement. It would seem that the strong assertions of so many
investigators in favor of Brentano and Loeben have made careful study
of the matter appear not worth while; the problem was apparently
solved. And since Heine never committed himself in this connection,
the matter will, in all probability, remain forever conjectural. This
much, however, is irrefutable: even if Heine knew in 1823 the five
_Loreleidichtungen_, that had then been written, those by Brentano,
Niklas Vogt, Eichendorff, Schreiber, and Loeben, and if he borrowed
what he needed from all of them, he borrowed more from Schreiber
than from the other four combined.
Whore Brentano sowed, many have reaped. Since the publication of his
_Godwi_, about sixty-five _Loreleidichtungen_ have been written in
German, the most important being those by Brentano (1810-16), Niklas
Vogt (1811), Eichendorff (_ca._ 1812), Loeben (1821), Heine
(1823), Simrock (1837, 1840), Otto Ludwig (1838), Geibel (1834, 1846),
W. MUeller von KOenigswinter (1851), Carmen Sylva, (_ca._ 1885), A.
L'Arronge (1886), Julius Wolff (1886), and Otto Roquette (1889). In
addition to these, the story has been retold many times, with
slight alterations of the "original" versions, by compilers of
chrestomathies, and parodies have been written on it. There is hardly
a conceivable interpretation that has not been placed upon the
legend. The Lorelei has been made by some the evil spirit that
entices men into hazardous games of chance, by others, she is the
lofty incarnation of a desire to live and be blessed with the love
that knows no turning away. The story has also wandered to Italy,
France, England, Scotland, Scandinavia, and the United States, and
the heroine has proved a grateful theme for painters and sculptors. Of
the epic works, that by Julius Wolff is of interest because of the
popularity it has enjoyed. First published in 1886, it had reached the
forty-sixth thousand in 1898. Of the dramas that by L'Arronge should
be valuable, but it has apparently never been published; nor has Otto
Ludwig's operatic fragment, unless recently. Aside from Geibel,
Otto Roquette is the most interesting librettist. Of the forty-odd
(there were forty-two in 1898) composers of Heine's ballad, the
greatest are Schumann, Raff, and Liszt, and in this case Friedrich
Sucher, who married the ballad to its now undivorceable melody.
Though Brentano created the story of his ballad, he located it in
a region rich in legendary material, and it was the echo-motif of
which he made especial use, and traces of this can be found in German
literature as early as the thirteenth century. The first real poet
to borrow from Brentano was Eichendorff, in whose _Ahnung und
Gegenwart_ we have the poem since published separately under the title
of "WaldgesprAech," and familiar to many through Schumann's
composition. That Eichendorff's Lorelei operates the forest is
only to be expected of the author of so many _Waldlieder_. Even if
Heine had known it he could have borrowed nothing from it except the
name of his heroine.
As to Loeben's saga, there can be but little doubt that he derived his
initial inspiration from Schreiber, with whom he became intimately
acquainted at Heidelberg during the winter of 1807-8. This, of
course, is not to say that Heine borrowed from Loeben. Indeed, one of
the strongest proofs that Heine borrowed from Schreiber rather than
from Loeben is the clarity and brevity, ease and poetry of Schreiber's
saga as over against the obscurity and diffuseness, clumsiness and
woodenness of Loeben's saga, the plot of which, so far as the
action is concerned, is as follows: Hugbert von Stahleck, the son of
the Palsgrave, falls in love with the Lorelei and rows out in the
night to her seat by the Rhine. In landing, he falls into the stream,
the Lorelei dives after him and brings him to the surface. The old
Palsgrave has, in the meanwhile, sent a knight and two servants to
capture the Lorelei. They climb the lofty rock and hang a stone around
the enchantress' neck, when she voluntarily leaps from the cliff into
the Rhine below and is drowned.
The one episode in Loeben not found in any of Schreiber's _Rheinsagen_
is the story of the castaway ring miraculously restored from the
stomach of the fish. This Loeben could have taken from "Magelone" by
Tieck, or "Polykrates" by Schiller, both of whom he revered as men and
with whose works he was thoroughly familiar. But there is nothing in
Loeben that Heine could not have derived in more inspiring form from
Schreiber; and Schreiber contains essentials not in Loeben at all.
Indeed, a general study of Schreiber's manuals leads one to believe
that the influence of them, as a whole, on Heine would be a most
grateful theme: there is not one Germanic legend referred to in Heine
that is not contained in Schreiber. And as a prose writer, Heine's
fame rests largely on his travel pictures.
The points of similarity between Loeben's ballad and saga and the
ballads and MAerchen of Brentano, all of which Loeben knew in 1821, are
wholly negligible. It remains, therefore, simply to point out some
of the peculiarities of Brentano's "Loreley" as protrayed in the
_RheinmAerchen_--peculiarities that are interesting in themselves and
that may have played a part in the development of the legend since
In "Das MAerchen von dem Rhein und dem MUeller Radlauf," Loreley is
portrayed in a sevenfold capacity, as it were: seven archways lead to
seven doors that open onto seven stairways that lead to a large hall
in which Frau Lureley sits on a sevenfold throne with seven crowns
upon her head and her seven daughters around her. This makes
interesting reading for children, but Brentano did not lose sight of
adults, including those who like to speculate as to the origin of the
legend. He says: "Sie [Lorelei] ist eine Tochter der Phantasie,
welches eine berUehmte Eigenschaft ist, die bei Erschaffung der Welt
mitarbeitete und das Allerbeste dabei that; als sie unter der Arbeit
ein schOenes Lied sang, hOerte sie es immer wiederholen und fand endlich
den Wiederhall, einen schOenen JUengling in einem Felsen sitzen, mit dem
sie sich verheiratete und mit ihm die Frau Lureley erzeugte; sie
hatten auch noch viele andere Kinder, zum Beispiel: die Echo, den
Akkord, den Reim, deren Nachkommen sich noch auf der Welt
Just as Frau Lureley closes the first _MAerchen_, so does she begin the
second: "Von dem Hause Staarenberg und den Ahnen des MUellers
Radlauf." Here she creates, or motivates, the other characters.
Her seven daughters appear with her, as follows: Herzeleid,
Liebesleid, Liebeseid, Liebesneid, Liebesfreud, Reu und Leid, and
Mildigkeit. She reappears then with her seven daughters at the close
of the _MAerchen_, and each sings a beautiful song, while Frau Lureley,
the mother of Radlauf, proves to be a most beneficent creature.
