Goethe’s Families of the Heart 9781501315763, 9781501315794, 9781501315787

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
1. Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities in Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften
2. Same-Sex Affinities Between Women and Family Redefinitions in Goethe’s Stella Plays
3. Learning What Family and Love Can Be in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre
4. Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities in Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre
Conclusion
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

NEW DIRECTIONS IN GERMAN STUDIES

Vol. 15

Series Editor:

Imke Meyer

Editorial Board: Katherine Arens, Roswitha Burwick, Richard Eldridge, Erika Fischer-Lichte, Catriona MacLeod, Stephan Schindler, Heidi Schlipphacke, Ulrich Schönherr, James A. Schultz, Silke-Maria Weineck, David Wellbery, Sabine Wilke, John Zilcosky.

Volumes in the series: Vol. 1. Improvisation as Art: Conceptual Challenges, Historical Perspectives by Edgar Landgraf Vol. 2. The German Pícaro and Modernity: Between Underdog and Shape-Shifter by Bernhard Malkmus Vol. 3. Citation and Precedent: Conjunctions and Disjunctions of German Law and Literature by Thomas O. Beebee Vol. 4. Beyond Discontent: ‘Sublimation’ from Goethe to Lacan by Eckart Goebel Vol. 5. From Kafka to Sebald: Modernism and Narrative Form edited by Sabine Wilke Vol. 6. Image in Outline: Reading Lou Andreas-Salomé by Gisela Brinker-Gabler Vol. 7. Out of Place: German Realism, Displacement, and Modernity by John B. Lyon Vol. 8. Thomas Mann in English: A Study in Literary Translation by David Horton Vol. 9. The Tragedy of Fatherhood: King Laius and the Politics of Paternity in the West by Silke-Maria Weineck Vol. 10. The Poet as Phenomenologist: Rilke and the New Poems by Luke Fischer Vol. 11. The Laughter of the Thracian Woman: A Protohistory of Theory by Hans Blumenberg, translated by Spencer Hawkins Vol. 12. Roma Voices in the German-Speaking World by Lorely French Vol. 13. Vienna’s Dreams of Europe: Culture and Identity beyond the Nation-State by Katherine Arens Vol. 14. Thomas Mann and Shakespeare: Something Rich and Strange edited by Tobias Döring and Ewan Fernie

Goethe’s Families of the Heart Susan E. Gustafson

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Inc

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Inc 1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2016 Paperback edition first published 2017 © Susan E. Gustafson, 2016 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Gustafson, Susan E., author. Title: Goethe’s Families of the Heart / Susan Gustafson. Description: New York : Bloomsbury Academic, 2016. | Series: New directions in German studies ; 15 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015040065 | ISBN 9781501315763 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 1749-1832--Characters. | Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 1749-1832--Criticism and interpretation. | Love in literature. | Families in literature. | Social interaction in literature. | BISAC: LITERARY CRITICISM / General. | LITERARY CRITICISM / European / German. | LITERARY CRITICISM / Gay & Lesbian. Classification: LCC PT2183 .G87 2016 | DDC 831/.6--dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015040065 ISBN: HB: PB: ePub: ePDF:

978-1-5013-1576-3 978-1-5013-3607-2 978-1-5013-1577-0 978-1-5013-1578-7

Series: New Directions in German Studies Cover design: Andrea Federle-Bucsi Cover image © New York Historical Society Typeset by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NN

Contents

Acknowledgments vii Introduction

1

1 Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities in Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften 9 2 Same-Sex Affinities Between Women and Family Redefinitions in Goethe’s Stella Plays 45 3 Learning What Family and Love Can Be in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre 67 4 Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities in Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre 139 Conclusion

185

Bibliography 191 Index 197

Acknowledgments

My heartfelt thanks to my colleagues and friends who have supported my research: Gail Hart, Eleanor ter Horst, Alice Kuzniar, Liliane Weissberg, Katharina Mommsen, Richard Schade, Eve Moore, June Hwang, Jennifer Creech, Kristina Becker, Jason Peck, Nils Beese, Michael Squire, Avi Lifschitz, and Ute Berns. Also, so many thanks to my friends and family who have stood by me throughout this book writing process and have helped me balance work and life: Joanne Bernardi, Marlies Wendorf, Julie Fogarty, BJ Larson, Jean Douthwright, Elizabeth Webb, Steve Gustafson, Dave Gustafson, Tim Gustafson, Bruce Nielsen, Marcia Nielsen, Richard Fasse, Bonnie Abrams, Dale Buralli, Gloria Culver, Donatella Stocchi-Perruchio, Donna Logan, Bradley Evert, Nina Wendorf, Bernd Duckheim, Anu Shah, Sujatha Ramanujan, Mary Brooks, and Nikki Robinson. I am also very grateful to Lina Zigelyte and Benjamin Fischer for all of their support as research assistants. Thanks too to my University of Rochester colleagues and friends who dedicated themselves to making the best possible policies a reality for adoptive parents: Honey Meconi, Rachel Remmel, Kim Kopatz, Elizabeth Cohen, Nicholas Bigelow, Gloria Culver, Joanne Bernardi, Gretchen Helmke, Glenn Cerosaletti, Wayne Knox, Jeffrey Runner, Rosemary Kegl, and Camberly Spring. So many families are totally grateful to you! Many thanks also to the anonymous reviewers of my book manuscript for all of their really helpful suggestions. My heartfelt appreciation also goes to the NY Historical Society for allowing me to use the marvelous Peale family painting as my cover image. I am also grateful for all of the assistance and support of this project by New Directions in German Studies. I am very thankful to Heidi Schlipphacke for encouraging me to submit my manuscript and am especially grateful to Imke Meyer, Haaris Naqvi, and Mary Al-Sayed for all of their amazing support and assistance along the way. My thanks as well to the staff in MLC for all of their assistance: Tyler Brogan, Laurie Kiley, and Joshua Boydstun. Finally, my greatest

viii Acknowledgments thanks to my “wonderful family!” Read the book and you will know why I call them my wonderful family. So many thanks to Kaia, Xeni, and Gary Gustafson for all the love and happiness they bring me and for giving my life meaning.

Introduction

Throughout his literary works Goethe is continually engaged with experiments concerning new relationships and new forms of family. Families with same-sex parents, a single parent, a group of lovers and/ or parents, and adoptive relationships that Goethe portrays transcend conventional notions of biology, body, and corporeal likeness as the fundamental determiners of family. Indeed, Goethe consistently challenges eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century aristocratic and civil society’s notions of biologically, economically, and legally determined families. He demonstrates throughout his literary production that the true foundation of all relationships between women and men, men and men, women and women, and parents and children are their elective affinities, that is, their love. He also highlights that obsessions with heritage, property, and economics undo families of the heart, and result in broken and dysfunctional families. Goethe was, of course, writing in the wake of a time obsessed with representations of the core aristocratic, and emerging notions of civil, families. As Foucault notes in his History of Sexuality, the seventeenth century did not have specific codes for families, but by the eighteenth century “the family has become an obligatory locus of affects, feelings, love,”1 and that the “blood relation long remained an important element in the mechanisms of power, its manifestations and its rituals.”2 To have a certain blood, “to be of the same blood,”3 was of critical importance. Family and its configuration is clearly one of the central themes of the eighteenth century and, as Foucault points out, there was a “proliferation of discourses”4 establishing definitions of sex, sexuality, and family. Indeed, Foucault outlines how various social institutions such as governments and churches focused on matrimonial 1 Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality (New York: Random House, 1980), 108. 2 Foucault, History, 147. 3 Foucault, History, 147. 4 Foucault, History, 18.

2  Goethe’s Families of the Heart relationships and that: “The marriage relation was the most intense focus of constraints: it was spoken of more than anything else; more than any other relation” and “it was under constant surveillance.”5 Equally important for our understanding of the historical context of Goethe’s literary production, is Foucault’s assertion that while dominant discourses on family were emerging, those discourses also opened the door to contesting discourses: “Discourse transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines and exposes it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it.”6 As we shall see, Goethe’s literary texts provide a counter discourse to the predominant aristocratic and emerging civil constructions of “ideal families” during his time period. Not surprisingly, the focus on the nuclear family and the father’s central, controlling role in it was a major concern in Germany during the eighteenth and early-nineteenth century. The ideal family was an: “Economic system of demand fulfillment and a legal institution of domestic power”7 and was also not considered the final result of ruling social structures but the “starting point for a society.”8 Family becomes the single most crucial and determining foundation for society. As Hull notes, in eighteenth-century Germany, the family was the place that was “guaranteeing the will to work and ordering society from the inside.”9 Moreover, the family was considered the private sphere of the husband, father, and housefather: “he and his kind were the founders and chief upholders of civil society, and that laws should therefore be primarily in his interest.”10 In fact, “fathers suddenly came into possession of all paternal power over children.”11 As Hull has argued, the development of civil social structures in Germany in the eighteenth century significantly altered the political, economic, legal, and family landscape. In particular, the “civil code especially protected the married, propertied, male citizen.”12 Indeed, Fehrenbach notes that the new Civil Codes gave fathers even more authority over their families: “For that reason the authority of the family father was enhanced … he 5 Foucault, History, 37. 6 Foucault, History, 101. 7 “Wirtschaftsform der Bedarfsdeckung und eine Rechtsinstitution der Hausgewalt …” Günther Saße, Die aufgeklärte Familie. Untersuchungen zur Genese, Funktion und Realitätsbezogenheit des familialen Wertsystems im Drama der Aufklärung (Tübingen: Niemeyer Verlag, 1988), 7. 8 “Ausgangspunkt für eine Gesellschaft” Saße, Die aufgeklärte Familie, 72. 9 Isabel V. Hull, Sexuality, State, and Civil Society in Germany, 1700–1815 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996), 144. 10 Hull, Sexuality, 190. 11 Hull, Sexuality, 375. 12 Hull, Sexuality, 371.

Introduction 3 had power over property … the wife was under the guardianship of her husband in regard to all relationships of the civil life.”13 In addition, the father and family he dominated also had full control over relatives’ (often children’s) rights to marry or divorce: “Finally, the fetters on married women and the extension of parents’ and relatives’ rights to hinder or prevent the marriages and divorces of persons in whom they had an ‘interest,’ clearly limited individual freedom of choice.”14 Hull also outlines how “marriage was still the center point around which all discussions of sexual behavior revolved”15 and unhappy marriages were a favorite theme. Indeed, German contemporaries “seem generally to have assumed that ‘happy marriages are becoming ever rarer.’”16 Not surprisingly, German literature of the time abounds with images of, and reflections upon, failed families. One needs only to recall the Storm and Stress representations of family conflicts and the tragedies of fatherhood presented in literary texts in Germany, for example, in the Enlightenment phase, during the Storm and Stress period, by Romantics and even, much later, by Kafka.17 As several scholars have pointed out, Goethe’s literary works consistently portray disintegrating families as well. It is also important to note, as Hull does, that eighteenth-century German society was in a state of transition and the practitioners of Civil Society were both noble and non-noble participants. For this reason, Hull refers to the multiple redefinitions and new social determinations of family as civil and not as either solely aristocratic or bourgeois/middle class.18 Moreover, Hull’s analysis of the focus on family and its redefinitions in eighteenth-century Germany is particularly important for contextualizing Goethe’s representations of family and relationships throughout his literary production. As Hull points out, eighteenth-century German civil codes foregrounded marriage 13 Deshalb wurde die Autorität des pater familias verstärkt … er hatte die Vermögensgewalt über den Besitz … die Frau stand unter der Vormundschaft ihres Mannes im Hinblick auf all Verhältnisse des bürgerlichen Lebens.” Elisabeth Fehrenbach, Traditionale Gesellschaft und revolutionäries Recht. Die Einführung des Code Napoléon in den Rheinbundstaaten. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1974), 23. 14 Hull, Sexuality, 375. 15 Hull, Sexuality, 285. 16 Hull, Sexuality, 286. 17 For a detailed outline of the tragedy of fatherhood portrayed by Lessing, Kleist, and Kafka, see Silke-Maria Weineck, The Tragedy of Fatherhood: King Laius and the Politics of Paternity in the West (London/New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2014). 18 Hull, Sexuality, 201. Hull uses the term civil rather than bourgeois for Bürgertum, in this context, because bourgeois is “too class-exclusive” and during Goethe’s time period “The main creators and consumers of the Enlightened worldview were state and city officials (noble and non-noble).”

4  Goethe’s Families of the Heart and were attempting to sort out differences between love, sex, and friendship: “From the vantage point of civil society, marriage acquired new valence as the arena where the emotional tangle of love versus sex versus friendship was sorted out anew.”19 As we shall see, Goethe highlights and insists throughout his work that love/elective affinities are the core foundation of relationships, marriage, and family, and he adds to the discourses of his time by bringing additional challenging conceptions about love and relationships, and criticisms of fatherdominated marriages to the fore. Moreover it is significant, as Schwartz demonstrates, that during Goethe’s time period, after Germany’s defeat at Jena (1806), the aristocratic structure in Germany is in crisis but still in place.20 Intriguingly, Hull, Schwartz, Fehrenbach, and Foucault highlight the importance during this time period of family and marriage, its redefinition, the father’s total control of family, and the importance placed upon blood relations, progeny, property, and economic security. When considering the importance of Goethe’s representations of relationships and families throughout his works, it is essential to understand the multiple ways in which his texts challenge common eighteenth-century notions of family and relationships between women and men, men and men, and women and women. As we shall see, Goethe criticizes families brought together by fathers (or any other relatives) in accord with attempts to preserve heritage, to produce progeny, to maintain social class, to strengthen economic success, and/ or to maintain or expand family property. In defiance of the predominant discourses concerning the foundations of family and society, Goethe questions the nature of relationships, the definitions of family, aristocratic and emerging civil family structures, arranged marriages, the purpose of family, how families are configured, who can be in them, the importance of blood relations, fantasies about adoptive families, prejudices against same-sex relationships, and stereotypes about the power of men/fathers and the powerlessness of women. Throughout his literary works, lovers and families are drawn together by their feelings of love that often pull them into same-sex, heterosexual, nonexclusive, person-based, and adoptive relationships. There are, as scholars have noted, virtually no positive depictions of nuclear, aristocratic, and emerging civil families in Goethe’s oeuvre.21 Strack demonstrates convincingly (in the case of biological 19 Hull, Sexuality, 257. 20 Peter J. Schwartz, After Jena: Goethe’s Elective Affinities and the End of the Old Regime (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 2010). 21 See, for example, Heidi Schlipphacke, “’Die Vaterschaft beruht nur überhaupt auf der Überzeugung’: The Displaced Family in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre,”

Introduction 5 families) that there is in Goethe’s literary production: “hardly ever an intact family.”22 It is equally significant, however, that Goethe does not just portray broken and fractured families and he does not exclusively  “reject or at least resist the concept of family altogether,”23 nor is his sole focus on the displacement or undoing of families.24 While it is true that his literary works abound with images of characters (children and adults), who are estranged from their biological, nuclear, aristocratic, and economically-driven families, these are not the only relationships and families depicted in Goethe’s works. As Schlipphacke astutely argues in her article on displaced families in Goethe’s Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre, that while the civil/emerging bourgeois family is “consistently and repeatedly deconstructed” in the novel, at the same time “happy communities” emerge that “generally consist not of biologically related figures but of friends, lovers, and displaced relations.”25 Indeed, as we shall see, the broken, dysfunctional families throughout Goethe’s literary production are the ones from which many characters in Goethe’s works are trying to escape and that they reject openly and defiantly. Moreover, those who succeed in their flight from these repressive families configure new relationships and strong families of the heart and soul. Goethe consistently portrays characters, who defy eighteenthcentury ideals of the family, notions of heritage, assumptions about biological connections, expectations about heterosexuality, and legal mandates, and he clearly rejects the norms of his time in defining and accepting all love relationships, and in dismissing the notions of ideal civil or aristocratic families. Schlipphacke points out many of the familial communities one encounters in the Lehrjahre resemble family configurations that “predate the institutionalization of the bourgeois family.”26 I would add that the family configurations that Goethe highlights evoke modern, contemporary questions such as: what various forms can families take? If families are not only biologically related groups of people then what is the essence of a family?

22 23

24 25 26

Journal of English and Germanic Philology 102.3 (2003): 390–412; Friedrich Strack, “Väter, Söhne und die Krise der Familie in Goethes Werk,” Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts (1984): 57–87; and Elisabeth Krimmer, “Mama’s Baby, Papa’s Maybe: Paternity and Bildung in Goethe’s Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre,” The German Quarterly 77.3 (2004): 257–77. Strack, “Väter,” 65. See Ingrid Broszeit-Rieger, “Transgressions of Gender and Generation in the Families of Goethe’s Meister,” in Romantic Border Crossings, ed. Jeffrey Cass and Larry Peer (London: Ashgate Publishing, 2008), 75–85. See Strack, “Väter,” 57–87. Schlipphacke, “Die Vaterschaft,” 390. Schlipphacke, “Die Vaterschaft,” 390.

6  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Can parents really love children who are not biologically related to them? Do biological parents (only and always) love their children? Do biological children always look like their parents and inherit their characteristics? Does that matter? What are adoptive parents like? Are biological parents better than adoptive ones or vice versa? Are parents always heterosexual? Can two men or two women pair together and be parents? Can same-sex partners come together, love each other, and form families? Are families limited to two parents? Can they have more than two parents or only one parent? Can single parents raise groups of children? What makes a family a family? Goethe poses all of these questions in his literary works and challenges his readers to go beyond fixations on social conventions, civil standards, biology, the body, and physical likeness in order to discover the essence of family. The essential core of family is, according to Goethe, elective affinities and the instantaneous connections between parents (same-sex, nonexclusive, and/or heterosexual) and between parents and children (adoptive and/or biological). In addition to reassessing the nature of “family” as it is questioned and reconfigured throughout Goethe’s literary production, it is also essential to address Goethe’s consistent portrayal of positive, loving relationships between men and men, and women and women. Goethe scholarship has significantly foregrounded the representation of same-sex desire between men in his literary production and in his life. Mommsen has outlined Goethe’s exchange with Schiller of love poems and their masked literary expressions of their love for one another.27 Wilson highlights Goethe’s fascination with and adulation of Greek love / male same-sex desire in his literary works.28 Tobin’s book on queer theory and the eighteenth century, and Kuzniar’s edited volume on outing Goethe and his age clearly demonstrate the significance of male–male desire and attraction both in Goethe’s time period and in his literary works.29 In addition, my earlier book on Men Desiring Men outlined how Winckelmann, Moritz, and Goethe developed a poetic language through which to express male same-sex desires.30 All of these studies have demonstrated how important expressions and representations of desire between men were in Goethe’s time period 27 Katharina Mommsen, Kein Rettungsmittel als die Liebe. Schillers und Goethes Bündnis im Spiegel ihrer Dichtungen (Göttingen: Wallenstein Verlag, 2010). 28 Daniel W. Wilson, Goethe Männer Knaben. Ansichten zur ‘Homosexualität’ (Berlin: Insel Verlag, 2012). 29 Alice Kuzniar, Outing Goethe and His Age (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996) and Robert Tobin, Warm Brothers. Queer Theory and the Age of Goethe (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000). 30 Susan Gustafson, Men Desiring Men: The Poetry of Same-Sex Identity and Desire in German Classicism (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2002).

Introduction 7 and in his work. What distinguishes Goethe’s Families of the Heart from these earlier studies is its focus on all relationships of love, including those between women and women, men and women, men and men, and configurations of families with two fathers or two mothers, or group families with a number of same-sex partners and/or with several parents drawn together in heterosexual and same-sex, and/or nonexclusive, and person-based relationships. In addition, it is crucial to note that Goethe’s literary texts are continually portraying characters whose affinities are fluid and changing. He clearly outlines in the Wahlverwandtschaften (addressed in Chapter 1) that the elective affinities that draw couples together are not fundamentally either heterosexual or same-sex but both, and therefore essentially nonexclusive. Characters shift back and forth between same-sex and heterosexual relationships underscoring the nonexclusive, and shifting nature of love. As we shall see, Goethe’s texts predate and foreground the fluidity of attraction that Lisa Diamond outlines in her book: Sexual Fluidity in which she describes the fluidity of feelings of attraction in terms of being nonexclusive and person-based.31 Indeed, the second chapter on Goethe’s Stella plays outlines the love between women as essentially person-based, and the two women in love with one another work to bring themselves together behind the cloak of a heterosexual ménage à trois. In the eighteenth century when love relationships between women would have been especially challenging to the social norms, Goethe’s Stella plays foreground openly and positively the love between two women. The third chapter outlines how various characters are escaping from their aristocratic and civil families, and their devastating plans for their marriages. The learning years in the Lehrjahre are about discovering that love is the foundation of relationships and family and not biological traits, economic ventures, heritage, or family plans. Here Goethe also presents multiple new family configurations including two fathers, two mothers, and adoptive families of various kinds. In the final chapter, on the Wanderjahre, several stories of radical relationships and families coming together in direct defiance of the suffocating aristocratic and civil family structures are foregrounded. Whereas in the Lehrjahre characters learned what their elective affinities were and to follow them, in the Wanderjahre characters know from the outset to whom their elective affinities are drawing them and insist on following their feelings of love regardless of any plans of fathers and/ or families. In Goethe’s literary works, characters connect with partners of the opposite sex, then with partners of the same sex, or with multiple partners in other-sex and same-sex relationships as they love each 31 Lisa M. Diamond, Sexual Fluidity. Understanding Women’s Love and Desire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008).

8  Goethe’s Families of the Heart other and as they come together in new social and family relationships. New, challenging, and positive relationships, and families are the focus throughout Goethe’s literary production. As we shall see, in Goethe’s texts characters are wandering around, fleeing from their biological, controlling, and suffocating families, are finding each other, and forming new relationships and families of the heart and soul. Elective affinities bring together lovers (men and men, women and women, and women and men) and parents and children. Characters connect and reconfigure families as they discover and acknowledge a love that transcends biology and reaches its highest levels while sailing past aristocratic and emerging civil ideals. Love is the key foundation of families of the heart. And love, as Goethe presents it, is a feeling of spontaneous attraction that draws each person into multiple relationships. All relationships of love are presented throughout Goethe’s works as equal and as models. Love is thoroughly nonexclusive and brings everyone together. Moreover, families and relationships are constantly being discovered, established, and formed throughout Goethe’s literary works in ways that challenge the norms and ideals of Goethe’s time and, in some cases, even those of our present time.

