It is a commonplace that the most popular works written towards the end of the eighteenth century fall under the rubric of "R”uber-, Ritter-, und Schauerromane." Scholars have often pointed out the thematic kinship between these works and Goetheºs G–tz von Berlichingen,[1] but curiously, attention to such writings has caused another, and equally significant formal affinity to be overlooked. Goethe's masterpiece obliged critics to engage in a debate concerning the aesthetic legitimacy of the "Lesedrama"“a five-act drama considered unworthy or incapable of theatrical performance.[2] Before a consensus could be reached on the merit of such a genre, several writers began to extend the scope of the "Lesedrama" and to write compendious, novel-length biographies almost exclusively in dialogue. Unable to classify such multi-volumed dramatized works with the tools of conventional poetics, contemporaries regarded this "Mittelding zwischen Drama und Roman" as "ein Schauspiel in zwey B”nden f¸r den Leser," "ein dialogischer Roman," or, more commonly "ein dramatischer Roman."[3]

Uncertainty about the identity or aesthetic merit of this experimental genre did not affect many book producers and consumers. By 1790 the dramatized novel was said to have eclipsed the epistolary novel in popularity; it was even suggested that novelists could improve sales simply by affixing the term "dramatisirt" to the subtitle of their works.[4] Indeed, in the last decade of the eighteenth century writers began to exploit the dramatizing technique in works other than biographies. By 1795 an observer noted that dramatized Gothic novels continued to gain large shares of the German book market.[5] The observation was correct on one count: German readers continued to devour Gothic novels well into the nineteenth century. However, their penchant for (or tolerance of) an exclusively dramatized or dialogized manner of presentation had waned before 1800. With few exceptions, writers and publishers turned their backs to the dramatized novel by this time as well.

Scholars have also turned their backs to the dramatized novel. Koberstein accused the genre of defying "the natural line of demarcation between narrative and drama" and dismissed it as "a time-consuming means of entertainment for a people whose aesthetic judgment still left much to be desired." [6] This verdict echoes sentiments which have attended virtually all prior and subsequent critical accounts of the dramatized novel.[7] The goal of the present inquiry is not to vindicate the genre, but rather to explore the socio-cultural reasons for its meteoric rise and fall. What are the distinctive features of the dramatized novel? Who were its proponents? Why did they prefer this experimental manner of presentation to conventional modes such those based on omniscient narrators or epistolary form? Why did this mannerism seem to delight contemporary readers, if only for a short period? By answering these questions I hope not only to illuminate aspects of the Age of Goethe which have been marginalized or overlooked, but also to create one more gateway through which which we can arrive at a better understanding of the dynamics of production and reception in late eighteenth-century Germany.

The roots of the German dramatized novel may be traced back to early eighteenth-century theoreticians, but for the purposes of this inquiry it suffices to focus attention on a later date. In 1774, the year that saw the refunctioning of the epistolary novel in Goethe's Die Leiden des Jungen Werthers and the broadening of dramatic technique in Lenz' Der Hofmeister and Der neue Menoza, Tobias Gebler published anonymously a modest "Trauerspiel in f¸nf Akten" entitled Adelheit von Siegmar. This work hardly distinguished itself in the eyes of contemporary critics, and has little to commend to the modern reader. To the best of my knowledge, however, this is the first piece of German literature to have been described as a "dialogisirten Roman."[8] Evidently one reviewer felt it necessary to invent this neologism in order to pass proper critical judgment on a work that, in his eyes, neither honored the most desirable features of conventional dramatic presentation nor emulated the beauties of Shakespeare.[9] In other words, this reviewer relegates the disappointing drama Adelheit von Siegmar to the status of the most aesthetically tenuous genre in 1774: the novel.

The term "dialogisirter" or "dramatisirter" novel does not surface again in German critical discourse for another six years, when another reviewer suggested that it was better to render a complicated story as a dramatized novel than to create a an untheatrical play.[10] However, at the same time that Gebler was admonished for misdirecting his artistic talents and the notion of a dramatized novel was invented to pigeonhole an ill-conceived play, two significant treatises on the merits and limitations of narrative and dramatic forms of presentation were published: Friedrich von Blanckenburg's seminal Versuch ¸ber den Roman, and Johann Jakob Engel's essay Ðber Handlung, Gespr”ch, und Erzehlung.[11] Although neither Blanckenburg nor Engel uses the term "dramatisirter Roman," both writers seem to have furnished the theoretical underpinning for a genre that would flourish in the final two decades of the eighteenth century.[12]

These two treatises are significant documents in the process of interiorization that gradually displaced the focus of poetry from external events to internal processes. Blanckenburg tries to identify the qualities that the novel must exhibit if it is to gain credibility as an aesthetic genre. Engel, on the other hand, expressly resists the temptation to offer a theory of genre, preferring instead to view dialogue and narration as communicative strategies, each of which supports a unique development of plot.[13]

Blanckenburg and Engel subscribe to the principles of pragmatic writing. These require that the plot must simultaneously entertain and edify by enabling the reader to witness firsthand, without distraction, every stage of a "soul's" development; at every juncture "die geheimen Triebfedern" of the action must become transparent (HGE 188). Engel, in particular, focuses attention almost exclusively on the psychological rather than the physical, on internal processes rather than external events, and for this reason he ascribes little significance to natural forces such as space, time, and physical appearance (HGE 188-191). Engel, however, speaks for Blanckenburg when he asserts that "der eigentliche Schauplatz aller Handlungen ist die denkende und empfindende Seele ”" (HGE 201). For both theorists, the ideal plot manifests the progressive, sequential expression of interiority through unmediated language“a language which Engel, at least, optimistically considered to be an unclouded mirror unto the soul (HGE 233). Both theorists intimate that dialogic presentation alone can furnish the immediacy which allows for a greater effect and influence on the reader. To quote Engel, narration is inferior to dialogue because it "kann von dem jedesmaligen Zustande einer handelnden Seele ” kann auch von dem ganzen genauen Zusammenhange aller in ihr vorgehenden Ver”nderungen nie eine so specielle, bestimmte, vollst”ndige Idee geben, als das Gespr”ch" (HGE 233).

Blanckenburg, in particular, feels that no novel written prior to 1774“with the possible exception of Wieland's Agathon“had realized the virtues of pragmatic writing. It is perhaps for this reason that he, in his attempt to legitimate the novel, feels compelled to illustrate many of his recommendations with passages from Shakespeare and Lessing. At one point Blanckenburg suggests wryly that narrative strategies should be jettisoned if they cannot ensure a compelling account of how things really unfold in time (VR 98). Although he ultimately advocates a genre that relies on the judicious interplay of narration and dialogue, Blanckenburg makes strong arguments that are not too far removed from sanctioning the virtual lack of authorial presence and narrational guidance characteristic of the dramatized novel: "Der Dichter geh–rt gar nicht mit ins Ganze seines Werks; er w”re was auþerordentliches, das gleichsam in den Gang desselben hineingriffe. Der K¸nstler, der all' Augenblicke ¸ber seiner Uhr stellen muþ, hat wirklich keine gute Uhr gemacht" (VR 339f).[14]

What should be clear from this all-too brief account of contemporary theory is that there was yearning for a literary renewal that would valorize the aesthetics of transparency and discard conspicuous manifestations of narrative control. The novel had still not earned respect as a viable genre, and drama as performance was still all too frequently confined to the theater as an institution dependent on court subsidy. One possible way of bringing about the desired literary renewal“a way intimated by Blanckenburg and Engel“was to infuse the preferred manner of presentation (dramatic) and its attendant strategy (dialogue) into the ascendant, still undefined, and unsanctioned genre: the novel.