Imaginative as Brentano was, he rarely rose to such heights as in this
and the next, "MAerchen vom Murmelthier," in which Frau Lureley
continues her great work of love and kindness. She rights all wrongs,
rewards the just, corrects the unjust, and leads a most remarkable
life whether among the poor on land or in her element in the water.
All of which is poles removed from Loeben's saga, though he knew these
_MAerchen_, for they were written when Brentano was his intimate
As to the importance of Loeben's saga, Wilhelm Hertz says: "Fast alle
jUengeren Dichter knUepfen an seinen Erfindungen an, so besonders die
zahlreichen musikdramatischen Bearbeitungen." It is extremely
doubtful that this statement is correct. It is plain that many of the
lyric writers leaned on Schreiber, and the librettists could have done
the same; or they could have derived their initial suggestion in more
attractive form than that offered by Loeben. It seems, however, that
Geibel knew Loeben's saga. Though his individual poems on the
Lorelei betray the influence of Heine, and though his drama resembles
Brentano's ballad in mood and in unimportant details, it contains the
same proper names of persons and places that are found in Loeben. And
what is more significant, it contains two important events that are
not found in any of the other versions of the saga: the scene with the
wine-growers and the story of the castaway ring. The latter is an old
theme, but that they both occur in Loeben and in Geibel would argue
that the latter took them from the former. It is largely a question as
to whether a poet like Geibel has to have a source for everything that
is not absolutely abstract. The entire matter is complicated. The
paths of the Lorelei have crossed each other many times since Brentano
started her on her wanderings. To draw up a map of her complete
course, showing just who influenced whom, would be a task more
difficult than grateful.
As to Brentano's original ballad, try as we may to depreciate the
value of his creation by tracing it back to echo-poetry and by
coupling it with older legends, such as that of Frau Holla, we are
forced to give him credit for having not simply revived but for having
created a legend that is beautiful in itself and that has found a host
of imitators, direct and indirect, the world over, including one of
the world's greatest lyric writers. This then is just one of the many
things that the German romanticists started; it is just one of their
many contributions to the literature that lasts. And for the
perpetuation of this one, students of German literature have, it
seems, given the obscure Graf von Loeben entirely too much credit. But
who will give the oft-scolded Clemens Brentano too little credit? Only
those who dislike romanticism on general principles and who will not
be convinced that the romanticists could be original.
ALLEN WILSON PORTERFIELD
NEW YORK CITY
 Ferdinand August Otto Heinrich Graf von Loeben, the scion of an
old, aristocratic, Protestant family, was born at Dresden, August
18, 1786. He received his first instruction from private
tutors. For three years from 1804 on, he unsuccessfully, because
unwillingly, studied law at the University of Wittenberg. In 1807
he entered, to his profound delight, the University of Heidelberg,
where, in association with Arnim, Brentano, and GOerres, he
satisfied his longing for literature and art. Beginning with 1808
he lived alternately at Wien, Dresden, and Berlin and with Fouque
at Nennhausen. He took an active part in the campaign of 1813-14,
marched to Paris, and returned after his company had been
disbanded, to Dresden, where, in 1817, he married Johanna Victoria
Gottliebe _geb._ von Bressler and established there his
permanent abode. In 1822 he suffered a stroke of apoplexy from
which he never recovered: even the magnetic treatment given him by
Justinus Kerner proved of no avail. He died at Dresden, April 3,
1825. See _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, XIX, 40-45. The
article is by Professor Muncker. Wilhelm MUeller also wrote an
article full of lavish praise of Loeben in _Neuer Nekrolog der
Deutschen_, III, Jahrg. 1824, Ilmenau, 1827.
 Meyer (6th ed.) does not mention Loeben even in the articles on
Fouque and Malsburg, two of Loeben's best friends; Brockhaus
(Jubilee ed.) mentions him as one of Eichendorff's friends in the
article on Eichendorff, but neither has an independent note on
Loeben. Nor is he mentioned in such compendious works on the
nineteenth century as those by Gottschall, R.M. Meyer
(_Grundriss_ and _Geschichte_), and Fr. Kummer. Biese
says (_Deutsche Literaturgeschichte_, II. 436) of him: "Auch
ein so ausgesprochenes Talent, wie es Graf von Loeben war, entging
nicht der Gefahr, die Romantik in ihre Karikatur zu verzerren."
 Cf. _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, XIX, 42.
 Partial lists of his works are given in: Goedeke,
_Grundriss_, VI, 108-10 (2nd ed.): _Allgemeine deutsche
Biographie_, XIX. 40-45; the sole monograph on Loeben by
Raimund Pissin. _Otto Heinrich Graf von Loeben, sein Leben und
seine Werke_, Berlin, 1905, 326 pages. By piecing these lists
together--for they vary--it seems that Loeben wrote, aside from
the works mentioned above, the following: 1 conventional drama, 1
musical-romantic drama, 2 narrative poems, one of which is on
Ferdusi, 3 collections of poems, between 30 and 40 novelettes,
fairy tales and so on. and_ "einige tausend" aphorisms and
detached thoughts. It is in Pissin's monograph that Loeben's
position in the Heidelberg circle of 1807-8 is worked out. as
follows: Loeben and Eichendorff constituted one branch, Arnim and
Brentano the other, GOerres stood loosely between the two, and the
others sided now with one group, now with the other.
 The verses are from _GestAendnisse_, No. 125 in Pissin's
collection of Loeben's poems.
 _GestAendnisse_. No. 125.
 Aside from the reviews, letters, and individual poems reprinted
here and there, the following works were accessible to the writer:
(1) _Das weisse Ross, eine altdeutsche Familienchronik; (2) Die
Sonnenkinder, eine ErzAehlung; (3) Die Perle und die Maiblume, eine
Novelle; (4) Cephalus und Procris, ein Drama; (5) Ferdusi; (6)
Persiens Ritter, eine ErzAehlung; (7) Die ZaubernAechte am Bosporus,
ein romantisches Gedicht; (8) Prinz Floridio, ein MAerchen; (9)
Leda; eine ErzAehlung; (10) WeinmAerchen; (11) GesAenge._
 Eichendorff's relation to Loeben can be studied in the edition of
Eichendorff's works by Wilhelm Kusch, Regensburg. Vols. III,
X-XIII have already appeared. For a poetization of Loeben, see
_Ahnung und Gegenwart_, chap. xii, pp. 144 ff. For a
historical account of Loeben, see _Erlebtes_, chap. x,
pp. 425 ff. It is here that Eichendorff makes Goethe praise Loeben
in the foregoing fashion.
 There is no positive evidence that Goethe made any such remark. In
his _GesprAeche_ (Biedermann. V, 270; VI, 198-99) there are
two references to Loeben by Goethe; they are favorable but
noncommittal as to his poetic ability.