One  Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities in Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften

Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften (Elective Affinities) foregrounds the same-sex, heterosexual, nonexclusive/person-based, and adoptive affinities that lead to new family reconfigurations throughout his literary works and that challenge traditional eighteenth-century notions of family. In addition, many of the recurring images and motifs associated with family building highlighted throughout Goethe’s works are alluded to in the Wahlverwandtschaften as well. As we shall see, one finds the paradigm of shifting love and desire outlined in the Wahlverwandtschaften in works as early as Stella (1776) and later in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre (Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship Years, 1795) and Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre (Wilhelm Meister’s Journeyman Years, 1829). For this reason, it is especially important to begin this study of family reconfigurations in Goethe’s literary work with a careful, detailed analysis of the family and affinity issues outlined in this text. The Wahlverwandtschaften, published in 1809, provides Goethe’s first extensive theoretical and literary outline of his notions of “affinities” (Verwandtschaften) and “elective affinities” (Wahlverwandtschaften) and how they operate between men and women, men and men, women and women, mothers and children, and children and foster/adoptive mothers. In addition, while Goethe focuses in the Wahlverwandtschaften on elective affinities between mothers and children, we will see later that he also highlights elective affinities between fathers and children in the Lehrjahre and in the Wanderjahre. Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften has been highlighted throughout Goethe scholarship for its importance to our understanding of his conceptions of relationships and desire. For example, Miller has suggested that “rarely in a novel has the power of erotic desire

10  Goethe’s Families of the Heart been expressed more powerfully than in the Wahlverwandtschaften.”1 Traditional readings of the Wahlverwandtschaften have focused on the shifts in the heterosexual relationships between Charlotte, Eduard, the Captain, and Ottilie. The early reception of Goethe’s novel included its rejection because of its disturbing representation of adultery and positive analyses of its defense of marriage.2 Plenderleith provides a summary of scholars’ analyses of the adultery scene in the Wahlverwandtschaften.3 Puszkar stresses how precarious and discontinuous relationships are in the novel.4 Wellbery states that the novel outlines a new form of desire.5 It is also important to note, as Schwartz demonstrates, that the novel “depicts the crisis of sociopolitical legitimacy that German aristocrats like Eduard and Charlotte faced in the period after Jena” and that the Wahlverwandtschaften reflects the historical situation of aristocrats and their struggles with family in Goethe’s time period.6 In contrast to earlier scholarship, I will provide a detailed analysis of all of the affinities (feelings of love and attraction) that Goethe addresses in the Wahlverwandtschaften, including same-sex, adoptive, nonexclusive/ person-based, and heterosexual connections. As we shall see, elective affinities between the characters in the novel are continually shifting and highlighting that an individual’s attractions and love are not exclusively heterosexual, same-sex, or biologically determined. All of the characters in the novel and especially the main characters, Ottilie, Eduard, the Captain, and Charlotte, have affinities that shift throughout the text, sometimes configuring same-sex relationships and other times being compelled by heterosexual affinities. The Wahlverwandtschaften clearly foregrounds elective affinities as the principal foundation for relationships including families, and asserts that love and attraction are fluid7 and can be (and consist1

J. Hillis Miller, Ariadne’s Thread (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992), 207. 2 For a full overview of the novel’s reception see Heinz Härtl, Die Wahlverwandtschaften. Eine Dokumentation der Wirkung von Goethes Roman 1808–1832 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1983). For an analysis of the novel’s reception from 1809 to recent times see Astrida Orle Tantillo, Goethe’s Elective Affinities and the Critics (Rochester: Camden House, 2001). 3 H. Jane Plenderleith, “Sex, Lies and Die Wahlverwandtschaften,” German Life and Letters 47.4 (1994): 407–17. 4 Norbert Puszkar, “Verwandtschaft und Wahlverwandtschaft,” Goethe Yearbook 4 (1988): 169. 5 David Wellbery, “Die Wahlverwandtschaften. Desorganisation symbolischer Ordnungen,” in Goethes Erzählwerk. Interpretationen, ed. Paul Michael Lützler and James E. McLeod (Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam, 1985), 291–316. 6 Schwartz, After Jena, 24, 149. 7 In this context, it is intriguing to think of Judith Butler’s twentieth-century outline of gender as fluid and as never the result of a fixed, natural identity.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  11 ently are) redirected or cause redirections of affections allowing for both heterosexual and same-sex connections. In fact, the characters in the novel have multiple elective affinities and their affinities shift according to the persons they encounter and with whom they spontaneously connect. Indeed, while the representation of affinities in the Wahlverwandtschaften is powerful and new as Miller and Wellbery suggest,8 it is also complicated by the fact that affinities are represented by Goethe as never fixed; they are shifting and changing (sometimes heterosexual, sometimes same-sex, etc.). In this study I focus on all of the kinds of attractions, shifts in attractions, and fluidity of affinities that Goethe highlights between men, between women, within families, and between parents and children. Intriguingly, Goethe’s conception of the fluidity of the elective affinities, and the nonexclusive shifts of desires and love as new persons come in contact with one another, resonates with Lisa Diamond’s 2008 study of women’s sexual fluidity and person-based attractions. Diamond defines “nonexclusive” desire as the “capacity to experience both same-sex and other-sex desires and behaviors.”9 In addition, she defines “person-based” attraction as being drawn “to the person, not the gender.”10 Moreover, she highlights the attraction to the internal person (emotions, personality) more than to the external person (body, gender), placing more emphasis on the fundamental nature of attraction determined by one’s feelings. I have chosen to use Diamond’s terminology (nonexclusive, fluid, and person-based) because I feel that these terms are the closest to the conceptions of love and shifting affinities that Goethe highlights throughout his works. There are, however, some important differences to take into account. The major distinctions between Goethe’s ideas and Diamond’s are: Goethe stresses both love and internal attractions while Diamond focuses more on sexual desire. In addition, Goethe highlights relationships between men and women, women and women, men and men, family configurations, bonds between parents and children, and he portrays the fluidity of affinities as equal for both men and women. Diamond, in contrast, focuses on women and theorizes that women experience more sexual fluidity than men do. In this sense, Goethe’s notion of fluid love is also interesting in conjunction with Tim Dean’s analyses of psychological desire in which he stresses that in the Goethe, as we shall see, outlines affinities as fluid, shifting, changing, and never stable. Judith Butler, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory,” Theatre Journal 40.4 (1988): 519–31. 8 Miller, Ariadne’s Thread, 207 and Wellbery, “Die Wahlverwandtschaften.” 9 Diamond, Sexual Fluidity, 14. 10 Diamond, Sexual Fluidity, 172.

12  Goethe’s Families of the Heart unconscious there is no signifier for difference and therefore “sexual difference cannot determine erotic desire.”11 In comparison, Goethe illustrates that the spontaneous shifts in affinities/love demonstrate clearly that a sense of “sameness” and/or “otherness” does not determine one’s affinities. According to Goethe, affinities draw all people to other persons who may be similar and/or different. Love and attraction are always fluid, nonexclusive, and shifting as Goethe outlines them. Both Goethe and Diamond contest assumptions about the fundamental stability of desires, love, and attraction. And, as we shall see, Goethe highlights the fluidity of love and attractions (for women and men), the nonexclusive (same-sex and other-sex) nature of love and affinities, the importance of spontaneous affinities (emotional connections), and the person-based reactions and shifts in attractions that people experience when new persons are introduced to them and/or their social group. In essence, throughout Goethe’s works he presents elective affinities as fluid and fundamentally nonexclusive and personbased, and asserts that the relationships based on these affinities are continually in flux and being re-configured. Moreover, it is also important to note that Goethe outlines these shifting affinities not just in terms of lovers and spouses but also in the context of families in general. Affinities between children and parents shift too, and parents and children can adopt one another as well. In the Wahlverwandtschaften we will discover that fundamentally loving parents and children are often not biologically connected, that the biological connection is not the core requirement for parental love or family bonding, and that the strongest families, both biological and adoptive, are those founded upon spontaneous elective affinities. Essentially, Goethe also challenges the aristocratic and civil conceptions of his time that biological connections are the fundamental core of families and relationships between children and their parents. With these issues in mind, we will now turn to the text of the novel itself. On the surface level the Wahlverwandtschaften appears to be the story of a marriage gone awry, fantasies of adultery, and, ultimately, of several deaths. The recently married couple, Eduard and Charlotte, invite Eduard’s friend, the Captain, and Charlotte’s Pflegetochter (foster daughter), Ottilie, to come and live with them on their estate. As soon as the Captain arrives, Eduard and Charlotte begin to separate from one another and Eduard shifts his attention to the Captain. Later, Ottilie joins them and the affinities between the four persons change 11 Tim Dean, “Homosexuality and the Problem of Otherness,” in Homosexuality and Psychoanalysis, ed. Tim Dean and Christopher Lane (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 138.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  13 again. Ultimately, the Captain and Charlotte, and Ottilie and Eduard, fall in love with one another. Eduard begins insisting to Charlotte that they divorce one another. She does not relent and maintains that they should save their marriage. The Captain leaves the estate and Charlotte starts planning to send Ottilie away, essentially removing her from Eduard. Even after he discovers that Charlotte is pregnant with their child, Eduard continues to argue that he and Charlotte should get a divorce so that they can all be happy. Eduard envisions himself living then with Ottilie, and the Captain with Charlotte. He also suggests that Charlotte and the Captain should raise the baby he and Charlotte are expecting. Charlotte continues to resist this plan and Eduard therefore leaves the estate insisting that Ottilie remain with Charlotte on the estate or he will claim Ottilie for himself regardless of Charlotte’s opposition. Eduard then joins the military and throws himself into a number of suicidal battles. It is also important to note that when Eduard and Charlotte had slept together and the baby Charlotte is now carrying was conceived, Eduard had been envisioning Ottilie and Charlotte was fantasizing about the Captain. In accord with eighteenth century notions of the physiology of reproduction, which held that fantasies, strange events or impressions, and emotional turmoil experienced during pregnancy were believed to leave marks on the baby’s body, Charlotte gives birth to a baby who has Ottilie’s eyes and the Captain’s facial features. Indeed, Ottilie “was frightened … not a little when seeing his open eyes, because she believed she was looking into her own eyes.”12 The Mittler is also taken aback when he perceives the child’s similarity to the Captain. Intriguingly, Charlotte names the baby Otto—the Captain’s first name, Eduard’s real first name, and a name that resonates with Ottilie’s and Charlotte’s names as well. Shortly after his birth, Ottilie becomes the baby’s principal caregiver and carries him around the estate. Eduard wanders one day toward the estate and encounters Ottilie with the baby. Ottilie is so disturbed by this meeting that she decides to go home by crossing a lake in a boat. As she is rowing with the baby in the boat, the boat tips, the baby falls into the water, and drowns. After the death of their child, Charlotte finally agrees to divorce Eduard. But Ottilie is so upset by her role in the child’s death that she subsequently starves herself to death in order to eliminate the 12 Ottilie “erschrak … nicht wenig an seinen offenen Augen: denn sie glaubte in ihre eigenen zu sehen” MA, 9, 461–2. All translations in this book are my own. All quotations from Goethe’s works in this book are from the Münchner Ausgabe. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Sämtliche Werke nach Epochen seines Schaffens. Münchner Ausgabe, ed. Karl Richter, Herbert G. Göpfert, Norbert Miller, and Gerhard Sauder, 24 vols (München: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1985).

14  Goethe’s Families of the Heart possibility of disturbing Eduard and Charlotte’s marriage any further. Shortly thereafter, Eduard is also found dead among a number of keepsakes he had from Ottilie. Eduard is then buried with Ottilie. Needless to say, the story ends tragically and with no happy relationships between the main characters. All in all, the novel appears to demonstrate the fully negative and uncontrollable impact that elective affinities have on relationships. However, as we shall see, throughout the story it is the characters’ denial of their elective affinities that leads to tragic disruptions of relationships, suicidal responses, and ultimately three deaths.13 This short summary is, of course, not the whole story of elective affinities in the Wahlverwandtschaften. Goethe’s conception of the elective affinities is much more complex, and a detailed review of Wahlverwandtschaften and how these affinities are described and illustrated will demonstrate the complexity of these chemical reactions among people. Goethe’s notion of the elective affinities resonates with the chemical theories of his day,14 in which the concepts of “sympathies” and “Verwandtschaften” (affinities/relations) were central. Goethe clearly expands upon the scientific theory of Wahlverwandtschaften in his novel as he relates it to relationships between people, not just to reactions between chemical elements. And in order to fully understand the complexities of the conceptualization of the elective affinities in Die Wahlverwandtschaften it is essential to understand how Eduard and the Captain explain the “chemical reactions” in the famous fourth chapter of the novel, not just in terms of elements, but also as they relate to persons and all of the various relationships that they might form. When the Captain joins Eduard and Charlotte on their estate, he and Eduard begin to discuss elective affinities in detail as both chemical and social realities. During one discussion Charlotte joins in and remarks that when she hears them reading about “affinities/relations” 13 Greineder outlines this tragedy in terms of the characters’ attempts to evade their feelings. I agree, but would stress that the feelings they initially evade and look past are their nonexclusive, same-sex, and adoptive ones. Daniel Greineder, “The Evasion of Love and the Onset of Calamity in Goethe’s Die Wahlverwandtschaften,” Publications of the English Goethe Society 74 (2005): 25. 14 Bergman first developed the idea of Wahlverwandtschaften in 1774. Subsequently, chemists in the eighteenth century referred to affinities to describe the interactions between elements. Goethe would have encountered this theory in his readings of Macquer, Bergman, and Newton. See Adler who outlines in detail the scientific notions of sympathies, affinities, and Wahlverwandtschaften in Goethe’s age. Jeremy Adler, “Eine fast magische Anziehungskraft.” Goethes “Wahlverwandtschaften” und der Chemie seiner Zeit (München: C. H. Beck, 1987). For a shorter summary of the scientific theories of Goethe’s time see Werner Schwan, “Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften.” Das nicht erreichte Soziale. (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1983), 56–60.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  15 (Verwandtschaften): “I then thought immediately of my relatives.”15 She is not sure, however, if this is what they mean and questions them about the definition of related. For her it is critical to know “what is exactly meant here by relationships/kin.”16 The Captain explains to Charlotte that first and foremost all natural beings (both elements and people) have affinities for themselves: “we notice at first that of all natural beings of which we become aware, that they have an inclination/connection to themselves.”17 With this comment, the Captain asserts that the self is attracted to itself. He suggests, as well, that like is attracted to like. Charlotte then shifts the discussion directly to the affinities between people, remarking that “one sees in these simple forms the people one has known.”18 The first connection for elements and the first feelings of attraction for human beings is established as being between elements and persons of a similar nature. In terms of persons, this clearly suggests the fundamental, original direction and form of attraction is for people who are similar to one’s self. Charlotte, however, goes on to complicate this notion by insisting that attractions are essentially directed both at those like us and those who are not like us through affinities: “Let me rush ahead, said Charlotte, to see if I can come to where you are going. As each element has an inclination/ connection to itself, so must it also have a relationship to others.”19 Charlotte maintains that the most basic feelings of attraction are at least twofold and require affinities both for others who are like us and for those who are different from us. In this context, Goethe’s outline of elective affinities resonates with Tim Dean’s analysis of the complexity of heterosexual and same-sex attractions, and the impossibility of reducing them to either attractions between those who are “other” and/or the “same” as our selves.20 Charlotte implies, as well, that these multiple affinities may coexist, and/or may shift from one person to another, and clearly outlines the nonexclusive and fluid nature of the elective affinities. The Captain responds to Charlotte’s analysis of elective affinities by adding the observation that being drawn to one another, that is, being related to each other (“verwandt”), means being spontaneously 15 “da dacht’ ich eben gleich an meine Verwandten” MA, 9, 313. 16 “wie es eigentlich hier mit den Verwandtschaften gemeint sei” MA, 9, 314. 17 “an allen Naturwesen, die wir gewahr werden, bemerken wir zuerst, daß sie einen Bezug auf sich selbst haben.” MA, 9, 314. 18 “so sieht man in diesen einfachen Formen die Menschen, die man gekannt hat” MA, 9, 315. 19 “Laßen Sie mich voreilen, sagte Charlotte, ob ich treffe, wo Sie hinwollen. Wie jedes gegen sich selbst einen Bezug hat, so muß es auch gegen andere ein Verhältnis haben.” MA, 9, 315. 20 See Dean, “Homosexuality,” 120–43.

16  Goethe’s Families of the Heart connected to one another: “We call those natures related, who understand each other quickly upon meeting and who mutually determine each other.”21 The Captain’s definition makes it clear that being related, as chemicals or as persons, is the result of an instantaneous recognition of a mutual connection. Equally important, the Captain’s definition centers on feelings of connection and does not address biological connections. The biological connections of families, between persons, and that determine heritage, are not the point. Charlotte understands this immediately and clarifies this to the Captain: “Let me confess, Charlotte said, when you call your curious beings related, they don’t strike me so much as blood-related, but instead as related in their spirits and their souls.”22 Charlotte suggests that elective affinities are not necessarily manifest between people who are biologically related, but that they are quintessentially the affinities of spirit and soul that draw people together whether biologically related or not. Indeed, biological connections alone seem much less likely to result in strong relationships and families than those determined by the heart and soul. Ottilie understands this clearly later in the novel as she realizes that her feelings for the architect “remained on the quiet, passionless surface of a biological/blood relationship.”23 The Captain agrees with Charlotte that the heart and soul cement new relationships most strongly and highlights that elective affinities can, and most likely will, shift when persons with affinities of the heart and soul come together: these cases are indeed the most significant and interesting of all; here one can actually portray the attraction, the relatedness, the leaving, and the unification as they cross—where four substances previously joined together as two pairs are brought into contact and leave their previous unity and unite themselves anew. In this process of relinquishing and seizing, in this fleeing and searching one believes one is really witnessing a higher determination; one entrusts such beings with a form of will and choice and considers the artificial term elective affinities completely justified.24 21 “Diejenigen Naturen, die sich beim Zusammentreffen einander schnell ergreifen und wechselseitig bestimmen, nennen wir verwandt.” MA, 9, 316. 22 “Lassen Sie mich gestehen, sagte Charlotte, wenn Sie diese Ihre wunderlichen Wesen verwandt nennen, so kommen sie mir nicht sowohl als Blutsverwandte, vielmehr als Geistes- und Seelenverwandte vor.” MA, 9, 316. 23 “blieben auf der ruhigen leidenschaftlosen Oberfläche der Blutverwandtschaft…” MA, 9, 431. 24 “diese Fälle sind allerdings die bedeutendsten und merkwürdigsten, wo man das Anziehen, das Verwandtsein, dieses Verlassen, dieses Vereinigen gleichsam übers Kreuz, wirklich darstellen kann; wo vier, bisher je zwei zu zwei verbundene Wesen in Berührung gebracht, ihre bisherige Vereinigung verlassen

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  17 The Captain complicates the understanding of elective affinities by expanding it to mean not just sudden spontaneous connections between two persons but also suggests that there is the possibility of wanting and choosing on the part of the persons involved, which also determines their connection and relatedness to one another. Whether there is a choice or not in the quick determination of elective affinities, it is abundantly clear in this discussion that connections of the spirit, soul, and heart are the foremost criteria and not biological connections. Being related is the result of a spontaneous chemical reaction and not of biological connections, family lines, or heritage. The Captain continues his analysis of elective affinities, asking Charlotte and Eduard to envision the reconfiguration of relationships that will likely occur when pairs of partners with affinities are brought together: Imagine an A intimately united with a B, and which cannot be separated from it by many means and forces; imagine also a C that is similarly bound to a D; now bring the two pairs into contact: A throws itself to D and C to B without one being able to say, who was the first to leave the other, who was the first to unite with the other. 25 As in chemistry, the assumption here is that mixing elements or persons connected to one another will inevitably result in a shift of affinities. Elective affinities are then never stable, and the introduction of a new element or person will likely cause a change in connections and affinities. The Captain admits, as well, that sometimes those affinities will change the subjects, sometimes not, and sometimes no affinities will occur: Soon they will meet as friends and old acquaintances, who will meet quickly, unify without changing one another, the way that wine and water mix. Contrastively, others will remain next to each other, but unconnected/apart, and even through mechanical und sich aufs neue verbinden. In diesem Fahrenlassen und Ergreifen, in diesem Fliehen und Suchen, glaubt man wirklich eine höhere Bestimmung zu sehen; man traut solchen Wesen eine Art von Wollen und Wählen zu, und hält das Kunstwort Wahlverwandtschaften vollkommen gerechtfertigt.” MA, 9, 318. 25 “Denken Sie sich ein A, das mit einem B innig verbunden ist, durch viele Mittel und durch manche Gewalt nicht von ihm zu trennen; denken Sie ein C, das sich eben zu einem D verhält; bringen Sie nun die beiden Paare in Berührung: A wird sich zu D, C zu B werfen, ohne daß man sagen kann, wer das andere zuerst verlassen, wer sich mit den andern zuerst wieder verbunden habe.” MA, 9, 319.

18  Goethe’s Families of the Heart mixing and rubbing will in no way connect together; like oil and water shaken together in an instant they separate from one another again.26 While the Captain admits that sometimes no reaction occurs, throughout his discussion he emphasizes the reactive coming together of persons and elements through elective affinities. He goes on to explain that in chemistry and in social relationships the addition of new elements or persons can, and often do, result in significant redirections and changes in affinities: For example, what we call limestone is more or less pure calcium oxide intimately united with a weak acid that is known to us in a gaseous form. If you bring a piece of this stone together with diluted sulphuric acid, this one will seize the lime and come together with it as gypsum; the delicate gaseous acid in comparison escapes. Here a separation and a new combination arises, and one now believes oneself justified in applying the word elective affinities, because it really appears, as if one relationship has been preferred to another, as if one were chosen over the other.27 The anticipated shift of affinities with the addition of new persons is exactly what happens to Eduard and Charlotte when they invite new persons to live with them on their estate. When the Captain and Ottilie join them, their relationship to one another falls apart and they shift their affinities to their new partners. But the shifting of affinities is even more complex than that. Throughout the novel affinities between the characters are illustrated as shifting multiple times and existing between individuals and groups 26 “Bald werden sie sich als Freunde und alte Bekannte begegnen, die schnell zusammentreten, sich vereinigen, ohne an einander etwas zu verändern, wie sich Wein mit Wasser vermischt. Dagegen werden andre fremd neben einander verharren und selbst durch mechanisches Mischen und Reiben sich keinesweges verbinden; wie Öl und Wasser zusammengerüttelt sich den Augenblick wieder aus einander sondert.” MA, 9, 315. 27 “Z. B. was wir Kalkstein nennen ist eine mehr oder weniger reine Kalkerde, innig mit einer zarten Säure verbunden, die uns in Luftform bekannt geworden ist. Bringt man ein Stück solchen Steines in verdünnte Schwefelsäure, so ergreift diese den Kalk und erscheint mit ihm als Gyps; jene zarte luftige Säure hingegen entflieht. Hier ist eine Trennung, eine neue Zusammensetzung entstanden und man glaubt sich nunmehr berechtigt, sogar das Wort Wahlverwandtschaft anzuwenden, weil es wirklich aussieht als wenn ein Verhältnis dem andern vorgezogen, eins vor dem andern erwählt würde.” MA, 9, 317.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  19 in different configurations. Essentially, Goethe outlines a number of possibilities including heterosexual ties, same-sex connections, and adoptive families. It is important to note in this context that Goethe’s notions of the elective affinities stand in contrast to those of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and even our own modern ideas about the relatively single and fixed nature of desires and passions. His characters, for instance, throughout his literary production have both same-sex and heterosexual affinities, and they shift back and forth between them contingent upon whom they are interacting with. We will examine all of these possibilities in the Wahlverwandtschaften now that we have established the shifting and changing nature of the elective affinities as defined by Eduard, the Captain, and Charlotte. Indeed, Eduard foregrounds same-sex affinities when he returns to the Captain’s outline of the connections between persons/elements A, B, C, and D. According to the Captain, A and B were connected, as were C and D, but then the two pairs are brought together and A and D, and C and B, shift their affinities to one another. The pairs that were connected, AB and CD, are now AD and CB and the affinities between the various persons/elements have shifted, reconfiguring their relationships. The Captain outlines this shift in affinities in thoroughly abstract terms. In contrast, Eduard draws this reconfiguration explicitly into comparison with his relationship with Charlotte and their encounter/mix with the Captain and perhaps later Ottilie. Eduard explains to Charlotte: “You are the A Charlotte and I am your B; because actually I depend after all only on you and follow you, as the A follows the B. The C is quite obviously the Captain, who is now drawing me away from you to some extent.”28 First, it is important to note that Eduard has just clarified who the A, B, and C persons are in the Captain’s explication of the reconfiguration of relationships. A is Charlotte, B is Eduard, and C is the Captain. Eduard also clarifies for Charlotte that the D is/will be Ottilie: “Now it is equitable, that if you should not pass into some indefinite space, a D will be determined for you, and that is without question the lovable little woman, Ottilie, against whose approach you are no longer allowed to defend yourself.”29 Eduard has just reconfigured the likely affinities between Charlotte, Ottilie, the Captain, and himself as same-sex affinities. The 28 “Du stellst das A vor, Charlotte, und ich dein B: denn eigentlich hänge ich doch nur von dir ab und folge dir, wie dem A das B. Das C ist ganz deutlich der Capitain, der mich für diesmal dir einigermaßen entzieht.” MA, 9, 319. 29 “Nun ist es billig, daß wenn du nicht ins Unbestimmte entweichen sollst, dir für ein D gesorgt werde, und das ist ganz ohne Frage das liebenswürdige Dämchen Ottilie, gegen deren Annäherung du dich nicht länger verteidigen darfst.” MA, 9, 319–20.