Evidence that such notions were not confined to theoretical musing is furnished by August Gottlieb Meiþner, a popular writer whom some regarded as the father of the dramatized novel.[15] As early as 1776 Meiþner had become interested in creating "ein Mittelding zwischen Drama und Roman"“not in order to demonstrate an innovative aesthetic principle, but simply to indulge his "Liebe zur Neuheit."[16] This rather cavalier intention was explained in the preface to his first historical drama, Johann von Schwaben (1780). Meiþner concedes that this work, written "in den Nebenstunden weniger Monden," will fall short of the expectations of critical readers. Although he insists that it would have cost him little effort to remedy several imperfections and create a complicated intrigue, Meiþner deliberately neglects to make these emendations, appealing to "manches Privilegium" which he neither identifies nor elucidates.[17] Despite its thoroughly dramatized and dialogized form, Johann von Schwaben was intended expressly for readers:

Dialogirte Geschichte, oder, wenn man will, dialogirter Halbroman, war alles, was ich mir zum Ziel steckte; und wenn ichs in Akte und Auftritte zerschnitt, so geschahs um meinen Lesern Ruhepunkte zu weisen, nicht etwa f¸r irgend einen Zuschauer den Vorhang fallend zu machen.[18]

The division into scenes and acts is simply a device to compensate the reader for the frequent absence of any authorial or narrative voice. For this reason Meiþner prefers to label the work a "dialogirte Geschichte," or "dialogirter Halbroman"“a designation that not only brings to mind Schiller's later description of the novelist as the "Halbbruder"[19] of the dramatist, but also suggests that Meiþner himself has misgivings about the adequacy of the vehicle he has chosen to display his dialogic talents. After all, the designation "Halbroman" could suggest, in addition to the relative brevity of the work, his reluctance to subscribe wholeheartedly to the ascendant, but still aesthetically dubious, genre of the novel.[20]

Meiþner's failure, or refusal, to identify the aesthetically meritorious features of this endeavor makes it hard to think of Johann von Schwaben as anything other than an poorly executed play, or, in the critical parlance of that time, a "Lesedrama." Yet his brief statement of intent signals a fine, but significant distinction between the dramatized novel and the closet drama that obtains despite their overt structural similarities. The term "Lesedrama" was a neologism invented solely by critics who tried to stake out a sub-generic realm of legitimacy for works like G–tz von Berlichingen and Der Hofmeister, which were classified by their own authors as "Schauspiele" or "K–modien." In other words, although these innovative works exploited principles of dramatic presentation to achieve new effects, they nonetheless were evidently conceived in terms of traditional genre theory, and specifically in terms of the genre that was felt to be most effective in entertaining and edifying the public. Authors who wrote dramatized novels, however, explicitly and intentionally defined their works as "dialogierte Geschichte," "dramatischer Roman," "Begebenheiten in Dialogen, Briefen, und verbindenden Erz”hlungen," or as being "dialogisirt von ”" or "dramatisch behandelt von ”." By claiming to exploit dramatic presentation in a genre that had yet to earn aesthetic legitimacy, these authors broke off their tenuous ties to the hallowed institution of the theater[21] and explored (and exploited) a new, unmediated forum for appealing directly to a new reading public“people that may not have had easy access to the theater, but who, during a time of unprecedented growth in the book trade and in literacy, always could find their way to printed materials.

Sympathetic to this movement towards a genre that promised to achieve a heightened sense of representational immediacy was the young Friedrich Schiller. In the „unterdr¸cktes Vorwortæ to Die R”uber, written in 1781, Schiller admits almost boastfully that his work cannot be performed on stage. After providing a well-reasoned argument for his anti-theatrical sentiment, he concludes:

Ich kann demnach eine Geschichte Dramatisch abhandeln, ohne darum ein Drama schreiben zu wollen. Das heiþt: Ich schreibe einen dramatischen Roman, und kein theatralisches Drama. Im ersten Fall darf ich mich nur den allgemeinen Gesetzen der Kunst, nicht aber den besonderen des Theatralischen Geschmacks unterwerffen.[22]

Unlike Meiþner, Schiller is not content with merely indulging "a love of novelty." He tries to justify his work as a dramatized novel, not to apologize for it, and thereby intimates plausible reasons for the emergence of the genre. From an aesthetic standpoint, the dramatized novel comes closer to realizing "de[n] wahre[n] Geist des Schauspiels," since it employs a manner of presentation which was considered most effective in portraying the psychological workings of the soul.[23] The awesome power of dialogue renders any sensorial pretense ("sinnliche Vorspiegelung") obsolete, such as theatrical props or, in an extended sense, descriptive embellishments by a narrator (Werke 455). As a genre not wedded to any tradition or convention, the dramatized novel was uniquely suited for exploring, portraying, and conveying the desired interiority. It creates an illusion of immediacy and transparency that suspends more efficiently and consistently the distance between reader and text. Moreover, with the dramatized novel the poet liberates himself from the dogmatic precepts of the arbiters of taste. A strict reading of the passage above suggests that the dramatized novelist is not even obliged to observe the general rules of art; these are merely those which he may decide to follow. This genre, then, grants the poet considerable aesthetic liberty and autonomy “privileges which, when abused, ultimately foster the mediocrity and indolence for which many writers of dramatized novels were reproved.

From a sociological standpoint, the dramatized novel created a window of opportunity not only for aspiring playwrights who wished to avert the compromises likely to be imposed by the institution of the theater, but also for the rapidly increasing number of readers in the German-speaking domain. In the conclusion to the "unterdr¸cktes Vorwort" Schiller refuses to make the parterre the ultimate arbiter of aesthetic quality: "Der Zuschauer, vom gewaltigen Licht der Sinnlichkeit geblendet, ¸bersieht oft ebensowohl die feinsten Sch–nheiten als die untergeflossenen Flecken, die sich nur dem Auge des bedachtsamen Lesers entbl–þen"[25] The spectator in the theater, constantly distracted by the externalities of the theatrical show, cannot be expected to appreciate the inner and essential qualities of any play. The reader, particularly the reader of a novel marked by a preponderance of dialogue, was empowered to stage the work on her own terms and on her own stage, i.e. in solitude, or perhaps at a social gathering.[26] Schillerºs strategy to obviate "sensorial pretense" ("sinnliche Vorspiegelung") and to circumvent the „blindingæ („geblendetæ) spectacle of a „physicalæ aesthetic experience („Sinnlichkeitæ) signifies the gain of interiority and the loss of sensuality that was a hallmark of eighteenth century aesthetics.[27] During a silent and solitary reading, particularly during the reading of a dramatized novel, the reader is "all eye:" the tactile and aural senses do not interfere appreciably with the immediate and direct appeal of the text to the reader's imagination and emotions“faculties that, in accordance with conventional "Wirkungs”sthetik," were linked, or should have been linked, to some internalized rational control.28

Schiller's youthful exuberance was predicated on the activity of the "careful reader," that is, a reader who had the wherewithal to make sound aesthetic judgments, a reader whose imagination had not dissociated itself from reason and understanding. "Careful readers," however, were becoming disproportionately scarce as an unstudied literacy increased among the German populace. One could argue as well that "careful writers" were becoming equally scarce as the German book trade was driven ever more by commercial interests, particularly by the desire to capitalize on the latest fad that seized the publicºs heart. Hence the increasingly frequent diatribes against "Lesesucht" and "Vielschreiberey" as the century neared its end. The quality of production and reception which the young Schiller anticipated was hardly attained in the "Modeliteratur" that was to dominate the late eighteenth-century German book market.

One of the literary fads that was to court readers (many, careless) and attract writers (many, aesthically carefree) was introduced shortly before Schiller wrote the words above. In 1780 an anonymous critic, reflecting on trends in contemporary German literature, observed that omniscient narratives and epistolary novels had become tedious; works which emphasize dialogue would appeal more to contemporary readers.[29] It is no surprise, then, that he welcomes the publication of Gustav Aldermann (1779), the first bona fide German dramatized novel.[30] The highly unorthodox form of this work exhibits a richly woven texture of dialogue fragments and fresh, variegated conversational tone:

das Buch [besteht] nicht aus zusammenh”ngenden Dialogen ”, die mit einander unmittelbar, wie die Auftritte eines Schauspiels, verbunden sind, sondern jeder ist f¸r sich allein ein ganzes, oder ein Fragment einer Unterredung, das sich weder auf das vorhergehende, noch auf das folgende unmittelbar bezieht, das aber doch einen Zug zum ganzen Gem”hlde liefert ” Nebst der Neuheit dieser Einkleidung, haben diese Dialogen den Vortheil, daþ sie die Vorstellung sehr lebhaft machen. Der Leser h–rt nicht blos, er sieht die aufgestellten Charaktere vor seinen Augen handeln; der Vorhang f”llt aber, sobald die Handlung keine Beziehung weiter auf die Hauptsache hat, wodurch viel unn¸tzes, episodisches Geschw”tz vermieden worden ist.[31]

This text identifies the salient features of the „pureæ dramatized novel: the preponderance of crisp dialogue, monologue, and terse parenthetical staging directions; the jettisoning of the reflective and explanatory potential of narration; the virtual absence of authorial voice; and the resolute commitment to the immediacy of an unmitigated dramatic present that precludes flashback and foreshadowing. The "sprechende Personen" are rarely seen in action; the reader almost always witnesses them either reacting to or preparing for action "offstage." These factors support a representational minimalism that often requires the reader to reconstruct story as well as plot. This thumbnail sketch of the genre is complemented by the description of Gustav Aldermann as „ein Schauspiel in zwey B”nden f¸r den Leser,æ which draws attention to the multi-volumed, epic breadth of the dramatized novel.32
Proponents of the dramatized novel seem to have taken to a logical extreme Henry Homeºs call for an „idealized presenceæ that would make „everything become as dramatic as possible.æ33 In this genre a premium is placed on the visualizing activity of the reader, who at once „seesæ and „hearsæ the characters act. A contemporary observer not predisposed to the genre echoed the young Schiller's sentiments and conceded: „es ist nicht zu leugnen, die dramatische Form des Romans hat manche Vorz¸ge vor der historischen: der Leser wird den Personen und der Geschichte n”her ger¸ckt und gleichsam selbst Zuschauer.æ34 Where the conventional narrative fails to engage the reader satisfactorily, the dramatized novel introduces a new reading experience, arguably one that grants her greater poetic license.35 This experience transforms the reader into a „non-physicalæ spectator,36 thereby allowing for an internalization and interiorization of the theater and obviating "sensorial pretense."