 Cf. _Die TagebUecher des GrAefen von Platen_, Stuttgart, 1900.
Under date of August 14, 1824, Platen wrote: "Es enthAelt viele
gute Bemerkungen, wiewohl diese Art Prosa nicht nach meinem Sinne
ist." The reference is to Loeben's commentary to Madame de Staels
 Cf. _Heinrick von Kleists Berliner KAempfe_, Berlin, 1901, pp.
490-96. The story in question is "Die furchtbare Einladung."
 Cf. _Herm. Anders KrUeger, _Pseudoromantik. Friedrich Kind und der
Dresdener Liederkreis._ Leipzig. 1904. pp. 144-48. KrUeger also
discusses Loeben in his _Der junge Eichendorff._ Leipzig. 1904.
pp. 88 and 128.
 Cf. Fouque, Apel. Miltitz. _BeitrAege zur Geschichte der deutschen
Romantik_, Leipzig,1908. In a letter to his brother. Fouque wrote
(January 6, 1813): "Ein Dichter, meine ich, ist er allerdings, ein
von Gott dazu bestimmter." Fouque, however, realized Loeben's many
weaknesses as a poet, though at Loeben's death he wrote a poem on
him praising him as the master of verse technique.
 Cf. Kosch's edition of Eichendorff. XIII. 65. Loeben says: "In
Weimar war ich im vorigen Winter bei Goethe; er war mir
freundlich." The "previous winter" was 1813.
 Cf. Kosch's edition, XI, 220. The remark was made in 1807.
 Cf. Pissin. p. 25. The incident occurred in 1803 and Herder died
 Cf. Kosch's edition, XI, 308. Lochen himself utterly condemned
this work later. See Pissin, pp. 238-39, 267-08. Pissin gives the
number of verse and strophe forms on p. 266.
 Cf. Pissin, p. 267. Uhland made the remark in 1812--his own most
fruitful year as a poet.
 The story was published in 1817. The full title is _Das weisse
Ross, eine altdeutsche Familienchronik in sechs und dreissig
Bildern._ It is 160 pages long.
 An idea as to the lack of action in this story can be derived
from the following statement by Otto (pp. 127-28), the brave hero:
"Was man Schicksale zu nennen pflegt, habe ich wenige gehabt, aber
erfahren habe ich dennoch viel und mehr als mancher durch seine
glAenzenden Schicksale erfahren mag: nAemlich die FUehrungen der
ewigen Liebe habe ich erfahren, die keinen verlAesst. und alles
herrlich hinausfuhrt." And then Siegenot, the other hero, says
that this is very true--whereupon they embrace each other.
 The story was first published In Urania: Taschenbuch fUer Damen
auf das Jahr 1818. pp. 305-37.
 Aside from the poems in Pissin's collection in the _D.L.D. des
18. u. 19. Jahr._, Ignaz Hub's _Deutschlands Balladen- und
Romanzen-Dichter_, Karlsruhe, 1845, contains: (1) "Romanze von der
weissen Rose," (2) "Der Tanz mit dem Tode," (3) "Der Bergknapp,"
(4) "Das Schwanenlied." "Loreley" is also reprinted here, with
modifications for the worse. "Schau', Schiffer, schau' nicht
hinauf," is certainly not an improvement on Loeben's "Lieb Knabe,
sieh' nicht hinauf,"
 The following are common forms: "Nez," "zwey," "versteken,"
"SfAeren," "Saffo," "Stralenboten," "Abendrothen." "Uebermuth,"
and so on, though the regular forms, except in the case of
"Saffo," also occur.
 "Der Abend" reminds one strongly of HOelderlin's "Die Nacht,"
while "Tag und Nacht" goes back undoubtedly to Novalis' "Hymnen an
die Nacht," W. Schlegels sonnet on the sonnet stood sponsor for
"Das Sonett," and Goethe and Tieck also reoccur in changed
dress. The poems on Correggio (73), Ruisdael (75), Goethe (137),
Tieck (138-39), and Novalis (141) sound especially like
W. Schlegel's poems on other poets and artists.
 In his _Geschichte des Sonettes in der deutschen
Dichtung_.'Leipzig, 1884. Heinrich Weltl (pp. 210-17) criticizes
Loeben's sonnets most severely from the point of view of content;
and as to their form he says: "Blos die Form, oder gar die blosse
Form der Form ist beachtenswert." This is unquestionably a case of
warping the truth in order to bring in a sort of pun.
 The triolett is worth quoting as a type of Loeben's prettiness:
Galt es mir, das sUesse Blicken
Aus dem hellen Augenpaar?
Unter'm Netz vom goldnen Haar
Galt es mir das sUesse Blicken?
Einem sprach es von Gefahr,
Einen wollt' es licht umstricken;
Galt es mir, das sUesso Blicken
Aus dem hellen Augenpaar.
 An idea as to Loeben's temperament can he derived from the
following passage in a letter to Tieck: "Gott sei mit Ihnen und
die heilige Muse! Oft drAengt es mich, niederzuknien im Schein, den
Albrecht DUerers und Novalis Glorie wirft, im alten frommen
Dom. dann denk' ich Ihrer und ich lieg' an Ihrer Seele. Ich fUehle
Sie in mir, wie man eine Gottheit fUehlt in geweihter
Stunde. 'Liebe denkt in sel'gen TOenen, denn Gedanken stehn zu
fern." The quotation should read "sUessen" instead of "sel'gen."
See _Briefe an Tierk._ edited by Holtei, II, 266.
 As a corrective to the monographs of Pissin on Loeben and
H. A. KrUeger on Eichendorff. one should read Wilhelm Kosch's
article in _Euphorion_ (1907, pp. 310-20). Kosch. contends
that Pissin and KrUeger have vastly overestimated Loeben's
influence on Eichendorff, and that Loeben in general was "eine
 The complete title is _Godwi, oder das steinerne Bild der
Mutter. Ein verwilderter Roman von Maria_. The very rare first
edition of this novel, in two volumes, is in the Columbia
Library. Friedrich Wilmans was the publisher.
 Cf. Alfred Kerr, _Godwi. Ein Kapitel deutscher
Romantik_. Berlin, 1898, p. 2.