20  Goethe’s Families of the Heart original pair (AB = Charlotte and Eduard) will split and A (Charlotte) will connect with D (Ottilie) and B (Eduard) will connect with C (the Captain). Taking the Captain’s abstract description of new affinities between A, B, C, and D and assigning them to himself and those around him, Eduard has outlined the same-sex redirections of their affinities. He also suggests that the first and most compelling affinities for them are same-sex attractions and that these relationships, like any others, are spontaneous and irresistible. Intriguingly, there is also no distinction made in the novel between the type of affinities that draw heterosexual couples together and those that draw same-sex couples to one another. The novel presents all of these affinities without distinctions and does not relegate same-sex affinities to friendships of the soul or associates.30 In addition, Eduard insists that, in this case, the redirection of affinities is a choice that he endorses and he therefore tells Charlotte she should embrace them and invite Ottilie to the estate. Eduard implies that when he connects with the Captain and Charlotte connects with Ottilie, everyone will be happy. It should be noted here as well that Eduard’s analysis of affinities and how they may shift in their own relationships highlights first and foremost a shift away from a heterosexually based marriage and toward same-sex connections. Moreover, Eduard suggests that both heterosexual and same-sex affinities are possible for every individual. He also clarifies quite clearly that the shift in affinities that he is envisioning has already begun to 30 Graczyk suggests that Ottilie will come and be Charlotte’s female associate. Annette Graczyk, “Das Geschlechterverhältnis als soziales Experiment. Aufklärung und Abklärung in Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften,” in Aufklärung und Weimarer Klassik in Dialog, ed. Andre Rudolph and Ernst Stöckmann (Tübingen: De Gruyter, 2009), 139. Lindner asserts that the letters suggest possible relationships between Ottilie and the Captain or between the two men or the two women and goes on to suggest that the relationships could be seen as friendships of the soul. Burkhardt Lindner, “Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften und die Kritik der mythischen Verfassung der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft,” in Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften. Kritische Modelle und Diskursanalysen zum Mythos Literatur, ed. Norbert Bolz (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag 1981), 32–3. Von Thadden mentions briefly that the same-sex pairs of women and men come together. Elisabeth von Thadden, Erzählen als Naturverhältnis, “Die Wahlverwandtschaften.” Zum Problem der Darstellbarkeit von Natur und Gesellschaft seit Goethes Plan eines ‘Roman über das Weltall.’ (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag 1993), 158. Kim mentions the two same-sex bonds as “friendship bonds,” but stresses the “love relationship” between Eduard and Ottilie. Hee-Ju Kim, “Ottilie muß sterben. Zum “Ungleichnis” zwischen chemischer und menschlicher Natur in Goethes Roman “Die Wahlverwandtschaften,” Goethe Jahrbuch 124 (2007): 85. In the Wahlverwandtschaften there is no indication that the same-sex relationships are just friendships, while the heterosexual ones are love relationships.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  21 occur with the arrival only of the Captain (Ottilie is not there yet). The novel refers several times to the fact that Eduard’s original connection with Charlotte (A) is fading and he is spending essentially all of his time with the Captain. Eduard had explained to Charlotte earlier that, for example: “Ultimately, I am in your eyes the lime, that the Captain as sulphuric acid has seized and withdrawn from your pleasant company and has transformed into a recalcitrant gypsum.”31 As the Captain and Eduard are drawn together they leave Charlotte alone. In fact, right after the Captain’s arrival, we are told: “and so Charlotte felt herself daily more alone” and there were “many a lonely hour.”32 What is also essential throughout this presentation of the affinities between Eduard and the Captain is that Eduard perceives of his shift to the Captain as simply the effect of the Captain’s arrival. Their spontaneous affinities have drawn them together and away from Charlotte. For Eduard, the heterosexual connection with Charlotte has been replaced by, or at least largely superseded by, his same-sex connection with the Captain.33 Equally important is the novel’s presentation of the relationship between Eduard and the Captain as the result of a natural, spontaneous connection of affinities. Eduard’s relationships to Charlotte and to the Captain are both portrayed as natural, both as possible, and as essentially equal results of the elective affinities. Here all affinities are equal and acceptable. Indeed, Eduard’s affinities (his feelings/love) can be directed toward, and/or can draw him to, a woman or to a man, and in this case his affinities are pulling him most strongly to the Captain. As Eduard demonstrates, elective affinities can draw lovers to persons of the opposite sex or the same sex, and not necessarily only one or the other. As Goethe portrays the affinities, they are fundamentally nonexclusive and person-based. While Eduard’s and the Captain’s analyses of the elective affinities and possible same-sex reconfigurations of the elective affinities constitute a central defining and revealing moment in the Wahlverwandtschaften, the novel is also full of further references to elective affinities that must be taken into account in order to completely understand the incredible complexity of elective affinities that Goethe’s text foregrounds. It is also 31 “Am Ende bin ich in deinen Augen der Kalk, der vom Hauptmann, als einer Schwefelsäure ergriffen, deiner anmutigen Gesellschaft entzogen und in einen refraktären Gyps verwandelt wird.” MA, 9, 318. 32 “so fühlte sich Charlotte täglich einsamer” and “manche einsame Stunde” MA, 9, 306–7. 33 Yee notes that: “The Captain’s presence helps to dissolve the Eduard-Charlotte bond and establish an Eduard-Captain bond.” He does not define these bonds in terms of heterosexual and same-sex affinities as outlined in the Wahlverwandtschaften. Kevin F. Yee, “The Captain as Catalyst in Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften” JEGP 96 (1997): 64.

22  Goethe’s Families of the Heart important to note that the elective affinities manifest themselves in all relationships and are constantly shifting and changing relationships as new persons join the social mix. Not only do Eduard and the Captain predict the amazing and instantaneous establishment of elective affinities between themselves and between Charlotte and Ottilie, they also highlight how the mixing of persons together can result in the splitting and dissolution of affinities. Eduard, in fact, asserts at one point that “the affinities first become interesting when they cause splitting.”34 Eduard is fascinated by the splitting effect of affinities and we might speculate that he recognizes, consciously or unconsciously, how his own affinities were split from Charlotte during his spontaneous shift to the Captain. For him, splitting affinities away from one person appears to lead to strong relationships with others. Eduard does not explain in any detail why he finds splitting affinities so fascinating, but Charlotte immediately disagrees with him, insisting that the most important effect of elective affinities is their art of bringing people together. Unifying is, for Charlotte, the essential and core social art: “Unifying is a greater art, a greater contribution. An artist of unification would be welcome in every field/area of the whole world.”35 For Charlotte the central issue is how people come together and how one might facilitate those connections. For her, being fascinated by the way relationships fall apart, embracing splitting, and stimulating the splitting of affinities are not the desired outcome, and as soon as Eduard suggests that splitting affinities is what makes this chemical process most interesting, Charlotte completely rejects his analysis. In fact, Charlotte is insisting on the importance of feelings, but it should be noted, as well, that she is asserting herself, and presenting her observations to Eduard and the Captain. In this manner, she is not playing the traditional timid, emotional role of a woman. She is expressing herself and insisting on the validity of her views, regardless of what their “science” seems to suggest.36 34 “die Verwandtschaften werden erst interessant, wenn sie Scheidungen bewirken.” MA, 9, 317. 35 “Das Vereinigen ist eine größere Kunst, ein größeres Verdienst. Ein Einungskünstler wäre in jedem Fache der ganzen Welt willkommen.” MA, 9, 317. 36 Of course, it is also important to note that shifts in affinities as described in the Wahlverwandtschaften always result in the splitting, unifying, and reconfiguring of relationships, and Goethe will depict throughout his literary works the overall positive effects of the entire process including both splitting and unifying. Eduard and Charlotte, in contrast, focus on only one part of the process (either splitting or unifying) as positive. In the context of the Wahlverwandtschaften, scholars have noted Charlotte’s

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  23 In this context, we should recall that Eduard is the one who insists relentlessly in the beginning of the Wahlverwandtschaften that he and Charlotte should agree to have the Captain join them on the estate: “I want us to take him to us for some time.”37 He initiates the mix of persons that results in his splitting away from Charlotte and toward the Captain. Charlotte does not want to invite the Captain to join them and recounts in this context a number of significant splitting events that have affected their relationship. Charlotte first recalls how they had loved one another as young persons, but how their fathers had split them apart and forced them to marry other persons because of their concern for economic and status issues: We loved each other quite sincerely as young people; we were separated—you from me, because your father connected you with a rather old rich woman because of his never satisfied desire for property/ownership—and I from you, because without any special prospects, I had to give my hand to a rich, not loved, but honored man.38 Charlotte recounts the first cruel splitting that she and Eduard experienced as their fathers determined their marriages to other people, ones they were not in love with, and regardless of the fact that Charlotte and Eduard were in love with one another. In accord with the world of aristocratic fathers, their first families were brought together based on economic and status considerations and not on the basis of elective affinities. Charlotte reminds Eduard that they were the victims of this act of splitting on the part of their fathers. Intriguingly, Goethe suggests here that the structure of the aristocratic families in his time period, the planning and determining of families by fathers focused on assuring their family wealth, status, and honor as they decide who their children are allowed to and must marry, undoes the possibility of love. The Count later describes Eduard’s and Charlotte’s more astute understanding of the potential consequences of the Captain coming to the estate. See Astrida Orle Tantillo, “Polarity and Productivity in Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften,” Seminar 36 (2000): 318; Schwan, “Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften,” 48, 50, 62; Greineder, “The Evasion,” 27; and Graczyk, “Das Geschlechtsverhältnis,” 139. 37 “ich möchte, daß wir ihn auf einige Zeit zu uns nähmen.” MA, 9, 288. 38 “Wir liebten einander als junge Leute recht herzlich; wir würden getrennt: du von mir, weil dein Vater, aus nie zu sättigender Begierde des Besitzes, dich mit einer ziemlich älteren reichen Frau verband; ich von dir, weil ich, ohne sonderliche Aussichten, einem wohlhabenden, nicht geliebten aber geehrten Manne meine Hand reichen mußte.” MA, 9, 290.

24  Goethe’s Families of the Heart first marriages as despicable: “Your first marriages, he (the Count) continued with some vehemence, were truly proper marriages of the hateful kind …”39 According to the Count these are the kinds of marriages that “ruin the most delicate relationships.”40 Ultimately, Die Wahlverwandtschaften underscores that Charlotte and Eduard are torn from one another regardless of their elective affinities, because of their family’s limited and negative concern with wealth, honor, heritage, and future inheritances. Only years later do Charlotte and Eduard become free again, find each other, and they come back together since “we loved the memory.”41 They could finally live together and could reclaim their earlier relationship. Intriguingly, Eduard and Charlotte come back together on the estate because they loved the memory of their affinities/ love. Here and during the rest of the story one has the impression that Charlotte and Eduard do not love one another enough now, or at least not as strongly, as they did when they were young. In fact, Eduard later states openly that their attempt to recapture their love was crazy and that they were essentially deceiving themselves: “We committed a folly, which I perceive only too well. Anyone in a certain age who wants to realize earlier wishes and hopes of their youth, always deceives him/ herself …”42 Eduard and Charlotte are reliving and loving a memory of a love that is perhaps no longer the compelling reactive chemical mix that drew them to one another so many years ago. Charlotte and Eduard may be attempting to reunite and reignite their affinities, but perhaps the years of being split apart cannot be undone.43 And, indeed, the recollection of the splitting of relationships does not end there. When Charlotte and Eduard come together again after their first marriages, Eduard has been wandering around for some time with the Captain of whom Eduard says: “He also participated in part of my wanderings/travels.”44 Eduard implies here that he had an earlier connection with / affinity for the Captain and that 39 “Ihre ersten Heiraten, fuhr er (der Graf) mit einiger Heftigkeit fort, waren doch so eigentlich rechte Heiraten von der verhaßten Art …” MA, 9, 355. 40 “verderben die zartesten Verhältnisse” MA, 9, 355. 41 “wir liebten die Erinnerung” MA, 9, 290. 42 “Wir haben eine Torheit begangen, die ich nur allzuwohl einsehe. Wer in einem gewissen Alter frühere Jugendwünsche und Hoffnungen realisieren will, betriegt sich immer …” MA, 9, 488. 43 Zons also mentions that Charlotte and Eduard have waited so long to come together that the happiness of their union no longer exists. Raimer Stefan Zons, “Ein Denkmal voriger Zeiten über Die Wahlverwandtschaften,” in Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften: Kritische Modelle und Diskursanalysen zum Mythos Literatur, ed. Norbert Bolz (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981), 331. 44 “Auch er hat einen Teil meiner Wanderungen mitgemacht” MA, 9, 291.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  25 they had connected with one another and had traveled together. But, later, Eduard apparently disconnected with the Captain, stopped his wandering, returned from his travels, and reestablished his affinities for Charlotte. As Charlotte suggests, Eduard wanted to return to her and escape from all of the unrest that he had experienced: “You wanted to recover at my side from all of the unrest that you experienced at court, in the military, and during your travels. You wanted to come to your senses, to enjoy life, but only with me alone.”45 Eduard separated himself from the other people he was connected to and retreated to the estate with Charlotte. It appears that the affinities between Charlotte and Eduard are only possible when the two of them are totally alone. As we have seen, once Eduard convinces Charlotte to invite the Captain to the estate and as soon as the Captain returns to Eduard, the two of them pair off together and leave Charlotte essentially alone. Her only company is the two of them together and her individual relationship with Eduard fades and becomes ever less active and engaging. Once the Captain appears on the scene, the relatively weak affinities between Charlotte and Eduard become even more manifest. It is also imperative to remember that Eduard’s condition upon returning to Charlotte was that they be totally alone and not just apart from other possible lovers like the Captain, but also distanced from Charlotte’s own family, that is, her daughter and her niece. While Eduard had been traveling, at court and in the military, Charlotte was raising her biological daughter and her niece/friend’s daughter (essentially a Pflegetochter [foster daughter]) on the estate. Eduard’s return to Charlotte is contingent on his insistence that her daughters not be allowed to live with her any more. In order to accommodate Eduard’s demands, Charlotte splits up her family and sends her daughter, Luciane, and foster daughter, Ottilie, to a boarding school: I sent my only daughter to a boarding school, where she is clearly learning a greater variety of things than could have been possible in a country setting; and not her alone, I also sent Ottilie, my dear niece there, who would have perhaps best developed into a domestic helpmate under my guidance.46

45 “Du wolltest von allen Unruhen, die du bei Hof, im Militär, auf Reisen erlebt hattest, dich an meiner Seite erholen, zur Besinnung kommen, des Lebens genießen; aber auch nur mit mir allein.” MA, 9, 290. 46 “Meine einzige Tochter tat ich in Pension, wo sie sich freilich mannigfaltiger ausbildet, als bei einem ländlichen Aufenthalte geschehen könnte; und nicht sie allein, auch Ottilien, meine liebe Nichte, tat ich dorthin, die vielleicht zur häuslichen Gehülfin unter meiner Anleitung am besten herangewachsen wäre.” MA, 9, 290.

26  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Charlotte splits up her family and moves her daughter and her niece/ foster daughter away even though she has doubts about this decision and especially about whether this was a good idea for Ottilie. Eduard’s demands to be totally alone with Charlotte force her to split her family apart even though she has serious reservations about how this will affect the lives of her daughters. It should be noted that Eduard’s splitting up of Charlotte’s family is reminiscent of the splitting apart that he and Charlotte experienced at the hands of their families. Not that the situations are the same, but the ones doing the splitting are in many cases men, that is, men in control of how families should be configured in eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century German culture. Within these two contexts, Goethe’s novel illustrates how men, specifically fathers and future husbands, can split lovers and families (here a mother and her two daughters) apart in order to establish the relationships they envision and desire. Equally interesting in this context, is the fact that Eduard was the one who insisted that the affinities were most interesting when they split relationships apart, while Charlotte was the one who rejected splitting people united in love in favor of bringing people together. Consistently in the text, men are splitting relationships while women are the victims of the split and/or are arguing for unification. And while Eduard’s father split him away from Charlotte, Eduard later enacts his own splitting when he forces Charlotte to send away her daughters. In addition, Charlotte’s concerns about the splitting of her family upon Eduard’s arrival are clearly connected to her reservations about inviting the Captain to the estate. Throughout their conversation about bringing the Captain to the estate Charlotte keeps referring to Ottilie and her daughter and Eduard’s desire to be alone with her. On the one hand, Charlotte is reminding Eduard of his insistence on their being alone and suggesting that he has now shifted his own terms by insisting on having the Captain join them. In contrast, she is also remembering how Eduard has already split her affinities and forced her to essentially exile her daughter and Ottilie. Eduard, on the other hand, continues to maintain that inviting the Captain to join them on the estate will not have any negative effect, but precisely the opposite: “nothing would be disturbed by the presence of the Captain, indeed, to the contrary, everything will be accelerated and revived.”47 Curiously, Eduard also implies here that “everything,” including the relationship with Charlotte, might need some revival. He is clearly indicating that their affinities might not be what they should be, and that he is not completely satisfied with 47 “durch die Gegenwart des Hauptmanns würde nichts gestört, ja vielmehr alles beschleunigt und neu belebt.” MA, 9, 291.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  27 how things are now. He feels that their relationship without the Captain requires the animation and acceleration that the Captain would provide. Charlotte rejects this statement immediately and emphasizes how she is not at all convinced that the Captain will have a positive effect: “So let me honestly admit to you, Charlotte countered with some impatience, that this plan contradicts my feelings and that my intuition augurs nothing good from this.”48 Charlotte is totally unconvinced that Eduard’s plan will have any positive results and she fears that adding the Captain will have devastating effects on their relationship. It is important to note that not only does Charlotte understand how affinities work between persons before Eduard and the Captain explain them to her, but that she is also very aware of the danger to her relationship with Eduard that the Captain may represent, even before he is with them on the estate. Moreover, Charlotte refers to her feelings and intuitions that clearly alert her to the possible further splitting of affinities. Charlotte’s feelings, her soul, her heart, and her affinities tell her that bringing the Captain to the estate is a bad idea. She states to Eduard directly: “Unfortunately, enough cases are known to me in which an apparently indissoluble, intimate connection between two persons has been dissolved by the accidental introduction of a third one and one of the initially so beautifully united persons was driven off into the wide distance.”49 She knows before Eduard and the Captain explain the affinities to her exactly how they work and how the addition of a new person can change all relationships. In fact, a new person (the Captain) added to the social mix threatens to literally force one of the other people (Charlotte) into oblivion. Intriguingly, Charlotte goes even further than Eduard and the Captain in explaining how elective affinities work and reveals to Eduard that she has witnessed so many relationships altered and split with the arrival of a new person: “I have seen friends, siblings, lovers, and spouses, whose relationship was completely altered by the random or chosen arrival of a new person and whose situation was completely turned around.”50 Charlotte points out that all love relationships and affinities can change with the addition of a new person. The connections between friends, 48 “So laß mich denn dir aufrichtig gestehen, entgegnete Charlotte mit einiger Ungeduld, daß diesem Vorhaben mein Gefühl widerspricht, daß eine Ahndung mir nichts Gutes weissagt.” MA, 9, 291. 49 “Mir sind leider Fälle genug bekannt, wo eine innige unauflöslich scheinende Verbindung zweier Wesen, durch gelegentliche Zugesellung eines Dritten, aufgehoben, und eins der erst so schön verbundenen ins lose Weite hinausgetrieben ward.” MA, 9, 318. 50 “Ich habe Freunde gesehen, Geschwister, Liebende, Gatten, deren Verhältnis durch den zufälligen oder gewählten Hinzutritt einer neuen Person ganz und gar verändert, deren Lage völlig umgekehrt worden.” MA, 9, 292.

28  Goethe’s Families of the Heart siblings, parents and children, lovers, and spouses can be not only effected and altered, but can also be thoroughly rearranged. Affinities do not just exist between lovers and spouses. They are the core feelings of the heart that determine all relationships between people, including the connections between siblings, parents, and children as well. The foundation of all family relationships and the connections between all family members are their affinities. Charlotte also emphasizes that she has seen this. She has herself experienced the splitting of affinities between various connected persons and families upon the arrival of a new person. Despite all of Charlotte’s reservations and her explanation of how relationships can be split and undone by the addition of a new person, Eduard continues to insist that the Captain join them. He does not listen to Charlotte and is convinced that the best course of action is to draw the Captain to himself. Much like the relationship with Charlotte that is one from Eduard’s past and the memory of which he loves, Eduard is drawn to the Captain as his “friend from his youth.”51 He is someone Eduard had traveled with before and whom he left when he returned to Charlotte. Eduard is, and has been, enacting the same kinds of splits and returns with the Captain that he has also engaged in with Charlotte. In Charlotte’s case, Eduard was connected to her, separated from her, and re-connected to her on the basis of his memory of their earlier love. Similarly, Eduard was connected to the Captain in his youth, was separated from him while married, returned to him as they traveled around, and then left him to reunite with Charlotte. Ultimately, Eduard becomes angry with Charlotte for refusing to invite the Captain to the estate and in his anger he reveals both how he succeeded in getting her and how he wants to complete himself with the attainment of the Captain: Until now everything had always gone in accord with his interests, he had also been successful in possessing Charlotte, whom he had won through persistent, yes romantic (novel-like) devotion; and now he felt contradicted for the first time, hindered for the first time, just when he wanted to draw his friend from his youth to himself, when he wanted at the same time to complete his entire being. He was sullen and impatient …52 51 “Jugendfreund” MA, 9, 293. 52 “Bisher war alles nach seinem Sinne gegangen, auch zum Besitz Charlottens war er gelangt, den er sich durch eine hartnäckige, ja romanenhafte Treue doch zuletzt erworben hatte; und nun fühlte er sich zum erstenmal widersprochen, zum erstenmal gehindert, eben da er seinen Jugendfreund an sich heranziehen, da er sein ganzes Dasein gleichsam abschließen wollte. Er war verdrießlich, ungeduldig …” MA, 9, 293.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  29 Eduard is convinced that reviving his affinities with the Captain will result in the completion of his existence and he is quite upset with Charlotte (for this very reason) for resisting his plans. Eduard recounts his successful fight for Charlotte in the same terms that he feels about his need for the Captain. He asserts he has been successful so far in getting the persons he wants for himself. In both cases it is clear that: “Eduard was not used to denying himself anything.”53 It is also clear that Eduard feels that he is not complete without the Captain and that Charlotte is preventing him from attaining his optimal wholeness, a state that seems to depend more upon the presence of the Captain than upon Charlotte. At the very least, Eduard may be implying that he needs them both in order to feel whole, but his statement makes it abundantly clear that Charlotte alone will not make him feel complete and that he definitely needs the Captain to ensure his sense of self-wholeness. Finally, it is important to note that Eduard is comparing his affinities with Charlotte with his desire for the Captain. As suggested by the Captain and Eduard in their discussion of the elective affinities, it is clear in Eduard’s life experience that both heterosexual and same-sex affinities determine his connections to others and his ultimate sense of completeness or incompleteness. Eduard is not only drawn to women, he is drawn to men as well. His desire to have both Charlotte and the Captain (although perhaps even more to have the Captain) highlights both the shifting nature of his affinities, but also their complexity. Eduard demonstrates clearly that having both heterosexual and same-sex affinities is not impossible and suggests, in fact, that in his case, having both kinds of affinities, having nonexclusive affinities, and embracing all of his affinities is essential for him to feel complete. Eduard’s outline of his own same-sex affinities clearly coincides with the chemical outline of same-sex affinities he and the Captain worked out for the elements AD and CB in their first attempt to explain shifting affinities to Charlotte. Their basic model suggests, however, not just that men can be drawn to men but that women can be drawn to women as well. Eduard does not, however, address as fully the affinities between women and intriguingly, at one point in the Wahlverwandtschaften, a male assistant explains to Charlotte that only men are drawn to men and that women are not drawn to women: One thinks of a woman as a lover, as a bride, as a wife, housewife and mother—and she always stands isolated, she is always alone, and wants to be alone … Every woman shuts every other woman out—in accord with her nature. It is demanded of each individual 53 “Sich etwas zu versagen, war Eduard nicht gewohnt.” MA, 9, 293.

30  Goethe’s Families of the Heart woman that she achieve what is expected of the entire sex. The situation for men is different. A man demands a man. He would create a second man if there were not any. A woman could live an eternity without considering bringing forth her own kind.54 The assistant insists that men necessarily gravitate to one another, seek out their own kind, and would even create another man to be with if they could not find any. He suggests, as well, that women are more complicated. They are always defined by, and fulfilling, multiple roles: lover, bride, wife, housewife, and mother. In these roles, the assistant claims, women always stand isolated and alone, and they want to be alone. He insists, as well, that it is the very nature of a woman to shut out every other woman. Subsequently, women will always stand apart and alone, are distant from one another, and would be essentially incapable of same-sex relationships and/or any kind of intimacy with one another. Intriguingly, Charlotte rejects this analysis immediately with the declaration that women should hold themselves together in defiance of this assertion/male construction: “We want to make the best of your comments and indeed hold ourselves together as women with women and work together to ensure that we do not allow men to have all too great advantages over us.”55 Intriguingly, Charlotte counters the assistant’s view that women always stand alone, with a call for women to come together and assert themselves. According to Charlotte women should not let men define them or outdo them in the formation of (same-sex) elective affinities and that the best response to the assistant’s claims of female isolation is for women to come together and defy his misconceptions. Charlotte maintains that women, like men, can be drawn together and that they, as well as men, need connections to one another. While the assistant may claim that women do not connect, in reality they do. It is also important to note that the assistant’s rejection of same-sex affinities between women is reflective of the fact that in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, same-sex attractions between women were even more inexpressible than same-sex affinities between men. 54 “Man betrachte ein Frauenzimmer als Liebende, als Braut, als Frau, Hausfrau und Mutter, immer steht sie isoliert, immer ist sie allein, und will allein sein … Jede Frau schließt die andre aus, ihrer Natur nach: denn von Jeder wird alles gefördert, was dem ganzen Geschlechte zu leisten obliegt. Nicht so verhält es mit den Männern. Der Mann verlangt den Mann; er würde einen zweiten erschaffen, wenn es keinen gäbe: eine Frau könnte eine Ewigkeit leben, ohne daran zu denken, sich ihres Gleichen hervorzubringen.” MA, 9, 450. 55 “Wir wollen uns aus Ihren Bemerkungen das Beste herausnehmen und doch als Frauen mit Frauen zusammenhalten, und auch gemeinsam wirken, um den Männern nicht allzu große Vorzüge über uns einzuräumen.” MA, 9, 450.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  31 Furthermore, throughout the Wahlverwandtschaften, relationships between women complicate the ideas about elective affinities established by Eduard, the Captain, and other men in the novel. This first becomes obvious when Charlotte, Eduard, and the Captain begin to discuss bringing Ottilie to the estate, and then even more so after she arrives. Eduard and the Captain had predicted that Ottilie (D) would connect with Charlotte (A) and that they (the Captain and Eduard) would then be drawn together too. Charlotte suggests this, as well, when she admits to Eduard that in much the same way that he desires to bring the Captain to the estate, she wants to bring Ottilie, and she finally agrees to invite her to join them. Eduard is overjoyed and exclaims: “Take Ottilie, leave me the Captain, and in God’s name let the experiment be made!”56 Here Eduard and Charlotte are once again outlining the fundamental elective affinities as those between men and men and women and women. The expectation is that when Ottilie arrives, she and Charlotte and Eduard and the Captain will pair with one another. Eduard goes even further asserting that they will not only be drawn together as a man with a man and a woman with a woman, but that they will also move to separate parts of the estate and separate rooms: “She (Ottilie) is coming! … It is highly necessary that I move over to the Captain in the right wing …You (Charlotte) will obtain for yourself and Ottilie the most beautiful room on your side.”57 Eduard clearly envisions the couples splitting apart and establishing themselves in quarters away from one another. Intriguingly, Ottilie ultimately gets moved into the rooms Eduard has been residing in and ones he shared with Charlotte, and the married couple becomes then both physically and sentimentally separated from one another as they connect with their same-sex partners. These are Eduard’s plans and they reflect the outline of same-sex affinities he, Charlotte, and the Captain were envisioning as they contemplated what would happen to their chemical reactions when Ottilie joins them. But as it turns out, once Ottilie arrives, the elective affinities prove to be much more complex than any of them foresaw. In fact, Eduard immediately complicates the picture of their future affinities when he warns the Captain to protect himself from Ottilie: “protect yourself dear friend from the D! What should B do, if C were torn from him? … he will return to his A, to his A and O!”58 Eduard 56 “Nimm Ottilien, laß mir den Hauptmann, und in Gottes Namen sei der Versuch gemacht!” MA, 9, 296. 57 “Sie (Ottilie) kommt! … Es wird höchst nötig, daß ich zu dem Hauptmann auf den rechten Flügel hinüber ziehe … Du (Charlotte) erhältst dagegen für dich und Ottilien auf deiner Seite den schönsten Raum.” MA, 9, 323–4. 58 “nehmen Sie sich nur, lieber Freund, vor dem D in Acht! Was sollte B den