The most felicitous description of the dramatized novel“one that applies well to the three variants identified below“was advanced by Meiþner. In the first volume of Alcibiades (1781) he catches himself resorting to conventional narrative practices while reporting events that influenced the protagonist in his formative years:

Ich will ja seinen Karakter nicht erz”len; dialogiren will ich ihn; und wenn ichs nicht dahin zu bringen vermag, dass ihn der Leser selbst sich so entwerfe, was n¸tzte dann hier meine Schilderung? .... Man verzeihe, wenn ich von jetzt an meine Dialogen noch seltner, als bisher, durch Erz”hlungen zusammenhefte. Es sind Inseln im Archipelagus, freilich ohne Br¸cken, aber doch leicht durch jeden Fischerkahn zu erreichen.37

Formally, dramatized novels exhibit three different strategies of configuring these islands in an archipelago, and I have chosed to characterize them as „pure,æ „raw,æ and „hybrid.æ The „pureæ variety (see Appendix A) has been described above in my discussion of Gustav Aldermann; the „rawæ variety that retains all features of the „pureæ dramatized novel, but includes so many lengthy, descriptive staging directions that a narrational voice becomes too conspicuous (see Appendix B); and the „hybridæ variety that consists predominantly of dialogue, but which allows for authorial commentary and narratorial guidance from dialogue to dialogue (see Appendix C). Thematically, the dramatized novel had three distinct manifestations: it either explores issues pertaining to contemporary Germany (works by Hase, Froebing, Wallenrodt, Wobeser); it contains historical or philosophical accounts based on the life of notable personages (works by Albrecht, Feþler, Meiþner, Schlenkert, Schmieder); or it comprises sensational, quasi-historical accounts replete with Gothic elements (works by Albrecht, Cramer, Vulpius, Zschokke). Spatial constraints make it necessary to defer an elaboration of the distinctions between these variants to a future study. Unless otherwise noted, the "dramatized novel" to be examined in this discussion is a heuristic construct that subsumes the salient features common to all variants.

Production of dramatized novels falls into two distinct phases. The first (1779-1789) occurs almost exclusively in the Leipzig-Dresden area. The authors of early dramatized novels (Hase, Meiþner, Schlenkert, Cramer) were men who had studied in Leipzig and found subsequent employment at the court in Dresden. Their works were published by well-known Leipzig houses such as Weygand, Breitkopf, Dyk, and Walther. This geographical focus prior to 1789 intimates the existence of a Leipzig-Dresden school, or „cradleæ of dramatized novel production.38

In the final phase (1790-1818) all indications of such a school vanish. Hase had long since given up his literary ambitions, Meiþner abandoned the genre, and a new group of authors submit works from various regions of Germany: Carolath (Feþler), Berlin (Wallenrodt), Hamburg (Albrecht), Prague (Albrecht), and Weimar (Vulpius). Leipzig continued to remain the hub of all publishing activity, although after 1789 several dramatized novels were published elsewhere“by Vieweg in Berlin, Langbein & Kr¸ger in Rudolstadt, Korn in Breslau, Wilmans in Bremen, Ziegler in Z¸rich, and Albrecht in Prague.

Why were these second-phase writers drawn to the dramatizing manner of presentation? The only extant documentation that might help answer this question are novel prefaces, particularly those written by the tireless authors Johann Friedrich Ernst Albrecht, Carl Gottlob Cramer, and Christian August Vulpius. In his first and anonymously published dramatized novel, Lauretta Pisana (1789), Albrecht claims that dialogic presentation is not only more pleasing to him, but that readers find it more lively. He consciously resists the temptation to resort to a narrative account of "the slightest nuances and motivations" since this would have bored him and his readers.39 Albrecht is thus content to let the novel speak for itself; he tends to resort to parenthetical staging instructions less frequently than any other proponent of the „pureæ dramatized novel.

Albrecht and his colleagues cast a deaf ear to the concerns and objections raised by critics. Aesthetic deliberations were often consciously compromised (if even considered) in favor of formulae that guaranteed popular success. Cramer spoke for many of his colleagues when he dismissed the frequently disparaging tone of his critics:

Uns ist daran gelegen, daþ die Welt uns lese und gern lese; darum k¸mmern wir uns auch nicht, es ist uns einerlei, was ihr von uns schmiert, wenn wir nur den Ton treffen, in welchen Herzen und Sinne unsers Zeitalters gestimmt sind.40

Commercial viability and profit margins“and not necessarily "love of novelty"“certainly figured predominantly among the personal reasons of second-phase writers for producing dramatized novels. In his first dramatized novel, Johann von Leiden (1791), Vulpius openly declares his desire to cater to popular fashion: "Was die Form und Gestalt anbelangt, in welcher gegenw”rtiges Werkchen erscheint, das ist ebendieselbe, welche die Lesewelt jetzt am meisten goutiert."41 Publishers and retailers certainly bore considerable responsibility for the proliferation of such low-quality consumer goods:

Die Buchh”ndler sind es, die die Modeartikel zu schreiben vorschlagen, und ihre Miethlinge in allen Ecken von Deutschland pensioniren ... Man sieht, es ist weniger Bed¸rfniþ des Autors als des Buchh”ndlers, denn dieser muþ f¸r jede Messe seine zwanzig oder dreyþig neue Artikel haben, damit er die Conkurenz mit seinen Nachbarn halten, und vieles den fremden, die Messe besuchenden Buchh”ndlern aufh”ngen kann; denn durch reizende Titel und andere Kunstgriffe wird dieser gen–thigt, davon f¸r sein nach Neuigkeiten lechzendes Publikum mit nach Hause zu nehmen42

Assuming that the penchant for dialogization and dramatization was as strong in 1790 as was indicated earlier, there is every reason to suspect that publishers and retailers exploited the dramatized novel for their own short-term gain. Breitkopfºs commercial success in publishing Meiþnerºs Alcibiades, his Erz”hlungen und Dialogen, and Schlenkertºs Friedrich mit der gebissenen Wange seemed to ensure the marketability of this manner of presentation“even though Breitkopf did not publish another dramatized novel after the penultimate installment of Schlenkertºs Heinrich der Vierte (1790). In his stead lesser publishers vied to offer works that adopted the thematic and stylistic features of Meiþnerºs and Schlenkertºs early works while tapping a pool of popular traditions that comprised folklore, adventurous-galant novels, Sturm und Drang pathos, and sentimentalism. In more concrete terms, Meiþner emulated Wieland's Agathon with his Alcibiades; Cramerºs Der deutsche Alcibiades was an unmistakable „Germanæ reworking of Meiþnerºs bestseller, and his Haspar a Spada and Adolf der K¸hne drew strongly on Goetheºs G–tz von Berlichingen and Schillerºs Die R”uber; Albrechtºs Lauretta Pisana and Die Familie Eboli reworked historical material introduced in Schillerºs Don Carlos; and Wallenrodtºs Karl Moor und seine Genossen nach der Abschiedscene beim alten Thurm. Ein Gem”lde erhabener Menschennatur als Seitenst¸ck zum Rinaldo Rinaldini shamelessly courted readers by promising to refine works by Schiller and Vulpius.