 Cf. Wilhelm Hertz, "UEber den Namen Lorelei," _Sitzungsberichte
der k.b. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu MUenchen_, Jahrgang
1886, pp. 217-51. For the etymologist, this is an invaluable
 The superficial similarity of those two poems can easily be
exaggerated. The rhyme "sitzet-blitzet" is perfectly natural: the
Lorelei had to be portrayed as "sitzen"; what is then easier than
"blitzen"? In "Ritter Peter von Stauffenberg und die Meerfeye"
(Des Knaben Wunderhorn, ed. of Eduard Grisebach, p. 277) we have
Er sieht ein schOenes Weib da sitzen.
Von Gold und Silber herrlich blitzen.
For more detailed illustrations, see below.
 It is worth while to note the actual date of Heine's composition
of his ballad, since so eminent an authority as Wilhelm Scherer
(_Ges. d. deut. Lit._, 8th ed., p. 662) says that Heine wrote the
poem in 1824. And Eduard Thorn (_Heinrich Heines Beziehungen zu
Clemens Brentano_, p. 90.) says that he published it in 1826.
This is incorrect, as is also Thorn's statement, p. 88, that
Brentano wrote his ballad in 1802. For the correct date of Heine's
ballad, see _SAemtliche Werke_, Hamburg, 1865, XV, 200.]
 An instance of this is seen in _Selections from Heine's
Poems_, edited by H.S. White, D.C. Heath & Co., Boston, 1900,
p. 182. Professor White does, to be sure, refer to Strodtmann for
the details; but Strodtmann does not prove anything. And in
_Heines Werke in fUenfzehn Teilen_, edited by Hermann
Friedeman, Helene Herrmann. Erwin Kaliseher. Raimund Pissin, and
Veit Valentin, we have the comment by Helene Herrmann, who follows
Pissin: "Die Loreleysage, erfunden von Clemens Brentano; vielfach
von Romantikern gestaltet. Zwischen Brentanos Romanze und Heines
Situationsbild steht die Behandlung durch den Grafen Loeben, einen
unbedeutenden romantischen Dichter."
 The best finished collection of Heine's letters is the one by
Hans Daffis, Berlin, 1907, 2 vols. This collection will, however,
soon be superseded by _Heinrich Heines Briefwechsel_, edited
by Friedrich Hirth, MUenchen and Berlin, 1914. The first volume
covers Heine's life up to 1831. In neither of these collections is
either Brentano or Loeben mentioned. There are 643 pages in
Hirth's first volume.
 For a discussion of _Godwi_, see _Clemens Brentano: Ein
Lebensbild_, by Johannes Baptista Diel and Wilhelm Kreiten,
Freiburg i.B., 1877, two volumes in one, pp. 104-25. As to the
obscurity of Brentano's work, one sentence (p. 116) is
significant: "_Godwi_ spukt heutzutage nur mehr in den KOepfen
der liberalen Literaturgeschichtsschreiber, denen er einen
willkommenen Vorwand an die Hand gibt, mit einigen stereotyp
abgeschriebenen Phrasen den Stab Ueber den phantastischen,
verschwommenen, unsittlichen u.s.w., u.s.w. Dichter zu brechen."
 _Clemens Brentano: Godwi oder das steinerne Bild der
Mutter. Ein verwilderter. Roman_. Herausgegeben und
eingeleitet von Dr. Anselm Ruest, Berlin, 1906. Ruest edited the
work because he thought it was worth reviving. In this edition,
the ballad is on pages 507-10. Bartels (Handbuch, 2d ed., p. 400)
lists a reprint in 1905, E.A. Regener, Berlin.
 II, 391-93.
 For the various references, see Thorn's _Heinrich Heines
Beziehungen zu Clemens Brentano_. pp. 88-90. His study is
especially unsatisfactory in view of the fact that he says (p. 88)
in this connection: "Wirklich Neues zu bringen ist uns nicht
vergOennt, denn selbstverstAendlich haben die Forscher dieses
dankbare und interessante Objekt schon in der eingehendsten Weise
untersucht." And Thorn's attempt to show that Heine knew
_Godwi_ early in life by pointing out similarities between
poems in it and poems by Heine is about as untenable as argument
could be, in view of the great number of poets who may have
influenced Heine in these instances; Thorn himself lists (p. 63)
BUerger, Fouque, Arnim, E.T.A. Hoffmann.
 In Pissin's collection of Loeben's poems (_D.L.D_., No. 135)
we have a peculiar note. After the ballad (_Anmerk._,
p. 161), which Pissin entitles "Der Lurleifels," we read:
"N.d. Hs." This would argue that Loeben did so entitle his ballad
and that Pissin had access to the original MS. But then Pissin
says: "Auch, die gleichnamige Novelle einleitend, in der
_Urania_ auf 1821." But in _Urania_ the novelette is
entitled "Eine Sage vom Rhein." and the ballad is entitled
"Loreley." Bet him who can unravel this!
 For the entire story of the composition and publication of the
_RheinmAerchen_, see _Die MAerchen von Clemens Brentano_,
edited by Guido GOerres. 2 vols. in 1, Stuttgart, 1879 (2d ed.)
This edition contains the preface to the original edition of 1840,
 Thorn, who drew on M.R. Hewelcke's _Die Loreleisage_,
Paderborn, 1908, makes (p. 90) this suggestion. It is impossible
for the writer to see how Thorn can be so positive in regard to
Brentano's influence on Heine. And one's faith is shaken by this
sentence on the same page: "Brentano verOeffentlichte sein
_Radlauf-MAerchen_ erst 1827, Heine 'Die Lorelei' schon 1826."
Both of these dates are incorrect. Guido GOerres, who must be
considered a final authority on this matter, says that, though
Brentano tried to publish his _MAerchen_ as early as 1816,
none of them were published until 1846, except extracts from "Das
MyrtenfrAeulein," and a version of "Gockel," neither of which bears
directly on the Lorelei-matter.
 Of GOerres' second edition, I, 250: "Nachdem Murmelthier herzlich
fUer diese Geschenke gedankt hatte, sagte Frau Else: 'Nun, mein
Kind! kAemme mir und Frau Lurley die Haare, wir wollen die deinigen
dann auch kAemmen'--dann gab sie ihr einen goldnen Kamm, und
Murmelthier kAemmte Beiden die Haare und flocht sie so schOen, dass
die Wasserfrauen sehr zufrieden mit ihr waren."
 In _H. Heines Leben und Werke_. Hamburg, 1884 (3d ed.),
Bd. I. p. 363. In the notes, Strodtmann reprints Loeben's ballad,
pp. 696-97. His statement is especially unsatisfactory in view of
the fact that he refers to the "fast gleicher Inhalt," though the
essentials of Heine's ballad are not in Loeben's, and to
"einegewisse AEhnlichkeit in Form," though the similarity in form
is most pronounced.