32  Goethe’s Families of the Heart asserts here that if Ottilie (D) were to leave Charlotte (A) and connect with the Captain (C), that he (B) would ultimately return to his A (Charlotte) or—to complicate things even more—he would return to his A and O. Eduard has just introduced a new letter to the mix of elements/persons (originally A, B, C and D). If Eduard (B) loses his connection to the Captain (C) he suggests that he will return to A. We know who A is and Eduard is asserting that he will return to Charlotte. But then he qualifies that further and maintains that he would return to his A and O. But who is O? Intriguingly, O could be Otto which is the Captain’s first name. Is Eduard then asserting that he would first return to Charlotte, but then insisting that he would return to the Captain too, i.e. that he would not let Charlotte steal him away from him? If so, then the suggestion is that there might ultimately be a group family with Eduard, the Captain, Charlotte, and Ottilie. And, in fact, another possibility is that O is Ottilie. So Eduard might be suggesting that he would return to Charlotte and Ottilie if he lost the Captain. Or maybe O is both Ottilie and Otto (the Captain)?59 All of these possibilities are suggested by Eduard’s comments and, in fact, the implication that they might form a family of four is intriguing in light of the fact that they do come together at first and form “the usual family way of life.”60 Everyone is happy together, their connections to one another have the most pleasurable effect, and “Each one felt happy and granted the other his/her happiness.”61 Once again the elective affinities complicate the possible relationships between Eduard, Charlotte, the Captain, and Ottilie. They all seem initially to form two pairs of partners drawn together by their same-sex affinities. According to Eduard, they may then later anfangen, wenn ihm C entrissen würde? … es kehrte zu seinem A zurück, zu seinem A und O!” MA, 9, 324. 59 Schlaffer reduces Eduard’s A and O in this passage to Charlotte. Heinz Schlaffer, “Namen und Buchstaben in Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften,” in Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften. Kritische Modelle und Diskursanalysen zum Mythos Literatur, ed. Norbert Bolz (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981), 215. Schwan, “Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften,” 67, limits the two letters to Charlotte (A) and Ottilie (O). Lupton reminds us that Otto refers to the Captain (his name is Otto), Eduard (his name is Otto), Charlotte (with otte in her name), and Ottilie (feminine version of Otto). She also suggests that the letters OTTO assert “the constellation of four, two men and two women, that is in question in the conception of the plot as a chemical process of four elements and their ‘elective affinities.’” While she foregrounds the elective affinities here, she does not address same-sex affinities. Christina Lupton, “Naming the Baby: Sterne, Goethe and the Power of the Word,” MLN 118:5 (2003): 1227. 60 “die gewöhnliche Lebensweise einer Familie” MA, 9, 333. 61 “Jeder Teil fühlte sich glücklich und gönnte dem andern sein Glück.” MA, 9, 334.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  33 split apart as Ottilie might be drawn to the Captain and Eduard might return to Charlotte or to Charlotte and O (Ottilie and/or the Captain/ Otto). The final picture here seems to be one that Eduard foresees as their affinities shift and reconfigure their relationships. In this scenario, all four may come together and form a family with two “husbands” and two “wives.” Equally important is that Eduard is not splitting affinities in this case. Indeed, as he sees himself going back to A and O, Eduard is highlighting how everyone comes together and is outlining multiple possibilities in terms of their unity and not in terms of splitting apart from one another. Eduard is clearly not always the one who initiates splitting, he works to find ways to ensure that their affinities result in unifying them as well. Sometimes that unity is the one formed between himself and the Captain, and Charlotte and Ottilie, and sometimes it is all four of them connected and happy together. All of these possibilities come to the fore in the Wahlverwandtschaften once Ottilie is added to the chemical mix of friends, spouses, and possible partners on Eduard and Charlotte’s estate. Ottilie is clearly the most complex character in the Wahlverwandtschaften and her affinities are both numerous and hard to determine and/or to limit. She is clearly first defined by Eduard, the Captain, and Charlotte as a very likely same-sex partner for Charlotte, in the same way that the Captain is a same-sex partner for Eduard. Eduard also positions her as a possible heterosexual partner for the Captain and, indeed, also for himself if she is the O to whom he suggested that he might return. In addition, the complicated relationship between Ottilie and Charlotte is crucial for our understanding of the elective affinities and it is essential to map out all facets of their relationship in detail in order to grasp their overall significance for Goethe’s conception of elective affinities. The possible same-sex partner relationship between Charlotte and Ottilie does not seem either very likely or acceptable since the two of them are also described, and referred to throughout the novel, as related to one another as a mother and an adoptive daughter. In addition, their relationship is further complicated because the Wahlverwandtschaften never makes clear who Ottilie’s biological parents were, how she came to be Charlotte’s adoptive or foster daughter, and exactly what her relationship to Charlotte might be biologically or otherwise. Throughout the text, the references to the relationship between Ottilie and Charlotte shift and Ottilie is described as: “my dear niece,” “the dear child,” “the beloved foster daughter,” “niece,” as Charlotte’s “young lady daughter,” “the good pure child,” “the quiet, attentive child,” and Ottilie refers to herself as having been a “poor orphan.” In fact, Ottilie also thinks of herself as a “stranger” and as “an

34  Goethe’s Families of the Heart insignificant being,”62 when she first arrives on the estate. In contradiction to Ottilie’s perception of herself as insignificant, she is clearly a central figure in the novel, and in her relationship with Charlotte. Moreover, the relationship between Charlotte and Ottilie is continually foregrounded as one between a mother and a daughter. Indeed, when Ottilie first arrives on the estate, her wagon pulls up and she and Charlotte immediately hurry to one another expressing their connections to one another: A wagon that brought Ottilie had arrived. Charlotte went to her: the dear child hurried to come close to her, threw herself at her feet and hugged her knees. Why the humiliation! said Charlotte, who was somewhat confused and wanted to lift her up. It is not meant to be so humbling, countered Ottilie, who remained in her previous position. I just like so much to remember that time, when I did not reach any higher than your knees and was already so certain of your love. She stood up and Charlotte embraced her warmly.63 In this first encounter, Ottilie expresses clearly to Charlotte how much her instantaneous motherly love meant to her when she first came to Charlotte. Moreover, she admits that she enjoys thinking about her time as a child and the love she knew that Charlotte had for her. Once Charlotte understands what Ottilie’s feelings are, why she threw herself at her feet and hugged her knee, and as soon as Ottilie stands up, Charlotte embraces her affectionately. Charlotte and Ottilie come together and express their love for one another as a daughter and a mother. Their affinities drew Ottilie and Charlotte together when Ottilie was first orphaned and came to Charlotte’s home and was raised by her as her daughter. Indeed, Ottilie refers to Charlotte’s love and care for her toward the end of the novel as well when she mentions

62 “meine liebe Nichte” MA, 9, 290, “das liebe Kind” MA, 9, 294, 324, “der geliebten Pflegetochter” MA, 9, 297, “Nichte” MA, 9, 324, “Fräulein Tochter” MA, 9, 323, “das gute reine Kind” MA, 9, 348, “das ruhig, aufmerksame Kind” MA, 9, 353 and Ottilie refers to herself as having been a “arme Waise” MA, 9, 502, “Fremdling” and “ein unbedeutendes Wesen” MA, 9, 465. 63 “Ein Wagen der Ottilien brachte war angefahren. Charlotte ging ihr entgegen; das liebe Kind eilte sich ihr zu nähern, warf sich ihr zu Füßen und umfaßte ihre Kniee. Wozu die Demütigung! sagte Charlotte, die einigermaßen verlegen war und sie aufheben wollte. Es ist so demütig nicht gemeint, versetzte Ottilie, die in ihrer vorigen Stelle blieb. Ich mag mich nur so gern jener Zeit erinnern, da ich noch nicht höher reichte als bis an Ihre Kniee und Ihrer Liebe schon so gewiß war. Sie stand auf und Charlotte umarmte sie herzlich.” MA, 9, 324.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  35 to Charlotte the time “that you loved me, cared for me, and took me into your home.”64 We find similar expressions of adoptive affinities of the heart in Goethe’s play Elpenor. Antiope has raised Elpenor as her own child, and even though he is not her biological son he is described as belonging to her through love and education. Even more importantly, Antiope and Elpenor describe their first encounters with one another in terms of the kinds of adoptive affinities Goethe outlines in the Wahlverwandtschaften. Antiope expresses her instantaneous love for Elpenor: “There I found you and my soul was totally drawn to you with the first glance. Here he is! My spirit said to me, as I playfully turned your head in my hands and eagerly kissed your loving eyes; Here he is!” And she continues, remarking: “So he would be yours and the child of your heart: He is the son of your heart.” Elpenor joins in, stressing that: “From that time on I remained fixed on you” and he also refers to Antiope as “my best mother.” And Antiope emphasizes again her love for Elpenor: “I nurtured you, love had bound me tightly to you.”65 As in Die Wahlverwandtschaften it is clear in Elpenor, as well, that Goethe is illustrating how adoptive love is a spontaneous chemical reaction through which parents and children form an instant loving bond. In both Elpenor and in the Wahlverwandtschaften, the spontaneous love between mothers and adoptive children is confirmed. It is also clear throughout these exchanges that elective affinities are in operation in relationships between foster/adoptive parents and the children they love and care for. And it is especially important to note that biological relatedness is not a precondition for love between parents and children. Of course, Goethe’s novel complicates the relationship between Charlotte and Ottilie even further. In a conversation with Eduard, Charlotte reveals that Ottilie is “no enigma”66 for her, because she sees in her the entire character of her biological mother: “because I perceive the complete character of her mother, my most valued friend in this beloved child.”67 Equally important is Charlotte’s admission 64 “da du mich liebtest, für mich sorgtest, da du mich in dein Haus aufnahmest” MA, 9, 502. 65 Antiope: “Da fand ich dich, und mit dem ersten Blicke/ War meine Seele ganz dir zugewandt … Hier ist er! sagte mir mein Geist, als ich dein Haupt,/ In meinen Händen spielend wandte,/ Und eifrig dir die lieben Augen küßte;/ Hier ist er!” and “So wär’ er dein und deines Herzens Kind:/ Er ist der Sohn nach deinem Herzen” and Elpenor: “Von jener Zeit an blieb’ ich fest an dir” MA, 6.1, 519; “meine beste Mutter!” MA, 6.1, 514; and Antiope: “Ich nährte dich; fest hat die Liebe mich/An dich … festgebunden.” MA, 6.1, 520. 66 “kein Rätsel” MA, 9, 295. 67 “weil ich in diesem lieben Kinde den ganzen Charakter ihrer Mutter, meiner wertesten Freundin, gewahr werde” MA, 9, 295.

36  Goethe’s Families of the Heart that Ottilie’s mother was one of her closest friends. Eduard continues this line of thought suggesting that the reason that Charlotte loved, and still loves, Ottilie so much is because she has inherited Charlotte’s affinity for her mother: “I also certainly do not know, how you can place Ottilie so high! countered Eduard. I can only explain it to myself in that she inherited your affinity for her mother.”68 Charlotte does not respond to Eduard’s claim that Ottilie has inherited Charlotte’s affinities for her mother. Nevertheless, Charlotte’s earlier statement that she sees in Ottilie her mother’s whole character and that that mother was Charlotte’s dearest friend suggests that Eduard’s observation may be correct. At any rate, Eduard implies that Charlotte had a significant same-sex affinity for Ottilie’s mother. Since Ottilie is referred to as Charlotte’s niece, we could surmise that the woman/her mother for whom Charlotte felt these affinities was likely a sister-in-law. But even more importantly, these exchanges with Eduard highlight that Charlotte shifted her affinities for another woman (Ottilie’s mother) to the child she left behind (Ottilie). This, of course, indicates that Charlotte’s subsequent “motherly love” for Ottilie is a result of her shift of same-sex affinities for Ottilie’s biological mother to Ottilie as her adoptive daughter. There is no detailed discussion of what this means in terms of affinities. Eduard simply suggests that Ottilie inherited the affinity that Charlotte had for her mother. Eduard indicates that the same-sex affinities Charlotte had for Ottilie’s mother shifted to Ottilie, and that implication would certainly coincide with the earlier expectations that they would come together on the estate in the same way that Eduard and the Captain came together as a same-sex pair. At the same time, one could read these passages about Charlotte and Ottilie’s love for each other as indicating that because Charlotte loved her mother, she then immediately shifted another kind of love to Ottilie and raised her as her adoptive/foster daughter. The novel does not clarify the relationship between Charlotte and Ottilie any further but simply implies at least both of these possible readings.69 It is also essential to note that whatever configuration of affinities has determined Charlotte’s love for Ottilie, her love for her is based on the affinities of her heart and soul and not on what Charlotte refers to as “passionless” biological connections. In fact, it is remarkable as 68 “Ich weiß doch auch nicht, versetzte Eduard, wie du Ottilien so hoch stellen kannst! Nur dadurch erkläre ich mir’s, daß sie deine Neigung zu ihrer Mutter geerbt hat.” MA, 9, 296. 69 Schreiber mentions Charlotte seeing in Ottilie the mother she was connected to, but does not address this in terms of affinities but as it relates to the significance of mothers in a bourgeois society. Jens Schreiber, “Die Zeichen der Liebe,” in Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften. Kritische Modelle und Diskursanalysen zum Mythos Literatur, ed. Norbert Bolz (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981), 285.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  37 well that in contrast to Charlotte and Ottilie’s open expressions of love, Charlotte and Luciane (her biological daughter) never exchange any comments about their love for one another and never express any connection to one another through memories of childhood moments, hugs, conversations, or words of love. There is no evidence in the text of Charlotte and Luciane’s connections to one another as mother and daughter other than the acknowledgment that they are biologically related. Another comparison between the lack of a biological mother’s love and the love of an adoptive mother is expressed quite openly in Goethe’s play Die Natürliche Tochter (The Natural Daughter). The secretary says to the tutor that Eugenie’s biological mother is dead and that she found Eugenie to be an abomination: “Now the mother is dead. The child was an abomination for the proud woman … She never accepted her and hardly saw her.”70 In addition, Eugenie compares her biological mother and the tutor who raised her directly: “And as my mother pulled herself early on into hiding and away from her child’s gazes, you offered to me an overflowing measure of caring motherly love.”71 Eugenie’s biological mother abandons her, while her adoptive mother offers her motherly care and love. In Der Groß-Cophta there is a brief reference to biological and adoptive motherly love, as well, when the Marquise says to her niece: “You have lost a good mother” and the niece responds: “Who I find again in you.”72 In this case, biological and adoptive love are highlighted as equal in goodness. In all of these examples, as in the Wahlverwandtschaften, affinities of the heart and soul, and not biological connections, are foregrounded as the foundation of relationships between mothers and children. In this context it is also interesting to note that Charlotte’s biological daughter, Luciane, focuses entirely on her connections to a rich man who will provide her with every material thing she desires and who is interested in her as a wife he can showcase: Charlotte’s daughter, Luciane, had hardly left the boarding school and entered the great world, had hardly seen herself surrounded in her aunt’s house by innumerable company, when her desire to please really pleased a young rich man who quickly felt a strong 70 “Nun ist die Mutter tot. Der stolzen Frau/War dieses Kind ein Greuel … Nie hat sie’s anerkannt und kaum gesehn.” MA, 6.1, 262. 71 “Und zog sich ins Verborgene meine Mutter,/Vor ihres Kindes Blicken früh zurück;/ So reichtest du ein überfließend Maß/ Besorgter Mutterliebe mir entgegen.” MA, 6.1, 308. 72 “Sie haben eine gute Mutter verloren.” MA, 4.1, 29 and “Die ich in Ihnen wieder finde.” MA, 4.1, 29.

38  Goethe’s Families of the Heart affinity to own/have her. His considerable assets gave him a right, to call the very best of every kind his own, and he seemed to lack nothing other than a perfect wife, because of whom everyone would envy him, as they did for all his other things.73 Moreover, despite the fact that Charlotte has experienced the fatherplanned arrangements of family and relationships of the most hateful kind, she does not intervene and try to change things for Luciane. Charlotte, in fact, spends a lot of time facilitating this important “family affair.”74 Indeed, Charlotte and Luciane work together to arrange this loveless family, seem to be in total control of Luciane’s marital destiny, and are on the verge of making the same mistake that Charlotte and Eduard’s fathers made as they arranged their first marriages that did not confirm relationships of the heart and soul, and essentially ignored their elective affinities. As presented in the novel, the adoptive/foster relationship between Charlotte and Ottilie is the closer one of love and they were clearly brought together by their elective affinities. These are not biological connections, but ones that are portrayed throughout the novel as affinities of the heart and soul. Intriguingly, the Wahlverwandtschaften highlights several additional instantaneous connections and affinities that form between adults and children who are not biologically related. Ottilie, like Charlotte, is portrayed as a positive adoptive mother. Her affinities for children first become apparent in her interactions with a young girl she refers to as Nanny. Ottilie first notices a small, lively young girl on Charlotte and Eduard’s estate and how friendly the girl is to her. The young girl is clearly drawn to Ottilie: “she drew herself to her, and went and ran with her.”75 Intriguingly, Ottilie does not connect as quickly to the girl as the girl does to her, and in the beginning Ottilie merely tolerates the presence of the child. But then she too “expressed affinities for the young girl and finally they did not separate from one another.”76 The two stay together until Ottilie becomes the mother for 73 “Charlottens Tochter, Luciane, war kaum aus der Pension in die große Welt getreten, hatte kaum in dem Hause ihrer Tante sich von zahlreicher Gesellschaft umgeben gesehen, als ihr Gefallenwollen wirklich Gefallen erregte, und ein junger, sehr reicher Mann gar bald eine heftige Neigung empfand, sie zu besitzen. Sein ansehnliches Vermögen gab ihm ein Recht, das Beste jeder Art sein eigen zu nennen, und es schien ihm nichts weiter abzugehen als eine vollkommene Frau, um die ihn die Welt so wie um das übrige zu beneiden hätte.” MA, 9, 418. 74 “Familienangelegenheit” MA, 9, 418. 75 “Zu ihr zog es sich, mit ihr ging und lief es” MA, 9, 392. 76 “dann faßte sie (Ottilie) selbst Neigung zu ihm (the young girl); endlich trennten sie sich nicht mehr” MA, 9, 392.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  39 Eduard’s and Charlotte’s baby. Then Nanny recedes from view and rejoins her biological family: “Nanny had defiantly distanced herself for some time, being jealous of the boy to whom her mistress seemed to be turning all of her affinities, and had returned to her parents.”77 Nanny clearly perceives Ottilie as shifting her affinities to Otto and leaves her. She later returns suddenly right after the death of baby Otto and re-attaches herself to Ottilie as she had originally done: The passionate girl (Nanny) had found her way back to Ottilie right after the death of the child and hung on her as before through nature and affinity. Yes, she appeared to want to bring back that which had been missed through entertaining volubility …78 Intriguingly, Nanny and Ottilie’s original connection to one another was disrupted by the addition of baby Otto and then reestablished right after his death. Once again, the Wahlverwandtschaften highlights the shifts in affinities that can occur when a new person is added to the social and/or family mix. What is particularly interesting here is the way in which Ottilie’s adoptive mother affinities and her role as a mother shifts from one child to another and back again. Moreover, it is Nanny who is actively affecting her own and Ottilie’s affinities. Clearly the relationships between children and parents (in this case adoptive ones) also manifest the shifting of affinities that Eduard, Charlotte, and the Captain envisioned in their analyses of elective affinities and how they both bring people together and split them apart. Ottilie’s status as an adoptive mother becomes most obvious after baby Otto is born. The men have left the estate, so Eduard is not present when his son is born. Charlotte and Ottilie are living together on the estate, they have moved into a new house together, and Ottilie has assumed the principal care for the child: “She (Ottilie) had splendidly assumed the care for the child, for whom she could become ever more so the direct caregiver.”79 Intriguingly, Charlotte is not described as the principal caregiver for her own biological child. The only reference to her feelings for her baby comes after a description of her daily activities that pull her away from her child. Rather than caring for Otto, she is 77 “Nanny hatte sich seit einiger Zeit, eifersüchtig auf den Knaben, dem ihre Herrin alle Neigung zuzuwenden schien, trotzig von ihr entfernt und war zu ihren Eltern zurückgekehrt” MA, 9, 485. 78 “Das leidenschaftliche Mädchen (Nanny) hatte sich gleich nach dem Tode des Kindes wieder an Ottilien zurückgefunden und hing nun an ihr wie sonst durch Natur und Neigung; ja sie schien, durch unterhaltende Redseligkeit, das bisher Versäumte wieder nachbringen … zu wollen.” MA, 9, 509. 79 “Sie (Ottilie) hatte vorzüglich die Sorge für das Kind übernommen, dessen unmittelbare Pflegerin sie um so mehr werden konnte” MA, 9, 465.