In sum, several publishers and writers were willing to speculate on the appetite of readers for dramatized novels. Unfortunately, there is no extant data that reveals how many copies of each work were published; contemporary statistics indicate that the average book edition in 1786 comprised between 600 and 2000 copies. However, the quality of paper, typesetting, and illustrations for several novels (e.g., in addition to Breitkopfºs offerings, Meiþner, Bianca Capello; Albrecht, Die sch–ne Gabriele and Der deutsche Joseph; Feþler, Marc-Aurel and Matthias Corvinus) suggests that several publishers anticipated the primary customers to be the affluent or the lending libraries.43

There is good reason to suspect a gentlemanºs collusion between publishers, retailers, and lending libraries. Lending libraries and book retailers possessed valuable insights into the kinds of reading material their clientele desired, and it is not improbable that publishers solicited such information before contracting to have popular works written and brought to market.44 Moreover, many lending libraries were affiliated with book retailers“a coincidence giving rise to suspicions that edition sizes may have been artifically increased by enterprising merchants who speculated on profits from the sale and lending of „best-sellers.æ

As noted earlier, most of the dramatized novels written by Albrecht, Cramer, Meiþner, Schlenkert, and Vulpius were published in multiple volumes, each of which often contained more than 250 pages; the suggested retail price for these works ranged between 1 1/2 and 3 Reichsthaler. Economic realities confronting most eighteenth-century Germans (e.g. real wages remaining at or below subsistence level; steady erosion of purchasing power by alarming increases in the price of staples such as grains; minimal levels of discretionary income) made the purchase of such reading material improbable for the overwhelming majority of German readers.45 Since the best-selling, multi-volumed dramatized novels went through several legitimate editions (not to mention cheaper versions pirated in T¸bingen and Karlsruhe), it stands to reason that the lionºs share of such reading material was purchased not by individual readers, but by institutionalized representatives of readers (e.g. reading societies and lending libraries).

Three economic issues made multi-volumed works particularly desireable and profitable for publisher, writer, and distributor: Most publishers paid their writers modest honoraria for each sheet published; many educated, but poorly compensated individuals (Meiþner, Schlenkert, Feþler, Cramer) sought to supplement their meager earnings by writing voluminous novels that would appeal to the growing mass of consuming readers and reading consumers; most lending libraries charged their patrons fees per volume rather than per work. Readers with an insatiable hunger for adventure, intrigue, and pseudo-historical portraits became the driving force in perpetuating a commercial strategy that gave primacy to quantity over quality and thus exceeding the practicable reach of the dramatized novel.

III. Critical Response

Wozu denn die dramatische Form?
wozu alle Anstalten, wenn doch platterdings kein andrer Zweck hervorgebracht wird, als die Regungen, die die Erz”hlung, von jedem zu Hause in seinem Winkel gelesen, auch hervorbringen w¸rde? (Lessing, Hamburgische Dramaturgie
80. St¸ck)

The first two sections of this inquiry have shown that the dramatized novel was embraced by a rather small group of writers and publishers. With rare exceptions the genre was not welcomed by those who try to mediate between the producers and consumers of literature: critics, reviewers, and scholars. Such professional readers were not hesitant to express their disregard for this tenuous genre that seemed fraught with unavoidable and irresolvable problems.46 A disorientating manner of presentation, an indulgence in the liberties that had once been subsumed under the catch-all slogan „Shakespearisiren,æ a lack of aesthetic economy, a license for indolence: All these adverse features seem to have attended the dramatic novel and undermined its aesthetic value. A critical review published in 1791, at the height of the dramatized novelºs popularity, speculates on the reasons why pedestrian writers alone were attracted to this experimental manner of presentation:

Seit einigen Jahren haben wir dramatisirte und romanisirte Biographien zu Dutzenden bekommen. Wahrscheinlich weil die Arbeit ziemlich bequem ist, und man so auf die leichteste Art den Namen eines Dichters zu erlangen glaubt. Vor den Plan ist dabey gesorgt, dem Bearbeiter steht es frey, so viel dazu zu thun, als er will; und er hat nicht n–thig, seine Dichtungskraft in groþe Unkosten zu setzen. Unwahrscheinlichkeiten, Langweiligkeiten, u. dgl. rechtfertigt er, seinen historischen F¸hrer in der Hand. Das schwerste, was ein Dichter bey der Bearbeitung irgend eines selbst erfundenen Stoffs zu ¸berwinden hat, der Handlung Einheit zu geben, und alle F”den des ganzen so zu verflechten und zu teilen, daþ sie endlich in Einem gemeinschaftlichen Mittelpunkte zusammenlaufen: auch diese M¸he erspart er sich. Kurz, die meisten Produkte dieser Art sind, wie die meisten Dramas des franz–sischen Theaters, Kinder der Mittelm”þigkeit und der Tr”gheit.47

The accusation of indolence becomes more credible when one takes prefatory remarks made by proponents of the genre into consideration. Meiþner acknowledged that Johann von Schwaben was laden with flaws and conceded that he could have corrected them easily, but insisted that „ein Drama zum Lesen hat manches Privilegium vor demjenigen, welche ihre Verfasser (oft aber freilich auch nur sie allein) zur Auff¸hrung bestimmen.æ48 Content with publishing merely „das erste Gerippæ of his bestselling Haspar a Spada, Karl Gottlob Cramer stated bluntly: „Meine Absicht war mehr bloþ Szenen aus jener traurigen Epoche darzustellen als eine zusammenh”ngende Geschichte derselben zu liefern.æ49 One soon realizes that writers were drawn to the genre not for artistic reasons, but for its formal simplicity and market value.

It is doubtful whether the dramatic intensity characteristic of conventional tragedies and comedies could have been sustained in an expansive genre such as the novel, but flippant attitudes such as those presented above hardly instill faith in these writersº resolve to explore the potential of the dramatized novel. It is debatable whether they simply lacked the talent to create compelling stories, or whether they willingly compromised aesthetic quality to the pressures of the market. The relative ease with which these writers produced reading material was fit to order for increasing commercialisation and trivilisation of literature“a circumstance which certainly did not help the genre win over many advocates among critics.

This point proved to be the Achillesº heel of the dramatized novel. Most observers conceded that its proponents failed to tap the genreºs potential, and consequently refused to grant it any legitimacy. Representative of this consensus is the first and most cogent discussion of the dramatized novel, which appeared in 1791, at the height of the genreºs popularity.50 Here an anonymous critic conversant in the theories of Engel and Blanckenburg“and hence possibly associated with the Leipzig æschoolæ“carefully analyzed the shortcomings of its practitioners while delimiting the field for viable dramatized novels. By describing his personal response to Meiþnerºs Alcibiades, Schlenkertºs Friedrich mit der gebissenen Wange, and Feþlerºs Marc-Aurel, the critic lent special credibility to his account of the causes which impede effect of the dramatized novel (UdR 5).

The critic argued that, since human experience is by nature not confined to dialogic situations, the exclusive use of dramatic form in a novel violates natural principles (Ðdr13) and deters, if not hinders, the more perfect („vollkommeneræ) portrait of character development (Ðdr 7). As a result, the dramatized novel portrays deliberations and expressions of sentiment rather than actions:

Und so k–mmt es denn, daþ uns, wir m–gen lesen, wo wir wollen, immer nur das Bild begegnet, das uns schon von der Wiege an verfolgte, ohne dass unsere Einbildungskraft einen neuen Reiz erh”lt und unsre Ideen vollst”ndiger und deutlicher werden, kurz, ohne dass sie durch die wiederholten Schilderungen extensivisch und intensivisch gewinnenæ (Ðdr, 14).

For all the inadequacy of the dramatized novel, the critic does not dispute the potential of the genre for poetic legitimacy. In his view, the consummate dramatized novel would be a short, single-volumed work in which the author explored one character thoroughly, without portraying any single characteristic twice (Ðdr 18).

Critical consensus held that the unmitigated procession of dialogues and monologues ultimately rendered the dramatized novel, particularly in its pure and raw variants, an effete genre. It became increasingly clear that the ideal genre should exhibit a prudent juxtaposition of narrative and dialogic manners of presentation.51

IV. Popular Response

In a cultural environment in which remedies for the epidemic of „Lesesuchtæ were fretfully debated, critics and scholars often presented themselves as advocates for the reader. Yet the reader whose interests the above critic claimed to represent did not belong to the already sizable, and rapidly growing, group of pleasure readers who evidently did not mind the predominant interiorization that often suspended the factors of time and space in the dramatized novel.52 In all likelihood, some readers embraced the dramatized novel for shallow reasons similar to Meiþner's "love of novelty."

The above discussion has identified three interdependent factors that may account for the genreºs popularity: a lingering disaffection with conventional narrative styles, an indiscriminate „love of novelty,æ and the interest of publishers and writers in exploiting or serialising popular themes in a „novelæ manner of presentation. Qualitatively, these works are no better than the bulk of novels and dramas churned out by the end of the century. Quantitatively, they consumed as much printed paper as other forms of contemporary pulp fiction. Why, then, did the dramatized novel enjoy such short-lived popularity? One might be tempted to attribute this popularity to unbridled „Lesewut,æ that is, an undiscriminating appetite for reading material. This hypothesis, however, is not wholly congruent with empirical evidence cited above which claims that readers of the early 1790s found dramatized and dialogized works especially attractive. Taking such evidence at face value suggests that dramatization or dialogization addressed a special need among certain groups of the literate public in the final decade of the century.