 In _Allgemeine deut. Biog_., XIX. 44. It is interesting to
see how Professor Muncker lays stress on this matter by placing in
parentheses the statement: "Einige ZUege der letzten Geschichte
["Sage vom Rhein"] regten Heine zu seinem bekannten Liede an."
 In _Dichtungen von Heinrich Heine, ausgewAehlt und
erlAeutert_, Bonn, 1887, p. 326. Hessel's Statement is
peculiarly unsatisfactory, since he says (p. 309) that he is going
to the sources of Heine's poems, and then, after reprinting
Loeben's ballad, he says: "Dieses Lied war Heines nAechstes
Vorbild. AusfUehrlicheres bei Strodtmann, Bd. I, S. 362." And this
edition has been well received.
 In _Grundriss, VI, 110. Again we read in parentheses: "Aus
diesem Liede und dem EingAenge der ErzAehlung schOepfte H. Heine sein
Lied von der Loreley."
 In _Ges. d. deut. Lit_., p. 662 (8th ed.).
 In _Heinrich Heines Beziehungen zum deutschen Mittelalter_,
Berlin, 1908, pp., 94-95. MUecke is the most cautious of the ten
authorities above listed; and he anticipated Walzel in his
reference to Schreiber's _Handbuch_.
 In _Ueber den Namen Lorelei, p. 224. Hertz is about as cautious
as Strodtmann; "Es ist kaum zu bezweifeln dass," etc.
 In _SAemtliche Werke_, I, 491.
 In _HauptstrOemungen_. VI, 178. Brandes says: "Der Gegenstand
ist der gleiche, das Versmass ist dasselbe, ja die Reimen sind an
einzelnen Stellen die gleichen: blitzetsitzet; statt 'an-gethan'
steht da nur 'Kahn-gethan.'"
 In _Der deutschen Romantiker_, Leipzig, 1903, p. 235.
 In _Deutsches Literatur-Lexikon_, MUenchen, 1914, p. 271. It
is significant that KrUeger makes this statement, for the subtitle
of his book Is "Biographisches und bibliographisches Handbuch mit
MotivUebersichten und Quellennachweisen." And it is, on the whole,
an extremely useful book.
 It is impossible to see how Brandes can lay great stress on the
fact that this rhyme occurs in both poems. The following rhymes
are found on the following pages of the Elster edition, Vol. I, of
Heine's works: "Spitze-Blitze" (36), "sitzen-nUetzen" (116),
"Witzen-nUetzen" (124), "sitzen-blitzen" (216),
"erhitzet-bespitzet" (242), "Blitz-Sitz" (257), "blitzt-gestUetzt"
(276), "blitze-besitze" (319), "blitzet-gespitzet" (464). And in
Loeben's poems the rhyme is equally common. The first strophe of
his _Ferdusi_ runs as follows:
Hell erglAenzt an Persiens Throne
Wo der grosse Mahmud sitzt;
Welch Juwel ist's, das die Krone
So vor allen schOen umblitzt.
And in Schreiber's saga we have in juxtaposition, the
words. "Blitze" and "Spitze." The rhyme "Sitze-Blitze" occurs in
Immanuel's "Lorelei," quoted by Seeliger, p. 31.
 There are, to be sure, only 114 words in Loeben's ballad if we
count "um's," "dir's," and "glaub's" as three words and not six.
 These numbers are in the Columbia Library.
 During these years Heine's letters are dated from GOettingen,
Berlin, Gnesen, Berlin, MUenster, Berlin, LUeneburg, Hamtburg,
RitzenbUettel, and LUeneburg. During these same years Loeben was in
Dresden and he was ill.
 We need only to mention such a strophe as the following from
Klang das nicht wie JugendtrAeume.
Die ich trAeumte mit Chamisso
Und Brentano und Fouque
In den blauen MondscheinnAechten?
See Elster edition, II, 421. The lines were written in 1843.
 The first edition of Karl Simrock's _Rheinsagen_ came out in
1836. This was not accessible. The edition of 1837, "zweite,
vermehrte Auflage," contains 168 poems, 572 pages; this contains
Simrock's "Ballade von der Lorelei." The edition of 1841 also
contains Simrock's "Der Teufel und die Lorelei." The book contains
455 pages, 218 poems. The sixth edition (1809) contains 231 poems.
In all editions the poems are arranged in geographical order from
SUedersee to GraubUenden. Alexander Kaufmann's _Quellenangaben und
Bemerkungen zu Kart Simrocks Rheinsagen_ throws no new light on
 Cf. _Heinrich Heines sAemtliche Werke_, edited by Walzel,
FrAenkel, KrAehe, Leitzmann, and Peterson. Leipzig. 1911, II,
408. So far as I have looked into the matter, Walzel stands alone
in this belief, though MUecke, as has been pointed out above,
anticipated him in the statement that Heine drew on Schreiber in
this case. But MUecke thinks that Heine also knew Loeben.
 The reference in question reads as follows: "Ich will kein Wort
verlieren Ueber den Wert dieses unverdaulichen Machwerkes [_Les
Burgraves_], das mit allen mOeglichen PrAetensionen auftritt,
namentlich mit historischen, obgleich alles Wissen Victor Hugos
Ueber Zeit und Ort, wo sein StUeck spielt, lediglich aus der
franzOesischen Uebersetzung von Schreibers _Handbuch fUer
Rheinreisende_ geschOepft, ist." This was written March 20, 1843
(see Elster edition, VI. 344).
 Aloys Wilhelm Schreiber (1763-1840) was a teacher in the Lyceum
at Baden-Baden (1800-1802), professor of aesthetics at Heidelberg
(1802-13) where he was intimate with the Voss family,
historiographer at Karlsruhe (1813-26), and in 1826 he retired and
became a most prolific writer. He interested himself in guidebooks
for travelers. His manuals contain maps, distances, expense
accounts, historical sketches, in short, about what the modern
_Baedeker_ contains with fewer statistics and more popular
description. His books appeared in German, French, and
English. In 1812 he published his _Handbuch fUer Reisende am
Rhein von Schaffhausen bis Holland_, to give only a small part
of the wordy title, and in 1818 he brought out a second, enlarged
edition of the same work with an appendix containing 17
_Volkssagen aus den Gegenden am Rhein und am Taunus_, the
sixteenth of which is entitled "Die Jungfrau auf dem Lurley." His
books were exceedingly popular in their day and are still
obtainable. Of the one here in question, Von Weech
(_Allgem. deut. Biog._, XXXII, 471) says: "Sein _Handbuch
fUer Reisende am Rhein_, dessen Anhang eine wertvolle Sammlung
rheinischer Volkssagen enthAelt, war lange der beliebteste FUehrer
auf Rheinreisen." There are 7 volumes of his manuals in the New
York Public Library, and one, _Traditions populaires du
Rhin,_ Heidelberg, 1830 (2d ed.), is in the Columbia
Library. It contains 144 legends and beautiful engravings. (The
writer has just [October 15, 1915] secured the four Volumes of
Schreiber's _Rheinische Geschichten und Sagen_. The fourth
volume, published in 1830. is now a very rare book.)