40  Goethe’s Families of the Heart busy visiting her neighbors. The text does state, however, that when Charlotte was at home “she was enlivened by the sight of the child; it was certainly worthy of every love and every care.”80 This is the only reference to Charlotte’s feelings for baby Otto and there is no reference to her actually caring for her son. In this context, it is also important to recall Eduard’s insistence that their son splits Charlotte and Eduard apart: “He (Otto) separates me from my wife and separates my wife from me, when he should have bound us together.”81 Moreover, neither Charlotte nor Eduard are described as willing or interested in parenting their son, and they are not depicted in the novel as loving him or caring for him. Ottilie, in contrast, is the motherly figure who takes care of the baby and is described as carrying the baby around during the whole day: “so she (Ottilie) carried him (Otto) out preferably herself, and carried the sleeping unconscious one between flowers and blossoms …”82 and: “When Charlotte left, Ottilie remained with the child.”83 Ottilie is principally the mother for baby Otto. Furthermore, Ottilie is the true mother for Otto—she is another kind of mother—she is not the largely absent mother. Ottilie is presented here as the caring adoptive mother of baby Otto. Schreiber refers to Ottilie as another kind of mother and then asserts that this kind of mother is only an idea born in men’s heads.84 I would argue that looking at the larger context of affinities in the novel reveals that Ottilie is, in fact, another kind of mother—a loving, adoptive mother who cares for Otto more than Charlotte and Eduard do. Of course, the Wahlverwandtschaften complicates this picture of Ottilie’s affinities for baby Otto by mentioning that this is a unique relatedness that is the kind of mothering and loving that women shift to the children of men whom they love: Through this unique relatedness and perhaps led also even more through the beautiful feelings of women, which enfolds the child of a beloved man—also of another woman—with affectionate affinity, Ottilie became so much as a mother for the growing being, or even more a different kind of mother.85 80 “Zu Hause belebte sie der Anblick des Kindes: es war gewiß jeder Liebe, jeder Sorgfalt wert.” MA, 9, 485. 81 “es (Otto) trennt mich von meiner Gattin und meine Gattin von mir, wie es uns hätte verbinden sollen.” MA, 9, 495. 82 “so trug sie (Ottilie) es am liebsten selbst heraus, trug das schlafende unbewußte zwischen Blumen und Blüten …” MA, 9, 465. 83 “Entfernte sich Charlotte, so blieb Ottilie mit dem Kinde” MA, 9, 485. 84 Schreiber, “Die Zeichen,” 285–6. 85 “Durch diese sonderbare Verwandschaft und vielleicht noch mehr durch das

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  41 The relatedness that Ottilie perceives, and that connects her to baby Otto, is possible precisely because she loves Eduard and even though the baby is not her biological son, she is able to love Eduard’s child. She is drawn to this child because he is Eduard’s baby. This is also intriguing in the context of Charlotte’s love for Ottilie. We recall that, according to Eduard, Ottilie had inherited Charlotte’s love for her mother. Both Ottilie and Charlotte are able to love a child who is not their biological child because they loved one of the child’s parents and shifted their affinities to the child. The juxtaposition of biological and adoptive mothers is a recurring theme in the Wahlverwandtschaften. As we have seen, the feelings of love expressed by adoptive mothers is consistently stronger and more direct than that expressed by biological ones. Charlotte expresses almost no affinities for Luciane, but the text does refer several times to her love for Ottilie. Ottilie, likewise, is clearly drawn to Nanny and Otto as a mother—“another kind of mother”—who cares for them and connects with them through strong affinities. In this context, it is also important to consider Ottilie’s portrayal in the novel of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Charlotte’s response to that performance. Ottilie represents, in this scene, the mother of God with her child, Jesus. As this picture comes together, Charlotte’s emotional reaction is very strong: “The beautiful picture delighted Charlotte, indeed the child affected her the most, her eyes streamed with tears and she pictured to herself in the most lively way, that she hoped to have a similar, beloved creation on her lap soon.”86 Here, Charlotte is clearly moved by the child, is delighted, and envisions herself as a mother like mother Mary, and is hoping for a similar child for herself. It is also important to note that her feelings of affinity and love are stimulated by a child who is not her own. She connects with the child depicted here and then expresses her hopes for a similar child and connection once baby Otto is born. The description of Charlotte’s emotional response to the baby Jesus, with tears streaming down her face, foregrounds the incredibly strong nature of her affinities for a non-biological child.87 schöne Gefühl der Frauen geleitet, welche das Kind eines geliebten Mannes auch von einer Andern mit zärtlicher Neigung umfangen, ward Ottilie dem heranwachsenden Geschöpf so viel als eine Mutter, oder vielmehr eine andre Art von Mutter.” MA, 9, 485. 86 “Charlotte erfreute das schöne Gebilde, doch wirkte hauptsächlich das Kind auf sie. Ihre Augen strömten von Tränen und sie stellte sich auf das lebhafteste vor, daß sie ein ähnliches, liebes Geschöpf bald auf ihrem Schoße zu hoffen habe.” MA, 9, 445. 87 von Mücke refers to Charlotte in this scene and maintains that she “can only see her own future maternal role.” As we have seen, Charlotte is incredibly and strongly drawn to the image of an “adoptive child” while looking at

42  Goethe’s Families of the Heart While she hopes her feelings for her biological son will be similar, there is no doubt about her elective, adoptive affinities as she looks at baby Jesus. Charlotte’s intense reaction to the baby represented in this scene is also interesting in contrast to her later, relatively distant relationship to Otto after his birth. At the same time, it is also interesting that Ottilie is representing baby Jesus’s biological mother in this scene and there are no references to her feelings either for mother Mary or for baby Jesus.88 In contrast, Charlotte expresses her strong adoptive mother’s feelings. The split between the two types of mothers and their elective affinities, or lack of them, comes to the fore in this reenactment of Mary and her baby Jesus. As we shall see in Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre, the family of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus is a model family drawn together by elective affinities. Once again, biological connections are not presented as an essential foundation for a loving family and elective affinities are foregrounded as those of the heart and soul, and as the essential feelings that draw parents to the children, whom they love, and for whom they care. Throughout the Wahlverwandtschaften Goethe complicates the scientific notion of the elective affinities and stretches far beyond the normative conceptions of relationships during his time. He portrays heterosexual relationships, same-sex relationships, and both biological and adoptive family connections. His novel also clearly criticizes fathers’ plans for marriage and families based solely on economic wealth, biological connections, and inheritance. As we shall see, throughout Goethe’s literary production marriages typically controlled by fathers (and sometimes by mothers, uncles, sisters and aunts, etc.) are often not based on love, preclude love, and subvert elective affinities. Indeed, Die Wahlverwandtschaften ends with the destruction this presentation of Mary and Jesus. Dorothea von Mücke, “The Power of Images in Goethe’s Elective Affinities,” Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture 40 (2011): 67. 88 Kittler suggests that Ottilie is in this scene: “so much as a mother” (so viel als eine Mutter). Wolf Kittler, “Ottilie Hauptmann,” in Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften. Kritische Modelle und Diskursanalysen zum Mythos Literatur, ed. Norbert Bolz, (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981): 266. Dye refers to this scene and suggests that Ottilie’s portrayal of the Virgin Mary “brings out her essential but unrealized maternity.” Ellis Dye, “Goethe’s Die Wahlverwandtschaften: Romantic Metafiction,” Goethe Yearbook 8 (1996): 81. In contrast, Puszkar maintains that Ottilie experiences a tension between her own identity and the one represented. Norbert Puszkar, “Frauen und Bilder: Luciane und Ottilie,” Neophilologus 73 (1989): 399. Benbow notes that Ottilie “becomes aware of a gulf between herself and the maternal ideal as which she is cast.” Heather Merle Benbow, “Goethe’s Die Wahlverwandtschaften and the Problem of Feminine Orality,” in Body Dialectics in the Age of Goethe, ed. Marianne Henn and Holger A. Pausch, (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003), 332.

Same-Sex, Nonexclusive, and Adoptive Affinities  43 of several relationships and multiple tragic deaths as the characters ultimately fail to acknowledge their affinities and to act on them. They adhere to the social mandates which conflict with their affinities for one another. Rather than acting in accord with their affinities, Charlotte, Eduard, Ottilie, and the Captain condemn themselves to lives of misery that Eduard and Ottilie only escape through death. The Wahlverwandtschaften outlines the various affinities and their significance, but also foregrounds the tragedies that result when persons deny their feelings. Despite these tragedies, it is especially crucial to note, in the context of Goethe’s literary production in general, that he outlines scientifically and socially in Die Wahlverwandtschaften how affinities are formed and how they can shift. Ultimately, he redefines elective affinities as they apply to human beings and their social and familial interactions. As he presents the elective affinities, they are all present at all times and they may shift and change with the addition of new persons or groups of persons. Essentially, Goethe outlines throughout the novel that the fundamental foundation of all love relationships are nonexclusive and person-based affinities. All affinities are possible, they coexist within all persons, and they shift when new persons are added to the social mix. In addition, we also discovered that Goethe’s outline of the elective affinities also included not just affinities between women and men and men and men, but between women and women and women and children. Moreover, the strongest relationships throughout the novel between women and children were consistently those between adoptive mothers and the children for whom they were caring. The elective affinities as presented in the Wahlverwandtschaften are incredibly complex, but also amazingly open to all forms of love. The crucial emphasis throughout the Wahlverwandtschaften is on the love and affinities that draw people together. All types of love are accepted and love is foregrounded as the essential foundation of all relationships: whether biological, heterosexual, same-sex, nonexclusive, and/ or adoptive.89 Moreover, Goethe’s conception of the fluidity of all elective affinities, and of fundamental nonexclusive attractions, is manifest throughout his works. Even works he wrote much earlier, such as Stella (1776) and Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre (1795), foreground fluid elective affinities that challenge preconceived notions of fundamentally 89 Tantillo, “Polarity and Productivity,” 310, maintains that in the Wahlverwandtschaften Goethe does not suggest that he is a proponent of the nuclear family. I would qualify that with the observation that he is critical of families not based on love throughout his works, but that he also highlights families of the heart as a wonderful alternative.

44  Goethe’s Families of the Heart heterosexual, biological, and father-controlled families. Indeed, it is Goethe’s continual return to radical representations of elective affinities throughout Die Wahlverwandtschaften, Stella, Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre, and Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre that provides a broad and revolutionary understanding of relationships and families. In this context it is important to note that, as critics have often pointed out, Die Wahlverwandtschaften was originally intended by Goethe to be one of the novellas in the Wanderjahre, underscoring yet another connection between these two texts. Tantillo also points out that the Wahlverwandtschaften was expected by some of Goethe’s contemporaries to be a sequel to the Lehrjahre.90 My focus in this study is on outlining the overarching narratives and representations these texts provide in outlining new conceptions of family, criticisms of maledominated and socially and economically determined families, and the foregrounding of all the possible affinities that Goethe highlights to include: same-sex, adoptive, and nonexclusive love relationships. In addition, it is also important to recognize that Goethe addresses all of these elective affinities as early as 1776 in Stella. A Play for Lovers. Indeed, in Stella, the Lehrjahre, and the Wanderjahre we will also discover more explicit representations of the elective affinities outlined in Die Wahlverwandtschaften. Finally, it is also crucial to understand each of these texts in conversation with one another, as they highlight all possible elective affinities and families of the heart.

90 Astrida Orle Tantillo, Goethe’s Elective Affinities and the Critics (Rochester: Camden House, 2001), 1.

Two  Same-Sex Affinities Between Women and Family Redefinitions in Goethe’s Stella Plays.

In 1776, well before Goethe wrote Die Wahlverwandtschaften, he composed the play Stella. A Play for Lovers in which the affinities between the two main female characters, Stella and Cezilie, are portrayed as those of the heart and soul and as affinities that draw them together as a loving couple. While Stella also foregrounds the kinds of elective affinities that Goethe outlined in detail in the Wahlverwandtschaften, the main focus in the play is not on all of the possible affinities but is more specifically the loving relationship between the women, their expressions of love for one another and, ultimately, their creation of a family based on their same-sex affinities/love. In this sense, Stella and Cezilie, like Charlotte in the Wahlverwandtschaften, emphasize the unifying effects of their elective affinities for one another. In contrast, the main male character, Fernando, is portrayed as constantly breaking his relationships with women apart and enacts the kind of splitting of affinities that typically fascinate Eduard. While the Wahlverwandtschaften indicates clearly that elective affinities can draw women into same-sex relations, in Stella overt expressions of elective affinities, desire, and love between women forming same-sex relationships are openly displayed in the text. Previous scholarship addressing Stella. A Play for Lovers has focused on the polygamous relationship between Stella, Cezilie, and Fernando portrayed at the end of the play as a male fantasy, on Fernando’s disturbingly self-centered desires, on the early audiences’ rejections of the final polygamous family configuration, and on Goethe’s later revision of the end of the play to make it more acceptable for his contemporaries. In contrast, no attention has been given to the women’s expressions of affinities for each other and Cezilie’s careful manipulations of Fernando’s fantasies in order for her and Stella to

46  Goethe’s Families of the Heart remain together. In 1806 Goethe re-wrote the conclusion of the play and changed the title, transforming the play into a tragedy with the new title: Stella. A Tragedy. In the Münchner Ausgabe, both full texts and all of the changes Goethe made for the 1806 version can be traced.1 While scholars have often focused on the change in the endings of the play, in this chapter I will highlight not only the change in endings but also how the same-sex affinities of the female characters are foregrounded in both versions of Stella. Indeed, in Goethe’s Stella the women, Stella and Cezilie, create a loving family. Moreover, the women connect with each other and foster and adopt girls in need of family. In every case, the women’s expressions of their affinities draw them together with each other and with the numerous girls they foster and love. At the same time, both Stella and Cezilie are drawn by their affinities to Fernando as well, but a careful review of the expressions of love and attraction in the play reveals that the women’s connections to Fernando are of importance to them primarily because the appearance of their love for Fernando will ensure that their essential same-sex and loving affinities for each other are maintained in a society that assumes families and relationships are heterosexual and consist of men and women and their biological children. As in the Wahlverwandtschaften, Cezilie and Stella’s elective affinities shift and are clearly nonexclusive and person-based, but, in addition, they ultimately find their connections to one another to be the most compelling and fulfilling. It is important to note that in both versions of Stella, Cezilie and Stella create a loving family, while Fernando is portrayed as a confused, desire-driven, and self-centered man who inevitably and constantly breaks relationships and families apart. Cezilie and Stella draw families together in new configurations. They openly and directly express love for each other and for the girls they foster and adopt. Ultimately, Stella and Cezilie are able to cement their same-sex relationship under the cloak of a group family with Fernando. Cezilie plays on Fernando’s self-centered desires and convinces him to have them both as wives, so that she and Stella will never lose each other and can stay together as parents and lovers. In order to outline the love-based dynamics of Stella. A Play for Lovers, it is essential to consider the play within the context of Goethe’s conceptions of the elective affinities as outlined in Die Wahlverwandtschaften.2 1

Stella. A Play for Lovers (Stella. Ein Schauspiel für Liebende, MA, 1.2, 37–77) and Stella. A Tragedy (Stella. Ein Trauerspiel, MA, 6.1, 462–505). 2 Dye maintains that Stella prefigures the Wahlverwandtschaften: “In supplanting conventional with unconventional social arrangements, including the substitution of a polyamorous ménage à trois for monogamous marriage” and

Same-Sex Affinities Between Women and Family Redefinitions  47 First and foremost, it will be essential to recall here that the elective affinities as Goethe conceives of them are constantly shifting, and that any individual’s elective affinities are not solely either heterosexual or directed to the same-sex but can be either/or both depending upon the social mix. Those drawn together through elective affinities experience their love, connection, and mutual understanding immediately and completely in their first encounters. Moreover, as was clear in the analysis of the elective affinities in any particular social mix, heterosexual or same-sex affinities can be stronger and more compelling for the individual drawn to one or more of the other persons they encounter. In Stella. A Play for Lovers, shifting desires propel the women toward a loving relationship with each other, toward and away from Fernando, and drive Fernando back and forth between the two women. While Charlotte argued that elective affinities are most interesting when they bring people together, in Stella, the women do not just simply state that unity is their goal, they actually achieve unity with one another. Similarly, while Eduard insisted that the splitting of affinities was more interesting, Fernando does not say that, but he does split his affinities every time he meets a new woman. With these analyses in mind, it makes sense to focus specifically on how the spontaneous elective affinities are outlined in Stella. A Play for Lovers, both in terms of how Fernando undoes them and how Cezilie and Stella connect with each other and with children/girls through their elective affinities. I will focus first on the effects of Fernando’s art of splitting of affinities on Stella and Cezilie and on his spontaneous splitting of affinities when he encounters any new persons. After that I will outline Cezilie’s and Stella’s emotional confusion when Fernando suddenly reappears in their lives. Then I will highlight how the women connect with girls and form adoptive families. The chapter will end with a detailed outline of Stella’s and Cezilie’s expressions of their love also suggests that Stella is a rebellious Storm and Stress play. Ellis Dye, “Substitution, Self-Blame, and Self-Deception in Goethe’s Stella: Ein Schauspiel für Liebende,” Goethe Yearbook 12 (2004): 45. Hess highlights throughout his article correspondences between the kinds of characters in Stella and Die Wahlverwandtschaften. Günter Hess, “Stella und Die Wahlverwandtschaften,” Seminar VI, No. 3 (1970). See also Castle who states in passing that Goethe gives the Fernando conflict a new form in the Wahlverwandtschaften. Eduard Castle, “Stella. Ein Schauspiel für Liebende,” Jahrbuch des Wiener Goethe-Vereins 73 (1969): 144. Pikulik suggests that the themes of Stella prefigure those of the Wahlverwandtschaften. Lothar Pikulik,“Stella. Ein Schauspiel für Liebende,” in: Goethes Dramen. Neue Interpretationen, ed. Walter Hinderer, (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1980), 89. These scholars do not address the women’s affinities, or their radical reconfigurations of relationships and families. And, actually, Stella is much bolder than the Wahlverwandtschaften in its outline of same-sex affinities between women.

48  Goethe’s Families of the Heart for one another and their masked construction of their own same-sex relationship and family. Cezilie and Stella are clearly conscious of, and driven by, their elective affinities throughout the play. As the women discuss their former relationships with Fernando, it is clear that their elective affinities drew them instantaneously to him. Stella clearly loved Fernando “over everything”3 and Cezilie describes her immediate love for Fernando as well: Oh I saw the man! I saw him! Upon whom I placed all of my hopes in the first days of our acquaintance. The liveliness of his spirit appeared to be bound to such a trueness of heart, that I opened mine quickly and completely to him, that I gave him my friendship and oh how quickly thereafter my love … How he flew from the whirl of business and diversions back to me! And how I supported myself in sad hours on his chest!4 For Cezilie and Stella, however, those days with Fernando are now over. As Cezilie so aptly expresses it, Fernando has led her along a “tolerable way, in order to leave me alone in a barren, dreadful desert.”5 As for Stella, Fernando left her three years ago and one “neither hears nor sees anything of him.”6 Fernando is causing the splitting that Eduard thought so interesting and that Charlotte rejected in favor of unifying. What we see here in more detail is the suffering that the women experience when Fernando leaves them for a new woman he feels himself drawn to. Stella and Cezilie have felt the consequences of being abandoned by Fernando and they openly express how their feelings for him led them astray and how he ultimately brought them into an empty, barren desert existence without love. Furthermore, Fernando asserts his impulse to split and separate his affinities, rather than bring them together, whenever he thinks of Stella and Cezilie. Contemplating returning to Stella he remarks: “And she? She will be as she was. Yes, Stella, my heart tells me you have not 3 “über alles,” MA, 1.2, 41. 4 “Ach ich sah den Mann! Ich sah ihn! auf den ich in den ersten Tagen unserer Bekanntschaft all meine Hoffnungen niederlegte. Die Lebhaftigkeit seines Geistes schien mit solch einer Treue des Herzens verbunden zu sein, daß ich ihm das meinige gar bald öffnete, daß ich ihm meine Freundschaft, und ach, wie schnell darauf meine Liebe gab … Wie floh er aus dem Wirbel der Geschäfte und Zerstreuungen wieder zu mir! und wie unterstützt ich mich in trüben Stunden an seiner Brust!” MA, 1.2, 61. 5 “leidlichen Weg, um mich in einer oden, fürchterlichen Wüste allein zu lassen.” MA, 1.2, 61. 6 “und hört und sieht man nichts von ihm.” MA, 1.2, 41.

Same-Sex Affinities Between Women and Family Redefinitions  49 changed …”7 He then shifts to thoughts of Cezilie: “And when you [Cezilie] float around me, dear shadow of my unfortunate wife, forgive me. Leave me! You are gone, so let me forget you …”8 Of course, he also acknowledges to Cezilie that Stella was not enough to keep him from remembering her: “I found no peace, no joy here in the arms of the angel [Stella]. Everything reminded me of you [Cezilie], of your daughter, of my Luzie.”9 Fernando is a master in the art of splitting his affinities and denying his connections. He even refers in this scene to their daughter first as her daughter and then corrects himself with my Luzie. He does not describe Luzie as “our daughter” when talking to Cezilie, but continues splitting their relationships even further by referring to her as either Cezilie’s or his, but not both together. He also continues to focus on his need for Stella and Cezilie to be thoroughly obsessed with him.10 Fernando is completely self-centered and loves, above all, being loved by women. As he returns to Stella three years after abandoning her, he thinks of the “scene” and how he missed it and how he hopes Stella has been thinking only about him the whole time: “So am I seeing you again? Heavenly view! Am I seeing you again! The scene of all of my bliss! … Note Fernando the convent-like look of her home. How it flatters your hopes! And should in her loneliness, Fernando have been her thought, her preoccupation?”11 Fernando is not emphasizing his feelings, love, and affinities for Stella, but how much he misses the scene and hopes that Stella has been thinking only of him during her abandonment. He underscores 7 8

9

10

11

“Und sie? Sie wird sein wie sie war. Ja, Stella, du hast dich nicht verändert, das sagt mir mein Herz.” MA, 1.2, 44. “Und wenn du (Cezilie) um mich schwebst, teurer Schatten meines unglücklichen Weibes, vergib mir, verlaß mich! Du bist dahin; so laß mich dich vergessen …” MA, 1.2, 44. “Ich fand sogar in den Armen des Engels (Stellas) hier, keine Ruhe, keine Freuden; alles erinnerte mich an dich (Cezilie), an deine Tochter, an meine Luzie.” MA, 1.2, 63. Borchmeyer refers to Fernando as one of Goethe’s heroes of unstable feelings and stresses how the women regard him as innocent. Dieter Borchmeyer, “Schwankung des Herzens und Liebe im Triangel: Goethe und die Erotik der Empfindsamkeit,” in Codierungen der Liebe in der Kunstperiode, ed. Walter Hinderer (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1997), 69, 74, 75. As we will see later, Cezilie actually refers to Fernando’s lack of blame and/or innocence in order to manipulate him with his own fantasies. “So seh’ ich dich wieder? Himmlischer Anblick! So seh ich dich wieder! Den Schauplatz all meiner Glückseligkeit! … Merk dir’s Fernando, das klösterliche Ansehn ihrer Wohnung, wie schmeichelt es deinen Hoffnungen! Und sollte, in ihrer Einsamkeit, Fernando ihr Gedanke, ihre Beschäftigung sein?” MA, 1.2, 43–4.

50  Goethe’s Families of the Heart this self-obsession further when he meets Stella again and says: “And I, when I fathom your blue, sweet eye and lose myself as I delve into it, then I believe that the whole time that I was away, no other image lived in there other than my own.”12 Even though Fernando has now just returned to Stella and Cezilie physically, emotionally he is still splitting his affinities and abandoning whichever one of them isn’t with him at the moment.13 Fernando’s affinity splitting becomes even more disturbing when he meets his daughter, Luzie, without knowing who she is. The Innkeeper sets up lunch for them and Fernando immediately refers to it as a “tête-à-tête.”14 Luzie responds to his comment insisting on distance, and emphasizing the table between them that will keep them apart. Luzie goes on to tell Fernando that she will be staying now with Stella. Fernando’s immediate response to Luzie’s plan to be with Stella is: “It occurs to me, that you should be able to find a man who would be more entertaining than the lady Baroness.”15 Fernando does not say that this man is himself, but given his self-obsession up to this point, it is most likely that he is referring to himself. As Detering points out, Goethe brings Fernando to the edge of incest when he lets the father flirt with his daughter.16 I would state more directly that Fernando may not know that he is flirting with his daughter, but this encounter highlights the potential dangers of Fernando’s shifting of affinities whenever he meets a new woman and, in this case, a woman he does not know is his daughter. In addition, Fernando is supposedly returning to Stella and he is flirting with the first new woman he encounters. Equally important in this scene are Luzie’s continual rejections of his advances. Right after Fernando’s suggestion that she might find a man more interesting than the Baroness, Luzie doesn’t accept Fernando’s come on: “I am not interested in that” and tells Fernando directly that he is like all men, that is, obsessed with himself: “You are like all men … you men consider yourselves 12 “Und ich, wenn ich in dein blaues, süßes Aug dringe, und drinne mich mit Forschen verliere; so mein ich, die ganze Zeit meines Wegseins, hätte kein ander Bild drinne gewohnt, als das meine.” MA, 1.2, 55–6. 13 Castle, “Stella,” 135, claims that Fernando loves both Cezilie and Stella sincerely. As we shall see, Fernando is dishonest and shifting his affinities throughout the play. 14 MA, 1.2, 46. 15 “Mich dünkt, Ihnen sollte es nicht fehlen, einen Gesellschafter zu finden, der noch unterhaltender wäre, als die Frau Baronesse.” MA, 1.2, 46. 16 Heinrich Detering,“Die aufgeklärte Unvernunft: Stella, Goeze, Lessing und das Drama der Liebe” in Weltentwürfe in Literatur und Medien, phantastische Wirklichkeiten und realistische Imagination, eds. Hans Krah and Claus-Michael Ort (Kiel: Ludwig, 2002), 41.

Same-Sex Affinities Between Women and Family Redefinitions  51 indispensable; and I know you are not. I grew up without men.” Luzie then mentions how her father (Fernando) “was never very loving to me.”17 Luzie underscores how men, including her father, think only of themselves and do little for her. Fernando’s interactions with his daughter foreground how self-obsessed he is, how little love he has for the women he shifts between and comes on to, how little he cared for his daughter, and how quickly he shifts his affinities to any new woman he encounters. When Luzie leaves Fernando after their first encounter, his friend the Steward arrives. He is described as Fernando’s accomplice in his follies, and in the 1776 version of the play the Steward comes to Fernando “falling at his feet and embracing his knee.” In the 1806 version Goethe makes the encounter much more emotional and reflective of his affinities by changing the Steward’s falling and hugging to his “kissing his (Fernando’s) hands.”18 In both versions, the men are immediately drawn to one another and the Steward expresses his affinities, even more obviously in the 1806 version. The Steward is clearly drawn to Fernando in both versions of the play and emphasizes this by saying: “Are you there again? … Allow me! Allow me! O dear man!”19 The Steward’s affinities for Fernando become more and more obvious as he expresses his hope that Fernando will stay. In the 1776 version the Steward asks Fernando: “Will you stay now?” In the 1806 version he inquires even more pointedly: “Will you stay with us now?”20 The Steward wants to know if Fernando is staying with “us” including in “us” himself and not just one woman or both of them. And in the 1806 version, Goethe adds that Fernando remembers how he and the Steward both pursued Cezilie: “I still remember everything exactly: how we found Cäcilie so lovable, how we pushed ourselves on her, and couldn’t unleash our youthful freedom fast enough.”21 That, according to Fernando, was indeed, a beautiful, happy time and the Steward agrees, recalling how Cäcilie brought them both a daughter: 17 Luzie: “Mir ist nicht drum zu tun.” MA, 1.2, 46; “Sie sind wie alle Männer” … “Ihr Herren dünkt euch unentbehrlich; und ich weiß nicht; ich bin doch groß geworden ohne Männer.” MA, 1.2, 46; “mir wenig zu Liebs getan” MA, 1.2, 47. 18 1776: “ihm zu Füßen fallend, und seine Knie umfassend” MA, 1.2, 57, and 1806: “ihm die Hände küssend” MA, 6.1, 482. 19 “Sie sind wieder da? … Lassen Sie mich! Lassen Sie mich! O gnädiger Herr!” MA, 1.2, 57. 20 1776: “Bleiben Sie denn nun jetzt?” MA, 1.2, 58, and in 1806: “Werden Sie uns nun bleiben?” bold mine, MA, 6.1, 483. 21 “Ich erinnere mich noch an alles genau: wie wir Cäcilien so liebenswürdig fanden, uns ihr aufdrangen, unsere jugendliche Freiheit nicht geschwind genug los werden konnten.” bold mine, MA, 6.1, 483. In the 1806 version of the play Cezilie’s name is changed to Cäcilie.