Who read dramatized novels? One rather nebulous answer is provided by prefaces to such works. The earlier biographical variants sought a rather distinguished audience: Meiþner dedicated his dramatized novels to respected men of letters such as Gleim and Boie; Schlenkert and Feþler dedicated their works to male aristocratic personages, perhaps in search of more gainful employment. These works offer a more genteel and sober portrait than the quasi-historical and sensational variants written by market-wise authors such as Cramer, Albrecht, Wallenrodt, and Vulpius, who, by addressing anonymous „Leser und Leserinnenæ in their prefaces, indicate that they intended their works to cut across gender lines. When one observes the trajectory of the dramatized novel, it becomes evident that the experimental genre tenuously bridged the gulf between a socio-economic system based on patronage and one based on capitalism. In neither system did it find sufficient support to sustain its viability.

It is doubtful that educated Germans who had come of age reading works by authors such as Lessing or Wieland would have enjoyed dramatized novels. None of the „first-rateæ intellectuals of eighteenth-century Germany (e.g. Goethe, Herder, Wieland, Moritz, Kant, Humboldt, H–lderlin) acknowledge the existence of the genre or its foremost practitioners in their extant writings; it is worth noting that Schillerºs use of the term occurs only in the „unterdr¸cktes Vorwortæ to Die R”uber. In all likelihood the readers of dramatized novels were either novice readers or those who abandoned a repetitive or intensive reading habit prematurely in favor of a superficially extensive one. Numerous contemporary observers claimed that such readers had a less reverent regard for the printed word than earlier generations;53 this new class of readers saw the value of reading material primarily as divertissement. Moreover, by the turn of the century the insistence on a meaning that could be explicated rationally and authoritatively gradually gave way to a more personal, empathic experience of literature.54 For this reason it is highly probable that readers of dramatized novels came from groups whose access to books had previously been restricted or who were discouraged from dealing with texts of great import: women, domestic servants, and laborers. Noteworthy writers such as Grillparzer, Hauff, Horn, Kestner, Tieck, Uhland comment briefly on their perusal of dramatized novels in their childhood. At the risk of oversimplification, I submit that these diverse groups of readers may have not only have had different motivations for reading; they may well have cultivated a radically different reading habit, one that could find temporary gratification in the dramatized novel.

How were dramatized novels read?55 The most prevalent form of reading in eighteenth-century Germany was voiced and communal. The small reading group experienced an evolution from a small assembly governed by a form of patriarchal authority (such as the family) to a „geselliger Kreisæ that was much more liberal in its selection and discussion of reading material. Reading texts out loud tends to serve a ritualistic function: In the best of circumstances it can provide a unique intensity to the aesthetic or emotive experience of texts. Although pedagogues increasingly extolled the virtues of solitary, silent reading as the century neared its end, it is likely that many readers sought reading material that lent itself well to a vocalized or sub-vocalized (whispered) reading.
Several factors lend credence to the suggestion that the dramatized novel found a rather sizeable audience among the lower middle stations („Kleinb¸rgertumæ): Dialogized reading material was perfectly suited for novice readers who had grown up in a predominantly oral culture; the treatment of quasi-historical themes addressed a fairly widespread interest in chronicles and other historical writings; works relying heavily on adventure and spectacle appealed to those who still delighted in stories such as the widely-circulated Des Christlichen Teutschen Groþf¸rsten Hercules and Die Asiatische Banise. Among this socio-economic group traditional story-telling sessions were gradually complemented by reading groups; towards the end of the century it was not uncommon for novels to be read aloud in small social settings.56

If one assumes that the primary readers of the second-phase dramatized novels were women, domestic servants, laborers, students, and adolescents“many of whom came from the lower middle stations“, then one is dealing with a group that had little, if any, discretionary income. Their access to such reading material was thus contingent on a support group. In eighteenth-century Germany each book loaned or purchased is said to have found its way into the hands (or ears) of ten to twelve readers/listeners, or „Multiplikatoren.æ57 This communal circulation of books may have not only allowed for a leisurely and free exchange of ideas, but also promoted a performative reading“especially if some of those multipliers in any social group were illiterate or insistent on having books read to them. This „Geselligkeitæ was facilitated by institutions such as lending libraries and reading societies.58 One astute contemporary observer claimed that „Friseurs, Cammerjungfern, Bedienten, Kaufmannsdienern und dergleichenæ comprised the largest group of patrons of lending libraries.59 This does not mean that members of the service sector were the only ones to read popular literature; it is not unlikely that such library patrons were directed by their superiors or employers to check out certain books. But when discussing loaned books one must keep in mind that their circulation would have to occur at a quick pace to avoid assessment of late fees, a practice that would necessitate a rapid consumption of literature, one that would keep pace with the rapid production of novels.

A further cause of the dramatized novelºs popularity may have been its structural fragmentation. When viewed from the perspective of production aesthetics, the fragmented structure may have been designed to indulge a more casual approach to reading. It is unlikely that any reader would have had the time or patience to read an entire multi-volumed novel at one sitting; the numerous discrete units of the dramatized novel may have allowed for short-term divertissement. From a superficially visual perspective, the jagged lines of dialogue and quick succession of short scenes are much less formidable than blocks of narration arranged in lengthy chapters.

From the perspective of reception aesthetics one could argue that the fragmented dialogization of plot emerged in response to an altered approached of reading, pioneered by new kinds of readers who were neither accustomed nor inclined to process lengthy blocks of narration.60 One need only consider the popularity of the Bibliothek der Romane in 21 volumes that Heinrich August Ottokar Reichard edited between 1778 and 1794“precisely the period which saw the birth and heyday of the dramatized novel. This compendious anthology was not designed to impart an understanding of an entire work, but merely to delight the reader with abridgements or summaries of episodes and adventures from a variety of novels. From a structural perspective the dramatized novel replicates the effect of this anthology: It tends to exhibit a sequence of episodes without any effort to explain or elaborate the larger context in which these occur. It is a noteworthy coincidence that one of the collaborations on this Bihbliothek project was Christian August Vulpius“one of the most renowned proponents of the dramatized novel.

V. Conclusion

If one is inclined to consider the dramatized novel as anything other than a literary trifle, there are two plausible accounts of its sociological signifiance that, given the inherent fracture of the German Enlightenment, are not mutually exclusive. On the one hand, it is possible that the fragmented quality of the dramatized novel structurally represented the estrangement and alienation that manifested itself as German culture and society moved haltingly toward modernity. In other words, the dramatized novel's virtual lack of authorial voice or narrational guidance reflected the gradual erosion of a paternal/authoritative ethos and its displacement by a maternal/empathic ethos,61 which associates modernity with the feminine. The failure, or refusal, of most dramatized novels to endorse overtly a normative or prescriptive morality may have evolved from an experimental aesthetic strategy to a commercial ploy to create a least offensive denominator that would attract the greatest number of readers.62
The polyvalence of the dramatized novel makes a second account possible. Given the virtual absence of an authorial or narrational instance, the dramatized novel required that the reader take ownership of the work and „flesh it outæ through a performative act. If one is willing to entertain the notion that the dramatized novel was caught up in the crest of a movement which brought about the penchant for tableau vivants and private theatricals at the end of the century, then the emergence of the genre takes on special socio-cultural significance:

Es ist ein Wandel des Interesses an Literatur, daþ es nicht der r”sonierend zu explizierende Sinn ist, um den die Rezipienten um 1800 sich bem¸hen, sondern die M–glichkeit zu literarischer Erfahrung in empatischer Teilnahme; und die Faszination dieser im 18. Jahrhundert ja erst noch in Ausbildung begriffenen F”higkeit demonstriert der Charakter der popul”ren Texte ebenso wie die Vielzahl der auf spielerische Formen dieses Interesses zur¸ckzuf¸hrenden Âliterarischen Besch”ftigungen,º in denen sich das gewandelte Verh”ltnis zur Literatur Realit”t schafft.63

The dramatized novel, with its loosely connected array of dialogues and monologues, could have furnished material suitable for such empathic reception, particularly "im geselligen Kreis," where more frivolous texts“in the broadest and strictest senses of the word“were more likely to have been read than in the more conventional and authoritarian setting where reading was conducted, controlled, or supervised by a father figure.64

This discussion submits that four factors contributed to the emergence and short-lived popularity of the dramatized novel: (1) the valorization of transparency and interiority in German aesthetics, (2) the astonishing boom in the popularity of the novel since the 1770s, (3) the astronomical growth of the publishing industry, and (4) the increased literacy of the German public. When regarded charitably, the dramatized novel not only depicted interiority, but, by exploiting an anti-theatrical gesture and exploring the potential of an ascendant genre, effectively displaced action from the real stage to the boundless mental theater of the reader. When viewed more critically, dramatized novels do not merit an intensive or repetitive reading. The dialogic immediacy of presentation usually exhausts itself in one superficial reading; the frequently overwhelming accumulation of formulaic episodes allows for a complex, but not profound, plot which does not usually invite further exploration of the text. The precipitous decline in popularity of the dramatized novel could be explained by the inadequacy or monotony of the manner of presentation, or by its outliving its own usefulness as an „Eselsbr¸ckeæ for novice or pleasure readers.65 The ultimate failure of the genre may be attributed to the sheer difficulty of sustaining dramatic intensity and dialogic immediacy in the breadth and depth required by (quasi-)historical or (quasi-) biographical novels.