 The remainder of Schreiher's plot is as follows: The news of the
infatuated hero's death so grieved the old Count that ho
determined to have the Lorelei captured, dead or alive. One of his
captains, aided by a number of brave followers, set out on the
hazardous expedition. First, they surround the rock on which the
Lorelei sits, and. then three of the most courageous ascend to her
seat and determine to kill her, so that the danger of her
repealing her former deed maybe forever averted. But when they
reach her and she hoars what they intend to do, she simply smiles
and invokes the aid of her Father, who immediately sends two white
horses--two white waves--up the Rhine, and. after leaping down to
the Rhine, she is safely carried away by these. She was never
again seen, but her voice was frequently heard as she mocked, in
echo, the songs of the sailors on her paternal stream.
 It is not simply in the appendix of Schreiber's _Handbuch_
that he discusses the legend of Lorelei, but also in the
scientific part of it. Concerning the Lorelei rock he says
(pp. 174-75): "Ein wunderbarer Fels schiebt sich jetzt dem
Schiffer gleichsam in seine Bahn--es ist der Lurley (von Lure,
Lauter, und Ley, Schiefer) aus welchem ein Echo den Zuruf der
Vorbeifahrendem fUenfzehnmal wiederholt. Diesen Schieferfels
bewohnte in grauen Zeiten eine Undine, welche die Schiffenden
durch ihr Zurufen ins Verderben lockte."
 Brockhaus says (p. xxiv): "Die einfache Sage von den beiden
feindlichen BrUedern am Rhein, van denen die TrUemmer ihrer BUergen
selbst noch _Die BrUeder_ heissen ist in A. Schreiber's
Auswahl von Sagen jener Gegenden zu lesen." Usener's tragedy is
published In full in this number of _Urania_, pp. 383-442.
 Cf. Elster edition, IV, 406-9. The circumstantial way in which
Heine retells this story is almost sufficient to lead one to
believe that he had Schreiber at hand when he wrote this part of
Elementargeister; but he says that he did not.
 Discussion as to the first conception of Heine's _Rabbi_ are
found in: _Heinrich Heines Fragment_; _Der Rabbi von Bacharach_,
by Lion Feuchtwanger, MUenchen, 1907; _Heinrich Heine und Der Rabbi
von Bacharach_, by Gustav Karpeles, Wien, 1895.
 The poem is one of the _Junge Leiden_, published in 1821, Elster
(I, 490) says: "Eine bekannte Sage, mit einzelnen vielfach
wiederkehrenden uralten ZUegen, dargestellt In Simrocks
_Rheinsagen_." Simrock had, of course, done nothing on the
_Rheinsagen_ in 1821, being then only nineteen years old and an
inconspicuous student at Bonn. Walzel says (I. 449.): "Mit einem
andern Ausgang ist die Sage in dem von Heine vielbenutzten
_Handbuch fUer Reisende am Rhein_ von Aloys Schreiber (Heidelberg,
1816) Ueberliefert." The edition of this work in the New York
Public Library has no printed date, but 1818 is written in. Walzel
may be correct. The outcome of Heine's poem is, after all, not so
different: In Schreiber, both brothers relinquish their clalms to
the girl and remain unmarried; in Heine the one kills the other
and in this way neither wins the girl.
 It is the same story as the one told by Bulwer-Lytton in his
_Pilgrims of the Rhine_. chap. xxiv.
 All through the body of Schreiber's _Handbuch_, there are
references to the places and legends mentioned in Heine's
_Rabbi_. On Bacharach there is the following: "Der Reisende,
wenn er auch nur eine Stunde in Bacharach verweilt, unterlasse
nicht, die Ruinen von Staleck zu besteigen, wo eine der schOensten
Rheinlandschaften sich von seinen Blicken aufrollt. Die Burg von
sehr betrAechtlichem Umfang scheint, auf den TrUemmern eines
ROemerkastells erbaut. Die, welche die Entstehung derselben den
Hunnen zuschreiben, well sie in Urkunden den Namen Stalekum hat,
sind in einem Irrtum befangen, denn Stalekum oder Stalek heisst
eben so viel als StalbUehl, oder ein Ort, wo ein Gericht gehegt
wurde. Pfalzgraf Hermann von Staleck, starb im 12ten Jahrhundert;
er war der letzte seines Stammes, und von ihm kam die Burg, als
KOelnisches Lehen, an Konrad Von Staufen."
 To come back to Heine and Loeben, Herm. Anders KrUeger says (p.,
147) in his _Pseudoromantik:_ "Heinrich Heine, der Ueberhaupt
Loeben studiert zu haben scheint," etc. He offers no proof. If one
wished to make out a case for Loeben, it could bo done with his
narrative poem "Ferdusi" (1817) and Heine's "Der Dichter Ferdusi."
Both tell about the same story; but each tells a story that was
familiar in romantic circles.
 In reply to a letter addressed to Professor Elster on October 4,
1914, the writer received the following most kind reply on
November 23: "Die Frage, die Sie an mich richten ist leicht
beantwortet: Heine hat Loeben in seinen Schriften nicht erwAehnt,
aber das besagt nicht viel; er hat manchen benutzt, den er nicht
nennt. Und es kann _gar keinem Zweifel unterliegen_, dass
Loeben fUer die Lorelei Heines _unmittelbares_ Vorbild ist;
darauf habe ich Oefter hingewiesen, aber wohl auch andere. Das
Taschenbuch _Urania_ fUer das Jahr 1821, wo Loebens Gedicht
u. Novelle zuerst erschienen, ist unserem Dichter zweifellos zu
Gesicht gekommen." No one can view Professor Elster in any other
light than as an eminent authority on Heine, but his certainty
here must be accepted with reserve, and his "wohl auch andere" is,
in view of the fact that, he was by no means the first, and
certainly not the last, to make this assertion, a trifle
 The ultimate determining of sources is an ungrateful theme. Some
excellent suggestions on this subject are offered by Hans Rohl in
his _Die Aeltere Romantik und die Kunst des jungen Goethe_,
Berlin, 1909, pp. 70-72. This work was written under the general
leadership of Professor Elster. The disciple would, in this case,
hardly agree with the master. Pissin likewise speaks wisely in
discussing the influence of Novalis on Loeben in his monograph on
the latter, pp. 97-98. and 129-30. And Heine himself (Elster
edition, V. 294) says in regard to the question whether Hegel did
borrow so much from Schelling: "Nichts ist lAecherlicher als das
reklamierte Eigentumsrecht an Ideen." He then shows how the ideas
were not original with Schelling either; he had them from
Spinoza. And it is just so here. Brentano started the legend;
Heine goes back to him indirectly. Eichenidorff and Vogt directly;
Schreiber borrowed from Vogt, Loeben from Schreiber, and Heine
from Schreiber--and thereafter it would be impossible to say who
borrowed from whom.