52  Goethe’s Families of the Heart “How she brought us a joyful, lively little daughter …”22 The implication here is that Luzie is both Fernando’s and the Steward’s daughter, not just Fernando’s. The 1806 version highlights clearly the affinities drawing Fernando and the Steward together and the affinities they share for Cäcilie. Goethe modified the 1776 version in 1806 and made these shared affinities, love relationships, and a “shared” child much more obvious. In both versions of the play, Fernando becomes clearly uncomfortable with the Steward’s outline of their shared relationship to Cezilie and ends the conversation with the comment: “Enough for now!” and the Steward makes the final comment: “Just stay! and then everything will be good!”23 Intriguingly, in this conversation Fernando and the Steward illustrate their common pursuit of Cezilie and their sharing of affinities for her, but also their connections to each other. The Steward clearly states his desire for Fernando to stay with Stella, Cezilie, and him. Fernando, once again, is the agent of splitting and dividing and he is less open about his affinities than the Steward. He ends their conversation, and does not let the suggestions of any renewed, group, heterosexual, and/or possibly same-sex affinities continue. As in each of his relationships with women and men, Fernando is clearly incapable of any long-term connections. His affinities fade and shift continuously. The women who have been abandoned by Fernando also struggle with their feelings, recognizing that they loved him years ago and, on the other hand, that they are confused about him. As Cezilie says: “Men! Men!” and Stella replies: “They make us happy and miserable!”24 When encountering Fernando again Stella exclaims: “He is back again! I do not trust my senses” and as she tries to understand the consequences of his return she becomes more confused: “I have you again!—I do not recognize myself, I do not understand myself! Fundamentally, what does it mean?”25 This confusion does not dissipate as Stella continues to interact with Fernando. She ultimately expresses her total uncertainty about him: “He is there again! …To him! Next to him—to live with him in constant strength! … If only he would come! Abandoned right away! Do I have him again? Is he there?”26 Here Stella outlines in nuce 22 “Wie sie uns ein munteres, lebhaftes Töchterchen brachte …” bold mine, MA, 6.1, 483. 23 Fernando: “So weit vor diesmal!” MA, 1.2, 58; MA, 6.1, 484, and Steward: “Bleiben Sie nur! dann ist alles gut!” MA, 1.2, 59; MA, 6.1, 484. 24 Cezilie: “Männer! Männer!” and Stella: “Sie machen uns glücklich und elend!” MA, 1.2, 50. 25 “Er ist wieder da! Ich traue meinen Sinnen nicht.” MA, 1.2, 54, and “Ich habe dich wieder!—Ich kenne mich nicht, ich verstehe mich nicht! Im Grunde, was tut’s?” MA, 1.2, 55. 26 “Er ist wieder da! … Zu ihm—bei ihm—mit ihm in bleibender Kraft wohnen

Same-Sex Affinities Between Women and Family Redefinitions  53 the problem with Fernando. He is there again, she is drawn to him, but Stella is also confused about whether she really has him again or if he is even “there” for her. Cezilie is also confused about Fernando and tells him that something is missing in her relationships to men: I do not know what tied men to me; a great number of them wanted to please me. For only a few did I feel friendship, affinity, but there was none with whom I had believed, I could spend my life. And so the happy days of rose-colored diversions passed by, where one such day offered its friendly hand to the next one. But, indeed something was missing for me—27 Cezilie clearly intuits that her relationships to men lacked something vital, something the men weren’t giving her, and something she may have thought at that time that Fernando could provide. And if Fernando is representative of men in the play’s universe, that essential lack is certainly that of love and a lasting unity. Intriguingly, Stella also provides a glimpse into how her relationship with Fernando cut her off from her closest girlfriend, Sara. She recounts how both Sara and Fernando sought her out: How you (Fernando and Sara) searched for me, how you held my girlfriend’s hand, a friend you met before me, how you brushed through the bosquet and she yelled: Stella!—and you yelled: Stella! Stella!—I had hardly heard you speak, and recognized your voice. And how you both came up to me, and you took my hand! Who was more confused, me or you?28 Both Sara and Fernando search for, and call out for, Stella, and as the three of them come together, Stella isn’t sure who was more confused: … Käm’ er nur!—Gleich verlassen! Hab’ ich ihn denn wieder?—Ist er da?” MA, 1.2, 65. 27 “Ich weiß nicht was die Männer an mich fesselte, eine große Anzahl wünschte mir gefällig zu sein. Für wenige fühlte ich Freundschaft, Neigung, doch keiner war, mit dem ich geglaubt hätte mein Leben zubringen zu können, und so vergingen die glücklichen Tage der rosenfarbenen Zerstreuungen, wo so ein Tag dem andern freundlich die Hand bietet. Und doch fehlte mir etwas—” MA, 1.2, 60. 28 “wie ihr (Fernando and Sara) mich suchtet, wie du an der Hand meiner Freundin, die du vor mir kennen lerntest, durchs Bosket streiftest, und sie rief: Stella! und du riefst: Stella! Stella!—ich hatte dich kaum reden gehört, und erkannte deine Stimme, und wie ihr auf mich traft, und du meine Hand nahmst! Wer war konfuser, ich oder du?” MA, 1.2, 67.

54  Goethe’s Families of the Heart her or Fernando. Who should they connect to? Each other? Sara? Or all three of them together? The text does not make that clear, but certainly alludes to all of these possibilities. Stella then admits that in hindsight she feels that the threesome would have been the best choice: “Sara was a good human being, she cried a lot over me, that I was so sick, so love-sick. I would have liked to have taken her with me …”29 Both Cezilie and Stella express their confusion about Fernando and Stella alludes to the loss of connection to other women that he forces onto them. A similar description of women connected to one another through affinities and then split apart by men is described in Goethe’s Unterhaltungen Deutscher Ausgewanderten. The Baroness’s girlfriend from her youth comes to visit her and we are told that the Baroness feels heaven in the arms of her girlfriend and that “the first affinities of young years”30 led them to keep in contact. But shortly thereafter we are told that the men in their lives, Karl and the privy counselor, start to argue and the privy counselor decides to leave and take the Baroness’s girlfriend with him. The women respond to this situation with clear expressions of their affinities for one another: “the young ladies cried and kissed each other and were extremely anguished, that they should be so quickly and unexpectedly separated from one another.”31 Like the women in Stella, the Baroness and her girlfriend are clearly very closely drawn together by their affinities and love for one another, and are in deep anguish when the men in their lives suddenly and unexpectedly split them apart. Intriguingly, in contrast to the women in the Unterhaltungen Deutscher Ausgewanderten and to Stella and Cezilie at this point in the play, Luzie seems to represent a new generation, or perhaps a clearer stance, when she suggests that Cezilie (and this would apply to Stella as well) ought to forget Fernando and move on: “It is simply time to forget him.”32 While Fernando is clearly the artist of separation and splitting, Stella, Cezilie, and Luzie establish ways throughout the play to replace him through their affinities for children/girls and other women. In fact, when Cezilie and Luzie first arrive and are preparing to meet Stella, the Innkeeper tells them that Stella is the best soul in the world and that her entire joy is with children, and she insists “there is no 29 ”Es (Sara) war ein gutes Geschöpf; sie weinte viel um mich, da ich so krank, so liebeskrank war. Ich hätte sie gern mitgenommen …” MA, 1.2, 67. 30 “Die ersten Neigungen junger Jahre …” MA, 4.1, 441. 31 “indessen weinten die Fräulein und küßten sich und waren äußerst betrübt, daß sie sich so schnell und unerwartet von einander trennen sollten.” MA, 4.1, 445. 32 “Es ist nun einmal Zeit, ihn zu vergessen.” MA, 1.2, 39.

Same-Sex Affinities Between Women and Family Redefinitions  55 other heart like this one in the world.”33 The Innkeeper’s stepdaughter, Annchen, describes Stella’s love for her and all of the children who come to her: “If you only see her (Stella)! She is so loving! So loving! You have no idea how much she is waiting for you. She is fond of me too. Wouldn’t you like to go to her then?”34 Annchen introduces Stella as a woman who loves all of the children she encounters and is loved by them as well.35 Not surprisingly, as soon as Luzie meets Stella she recognizes that she is a dear woman and wants to stay with her. Stella tells Luzie that she needs a lot of love to fill her heart. Indeed, after being abandoned by Fernando, Stella has redirected her affinities to the children who need her love. She loves them and they love her. As Stella meets Luzie she loves her as well and exclaims: “I have you [Luzie]! Dear girl, you are now mine. Madame, I thank you for your trust …”36 Stella, Annchen, and Luzie definitely demonstrate not only elective affinities that last and connect but they also illustrate that affinities between girls and mothers are not biologically determined. A caring mother, like Stella, can love all of the girls who need her, and the girls love her back. We recall that in the Wahlverwandtschaften, Charlotte’s love for Ottilie was explained as Ottilie’s inheritance of Charlotte’s love for her mother. Likewise, Ottilie’s affections for baby Otto were associated with, and dependent upon, her love for Eduard. In Stella, in contrast, the mothers love all of the girls who need them and to whom they are spontaneously drawn, and their love is not contingent upon their love of one of the girl’s biological parents. Family, in Stella, is clearly determined by elective affinities, connections, and love, and not by biological relations. In addition, as soon as Cezilie and Stella meet they are drawn instantly to one another. Cezilie recognizes that Stella feels how important her trust is in bringing Luzie to her, and Stella’s first response to Cezilie reiterates her trust: “I feel in the first sight of you instant trust and honor toward you.” They begin to immediately share their feelings about past loves and new ones and Cezilie takes Stella’s hands in her own exclaiming: “How endearing!” and Stella responds: “Thanks be to 33 “es gibt so kein Herz auf der Welt mehr.” MA, 1.2, 41. 34 “Wenn Sie sie (Stella) nur sehn! Sie ist so lieb! so lieb! Sie glauben nicht wie sie auf Sie wartet. Sie hat mich auch recht lieb. Wollen Sie denn nicht zu ihr gehen?” MA, 1.2, 41. 35 Hess mentions that the female heroes of Stella and the Wahlverwandtschaften are similar in their love of children and parenting talent. He does not address this love of children in terms of adoptive affinities. Hess, “Stella und Die Wahlverwandtschaften,” 218. 36 “Ich habe Sie (Luzie)! Liebes Mädgen, du bist nun die meine.—Madame, ich danke Ihnen für das Zutrauen …” MA, 1.2, 48.

56  Goethe’s Families of the Heart God! Someone who understands me! Who can sympathize with me!”37 Cezilie reminds Stella that the men in their lives have betrayed them. Stella responds by suggesting: “Madame! A thought just crossed my mind—We want to be for each other, what they should have been for us! We want to stay together! Your hand! From this moment on, I will not leave you!”38 Stella recommends that they stay together as partners and that they do not need men who will only abandon them. In fact, the women insist that they will be better partners for each other than the men were. Stella also demonstrates that staying together, loving each other, and raising children of their hearts is the art of unification that the women recognize in each other and can materialize. Stella goes on to emphasize how much she wants Cezilie to stay, and Cezilie admits: “I feel it!” And Stella remarks how wonderful it is now “that my heart can open up again, that I can talk out again all of the things that pressure me!”39 Scholars have traditionally interpreted the relationship between Cezilie and Stella as a female-female relationship, as a friendship, as sisterly love, and as a mother-child relationship.40 A detailed analysis of the dynamics of the play in relation to elective affinities demonstrates that the women do not outline simply a friendship, sisterly connections, or shared maternal feelings, etc., but a true love relationship, elective affinities, and intense desire for one another that is more fulfilling and ensuring of unity than the heterosexual relationship with Fernando. Cezilie and Stella never describe their relationship as one of sisters or female friends and they are clearly drawn to one another through their elective affinities, feelings, and understanding for each other, and if they stay together, as they are clearly drawn to do, they will be two mothers (biological and foster mothers) caring for Luzie and so many other girls together. Their family will be one of the heart and soul and the ultimate creation of their elective affinities. For this reason, it is also clear that the relationship between Cezilie and Stella is the strongest 37 Stella: “Ich fühle im ersten Anblick Vertrauen und Ehrfurcht gegen Sie.” MA, 1.2, 48, and Cezilie: “Wie lieb!” and Stella: “O Gott sei Dank! Ein Geschöpf, das mich versteht! das Mitleiden mit mir haben kann!” MA, 1.2, 49. 38 “Madame! Da fährt mir ein Gedanke durch den Kopf—Wir wollen einander das sein, was sie uns hätten werden sollen! Wir wollen zusammen bleiben! Ihre Hand! Von diesem Augenblick an, lass ich Sie nicht!” MA, 1.2, 51. 39 “ich fühls!” MA, 1.2, 51, and Stella: “daß mein Herz sich wieder öffnen, daß ich alles losschwätzen kann, was mich so drängt!” MA, 1.2, 52. 40 See Dye, “Substitution”, 41, 45; Detering, “Die aufgeklärte,” 35; Pikulik, “Stella,” 97; Borchmeyer, “Schwankung des Herzens”, 81; Peter Pfaff, Das Glücksmotiv im Jugendwerk Goethes (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1965), 66; and Georg-Michael Schulz, “Goethe’s “Stella” Wirrnisse der Liebe und Gottes Gerechtigkeit,” GermanischRomanische Monatsschrift 29 (1979): 429. Hart mentions their “compensatory homosociality.” Gail K. Hart, Tragedy in Paradise: Family and Gender Politics in German Bourgeois Tragedy 1750–1850 (Rochester: Camden House, 1996), 47.

Same-Sex Affinities Between Women and Family Redefinitions  57 one in the play and that their feelings for one another are not simply a lesser compensation for the loss of Fernando. In contrast, several scholars have contended that the relationship between Cezilie and Stella is merely a compensation, and not a substitute for their lost love with Fernando.41 They have read Stella and Cezilie’s comments about possible compensations for Fernando in terms of “activity” and “charity,” as a suggestion that they (their relationship) cannot be a substitute to each other after losing Fernando. The passage scholars have highlighted is: “Madame Sommer (Cezilie): ‘Activity and charity are a gift from heaven, a substitute for unlucky, loving hearts.’ Stella: ‘A substitute? A compensation for sure, but not a substitute … lost love, what is the substitute for that!’”42 Stella clearly rejects Cezilie’s notion that charity and activity will be substitutes for the loss of Fernando’s love and insists that they will only be compensations. She does not insist that their love cannot replace Fernando’s and she also throws out the question at the end about whether there is any substitute for lost love. Of course, her comment flags another alternative, especially given the expressions of love that the two women express for each other. Perhaps love can replace love. Perhaps they can move beyond Fernando as they connect with each other, which is precisely what they have been doing before this comment and what they do after it. Indeed, as we shall see, as the play progresses (this comment is in Act 2), Stella and Cezilie become closer and closer to each other, become more aware of their confusion about Fernando, and cement their affinities for one another. After Cezilie and Stella connect with one another, Fernando arrives on the scene, and the women become confused about him but continue to express their love and affinity for each other. In fact, as soon as Fernando enters, Stella is upset because she wanted to take in Luzie and “to keep the mother as well.” She admits her fear of losing them directly to Fernando: “O that they are now causing me such confusion, Fernando! … I do not want to lose them [Luzie and Cezilie].”43 41 See for example, Schulz, “Goethe’s Stella,” 420; Pikulik, “Stella,” 97; Dye, “Substitution,” 41; Hart, Tragedy, 47; and Helga Kraft, “Idylle mit kleinen Fehlern. Zwei Frauen brauch ich, ach, in meinem Haus. Luise von Voß und Stella von Goethe,” in Mütter—Töchter—Frauen. Weiblichkeitsbilder in der Literatur, ed. Elke Liebs (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlar, 1993), 88. 42 Madame Sommer (Cezilie): “Geschäftigkeit und Wohltätigkeit sind eine Gabe des Himmels, ein Ersatz für unglückliche liebende Herzen.” Stella: “Ersatz? Entschädigung wohl, nicht Ersatz … Verlorne Liebe, wo ist da Ersatz für!” MA, 1.2, 51. 43 “und die Mutter dazu behalten” and “—O daß sie mir jetzt diese Verwirrung machen, Fernando! … Verlieren mögt ich sie (Luzie and Cezilie) nicht gern.” MA, 1.2, 57.

58  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Intriguingly, Stella tells Fernando that the women confuse her, but in reality it is his return that throws them into disarray and Stella, first and foremost, reasserts her desire to stay connected with Luzie and Cezilie and expresses her fear that a renewed connection to Fernando will destroy that. After Stella’s encounter with Fernando, Stella and Cezilie meet and try to come to terms with their confusion about everything. Stella asks Cezilie: “Who are you?—Are you? [grasping Cezilie by the hands].” Cezilie replies: “Best woman! Most beloved! I take you, dear angel, into my heart!” Stella then asks “Tell me—are you—” and Cezilie replies: “I am—I am his wife!” and Stella replies: “And I? …” and in the 1806 version Goethe has Stella also say here: “And I? … What is mine?”44 Stella’s questions raise more questions. What will happen to Stella? Is she asking who she is in relation to Fernando? Or, is she asking who she is and who is hers now that Cezilie has revealed her connection to Fernando? When Stella asks: “What is mine?”—given the close connection between the two women and their clear desire to stay together, it is most likely that she is wondering where she now stands with Cezilie. Who does she belong to? Who is hers? Are the two women still together? Will Stella be able to keep Cezilie and Luzie, now that Fernando is confusing everything? Stella’s desire to stay with Cezilie and Luzie is further underscored when she asserts, right after her questions, that Fernando should not come to them: ‘‘Don’t let him [Fernando] come!’” Cezilie then responds to Stella: “Sweet love!” and Stella exclaims: “You love me! You press me to your heart!” and Cezilie reaffirms her love for Stella: “Innocent one! Dear beloved!” Stella is finally reassured and on Cezilie’s neck she replies: “I read in your eyes, on your lips, words from heaven. Hold me!”45 Stella and Cezilie express their love, connection, and desire to stay together. They do not want to lose each other now that Fernando has suddenly reappeared and threatens to divide them. And while they admit that they loved Fernando in the past, their direct and unequivocal expressions of connection and love for each other clearly establish an affinity to one another that is stronger than any connection they now have to Fernando. Their direct expressions of their affinities for each other contrast sharply with their confused comments about 44 Stella: “—Wer bist du?—Bist du?—(Cezilie bei den Händen fassend)” Cezilie replies: “Beste! Liebste! Ich schließ’ dich Engel an mein Herz!” Stella asks her “Sag mir,—Bist du—“ and Cezilie replies: “Ich bin—ich bin sein Weib!” and Stella replies: “Und ich? …” MA, 1.2, 69–70, and in 1806 Stella adds: “Und ich? … Was ist mein?” MA, 6.1, 494–5. 45 “Laß ihn (Fernando) nicht kommen!” Cezilie to Stella: “Süße Liebe!” and Stella exclaims: “Du liebst mich! du drückst mich an deine Brust!” and Cezilie: “Unschuldige! Liebe!” Stella replies: “Ich lese in deinen Augen, auf deiner Lippe, Worte des Himmels. Halt mich!” MA, 1.2, 70.

Same-Sex Affinities Between Women and Family Redefinitions  59 their feelings for Fernando and with his thoroughly self-centered actions and statements. Like Stella and Cezilie, Pandora in Goethe’s play fragment, Prometheus, expresses similar affinities for Mira in even more explicit terms. She tells Prometheus about her feelings as Mira fell on her neck and “Her breast pounded,/ as if it wanted to burst,/ Her cheeks glowed,/ her mouth gasped and a thousand tears flowed./ I felt her knees stagger again/ and I held her, dear father./And her kisses and her fervor/ poured a new, unknown feeling/ through my veins.”46 Prometheus’s response to Pandora is: “in the kisses of your playmate, you enjoyed the purest bliss”47 Pandora agrees, saying that the joy of the experience is simply inexpressible. Both Pandora and Prometheus ultimately describe her desires for another woman in very explicit and positive terms. It is glowing, inexpressible, joy, and pure bliss. Reading Stella and this passage in Prometheus together underscores once again Goethe’s open and positive illustrations of love between women. Nonetheless, Cezilie and Stella are also worried that Fernando’s return will tear them from one another and Cezilie ultimately takes charge in order to ensure that this does not happen. She plays on Fernando’s fantasies telling him she feels sorry for the man who attaches himself to a young girl, and she continues outlining how hard it is for a man to be pulled into a “woman’s world” in which she will not fulfill his needs, and insists that he is not at all to blame: I see him as a prisoner. They always say it is like that. He is pulled out of his world and into ours with which he has indeed essentially little in common. He deceives himself for awhile, and woe to us, when his eyes open!—I could now be nothing for him other than an honest housewife, who would cling to him most strenuously, to please him, to care for him. The housewife who devoted all of her days to the welfare of her house, her child, and certainly she must devote herself to so many trivialities, that her heart and head became desolate, so that she is no entertaining companion, and he, given the liveliness of his spirit, must necessarily find my company to be vapid. He is not guilty!48 46 “Ihr Busen schlug/Als wollt er reißen/Ihre Wangen glühten/Es lechzt ihr Mund, und tausend Tränen stürzten./Ich fühlte wieder ihre Knie wanken/ Und hielt sie teurer Vater./Und ihre Küsse, ihre Glut/ Hat solch ein neues unbekanntes Gefühl/Durch meine Adern durchgegossen …” MA, 1.1, 678. 47 “in den Küssen deiner Gespielen /Genossest du die reinste Seligkeit.” MA, 1.1, 679. 48 “Ich seh ihn als einen Gefangenen an. Sie sagen ja auch immer, es sei so. Er wird aus seiner Welt in die unsere herüber gezogen, mit der er doch im Grunde wenig gemeines hat. Er betrügt sich eine Zeit-lang, und weh uns, wenn ihm die

60  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Fernando immediately recognizes himself in this fantasy of the woman’s world and his lack of blame, and exclaims: “It’s me.”49 Then Fernando asserts that Cezilie is his wife and Cezilie turns away from him and says: “Not mine!—You are leaving me … Hold me up for this moment, and then leave me forever—I am not your wife! You belong to someone else.” Fernando in his usual way seems to forget Stella and insists he has found Cezilie: “I have found you again.” Cezilie ends their conversation by asserting astutely: “Found, what you were not seeking!”50 Following the encounter with Cezilie, Fernando is thoroughly confused, but also expresses clearly his ultimate fantasy of having all three women (Stella, Cezilie, and Luzie) at the same time: And them!—Hm! Am I not more miserable than you? What can you demand of me? … These three best female creations of the earth—miserable because of me! Miserable without me! Ah! Even more miserable with me! … What felicities united in order to make me miserable! Husband! Father! Lover!—The best, most noble female creations! Yours! Yours! Can you imagine it, the threefold, inexpressible bliss?51 Fernando recognizes that he makes the three women miserable. They suffer because of him, without him, and with him and yet he still wants them all. His dream, his hope, is to be husband, lover, and father with and for all three women. Having all three women is his greatest fantasy. Cezilie returns to Fernando and suggests that there must be a solution for all of the confusion: “We are now clearly very confused; Augen aufgehen!—Ich nun gar, konnte ihm zuletzt nichts sein, als eine redliche Hausfrau, die zwar mit dem festesten Bestreben an ihm hing, ihm gefällig, für ihn sorgsam zu sein; die dem Wohl ihres Hauses, ihres Kindes, all ihre Tage widmete, und freilich sich mit so viel Kleinigkeiten abgeben mußte, daß ihr Herz und Kopf oft wüste ward, daß sie keine unterhaltende Gesellschafterin war, daß er mit Lebhaftigkeit seines Geistes meinen Umgang notwendig schal finden mußte. Er ist nicht schuldig!” MA, 1.2, 62. 49 “Ich bin’s.” MA, 1.2, 62. 50 Cezilie: “Nicht mein!—Du verlässest mich … Halte mich diesen Augenblick aufrecht, und dann verlaß mich auf ewig—Es ist nicht dein Weib! … Du gehörst einer andern …” then Fernando: “Ich habe dich wieder gefunden.” Cezilie: “Gefunden, was du nicht suchtest!” MA, 1.2, 62–3. 51 “Und sie!—Ha! bin ich nicht elender, als ihr? Was habt ihr an mich zu fordern? … Diese drei beste weibliche Geschöpfe der Erde—elend durch mich! elend ohne mich! Ach noch elender mit mir! … Welche Seligkeiten vereinigen sich um mich elend zu machen! Gatte! Vater! Geliebter!—Die besten, edelsten, weiblichen Geschöpfe!—dein!—Dein!—kannst du das fassen, die dreifache, unsägliche Wonne?” MA, 1.2, 73.