Notes

1 Although it would be erroneous to dispute the great influence of G–tz von Berlichingen on the „Ritter- und Schauerromantikæ, the thematic roots of this trend must be traced back to a diverse body of popular literature from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Christine Touaillon, Der deutsche Frauenroman des 18. Jahrhunderts (1919; New York: Lang, 1979) 431-434.
2 Descriptions taken respectively from August Gottlieb Meiþner, Skizzen (Leipzig: Dyk, 1778) 81; review of Gustav Aldermann in „Dritte Fortsetzung der Bilanz der sch–nen Literatur im Jahre 1779,æ Teutscher Merkur 5. St¸ck (1780): 240; review of Adelheit von Siegmar, Teutscher Merkur 7.3 (1774): 358; „Ðber den dramatischen Roman, Neue Bibliothek der sch–nen Wissenschaften und freyen K¸nste 44.1 (1791): 3-18.
3 Critical accounts of the „Lesedramaæ are presented by Eva Maria Inbar, „Shakespeare in der Diskussion um die aktuelle Deutsche Literature, 1773-1777: Zur Entstehung der Begriffe ÂShakespearisierendes Dramaº und ÂLesedrama,ºæ Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstiftes (T¸bingen: Niemeyer, 1979) 1-39; and Nicolas Boyle, "Das Lesedrama: Versuch einer Ehrenrettung," Akten des VII. Internationalen Germanisten Tages 1985. Kontroversen, alte und neue, ed. Albrecht Sch–ne (T¸bingen: Niemeyer, 1986) 59-68.
4 Christian Heinrich Schmid, „Ðber die Wahl der B¸chertitel, ein Beytrag zu der Charakteristik der neuesten Deutschen Litteratur,æ Journal von und f¸r Deutschland 7. St¸ck (1790): 525-41, here 533.
5 Jenaische Litteratur Zeitung 1. St¸ck (1795):65
6 August Koberstein, Grundriss der Geschichte der deutschen Nationalliteratur, 4th ed., 3 vols. (Leipzig: Vogel, 1856) 2: 1702f.
7 Franz Horn, Die sch–ne Litteratur Deutschlands w”hrend des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts (Berlin und Stettin: Nicolai, 1812-1813) and Umrisse zur Geschichte und Kunst der sch–nen Literatur Deutschlands, w”hrend der Jahre 1790 bis 1818 (Berlin: Enslin, 1819); D.L.B. Wolff, Allgemeine Geschichte des Romans von dessen Ursprung bis zur neuesten Zeit, 2nd ed. (Jena: Mauke, 1850) 450-457; Rolf Tarot, "Drama-Roman-Dramatischer Roman: Bemerkungen zur Darstellung von Unmittelbarkeit und Innerlichkeit in Theorie und Dichtung des 18. Jahrhunderts," Momentum Dramaticum. Festschrift for Eckehard Catholy, ed. Linda Dietrich and David John (Waterloo: University of Waterloo Press, 1990): 241-267
8 Teutscher Merkur 7.3 (1774): 358. Adelheit von Siegmar is certainly not the first work to exhibit features that would soon constitute the dramatized novel. Bodmerºs political and historical dramas written in the 1760s and 1770s were intended expressly for readers. His Politische Schauspiele were reviewed collectively as „eine dialogisirte Geschichte, aber kein ”chtes Drama.æ Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek 24.1 (1775): 84-87, here 86. One could arguably identify Wielandºs Araspes und Panthea. Eine Geschichte in Dialogen (1760) as the first German dramatized novel, but this work, published a quarter-century before the genre began to flourish, seems to have been without resonance.
9 „Vermuthlich wollte er es nicht wagen, in der Schilderung solcher Leidenschaften, wie Gewissensangst und Argwohn sind, mit Shakespear einen Wettstreit einzugehen.æ Teutscher Merkur 7.3 (1774): 358.
10 Christian Heinrich Schmid's review of Gustav Aldermann in Almanach der deutschen Musen auf das Jahr 1780 (Leipzig: Schwickert, 1780) 88-89.
11 Friedrich von Blanckenburg, Versuch ¸ber den Roman (1774; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1965). Johann Jakob Engel, „Ðber Handlung, Gespr”ch und Erzehlung,æ Neue Bibliothek der sch–nen Wissenschaften und freyen K¸nste 16.2 (1774): 177-256. All subsequent reference to these works not requiring commentary will
be included parenthetically in the text, with the designations „VRæ and "HGE," respectively.
12 The first treatise to weigh the merits and limitations of the dramatized novel rehearsed the theories of Blanckenburg and Engel, thereby intimating their parentage of the genre. See the discussion below of the critical review „Ðber den dramatischen Roman.æ
13 The theories of Blanckenburg and Engel are subjected to comparative analysis in Hans-Gerhard Winter, Dialog und Dialogroman in der Aufkl”rung (Darmstadt: Thesenverlag, 1974) 140-143; Horst Turk, Dialektischer Dialog (G–ttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975) 122-129; Wolfgang Lockemann, Die Entstehung des Erz”hlproblems. Untersuchungen zur deutschen Dichtungstheorie im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Meisenheim: Hain,1963) 185-198; and Ernst Theodor Voþ, ed., „Nachwort,æ Johann Jakob Engel. Ðber Handlung, Gespr”ch und Erz”hlung (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1964) 2*-171*, here 116*-122* and 132*-135*.
14 In a similar vein, Blanckenburg contends that "von [dem Dichter] wollen wir selten etwas wissen. Wir haben es mit seinen Personen zu tun. Das gr–þte Lob, das er erhalten kann, ist“daþ wir ihn ganz ¸ber seinem Werke vergessen habenæ (VR 525).
15 Johann Caspar Friedrich Manso, „Die Geschichte der deutschen Poesie. Von 1759 bis 1787," Nachtr”ge zu Sulzers Allgemeine Theorie der Sch–nen K¸nste 8.2 (1808): 260f.
16 Meiþner, Skizzen 81.
17 August Gottlieb Meiþner, „Vorberichtæ to Johann von Schwaben. Ein Trauerspiel (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1780) 2-4, here 3.
18 Meiþner, „Vorbericht,æ 3.
19 Friedrich Schiller, „Ðber naive und sentimentalische Dichtung,æ Werke 4 vols. (Frankfurt a.M.: Insel, 1966) 4:287-368, here 331.
20 The dubious aesthetic value of the novel is perhaps best illustrated by the absence of any pertinent entry in Sulzerºs widely-read Allgemeine Theorie der sch–nen K¸nste (Leipzig: Weidemann, 1774), and by Wezelºs well-known assertion: „Der Roman ist eine Dichtungsart, die am meisten verachtet und am meisten gelesen wird.æ Johann Carl Wezel, „Vorredeæ to Hermann und Ulrike, 4 vols. (1780; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1971) 1:i. Eighteenth-century debate on the merit of the novel is rehearsed in Ernst Weber, Die poetologische Selbstreflexion im deutschen Roman des 18. Jahrhunderts. Zu Theorie und Praxis von „Roman,æ „Historieæ und pragmatischem Roman (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1974), and Kurt W–lfel, „Friedrich von Blanckenburgs Versuch ¸ber den Roman,æ Deutsche Romantheorien, ed. Reinhold Grimm (Frankfurt: Athen”um, 1968) 29-60.
21 The foremost proponents of the dramatized novel“Meiþner, Friedrich Traugott Hase, Friedrich Christian Schlenkert, Johann Friedrich Ernst Albrecht, and Ignaz Aurelius Feþler“all began their literary careers as playwrights.
22 Schiller, Werke 2:502-505, here 503.
23 Schiller, Werke 2: 503.The introduction to the published version of Die R”uber reads: „Man nehme dieses Schauspiel f¸r nichts anderes als ein dramatisierte Geschichte, die die Vortheile der dramatischen Methode, die Seele gleichsam bei ihren geheimsten Operationen zu ertappen, benutzt, ohne sich ¸brigens in die Schranken eines Theaterst¸cks einzuz”unen, ohne nach dem so zweifelhaften Gewinn bei theatralischer Verk–rperung zu geizenæ (Werke 1:7-10, here 7).
24 Schiller, Werke 2:505.
25 Schiller, Werke 2:505.
26 By using the pronouns „sheæ and „heræ to describe the reader, I am not imputing the reading of dramatized novels exclusively to women.
27 Erich Sch–n discusses the development in his Verlust der Sinnlichkeit, oder, Die Verwandlungen des Lesers. Mentalit”tswandel um 1800 (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1987) 113-122 and 325-328.
28 See Jonathan Crary, Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990); Dorothea von M¸cke, Virtue and the Veil of Illusion: Generic Innovation and the Pedagogical Project in Eighteenth-Century Literature (Stamford: Stanford UP. 1991).
29 Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek 41.2 (1780): 471-472, here 471.
30 The novel was published anonymously. Friedrich Traugott Hase (1754-1823) has been credited as author of the first two German dramatized novels Gustav Aldermann (1779) and Friedrich Mahler (1780), both published by Friedrich Weygand in Leipzig.
31 Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek 41.2 (1780): 471-472.
32 Review of Gustav Aldermann cited from „Dritte Fortsetzung der Bilanz der sch–nen Literatur im Jahre 1779,æ Teutscher Merkur 5. St¸ck (1780): 240. Virtually all dramatized novels were published in multiple volumes. Meiþnerºs Alcibiades, Schlenkertºs Friedrich mit der gebissenen Wange and Rudolf von Habsburg, Albrechtºs Familie Eboli and Friedrich von Zollern, Feþlerºs Marc-Aurel were published in four volumes; Schlenkertºs Heinrich der Vierte in five. The size of these novels was certainly determined more by commercial considerations than aesthetic ones, e.g. to enhance sales to lending libraries. See Georg J”ger und J–rg Sch–nert, „Die Leihbibliothek als Institution des literarischen Lebens im 18 und 19 Jahrhundert,æ Die Leihbibliothek als Institution des literarischen Lebens im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Organisationsformen, Best”nde und Publikum, ed Georg J”ger und J–rg Sch–nert (Hamburg: Hauswedell, 1980) 42f.
33 Henry Home, Elements of Criticism, 2 vols. (1762; Hildesheim and New York: Olms, 1970) 2: 197. Homeºs work exerted considerable influence on German aesthetic theory in the 1770s. In the present context it is important to note that Engel co-edited a new edition of Meinhardºs translation of Grunds”tze der Kritik von heinrich Home in 1772“two years before writing his treatise Ðber Handlung, Gespr”ch und Erz”hlung. See Wilhelm Neumann, Die Bedeutung Homes f¸r die Ÿsthetik und sein Einfluþ auf die deutschen Ÿsthetiker, Inaugural-Dissertation, Halle, 1894.
34 Anonymous review of Johann Friedrich Ernst Albrecht's Lauretta Pisana in Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek 94.1 (1790): 138-140. It must be pointed out that the critic immediately qualifies his judgment: "” versteht sich aber, daþ der Dichter Meister seiner Kunst seyn muþ" (140).
35 Friedrich Kittler's study of discourse networks in 1800 focuses primarily on "classical" literary texts“he does not take dramatized novels or other "trivial" genres into consideration“but his insight into aesthetic experience around 1800 is relevant here: „daþ um 1800 gerade hohe Texte in audiovisueller Sinnlichkeit schwelgen, haben nur Filmhistoriker erkannt. Eine Lust, die den unerh–rten Belletristikboom erst m–glich machte, bleibt Interpreten dunkel, die von ihr noch zehren. Denn das halluzinatorische Inszenieren, weil es Stimmen und Gesichte zwischen die gelesenen Zeilen tr”gt, ist die Transmissionstechnik, die aus Lesern neue Autoren macht." Aufschreibesysteme. 1800-1900, 3rd ed. (Munich: Fink, 1995) 150.
36 Of interest here is a passage from a handbook on proper reading habits: "Der Leser eines Buches muþ das thun, was der Schauspieler, der K¸nstler ist, thut. Er muþ dem Schriftsteller nachhelfen: er muþ das Selbstdenken nicht aufgeben, sondern er muþ ihm vor- und nachdenken." Johann Adam Bergk, Die Kunst, B¸cher zu lesen (1799: Leipzig: Zentral-Antiquariat der DDR, 1967) 66. Bergk obviously has in mind here the "careful reader" who reads aesthetically meritorious literature. A dramatized novel, especially in its "pure" variety, is precisely the kind of work that heeds his call for a transformation of reader into actor. The same cannot be said of the other variants.
37 August Gottlieb Meiþner, Alcibiades, 4 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1781) 1: 111-112.