 The majority of the _Loreleidichtungen_ can be found in:
_Opern-Handbuch_, by Hugo Riemann, Leipzig, 1886: _Zur
Geschichte der MAerchenoper_, by Leopold Schmidt, Halle, 1895;
_Die Loreleysage in Dichtung und Musik_, by Hermann Seeliger,
Leipzig, 1898. Seeliger took the majority of his titles from
_Nassau in seinen Sagen, Geschichten und Liedern_, by
Henniger, Wiesbaden, 1845. At least he says so, but one is
inclined to doubt the statement, for "die meisten Balladen" have
been written since 1845. Seeliger's book is on the whole
unsatisfactory. He has, for example, Schreiber improving on, and
remodeling Loeben's saga; but Schreiber was twenty-three years
older than Loeben, and wrote his saga at least three years before
Loeben wrote his.
 In F. GrAeter's _Idunna und Hermode, eine Alterthumszeitung_,
Breslau, 1812, pp. 191-92, GrAeter gives under the heading, "Die
Bildergallerie des Rheins." thirty well-known German sagas. The
twenty-seventh is "Der Lureley: Ein GegenstUeck zu der Fabel von
der Echo." It is the version of Vogt.
 Aside from the above, some of the less important authors of
lyrics, ballads, dramas, novels, etc., on the Lorelei-theme are:
J. Bartholdi, H. Bender, H. Berg, J. P. Berger, A. H. Bernard,
G. Conrad, C. Doll, L. Elchrodt, O. Fiebach, Fr. FOerster,
W. Fournier, G. Freudenberg, W. Freudenberg, W. Genth, K. Geib,
H. Grieben, H. GrUeneberg, G. Gurski, Henriette Heinze-Berg,
A. Henniger, H. Hersch, Mary Koch, Wilhelmine Lorenz, I. Mappes,
W. Molitor, Fr. MUecke, O. W. Notzsch, Luise Otto, E. RUeffer, Max
Schaffroth, Luise Frelin von Sell, E. A. W. Siboni, H. Steinheuer,
Adelheid von Stolterfoth, A. Storm, W. von WaldbrUehl, L. Werft,
and others even more obscure than these.
 In Menco Stern's _Geschichten vom Rhein_, the story is told
so as to connect the legend of the Lorelei with the treasures of
the _Nibelungenlied_. In this way we have gold in the
mountain, wine around it, a beautiful woman on it--what more could
mortal wish? Sympathy! And this the Lorelei gives him in the
echo. In reply to an inquiry, Mr. Stern very kindly wrote as
follows: "The facts given in my _Geschichten vom Rhein_ are
all well known to German students; and especially those mentioned
in my chapter 'Lorelay' can bo verified in the book: _Der
Rhein_ von Philipp F. W. Oertel (W. O. v. Horn) who was, I
think, the greatest authority on the subject of the Rhine." Oertel
is not an authority. In Eduard-Prokosch's _German for
Beginners_, the version of Schreiber was used, as is evident
from the lines spoken by the Lorelei to her Father:
Vater, Vater, geschwind, geschwind.
Die weissen Rosse schick' deinem Kind,
Es will reiten auf Wogen und Wind.
These verses are worked into a large number of the ballads, and
since they are Schreiber's own material, his saga must have had
great general influence.
 There would be no point in listing all of the books on the
legends of the Rhine that treat the story of the Lorelei. Three,
however, are important, since it is interesting to see how their
compilers were not satisfied with one version of the story, but
included, as becomes evident on reading them, the versions of
Brentano, Schreiber, Loeben, and Heine: _Der Rhein: Geschichten
und Sagen_, by W. O. von Horn, Stuttgart, 1866, pp. 207-11;
_Legends of the Rhine_, by H. A. Guerber, New York, 1907, pp:
199-206; _Eine Sammlung von Rhein-Sagen_, by A. Hermann
Bernard, Wiesbaden, no year, pp. 225-37.
 Mrs. Caroline M. Sawyer wrote a poem entitled "The Lady of
Lorlei. A Legend of the Rhine." It is published in _The female
Poets of America_, by Rufus Wilmot Griswold, New York, 1873,
p. 221. This is not the first edition of this work, nor is it the
original edition of Mrs. Sawyer's ballad. It is an excellent
poem. Fr. Hoebel set it to music, and Adolf Strodtmann translated
it into German, because of its excellence, and included it in his
_Amerikanische Anthologie_. It was impossible to determine
just when Mrs. Sawyer wrote her poem. The writer is deeply
indebted to Professor W. B. Cairns, of the department of English
in the University of Wisconsin, who located the poem for him.
 Cf. _Otto Ludwigs gesammelte Schriften_, edited by Adolf
Stern, Leipzig, 1801, I. 69, 107, 114.
 It has been impossible to determine just when Sucher (1789-1860)
set Heine's ballad to music, but since he was professor of music
at the University of TUebingen from 1817 on, and since he became
interested in music while quite young, it is safe to assume that
he wrote his music for "Die Lorelei" soon after its
publication. The question is of some importance by way of finding
out just when the ballad began to be popular. Strangely enough,
there is nothing on Silcher in Hobert Eitner's compendious
_Quellen-Lexicon der Musiker und Musikgelehrten der christlichen
Zeitrechnung_, Leipzig, 1900-1904. Heine's ballad is included
in the _Allgemeines deutsches Commersbuch unter musikalischer
Redaktion von Fr. Silcher und Fr. Erck_, Strassburg, 1858 (17th
ed.), but the date of composition is not given.
 In _Pauls Grundriss der germanischen Philologie_, I, 1039,
Mogk says: "Die Weiblichen Nixen bezaubern durch ihren Gesang, die
Loreley und Aehnliche Sagen mOegen hierin ihre Wurzel haben." The
only trouble is, no one has thus far unearthed this saga.