Same-Sex Affinities Between Women and Family Redefinitions  61 can’t we resolve this?”52 Her first suggestion is that she will leave Fernando with Stella, and she and Fernando will continue to love each other through letters: We should separate without being separated! I will live apart from you and remain a witness to your bliss. I will be your confidante, you will pour out your joy and sorrow onto my breast. Your letters shall be my only life and my letters will appear to you like a dear visit from me. And so you remain mine, and will not be banished with Stella … we love each other, stay connected to one another!53 Although Cezilie asserts that her departure will not be a splitting apart since they will write letters to one another, Fernando is not convinced and he rejects this possibility outright. Fernando does not want to give up Cezilie: “No! You are mine—I remain yours!” He continues accusing her of torturing his heart with these plans: “Why are you turning my heart around and around? Why are you tearing my torn heart? Am I not destroyed, torn enough?”54 Intriguingly, Fernando rejects any splitting of their relationships once he considers the possibility of having simultaneously all of the women for himself. Now Cezilie astutely shifts her strategy and tells Fernando a story of a Count who leaves his wife and is saved by another woman: He was a gentleman; he loved his wife, said goodbye to her, put her in charge of his property, embraced her, and left. He travelled through many lands, engaged in war, and was captured. The daughter of his master felt compassion for him in his slavery, she released his chains, and they fled. She accompanied him anew through all the dangers of the war. Crowned with victory, he returned to his noble wife!—And his girlfriend!—He felt humanity!—he believed in humanity and took her with.55 52 “Wir sind nun wohl sehr verworren; sollte das nicht zu lösen sein?” MA, 1.2, 74. 53 “Wir wollen scheiden ohne getrennt zu sein! Ich will entfernt von dir leben, und ein Zeuge deines Glücks bleiben. Deine Vertraute will ich sein, du sollst Freude und Kummer in meinen Busen ausgießen. Deine Briefe sollen mein einziges Leben sein, und die meinigen sollen dir als ein lieber Besuch erscheinen—Und so bleibst du mein, bist nicht mit Stella verbannt … wir lieben uns, nehmen Teil an einander!” MA, 1.2, 74. 54 “nein! Du bist mein—Ich bleibe dein!“ and “Was kehrst du mein Herz um und um? Was zerreißest du das zerissene? bin ich nicht zerstört, zerrüttet genug?” MA, 1.2, 75. 55 “Er war Biedermann; er liebte sein Weib, nahm Abschied von ihr, empfahl ihr sein Hauswesen, umarmte sie und zog. Er zog durch viele Länder, kriegte,

62  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Cezilie finishes the story with a quote from the wife expressing her love for her husband and her insistence that the three of them stay together forever: On her neck with thousands of tears, the loyal wife called out: ‘Take everything I can give you! Take half of all that which belongs completely to you—Have all of him! Leave all of him to me! We shall each have him, without stealing him from the other one.’ And she called out on his neck, at his feet: ‘We are yours!’—They held his hands and hung on him—And God in heaven rejoiced over their love, and his holy vicar gave them his blessing. And their fortune and their love encompassed divinely One home, One bed, and One grave.56 Cezilie’s story clearly plays on Fernando’s fantasies to have all three women and he immediately responds with total hope that this is his story too: “God in Heaven.” In the 1806 version Goethe adds another line here: “What a ray of hope pours in!”57 Fernando sees himself in Cezilie’s narrative although the story is quite different from his. In this story, the husband was not unfaithful. The woman who is accompanying him has saved his life and, in the end, his wife welcomes both faithful persons into her home. And in the 1806 version, Goethe makes Fernando’s hope for a ménage à trois much more blatant. He sees himself in the story Cezilie tells and his hope is to have both women just like the Count did. It is also clear that Cezilie uses the story to play on Fernando’s fantasies. It is, of course, Fernando’s fantasy to have both women as lovers, and Cezilie plays on the fantasy very astutely in order to stay with Stella. In the 1776 version of Stella, the play ends with Cezilie and Stella coming together and securing their relationship to one another under the cloak of a bigamous relationship to Fernando.58 Throughout this und ward gefangen. Seiner Sklaverei erbarmte sich seines Herrn Tochter; sie löste seine Fesseln, sie flohen. Sie geleitete ihn aufs neue durch alle Gefahren des Kriegs … Mit Sieg bekrönt, gings nun zur Rückreise!—zu seinem edeln Weibe!—Und sein Mädgen!—Er fühlte Menschheit!—er glaubte an Menschheit, und nahm sie mit.” MA, 1.2, 76. 56 “An ihrem Hals rief das treue Weib, in tausend Tränen rief sie: Nimm alles was ich dir geben kann! Nimm die Hälfte des, der ganz dein gehört—Nimm ihn ganz! Laß mir ihn ganz. Jede soll ihn haben, ohne der andern was zu rauben— Und rief sie an seinem Hals, zu seinen Füßen: Wir sind dein!—Sie faßten seine Hände, hingen an ihm—Und Gott im Himmel freute sich der Liebe, und sein heiliger Statthalter sprach seinen Segen dazu. Und ihr Glück, und ihre Liebe faßte selig Eine Wohnung, Ein Bett und Ein Grab.” MA, 1.2, 76–7. 57 In 1776: “Gott im Himmel” MA, 1.2, 77. In 1806: “Gott im Himmel! Welch ein Strahl von Hoffnung dringt herein!” MA, 6.1, 501. 58 Scholars have referred to the bigamy and ménage à trois at the end of the

Same-Sex Affinities Between Women and Family Redefinitions  63 scene the women are talking and Fernando is playing a passive role, standing silently as they connect around him. The scene begins intriguingly with Stella and Cezilie calling to each other and clinging to one another. Cezilie cries out: “Stella!” and Stella replies: “[falling onto her neck] ‘God! God!’” Fernando tries to flee, and Cezilie holds him and tells Stella to hold him as well. Stella is confused about this configuration and says to Cezilie: “I do not understand it.” Cezilie replies reminding her of the feelings they have expressed for each other and that have connected them throughout the play. She says simply: “You feel it!” Stella then clings to Fernando on his neck and then on Cezilie’s, and then Stella feels it and says to Cezilie: “Oh you!” Fernando being thoroughly self-centered hugs both women and says: “Mine! Mine!” Stella replies to Fernando: “I am yours!” and Cezilie corrects both of them immediately with: “We are yours!”59 underscoring that the two women “we” will be Fernando’s only as a pair and only together. The final point being that “we,” the women, will be together and not split apart ever again. This scene, like the entire play, is framed by and accentuates the women’s expressions of love, connection, and affinity for each other. Cezilie’s plan to keep herself, Stella, and Luzie together works, it plays on Fernando’s fantasies of having every woman he wants, and ensures that the women will always have each other, even if cloaked under the guise of heterosexual, bigamous relations with Fernando.60 As Stella had exclaimed to Cezilie earlier: “We want to be for each other what they (the men) should have been for us! We want to stay together! Your hand! From this moment on, I will not leave you!”61 play as Goethe’s fantasy, as relating to his relationship with Lili Schönemann, and/or as simply a man’s fantasy. My interest is in how the women use this male phantasm to feed into Fernando’s fantasies and to secure their same-sex relationship and love. See Detering,“Die aufgeklärte,” 36, 48; Castle, “Stella,” 135; Schulz, “Goethe’s Stella,” 431; Dye, “Substitution,” 42; Pikulik, “Stella,” 98; Pfaff, Das Glücksmotiv, 71; Hart, Tragedy, 49; and Kraft, “Idylle,“ 85, 88. 59 Stella: “(ihr um den Hals fallend) Gott! Gott!” and “Ich faß es nicht” and Cezilie: “Du fühlst!” Stella says: “O du!—” then Fernando exclaims: “Mein! Mein!” and Stella replies to Fernando: “Ich bin dein!” and Cezilie corrects them with: “Wir sind dein!” MA, 1.2, 77. 60 Hart, Tragedy, 52, demonstrates convincingly that the “women cannot emancipate themselves from their roles in the authoritarian structure” established by men. I agree that the women are caught in a male structure and fantasy and cannot escape the cloak of heterosexuality/polygamy, but they also use the structure, play on Fernando’s fantasies, stay together, and assert their own same-sex love, essentially using the “hierarchy” to veil how they work to get around it and undo it. 61 “Wir wollen einander das sein, was sie (die Männer) uns hätten werden sollen! Wir wollen zusammen bleiben!—Ihre Hand!—Von diesem Augenblick an laß ich Sie nicht!” MA, 1.2, 51.

64  Goethe’s Families of the Heart In defiance of the social mandates that would have precluded women in the eighteenth century from being open lovers, Cezilie and Stella bring themselves together, form a family, and affirm their same-sex elective affinities. Of course, in 1806, Goethe modified the ending of Stella in order to make it less disturbing for his contemporaries. In the 1806 version the polygamous relationship formed at the end of the 1776 version is undone. Stella and Fernando attempt suicide and are dying. In this context, as she is dying, Stella sends Luzie and Cezilie to Fernando, who is also dying. They are clearly no longer coming together in a ménage à trois and there is no hope for their future affinities. Cezilie, Stella, and Fernando are split apart at the end of the play in the 1806 version and their relationships are ending in tragedy. Intriguingly, in the 1806 version of the play, the challenging same-sex relationship between Cezilie and Stella stays the same and Goethe also adds even more open and daring expressions of their love in the final scenes of the drama. The first addition occurs right after Fernando embraces the idea of the ménage à trois. Cezilie immediately draws his attention to our Stella: “She is there! She is ours …” and “she still belongs to us.”62 Cezilie is confirming here that Stella is both hers and Fernando’s and that there is still hope that they will remain together. She also clarifies that the two women are not Fernando’s, but that Stella is hers and Fernando’s. In addition, given the expressions of love between the two women throughout the play it is clear that they are the ones who belong to one another and Cezilie has effectively played on Fernando’s emotions to bring him into line with her plan. And Cezilie’s plan is clearly to remain together with the woman, Stella, who is so dear to her heart. Goethe also added one more, very direct expression of love between Cezilie and Stella. In fact, Cezilie is now the last one in the 1806 version of the play to express openly her love for someone else and that someone is Stella. To her she says: “I will not leave you, I hold onto you with the entire power of belief and love.”63 Cezilie’s plan to stay with Stella is thoroughly clear and she states this desire even more openly in these new lines. And even though the 1806 version of the play ends with the suicides of Fernando and Stella, it also strengthens the expressions of the affinities between Cezilie and Stella. While their plans to stay together are ending in tragedy, Cezilie is still asserting her love for 62 “Sie ist da! Sie ist unser …” MA, 6.1, 502, and “sie gehört uns noch” bold mine, MA, 6.1, 503. 63 “Ich lasse dich nicht, ich fasse dich mit der ganzen Gewalt des Glaubens und der Liebe.” MA, 6.1, 503–4.

Same-Sex Affinities Between Women and Family Redefinitions  65 Stella and her desire to stay with her. Her love does not end. While the 1776 version shows the audience Cezilie and Stella coming together around Fernando in the last scene and expressing their connections through brief expressions of their love for one another as Fernando stands silently, in the 1806 version of the play, Cezilie very openly expresses her love for Stella and her desire to stay with her. Even more significantly, both versions of the play highlight in the final scenes the affinities that the women feel and express for one another. The social and cultural pressure for Goethe to make Stella into a tragedy undoes the ultimate ménage à trois, and Cezilie and Stella do not come together cloaked under a relationship with Fernando in the 1806 version as they did in the 1776 one. But that clearly does not preclude the expression of same-sex affinities between the women throughout the play and they remain the strongest affinities foregrounded in Stella in 1776 and 1806. The underlying same-sex relationship formed by Cezilie and Stella, and hidden behind the polygamous relationship with Fernando, has remained unobserved by audiences and scholars of Stella throughout its history. As Cezilie planned it, the polygamous relationship clearly cloaked the much more socially unacceptable (for Goethe’s time) same-sex relationship that brought her and Stella together in love. A careful analysis of the expressions of love between Cezilie and Stella, between Cezilie and Fernando, and between Stella and Fernando reveals that the strongest elective affinities and unifying love are formed between the two women and not between the women and Fernando. Moreover, in Stella, in contrast to the Wahlverwandtschaften, we find not just the allusion to same-sex relations between an A (Charlotte) and a D (Ottilie), not just a quiet moving in together, not just the expectation of such a possibility, but the overt performance of same-sex affinities between women through open and loving dialogue. Here, women boldly and spontaneously express their desire for one another. Strikingly, Cezilie and Stella also reserve their most direct expressions of desire, love, and soul solely for each other. And while they do admit some attachment to Fernando, their expressions of passion for him are mixed with sadness, insecurity about his reliability, and concerns for each other. In contrast, they express immediately, decidedly, and unequivocally their affinities for one another. They love each other, want to hold onto each other, and they say it frankly and clearly. In Stella, the women openly express their desire for each other and Cezilie actively works to play on Fernando’s fantasies in order for them to remain together as lovers forever. In Stella, there are also more direct expressions of love for adoptive girls. In contrast to the Wahlverwandtschaften in which Charlotte and Ottilie can love children who are not biologically related to them,

66  Goethe’s Families of the Heart but who inherit their love for their biological parents, in Stella, Stella openly expresses her love for all of the children she has gathered around herself. Her maternal love is not restricted to the progeny of the individual persons with whom she is in love. Her expressions of love for Luzie are direct and spontaneous even though she does not know that Luzie is Fernando’s daughter when she meets her. She also expresses her maternal love for all of the girls she is mentoring and supporting on her estate. In all respects, Stella is a “Storm and Stress” play in which more radical expressions of love come to the fore and which provides very explicit evidence of the power of the elective affinities that Goethe portrays throughout his literary works. In many ways, Stella offers a number of bolder, clearer examples of the elective affinities, demonstrating that love for children is not biologically determined, foregrounding the same-sex love between women, and highlighting the active role that women can play in shaping and preserving their own same-sex relationships. Stella. A Play for Lovers appeared well before Die Wahlverwandtschaften and it demonstrates that Goethe was already intensely and radically engaged in 1776 with the question of elective affinities and how they draw people into new relationships with one another. Indeed, Stella presents one of the most daring representations of same-sex desire between women in Goethe’s works, but certainly not the only one, as we shall see in the Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre and Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre.

Three  Learning What Family and Love Can Be in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre

1. Radical redefinitions of family

As in no other text in Goethe’s oeuvre, Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre is a novel about learning and discovering what elective affinities, relationships, love, and families are and can be. A close analysis of the elective affinities portrayed in the Lehrjahre reveals precisely how passionate the characters learn to be, and how Goethe defines love, marriage, and family. Outlining how the elective affinities are expressed throughout the Lehrjahre reveals the nonexclusive, same-sex, and adoptive affinities that the characters learn (during the Lehrjahre) to embrace and that draw them together in relationships that challenge eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century family norms. Wilhelm and all of the other major characters in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre are wandering away from their original relationships and families as they encounter one another and their elective affinities draw them together. Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre offers a radical redefinition of family and love that highlights the spontaneous connections that arise when women and men, men and men, women and women, and adults and children encounter each other and discover their elective affinities. Throughout the novel, characters are consistently described in terms of their negative experiences of father/family-controlled, heritage-focused, and economically driven families, and inevitably discover their hearts and true affinities as they ignore, challenge, and transcend the narrow confines of the marriage plans and families from which they are escaping. In addition, as the characters move from one group of persons to another, their elective affinities shift back and forth, sometimes resulting in strong heterosexual bonds and other times culminating in same-sex relationships. As suggested in the Wahlverwandtschaften, in the Lehrjahre, elective affinities are

68  Goethe’s Families of the Heart fluid, nonexclusive, changing, and result in the configuration of new relationships. Equally important in the Lehrjahre is the consistent critique of families not founded upon, and formed by, elective affinities. The novel does not allow for a simple assumption that families are always best planned by fathers, grandfathers, uncles, and/or other family members in order to maintain a specific line of heritage, social connection, and/or economic security. Throughout Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre the eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century (aristocratic and civil) family ideals are criticized and contrasted to optimal families established through elective affinities. Moreover, in contrast to Weineck’s outline of sons’ imaginations of, and portrayals of, “tragic fathers,”1 Goethe highlights the father’s own uncertainties about his fatherhood and how he overcomes them. In addition, Goethe expands the definition of family to include all possible configurations and families brought together through love. More specifically, recent scholars have commented to varying degrees on the non-bourgeois, broken, fragmented, and perverse families in Goethe’s Lehrjahre. Schlipphacke, Helfer, Strack, Broszeit-Rieger, and Krimmer maintain that there are virtually no positive depictions of families.2 Strack argues that family constellations in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre are confusing and intact families are only found in earlier generations.3 Helfer points out that children are repeatedly separated from their birth mothers in the narrative (including Mignon, Felix, Therese, and Sperata)4 and Broszeit-Rieger suggests that the Lehrjahre seems to be rejecting the concept of family altogether.5 While these observations about the destruction of traditional families in the Lehrjahre are true, it is, however, also imperative to ask: 1 Weineck, The Tragedy of Fatherhood, provides detailed and convincing analyses of literary representations of tragic fathers by sons in works by Laius, Aristotle, Hobbes, Lessing, Kleist, Kafka, and Freud. She does not include Goethe, who provides a much wider range of understandings and depictions of families throughout his literary production. 2 Heidi Schlipphacke, “Die Vaterschaft,” 390–412; Friedrich Strack, “Väter,” 57–87; Martha B. Helfer, “Wilhelm Meister’s Women,” Goethe Yearbook 11 (2002): 229–54; Ingrid Broszeit-Rieger, “Family Systems Theory and ‘The Man of Fifty Years’ in Goethe’s Wilhelm Meister’s Journeyman Years,” in Romanticism and Parenting: Image, Instruction and Ideology, ed. Carolyn A. Weber (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009), 74–86; and Krimmer, “Mama’s Baby, ” 257–77. 3 Strack, “Väter,” 75. 4 See Helfer, “Wilhelm,” 240. 5 Ingrid Broszeit-Rieger, “Transgressions of Gender and Generation in the Families of Goethe’s Meister,” in Romantic Border Crossings, ed. Jeffrey Cass and Larry Peer (London: Ashgate Publishing, 2008), 84.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  69 In what context does Goethe highlight these criticisms of the family structures of his time? Are all of the families and relationships in the Lehrjahre broken and dysfunctional? Or are there other kinds of families and relationships foregrounded in the novel? Schlipphacke outlines astutely that many of the families formed in the Lehrjahre represent a “nostalgia for a form of community that preceded the nuclear family” and that these families are then historically regressive and reflect “an idealized notion of a past era.”6 She also defines community to include families, friends, theater groups, etc. While I agree with Schlipphacke’s analysis of the communities she addresses in the Lehrjahre, focusing on the elective affinities in the Lehrjahre and how they draw new families—non-biological and/or non-nuclear—and non-heterosexual pairs together also reveals radical and progressive views of families and relationships that Goethe foregrounds in the novel as well. The “learning years” are all about discovering and forming new relationships and families of the heart and soul. Sorensen mentions briefly the increased “emotionalization” of the concept of family in Goethe’s time period which would support my analysis of the significance of expressions of emotion/affinities and family reconfiguring in the Lehrjahre.7 Indeed, the families presented as model families in the Lehrjahre are families drawn together through elective affinities. A closer analysis of the families, and new family configurations in the Lehrjahre demonstrates that Goethe is critiquing the aristocratic and civil family structures of his age, but that at the same time he is also highlighting the elective affinities that draw families together based on love and connections of the heart. The central family structure highlighted throughout the novel is one in which parents come together because of their elective affinities, and through which parents connect with children in accord with their spontaneous feelings of love. Children drawn into families through elective affinities often have two adoptive parents, one adoptive parent, and/or a foster parent or parents. These are the model families throughout the Lehrjahre. Goethe’s novel redefines family and argues for a new conception of family that stretches beyond the often problematic assumptions of biological connection, heritage, and concerns for economic advantage that form the foundation of the ideal civil and aristocratic family structures that were manifest and evolving during his time period. In the Lehrjahre, characters are wandering and traveling from one family structure to another, they are struggling to escape from their biological, civil, aristocratic, and economically driven families, and 6 Schlipphacke, “Die Vaterschaft,” 400, 412. 7 Bengt Algot Sorensen, “Über die Familie in Goethes ‘Werther’ und ‘Wilhelm Meister’,” Orbis Litterarum 42.1 (1987): 120–1.

70  Goethe’s Families of the Heart they are trying to connect with one another.8 Above all, they are learning what love and family truly are. The novel highlights for us how elective affinities draw people together, how they discover their true feelings of love, and how they seek to transcend the restrictions of the family mandates of Goethe’s time. In fact, the novel is structured around several framing stories that highlight central concerns about the limits of the prevailing family structures, how the characters come to realize their innermost feelings of love and connection, and provide stunning rejections of the dominant social, cultural, and legal delimitations of marriage and family. In order to illustrate the radical redefinition of family in Goethe’s Lehrjahre, we will begin with an outline of the framing stories of the novel. In addition, it is imperative to consider these framing stories in the context of Confessions of the Beautiful Soul, a story that is essentially in the center of the novel and which highlights many of the issues crucial to our understanding of Goethe’s challenging redefinitions of love and family. Both this core story and the framing stories include: first of all, Wilhelm planning to leave his biological family with Mariane at the beginning of the novel and Wilhelm coming together with Natalie and Felix at the end of the novel. The second set of framing stories consist of the story of the Runaway Girl and of the Markese’s narrative about Sperata and the Harfner. The story of the Beautiful Soul is framed by these stories and establishes a resounding central narrative that reiterates many of the critical concerns highlighted throughout the framing narratives. Essentially, the multiple stories throughout the Lehrjahre, of couples and families of the heart and soul and/or elective affinities, are surrounded by these introductory and concluding narratives which highlight the core issues concerning the definitions and configurations of families. We can visualize these framing narratives as follows: 1a. 2a. 3. 2b. 1b.

Wilhelm and Mariane The Runaway Girl The Beautiful Soul Markese’s narrative about Sperata and the Harfner Wilhelm, Natalie, and Felix

With this outline of the crucial narrative structure of Goethe’s Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre in mind, we can now turn our attention to the radical ideas concerning love and family that Goethe brings to the 8 Schlipphacke, “Die Vaterschaft,” 401, and Reiss mention Wilhelm’s desire to escape from the trappings of his family life as well. Hans Reiss, Goethes Romane (Bern: Francke, 1963), 88.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  71 fore throughout these stories. Most significantly, these framing stories provide an essential context through which the multiple stories of love and family affinities in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre can be deciphered and understood. Once we have outlined these narratives we will discuss the multiple relationships—heterosexual, same-sex, adoptive, foster, biological, etc.—that emerge throughout the novel. In the first framing story of the novel we are introduced to Wilhelm Meister in the context of his relationship with Mariane. Their relationship is one based clearly on their elective affinities. As they reminisce about their first encounters with one another, Wilhelm remarks that he was immediately captured by Mariane and that “her form, her acting, her voice had enamored him.” Wilhelm thinks of how he loved Mariane, indeed, “loved so much,” and how he had “won her affinity/love.”9 Similarly, Mariane notes that she was captivated by him “through an irresistible draw” and “her affinity to her beloved drew her to him all the more strongly.”10 As Mariane waits for Wilhelm to come and visit her, she expresses her total love for him: I love him! I love him! With what rapture I say these words for the first time! This is the passion that I have so often imagined, but had no conception of. Yes, I want to throw myself on his neck! I want to hold him, as if I wanted to hold him forever. I want to show him my entire love, to enjoy his love in its entire magnitude.11 Mariane clearly expresses her elective affinities for Wilhelm and, when they come together that evening, they both race together in a full expression of their mutual elective affinities: “With what vivacity she flew towards him! With what rapture he embraced the red uniform! He pressed the white Atlas vest against his breast! Who dares to describe, to whom is it fitting to express the bliss of two lovers.”12 9

“ihre Gestalt, ihr Spiel, ihre Stimme ihn gefesselt [hat]” MA, 5, 62, and “so sehr liebte” MA, 5, 14, and “ihre Neigung gewonnen” MA, 5, 14. 10 “durch einen unwiderstehlichen Zug” MA, 5, 62, and “desto heftiger schloß sich ihre Neigung an den Geliebten fest” MA, 5, 34. 11 “Ich lieb’ ihn! Ich lieb’ ihn! Mit welchem Entzücken sprech ich zum erstenmal diese Worte aus! Das ist diese Leidenschaft, die ich so oft vorgestellt habe, von der ich keinen Begriff hatte. Ja, ich will mich ihm um den Hals werfen! ich will ihn fassen, als wenn ich ihn ewig halten wollte. Ich will ihm meine ganze Liebe ziegen, seine Liebe in ihrem ganzen Umfang geniessen.” MA, 5, 11. 12 “Mit welcher Lebhaftigkeit flog sie ihm entgegen! mit welchem Entzücken umschlang er die rote Uniform! drückte er das weiße Atlaswestchen an seine Brust! Wer wagte hier zu beschreiben, wem geziemt es, die Seligkeit zweier Liebenden auszusprechen.” MA, 5, 11.