38 I suspect that a key figure in this „schoolæ was Christian Felix Weiþe, a well-known poet, playwright, and editor of the Neue Bibliothek der sch–nen Wissenschaften und freyen K¸nste. Weiþe personally knew Engel, Meiþner, and Blanckenburg, each of whom contributed articles and reviews to his journal, and he was instrumental in securing for Hase the editorship of Schwickertºs Leipziger Musenalmanach (1776-1778) and Meiþnerºs administrative post in Dresden. In addition, Weiþe broke with his own reputation as an author of sentimental plays by authoring in 1774 (but not publishing until 1780!) a historical drama that resembled the aforementioned Adelheit von Siegmar. Weiþe himself considered only an abridged version of this work suitable for theatrical performance. See preface to Der Fanatismus, oder Jean Calas. Ein historisches Schauspiel (Frankfurt and Leipzig: Dyk, 1780) *2-*4, here *4.
39 Johann Friedrich Ernst Albrecht, Lauretta Pisana. Leben einer italienischen Buhlerin. Aus Rousseaus Schriften und Papieren. Dramatische bearbeitet 2 vols. (Leipzig: Walther, 1789) 1: v-viii, here vi.
40 Carl Gottlob Cramer, „Vorrede,æ Die Gef”hrlichen Stunden 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1790) 2: n. pag. Albrecht defiantly expresses gratitude to readers who made multiple editions of his early works possible. Johann Friedrich Ernst Albrecht, "Vorrede," Die Familie Medici in ihren gl”nzendsten Epochen. Ein historisch-dramatisches Gem”lde vom Verfasser der Familie Eboli 2 vols. (Leipzig: Sch”fer, 1795) 1: 3-6, here 4.
41 Christian August Vulpius, "Vorrede," Johann von Leiden. Wahre Geschichte der Vorzeit (Dresden und Leipzig: Richter, 1791) 1-6, here 5-6.
42 Johann Georg Heinzmann, Ðber die Pest der deutschen Literatur. Appell an meine Nation ¸ber Aufkl”rung und Aufkl”rer; ¸ber Gelehrsamkeit und Schriftsteller; ¸ber B¸chermanufakturisten, Rezensenten, Buchh”ndler; ¸ber moderne Philosophen und Menschenerzieher usw, ed Reinhard Wittmann (1780; Hildesheim: Olms, 1977) 427. Also Bergk, 414. Without disputing these claims, it is important to note that several poorly situated contemporaries wrote prolifically in order to maintain a modest standard of living, such as the former physician Albrecht, the former civil servant Schlenkert, the former priest Feþler, and the widow Wallenrodt.
43 These observations are based on a first-hand examination of various legitimate and pirated editions that are available at the Deutsche B¸cherei in Leipzig, the Universit”tsbibliothek Leipzig, the Universit”tsbibliothek Jena, and the Herzog-Anna-Amalia Bibliothek in Weimar. I am especially indebted to Frau Lieselotte Reuschel of the Deutsches Buch- und Schriftmuseum at the Deutsche B¸cherei in Leipzig. Frau Reuschel not only drew my attention to the differing qualities of typesetting, illustrations, and paper, but helped me compare and contrast these qualities in numerous late eighteenth-century works. A scientific analysis of the novels under consideration conducted by members of the Papierhistorische Sammlung of the Deutsche B¸cherei established only that the paper used for legitimate editions of works by Meiþner, Schlenkert, and Albrecht was „von besserer Qualit”tæ (personal communication to the author). On the issue of primary customers, see J”ger and Sch–nert, 42-43.
44 J”ger and Sch–nert 12.
35 Helmut M–ller, Die kleinb¸rgerliche Familie im 18. Jahrhundert. Verhalten und Gruppenkultur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969) 101-116; Diedrich Saalfeld, „Einkommensverh”ltnisse und Lebenshaltungskosten st”dtischer Populationen in Deutschland in der Ðbergangsperiode zum Industriezeitalter,æ Wirtschaftliche und soziale Strukturen im s”kularen Wandel. Festschrift f¸r Wilhelm Abel. Band II: Die vorindustrielle Zeit: Auþeragrarische Probleme (Hannover: Schaper, 1974) 417-443; Helmut Kiesel und Paul M¸nch, Gesellschaft und Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert. Voraussetzungen und Entstehung des literarischen Marktes in Deutschland (M¸nchen: Beck, 1977) 53-59.
46 A representative sampling of such criticism would include „Der Leipziger Meþkatalog, oder Aussichten zur modischen Winterlekt¸re,æ Journal des Luxus und der Moden November 1794: 536-537; Koberstein, 1702-1703; D. L. B. Wolff, 450-452; Tarot, 251-252.
47 Johann Jakob Schatz, „Ðber Romane, die theils dialogisch, theils in Briefen abgefaþt waren,æ Anhang zu dem 53. bis 86. Bande der Allgemeinen Deutschen Bibliothek. Dritte Abtheilung (Berlin und Stettin: Nicolai, 1791): 1864-1872, here 1867-1868.
48 Meiþner, "Vorbericht" 3.
49 Carl Gottlob Cramer, Haspar a Spada. Eine Saga aus dem dreizehnten Jahrhundert, vom Verfasser des Erasmus Schleicher 2 vols. (Frankfurt und Leipzig, 1794) 1: 1-6, here 5. Similar declarations can be found in prefaces to works by Meiþner, Schlenkert and Albrecht.
50 „Ðber den dramatischen Roman,æ Neue Bibliothek der sch–nen Wissenschaften und freyen K¸nste 44.1 (1791) 3-18. All subsequent reference to this review not requiring commentary will be included parenthetically in the text, with the designation „Ðdr.æ
51 Karl Heinrich Ludwig P–litz, Die Ÿsthetik f¸r gebildete Leser, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1807) 2: 142; also see 2: 217.
52 The anonymous critic argued that the reader "will nicht blos wissen, was diesen Stolz entz¸ndet, gen”hrt, belebt hat; er will ¸ber die ”uþern Umst”nde und ¸ber den Einfluss der Gesellschaft, des Ortes und der Zeit im Dialog, wie in der Erz”hlung, und wenn es in jenen weniger m–glich ist, lieber in dieser, als gar nicht belehrt seynæ (Ðdr 9). The popularity of the dramatized novel suggests that many readers felt otherwise, if only temporarily.
53 Hoche, 78-90; Bergk, 62-66; August Wilhelm Schlegel, „Allgemeine Ðbersicht des gegenw”rtigen Zustandes der deutschen Literatur,æ Ðber Literatur, Kunst und Geist des Zeitalters, ed. Franz Finke (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1964) 3-94, here 10-14.; Johann Gottlieb Fichte, „Die Grundz¸ge des gegenw”rtigen Zeitalters,æ S”mmtliche Werke, 11 vols. (Berlin, 1846) 2: 3-256, here 88-90.
54 Sch–n, 221.
55 The assumptions made in this paragraph derive from arguments presented in Erich Sch–n, especially 99-122 and 177-184.
56 M–ller 259.
57 Kiesel/M¸nch 160
58 J”ger and Sch–nert 10.
59 Andreas Georg Friedrich Rebmann, Kosmopolitanische Wanderungen durch einen Theil Deutschlands, cited in Kiesel and M¸nch, 155.
60 J”ger and Sch–nert 43.
61 "Der Verzicht auf das Explizitmachen eines Sinns [ist] zugleich auch der Verzicht auf das Insistieren auf dem Vorhandensein eines explizierbaren Sinns ¸berhaupt ” Vielleicht kann man eine Entsprechung zum Ðbergang von der ÂFamilienunterhaltungº zu den geselligen Zirkeln sehen in jener Schwelle vom Âmoralische-didaktischen Romanº der 70er und fr¸hen 80er Jahre ” zu Formen, die in den 80er Jahren dominant werden und weniger eindeutig vom Text her auf eine Funktion bzw Intention festzulegen sind." Sch–n, 204f. See also Kittler, particularly 65-69; Andreas Huyssen, After the Great Divide (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1990).
62 One could draw an analogy to the manner in which the notoriously "amoral" plays by Kotzebue gradually superseded the more conventional moral-didactic works by Iffland as the eighteenth century drew to its close. See Sch–n 204f.
63 Sch–n 221.
64 Sch–n 204.
65 The rapid decline of the dramatized novel is underscored by efforts to ridicule the genre and its practitioners, such as act I,6 in Kotzebueºs Die deutschen Kleinst”dter (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1969) 8.