 Wilhelm Hertz gives (pp.229-30) instances of this so that
uncertainty as to its accuracy is removed. The passages are
striking in that they concern the "Lorberg" and the "Lorleberg."
 In chap, XV Eichendorff introduces the ballad as follows:
"Leontin, der wenig darauf achtgab, begann folgendes Lied Ueber ein
am Rheine bekanntes MAerchen." The reference can be only to
Brentano, despite the fact that the first two lines are so
strongly reminiscent of Goethe's "Erlkonig." Eichendorff and
Brentano became acquainted in Heidelberg and then in Berlin they
were intimate. There is every reason to believe that Eichendorff
knew Bretano's "RheinmAerchen" in manuscript form. For the relation
of the two, see the Kosch edition of Eichendorff's
works. _Briefe_ and _TagebUecher,_ Vols. XI-XIII.
 Niklas Vogt included, to be sure, in his _Jugendphantasien Ueher
die Sagen des Rheins_ (_ca._ 1811) an amplified
recapitulation in prose of Brentano's ballad. Schreiber knew this
work, for in his _Handbuch_ there is a bibliography of no
fewer than ten pages of "Schriften, welche auf die Rheingegend
Bezug haben." So far as one can determine such a matter from mere
titles, the only one of these that could have helped him in the
composition of his Lorelei-saga is: _Rheinische Geschichten und
Sagen_, von Niklas Vogt. Frankfurt am Main, 1817, 6 BAende.
 Eduard Thorn says (p. 89): "Man darf annehmen, dass Heine die
Ballade Brentano's kennen gelernt hat, dass er aus ihr den Namen
entlehnte, wobei ihm Eichendorff die Fassung 'Lorelei' lieferte,
und das ihm erst Loebens Auffassung der Sage zur Gestaltung
verhelfen hat." It sounds like a case of _ceterum censeo_,
but Thorn's argument as to Brentano and Heine is so thin that this
statement too can be looked upon only as a weakly supported
 Cf. Raimund Pissin's monograph, pp. 73-74.
 There are about two thousand words in Schreiber's saga, and about
five thousand in Loeben's.
 It must be remembered that Schreiber's manuals are written in an
attractive style: his purpose was not simply to instruct, but to
entertain. And it was not simply the legends of the Rhine and its
tributaries, but those of the whole of Western Germany that he
wrote up with this end in view.
 Some minor details that Loeben, or Heine, had he known the
_MAerchen_ in 1823, could have used are pointed out in Wilhelm
Hertz's article, pp. 220-21.
 Cf. GOerres' edition, pp. 94-108.
 Cf. _ibid_., pp. 128-40, and 228-44. It is in this
_MAerchen_ (p. 231) that Herzeleid sings Goethe's "Wer nie
sein Brod in ThrAenon asz."
 Cf. GOerres' edition, pp. 247-57. There are a number of details in
this _MAerchen_ that remind strongly of Fouque's _Undine_,
which Brentano knew.
 In his _Die MAerchen Clemens Brentanos_, KOeln, 1895,
H. Cardauns gives an admirable study of Brentano's _MAerchen_,
covering the entire ground concerning the question whether
Brentano's ballad was original and pointing out the sources and
the value of his, _RheinmAerchen_. Cardauns comes to the only
conclusion that can be reached: Brentano located his ballad in a
region replete with legends, but there is no positive evidence
that he did not wholly invent his own ballad. The story that
Hermann Bender tells about having found an old MS dating back to
the year 1650 and containing the essentials of Brentano's ballad
collapses, for this MS cannot be produced, not even by Bender who
claims to have found it. See Cardauns, pp. 60-67. Reinhold Steig
reviewed Cardauns' book in _Euphorion_ (1896, pp. 791-99)
without taking in the question as to the originality of Brentano's
 P. 224.
 In Geibel's _Gesammelte Werke_, VI. 106-74, Geibel wrote the
libretto for Felix Mendelssohn in 1846. Mendelssohn died before
finishing it; Max Bruch completed the opera independently in
1863. It has also been set to music by two obscure composers. Karl
Goedeke gives a very unsatisfactory discussion of the matter in
_Emanuel Geibel_, Stuttgart, 1860. pp. 307 ff.
 Hermann Seeliger says (p. 73): "Zu den Bearbeitungen, die sich an
die Ballade von Brentano anlehnen, gehOeren die Dichtungen von
Geibel, Mohr, Roquette, Hillemacher, Fiebach und Sommer." Seeliger
wrote his study for musicians, and his statement may be correct.
 Aside from the treatises on the Lorelei already mentioned, there
are the following: _Zu Heines Balladen und Romanzen_, by
Oskar Netoliczka, Kronstadt, 1891; this study does not treat the
Lorelei; _Die Lurleisage_, by F. Rehorn, Frankfurt am Main,
1891; _Sagen und Geschichten des Rheinlandes_, by Karl Geib,
Mannheim, 1836; the work is naturally long since superseded;
_KOelnische Zeitung_ of July 12, 1867, by H. Grieben;
_KOelnische Zeitung_ of 1855, by H. DUentzer; _H. Heine, ein
Vortrag_, by H. Sintenis, pp. 21-26; _Die Lorelei: Die
Loreleidichtungen mit besonderer RUecksicht auf die Ballade von
Heinr. Heine_, by C. L. Leimbach, WolfenbUettel, 1879. The last
six of these works were not accessible, but, since they are quoted
by the accessible studies, it seems that they offer nothing
new. (The writer has since secured Leimbach's treatise of 50 small
pages. It offers nothing new.)
 Adolf Seybert in his _Die Loreleisage_, Wiesbaden, 1863 and
1872 (Programm), contends that Frau Holla and the Lorelei are
related. Fritz Strich in his _Die Mythologie in der deutschen
Literatur von Klopstock bis Wagner_, Halle, 1910, says
(pp. 307-9) that Brentano's ballad is "eine mythologische
Erfindung Brentanos, zu der ihn der echoreiche Felsen dieses
Namens bei Bacharach anregte." He also says: "Ob nicht Heines Lied
auf Brentanos Phantasie zurUeckgewirkt haben mag?" The reference is
to Brentano's _MAerchen_. Strich's book contains a detailed
account of the use of mythology in Heine, Loeben, and Brentano.
 Hermann Seeliger says (p. 8): "Ich meine, die ganze romantische
Schule hAette ohne den Stoff vom Volke zu bekommen, ein Gedicht von
solcher SchOenheit wie das von Brentano weder gemacht noch machen
kOennen." Vis-a-vis such a statement, sociability ceases.
Back to Full Books