Appendix „Aæ
„Pureæ dramatized novels:

Albrecht, Johann Friedrich Ernst, Lauretta Pisana* (1789); Die Familie Eboli* (1791-1792); Der keusche Joseph* (1792-1794); Kleopatra* (1793); Friedrich von Zollern und seine sch–ne Else.Stamm-Eltern des k–nigl Preuþischen Hauses* (1793-1795), Die sch–ne Gabriele (1795), Maria de Lucca, Edle von Parma. Ein Opfer der Inquisition* (1801)
Hase, Friedrich Traugott, Gustav Aldermann* (1779); Friedrich Mahler* (1780)
Schlenkert, Friedrich Christian Schlenkert, Friedrich mit der gebissenen Wange* (1785-1788); Kaiser Heinrich der Vierte* (1788-1795); Rudolf von Habsburg (1792-1795)
Tank, Franz Johannes Daniel, Mehr als Lukrezia! Eine Begebenheit aus der wirklichen Welt, in dialogischer Form (1788)
Tieck, Ludwig, Abdallah (1792).
Vulpius, Christian August, Johann von Leiden. Wahre Geschichte der Vorzeit* (1791); Die Portugiesen in Indien* (1793)

Astericized works are available on microfiche in Bibliothek der deutschen Literatur (Saur: M¸nchen, 1990).
Appendix „Bæ
„Rawæ dramatized novels:

Albrecht, Johann Friedrich Ernst, Miranda. K–nigin im Norden. Geliebte Pansalvins (1798)
Cramer, Carl Gottlob, Adolf der K¸hne, Raugraf von Dassel* (1792); Haspar a Spada* (1794)
Kernd–rffer, Heinrich August, Matthias Klostermayºr, der sogenannte Bayerische Hiesel. Eine wahre Geschichte unsrer Zeiten. Seitenst¸ck zu Rinaldo Rinaldini (1790)
Schmieder, Heinrich Gottlob, Der schwache K–nig. Szenen aus der Geschichte K–nig Heinrichs IV von Castilien 1786-1788)
Wobeser, Karoline von, Elisa, oder das Weib, wie es seyn sollte (1794).

Astericized works are available on microfiche in Bibliothek der deutschen Literatur (Saur: M¸nchen, 1990).

Appendix „Cæ
„Hybridæ Dramatized Novels

Albrecht, Johann Friedrich Ernst, Die Familie Medici in ihren gl”nzendsten Epochen* (1795); Der m”chtige Parrunkowitsch nebst einigen anderen Miniatur Gottheiten (1800); Kakod”mon der Schreckliche (1800)
Cramer, Carl Gottlob, Leben und Meinungen, auch seltsamliche Abentheuer Erasmus Schleichers, eines reisenden Mechanikus (1791); Der deutsche Alcibiades* (1791); Hermann von Nordenschild, genannt von Unstern. Als Anhang und Nachtrag zum deutschen Alcibiades* (1792); Hans St¸rzebecher und sein Sohn* (1798)l Der sch–ne Fl¸chtling* (1804); Nettchens Hochzeit* (1805); Der Domsch¸tz und seine Gesellin* (1809), Freuden und Leiden des edlen Baron Just Friedrich auf der Semmelburg* (1817)
Feþler, Ignaz Aurelius, Marc Aurel* (1790-1792); Matthias Corvinus* (1793-1794); Attila, K–nig der Hunnen* (1794)
Froebing, Johann Christian, Georg Treumann und seine Familie und Freunde (1796)
Meiþner, August Gottlieb, Alcibiades* (1781-1788); Bianca Capello* (1785)
Vulpius, Christian August, Rinaldo Rinaldini* (1790);Abentheuer und Fahrten des B¸rgers und Barbiers Sebastian Schnapps* (1798); Glorioso der groþe Teufel* (1800); Theodor, K–nig der Korsen* (1801), Orlando Orlandino* (1802).
Wallenrodt, Johanna Isabella von, Wie es sich f¸gt (1793)
Zschokke, Johann Heinrich Daniel Zschokke, Abaellino der groþe Bandit (1794)