72  Goethe’s Families of the Heart The bliss of Mariane and Wilhelm, their total love for one another, their elective affinities are so amazing that they are indescribable and inexpressible. Words are not enough to convey this wonderful love. Their love is one that pulls them instantaneously together. They are immediately related through their affinities and fall into each other’s arms. Wilhelm also stresses his feeling of being transformed by his relationship to Mariane. He feels “that he is beginning to become a different person.” Wilhelm also suggests that their love melds them together and that Mariane is ultimately “half of, more than half of himself.” Later Wilhelm also tries to capture a sense of this love in a simile: “Ah two loving hearts, they are like two magnet clocks, what stirs one, must also move the other one.”13 In this context, Wilhelm and Mariane seem to represent an ideal couple drawn together by their elective affinities. But despite the love and elective affinities determining Mariane and Wilhelm’s relationship, they do not ultimately stay together as a couple and they do not form a family. It is clear throughout their story that the central obstacles to their love, which preclude them from being together are the social expectations imposed upon them by their mentors and families. Mariane is clearly torn apart emotionally by her love for Wilhelm and her sense that she should choose another lover, Norberg, instead. Throughout the time that Mariane is connecting with and loving Wilhelm, she is also seeing Norberg because he provides for her economically. She tells her friend/motherly figure, Barbara, that she will follow her advice and choose Norberg when he returns to her, but that until then, she will be her own self and give herself to the man she really loves, Wilhelm: “When Norberg returns I am his again, I am yours (Barbara’s), do with me what you want, but until then, I want to be mine … This whole mine/me I want to give to the one, who loves me and whom I love.”14 Mariane clearly feels that, while she truly loves Wilhelm and insists on loving him and being with him now, that she cannot ultimately follow her elective affinities. She must finally give herself to Norberg, because Barbara demands it and because Norberg will provide her with economic security: 13 “daß er ein anderer Mensch zu werden beginne” and Mariane “die Hälfte, mehr als die Hälfte seiner selbst sei” MA, 5, 33, and later: “Ach zwei liebende Herzen, sie sind wie zwei Magnetuhren, was in der einen sich regt, muß auch die andere mit bewegen …” MA, 5, 71. 14 “Wenn Norberg zurückkehrt, bin ich wieder sein, bin ich dein (Barbara’s), mache mit mir was du willst, aber bis dahin will ich mein sein … Dieses ganze Mein will ich dem geben, der mich liebt und den ich liebe.” MA, 5, 10.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  73 What can I want? retorted Mariane; I am miserable, miserable for my whole life, I love him (Wilhelm), who loves me. I see that I must separate myself from him and do not know how I can survive that. Norberg is coming, to whom we owe our entire existence, and with whom we cannot be without. Wilhelm is very limited, he can do nothing for me.15 Norberg is the man who can provide for her economically, whereas Wilhelm cannot, and even though this situation makes Mariane thoroughly miserable, she feels she has no other choice. She has been taught and coached by Barbara to obtain economic advantage through her relationships with men. Following her elective affinities and staying with Wilhelm is not an option for her. She feels she is left ultimately with no choice but to choose Norberg and be miserable for the rest of her life. Mariane clearly expresses elective affinities for Wilhelm, but ultimately decides for economic reasons that she cannot maintain a lasting, loving relationship with him. Much in the manner that Mariane’s actions are directed by Barbara and are contingent upon her economic circumstances, Wilhelm also feels limited by his father’s determinations of his life and family plans.16 Throughout this framing story, Wilhelm’s father is depicted as thoroughly obsessed by economic ventures and plans to make sure that Wilhelm continues in his footsteps. In fact, Wilhelm is actually being drawn into the business world by two fathers, his own, and his friend Werner’s father. While each of the fathers has different ways of thinking, they agree that business and profits are the most important things in life. The fathers of Wilhelm and Werner are: “a pair of men with very different ways of thinking, but whose attitudes were overcome since both held commerce for the noblest business and both were highly aware of every advantage, which any venture could bring them.”17 Regardless of Wilhelm’s plans for his own life including 15 “Was kann ich wollen? versetzte Mariane; ich bin elend, auf mein ganzes Leben elend, ich liebe ihn (Wilhelm), der mich liebt, sehe, daß ich mich von ihm trennen muß, und weiß nicht, wie ich es überleben kann. Norberg kommt, dem wir unsere ganze Existenz schuldig sind, den wir nicht entbehren können. Wilhelm ist sehr eingeschränkt, er kann nichts für mich tun.” MA, 5, 45. 16 Kim describes Wilhelm as caught between duty and inclination. I would agree and specify that he is caught between the social order he feels indebted to, and his affinities that are drawing him away from it. Hee-Ju Kim, “RituelleIdentitätsbildung: Zur Lossprechung Wilhelm Meisters,” Goethe Jahrbuch 119 (2002): 45. 17 “ein paar Männer von sehr verschiedener Denkungsart, deren Gesinnungen aber darin übereinkamen, daß sie den Handel für das edelste Geschäft hielten,

74  Goethe’s Families of the Heart joining a theater group and loving and staying with Mariane, the two fathers have already decided to send Wilhelm out to assist them with business transactions important to them: “And so the two fathers lived, who often came together and advised each other about collaborative business endeavors, and just today agreed about sending Wilhelm to take care of business matters.”18 According to the plans of Wilhelm’s two “fathers,” he is destined to join them in their business endeavors. As in the case of Mariane, Wilhelm’s advisors and, in this case, fathers are planning his monetary life without any knowledge of his feelings and love for Mariane.19 While Wilhelm is caught in this familial structure of economic advantage, he is also clearly resisting this narrow view of life. Wilhelm questions the obsession with monetary gains and asks quite openly: “is then everything useless, that does not directly bring money into our bags, that does not procure us the very next property?”20 Not only does Wilhelm reject the obsession with money and economic planning and advantages, he also works to free himself from this narrow understanding of life and family. Precisely for this reason, Wilhelm has kept his relationship with Mariane a secret in order to avoid the reproaches of his father. His father and his friend’s father do not know about Wilhelm’s love for Mariane. Wilhelm plans his day every day in order to please his father and hide his evening rendezvous with Mariane: “He accomplished his daily business on time, usually declined to go to the theatrical performance, was entertaining in the evenings at the table, and when everyone was in bed, he snuck carefully out of the garden draped in his coat, and hurried … without stopping to his beloved.”21 Whenever Wilhelm leaves the house and sneaks over to visit Mariane, he feels freed from the paternally dictated life that has trapped him during the day: “Finally the night hour chimed; he left his house, shook off all pressure and strolled through the quiet streets. On a huge square he und beide höchst aufmerksam auf jeden Vorteil waren, den ihnen irgend eine Spekulation bringen konnte.” MA, 5, 40. 18 “So lebten die beiden Väter, welche öfter zusammen kamen, sich wegen gemeinschaftlicher Geschäfte beratschlagten, und eben heute die Versendung Wilhelms in Handelsangelegenheiten beschlossen.” MA, 5, 41. 19 Broszeit-Rieger, “Transgressions of Gender,” 80, refers to Werner’s father as replacing Wilhelm’s mother in planning his life. 20 “ist denn alles unnütz, was uns nicht unmittelbar Geld in den Beutel bringt, was uns nicht den allernächsten Besitz verschafft?” MA, 5, 11. 21 “Er verrichtete des Tags seine Geschäfte pünktlich, entsagte gewöhnlich dem Schauspiel, war Abends bei Tische unterhaltend, und schlich, wenn alles zu Bette war, in seinen Mantel gehüllt, sachte zu dem Garten hinaus und eilte … unaufhaltsam zu seiner Geliebten.” MA, 5, 15.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  75 raised his hands toward the sky, felt that everything was behind and under him. He had freed himself from everything.”22 Wilhelm clearly experiences his relationship to Mariane as one that frees him from the constraints of the life and family that his fathers have forced onto him.23 Once he is on his way to Mariane, he feels that he has escaped from all of the daily realities that oppress him and that have been determined for him by his fathers. Wilhelm also stresses this essential freedom from his father-controlled life directly when he writes to Mariane: “We have experienced all of the joys of love … my heart has left my parent’s home long ago, it is now with you.”24 Giving his heart to Mariane means leaving his parents’ house. These two actions are inseparable and feelings of true love are associated with escaping from one’s fatherplanned family. Moreover, Wilhelm insists that he is already like Mariane’s “husband,” that is, regardless of the fact that they are not married to one another legally, he defines himself as her husband of the heart. In addition, he tells her that he wants “to be with you forever,” and “to remain yours completely.” Wilhelm asserts that his status as Mariane’s husband and lover is forever based on their elective affinities and not on any social or cultural rules or customs outlining how one becomes married and/or what defines being married. He insists that marriage is simply “a formula / a convention,” and nothing more than empty words.25 In contrast, Wilhelm emphasizes the wonderful love he shares with Mariane and asserts that their love is the foundation of their “marriage.” He envisions exclusively a marriage that will free him from the suffocating and economically determined marriage and life his fathers and society have defined and want to establish for him. Wilhelm’s desire to follow his heart and to determine his life in terms of his elective affinities to Mariane is also clear in his continual references to his own plan, which is to leave his parent’s house and life and wander off into a new world with Mariane. He believes that she will then draw him fully out of the inert, annihilating life his father has constructed: “He believed he understood the bright cue of fate that 22 “Endlich schlug die nächtliche Stunde; er entfernte sich aus seinem Hause, schüttelte allen Druck ab, und wandelte durch die stillen Gassen. Auf dem großen Platze hub er seine Hände gen Himmel, fühlte alles hinter und unter sich, er hatte sich von allem los gemacht.” MA, 5, 42. 23 Schlipphacke, “Die Vaterschaft,” 401, mentions that Mariane “represents for Wilhelm an alternative to his own repressive bourgeois household.” 24 “Alle Freuden der Liebe haben wir empfunden … mein Herz hat schon lange meiner Eltern Haus verlassen, es ist bei dir …” MA, 5, 64. 25 Wilhelm is “wie einem Bräutigam” MA, 17, 63, and wants “ewig mit dir zu sein” MA, 5, 63, and “ganz der deinige zu bleiben” MA, 5, 63, and marriage is: “eine Formel” MA, 5, 65.

76  Goethe’s Families of the Heart offered him through Mariane its hand that would tear him out of the stagnant, sluggish civil life, from which he had wished to be saved for so long. To leave his father’s house and his relatives appeared to him to be something easy.”26 Wandering away with the woman he truly loves will free him from every unpleasant memory of his present life. Wilhelm hopes to escape from the suffocating, dragging civil life for good. He will be saved from it, by leaving that life, and fleeing with Mariane at his side. With Mariane, Wilhelm “wanted also through his wandering in the world to be free from every unpleasant memory.”27 Thinking about leaving with Mariane, anticipating being free from his miserable life and family, makes Wilhelm feel a wonderful joy: “But I now feel myself inexpressibly fortunate, that I can tell you about the past in this moment, because at the same time I look forward into that lovely land that we can wander through together hand in hand.”28 Wilhelm envisions a new life with Mariane, a life in which their elective affinities will hold them together and where they will not be torn apart by the plans of fathers and mentors interested in business and economic strategies, and who are not concerned about their feelings of love. But Wilhelm’s vision of a new world, a new life, a life of love, and elective affinities never materializes for him and Mariane. He discovers ultimately that Mariane has been seeing Norberg as well. As he watches a dark figure leave Mariane’s house one evening, he feels endless doubt about their relationship. His faith in Mariane is fully crushed when he finds a note from Norberg to Mariane letting her know he is coming to be with her the next night. All of Wilhelm’s hopes and wishes are dashed and he blames himself and “despises his own heart.”29 Wilhelm no longer trusts his elective affinities, and rejects everything he has ever loved so passionately and truly, including the theater and Mariane: “But finally he had so completely destroyed every hope of love, of poetic creation, and personal representation with compelling reasons, that he plucked up his courage to completely extinguish all 26 “Er glaubte den hellen Wink des Schicksals zu verstehen, das ihm durch Marianen die Hand reichte, sich aus dem stockenden, schleppenden bürgerlichen Leben heraus zu reißen, aus dem er schon so lange sich zu retten gewünscht hatte. Seines Vaters Haus, die Seinigen zu verlassen, schien ihm etwas leichtes.” MA, 5, 34–5. 27 “wollte bei seiner Wanderung in die Welt auch von jeder unangenehmen Erinnerung frei sein” MA, 5, 35. 28 “Aber unaussprechlich glücklich fühl’ ich mich jetzt, da ich in diesem Augenblicke mit dir von dem Vergangnen rede, weil ich zugleich vorwärts in das reizende Land schaue, das wir zusammen Hand in Hand durchwandern können.” MA, 5, 17. 29 “verachtete sein eigen Herz” MA, 5, 77.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  77 traces of his folly and everything that might yet still remind him of it.”30 After renouncing his elective affinities and banning his memories of love for Mariane, Wilhelm slides back into his father-determined, economic life with fervor: To the amazement of his friends and to the greatest satisfaction of his father, no one at the trading post and no one in the stock market, in the store and vaults, was more hard working than he (Wilhelm) was; he carried out correspondence and bills and everything that was assigned to him with the greatest diligence and zeal.31 Without Mariane, without trust in his elective affinities, Wilhelm gives up his vision of a new world of love and devotes himself entirely to the economic world he had experienced as stagnant, sluggish, and suffocating. The world of love and the economic world are clearly mutually exclusive for Wilhelm. He is either driven by his affinities to a new world of love, or he loses himself entirely in an empty, loveless, economic life. Wilhelm’s life seems destined to be empty and without love as his relationship with Mariane ends. This first framing story suggests that the economic, civil structure will prevail and that there is no hope for relationships built upon elective affinities. But the Lehrjahre concludes with another framing story as Wilhelm, Natalie, and Felix come together as a family. After innumerable adventures wandering around after the dissolution of his relationship with Mariane, Wilhelm finds another family, that is not planned by his father, and that is the result of his elective affinities. Ultimately, Wilhelm, Natalie, and Felix come together at the end of the novel in a family of love and Wilhelm’s last words are that he knows he has discovered an inexplicable happiness: “but I know, that I have obtained a bliss, that I do not deserve, and that I do not want to trade for anything else in the world.”32 Wilhelm finally finds the loving family he was searching for at the beginning of the novel, and that he despaired about ever finding, after his failed relationship with Mariane. 30 “Endlich aber hatte er jede Hoffnung der Liebe, des poetischen Hervorbringens und der persönlichen Darstellung, mit triftigen Gründen, so ganz in sich vernichtet, dass er Mut fasste, alle Spuren seiner Torheit, alles, was ihn irgend noch daran zu erinnern könnte, völlig auszulöschen.” MA, 5, 79. 31 “Zum Erstaunen seines Freundes und zur größten Zufriedenheit seines Vaters war niemand auf dem Comtoir und der Börse, im Laden und Gewölbe tätiger, als er (Wilhelm); Korrespondenz und Rechnungen, und was ihm aufgetragen wurde, besorgte und verrichtete er mit größten Fleiß und Eifer.” MA, 5, 78. 32 “aber ich weiß, dass ich ein Glück erlangt habe, das ich nicht verdiene, und das ich mit nichts in der Welt vertauschen möchte.” MA, 5, 610.

78  Goethe’s Families of the Heart The critical questions that these framing stories pose are: how did Wilhelm overcome his total despondency and his unwavering conviction that relationships based on elective affinities were impossible? How did he come together with Natalie and Felix? How did he finally find his totally loving family? These are the core questions that Goethe foregrounds in these two framing stories and that are outlined and addressed in detail throughout the Lehrjahre. Moreover, directly within the two framing stories of Wilhelm and Mariane, and Wilhelm, Natalie, and Felix are the stories of the Runaway Girl and Sperata and the Harfner. Both of these narratives foreground radical stories of love and elective affinities that transcend, and openly challenge, any economic and/or social and cultural expectations for family. And while the first framing stories posed questions about father-imposed limits on love and family, and asked us to consider how elective affinities can be undone and ultimately recovered, these two stories openly challenge and dismiss any suggestion that elective affinities of any kind are not appropriate, not legal, and/or not acceptable. As Wilhelm is losing Mariane, but still hoping to escape with her, the second framing story about the Runaway Girl begins. On a business trip for his father, Wilhelm encounters a family whose daughter has run away with an actor. This story is similar to Wilhelm’s in that he had also envisioned running away with Mariane, an actress. But this framing story outlines much more radically the failures of the family controlled by parents, the negative social reactions to the couple’s true love, the possible legal consequences of the lovers’ relationship, and their insistence upon being together despite legal and familial objections. When Wilhelm meets the mother of the Runaway Girl, she tells him that the father is beside himself in pain and chagrin and she, herself, launches into criticisms of both lovers: “She excoriated her daughter vehemently and reviled her lover so much that nothing laudable remained on either one of them. She deplored with many words the shame that had come to the family through them …”33 Wilhelm is taken aback by the mother’s harsh rejection of the lovers’ relationship and identifies with the fleeing couple. But he also sympathizes with the father’s pain and is so overcome by the story that he “rushes away early the next morning as soon as possible in order to distance himself”34 from these people. Wilhelm is clearly upset by the whole situation and his first reaction is to escape from these people, who are 33 “Sie schalt ihre Tochter heftig, schmähte den Liebhaber, so daß an beiden nichts Lobenswürdiges übrig blieb, beklagte mit vielen Worten die Schande, die dadurch auf die Familie gekommen …” MA, 5, 46. 34 “eilte frühmorgens sobald als möglich sich … zu entfernen” MA, 5, 47.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  79 drawing his sympathies in conflicting directions. He sympathizes with the father, but also with the lovers, who are trying to protect their love. As he flees from this disturbing family, Wilhelm immediately encounters a detachment of militia, fully armed and on the way to capturing the runaway couple. Shortly after this, Wilhelm witnesses how the captured couple is returned. They are forced to sit together in a wagon. The young man is in chains. Wilhelm notices, in contrast to the harsh treatment they are receiving, that they are looking at each other delicately “while he (the young man) repeatedly kissed the hands of his beloved.”35 The young woman’s first words reveal her total rejection of family plans that preclude true love: “We are very miserable! she yelled to the bystanders, but not so guilty as we seem. This is how horrible people reward true love, and how parents who completely disregard the happiness of their children, rip them with vehemence out of the arms of joy …”36 The young woman thoroughly rejects the structure of family control that allows “horrible” people to undo true love relationships. The Runaway Girl goes on to critique a legal system that allows for her lover to be dragged around in chains and tethers. All they had wanted to do was to share a love and happiness that was not allowed for them at home. Indeed, her stepmother has been continually undermining her love relationships: “Since my father’s second marriage, I have not been treated very well at home. I could have had several lovely relationships, if my stepmother had not known to thwart them due to her fear of financial commitments.”37 Her stepmother’s principal concern is financial and she worries about the “shame” this relationship is bringing onto their family, and she is not at all concerned with how her stepdaughter and her lover feel or that they have been drawn together by their elective affinities. In addition, Wilhelm notices that while he feels compassion for the two lovers who are being torn apart, other families are expressing their relief that the Runaway Girl and her lover are not in their families, and that the legal representatives are defining the Runaway Girl as a prostitute: “As Wilhelm heard her confession, he formed a high conception of the sentiments of the young girl, while the court officials 35 “indem er wiederholt seiner Geliebten die Hände küsste.” MA, 5, 48. 36 “Wir sind sehr unglücklich! rief sie den Umstehenden zu; aber nicht so schuldig wie wir scheinen. So belohnen grausame Menschen treue Liebe, und Eltern, die das Glück ihrer Kinder gänzlich vernachlässigen, reißen sie mit Ungestüm aus den Armen der Freude …” MA, 5, 48. 37 “Seit meines Vaters zweiter Heirat werde ich zu Hause nicht zum besten gehalten. Ich hätte einige hübsche Partien tun können, wenn nicht meine Stiefmutter aus Furcht vor Ausstattung sie zu vereiteln gewusst hätte.” MA, 5, 49.

80  Goethe’s Families of the Heart judged her to be an insolent prostitute, and the citizens present thanked God that similar cases did not occur in their families or had not become known.”38 Both the family witnesses and the legal system define the Runaway Girl and her lover as such criminals that they would destroy their families and that they should consequently be fettered in chains (the man) and rejected as a prostitute (the girl). Neither the families nor the court system recognize their love, and they treat them as the worst of criminals for trying to run away and find a place where they could be in love with one another and free from a family and society that will only reject them. Wilhelm is clearly shocked by the strong negative reaction of both her family and the entire city against the Runaway Girl and her lover: He had seen with his own eyes the commotion that arose in a good civil family, and yes in the whole city, because of the flight of a girl. The scenes on the country road and in the court and everything else that had happened presented themselves to him again and brought his lively, penetrating spirit into a type of sympathetic turmoil …39 Goethe clearly outlines Wilhelm’s continuing disarray as he witnesses and then later recounts the familial and social/legal excoriation of the Runaway Girl and her lover and the dismissal of their love as the basis for a strong relationship and marriage. Goethe radically outlines and reiterates multiple times the harsh and vicious nature of the civil family structure and the legal system that supports it. People who love each other, but do not adhere to social expectations are treated as the worst criminals and prostitutes. At the same time, it is essential to note that the Runaway Girl also strongly rejects the family and legal definitions of herself and her lover as a criminal and a prostitute. She stands up for herself and insists openly and directly that she and her lover should not be treated as some kind of thieves and robbers. She insists that they are in love and 38 “Wilhelm faßte, als er ihr Geständnis hörte, einen hohen Begriff von den Gesinnungen des Mädchens, indes sie die Gerichtspersonen für eine freche Dirne erkannten, und die gegenwärtigen Bürger Gott dankten, das dergleichen Fälle in ihren Familien entweder nicht vorgekommen oder nicht bekannt geworden waren.” MA, 5, 50. 39 “Die Bewegung, welche durch die Flucht eines Mädchens in eine gute Bürgerfamilie, ja in ein ganzes Städtchen gekommen war, hatte er mit Augen gesehen, die Szenen auf der Landstrasse und im Amthause … und was sonst noch vorgegangen war, stellten sich ihm wieder dar, und brachten seinen lebhaften, vordringenden Geist in eine Art von sorglicher Unruhe …” MA, 5, 59–60.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  81 that is not a crime. And the Runaway Girl not only understands that herself, but also states it openly in front of, and as a challenge to, all of the bystanders who are witnesses to the mistreatment of her and her lover. She insists: “I am no criminal”40 and she asserts that her affinities drew her to her lover and that he is her husband in her heart: “Yes, I have considered him my husband from that moment on in which I was certain of his elective affinities and his faithfulness. I have happily allowed him to have, what love demands, and what a convinced heart cannot deny. Do with me now, whatever you want.”41 The Runaway Girl was drawn to her lover by her elective affinities, has recognized him as her husband (in her heart), and has responded to him as a wife, giving him all of her love. Not only does she assert that she and her lover did what was right, but that the court officials can now do to her whatever they want. All that really matters are their elective affinities, and the Runaway Girl stands up for their love regardless of the negative familial and social consequences. Once again the Runaway Girl foregrounds a radical (for the time period) resistance to a system of family building that is controlled by parents and courts and that ultimately does not focus on whether or not the two lovers are in love, but whether their family of the heart might reflect back negatively on the parents, who are supposed to determine their children’s relationships, and/or if it would undermine their economic prospects. The Runaway Girl challenges the prevailing notions of family and insists that her elective affinities are right and that the dominant ideas and laws concerning family and marriage are not only wrong but, ultimately, vicious and horrible. Intriguingly, the Runaway Girl’s parents finally agree to let her marry her “illegitimate” lover. But their capitulation is contingent upon them not providing any dowry and the runaway daughter must keep herself out of their view, because they want “to not see that wayward child before their eyes.”42 While the parents are allowing this marriage, they are still totally dismissive and unsupportive. They essentially ban their daughter from their future lives. The critique of the Runaway Girl’s family becomes even more unsettling when Wilhelm finally discovers the true reasons why the parents have been resisting the relationship between the two lovers: “Then the father, who would have liked to have kept his daughter with him, 40 “Ich bin keine Verbrecherin …” MA, 5, 50. 41 “Ja, ich habe ihn von dem Augenblicke an, da ich seiner Neigung und seiner Treue gewiß war, als meinen Ehemann angesehen, ich habe ihm alles gerne gegönnt, was die Liebe fordert, und was ein überzeugtes Herz nicht versagen kann. Machen Sie nun mit mir, was Sie wollen.” MA, 5, 50. 42 “das ungeratene Kind nicht vor Augen sehen” MA, 5, 55–6.

82  Goethe’s Families of the Heart hated the young man, because his wife had cast an eye on him and the stepmother could not stand to have her stepdaughter, a happy rival before her eyes.”43 The true obstacle to the young lovers’ relationship is the perverse desires of the Runaway Girl’s parents. They are caught in, and represent, a loveless marriage. The mother is drawn to the young man her stepdaughter loves and not to her husband. And the father is consequently jealous of his daughter’s lover, because of his wife’s attraction to him. Once again, the lack of love in the civil family structure comes to the fore. Not only are young lovers condemned to its loveless structure, not only are they precluded from being with the ones they truly love, the parents already in such marriages are stuck with each other, are not in love, are attracted by, and jealous of, persons outside their marriage, and do everything they can to undo their children’s happiness and love. In each description of the civil family and its demands, Goethe illustrates its severe lack of love, care, and compassion. Families and parents do not love one another and do not do what is best for their children. They are caught in marriages without love, are obsessed with their own interests, both emotional and economic, and work to destroy any love relationships their children feel that they can only attain though escaping their biological families. The next framing story about Sperata and the Harfner provides not only the most radical story of elective affinities but also the one most condemning of the controls and limits placed on families by aristocratic and/or civil society, the legal system, and religion. The ultimate destruction of family and love is attributed, not to those in love but to those who try to control who can love whom, and what family can be. The Markese’s story of Sperata and the Harfner begins tellingly with a detailed account of the Markese’s father’s attempts to determine every aspect of his own and his family’s life. The father is constantly planning his business endeavors and is strict with himself in all of his plans and actions. In fact, he is so absorbed in his strict plans that he could never achieve any joy. Moreover, the father dictates what each son will be raised to be: “In this spirit, he had planned his children and his assets. My older brother was raised to be a man who would hope to have huge commodities in the future. I was supposed to embrace a spiritual position, and the youngest brother should become a soldier.”44 43 “Denn der Vater, der seine Tochter gerne bei sich behalten hätte, haßte den jungen Menschen, weil seine Frau selbst ein Auge auf ihn geworfen hatte, und diese konnte in ihrer Stieftochter eine glückliche Nebenbuhlerin nicht vor Augen leiden.” MA, 5, 56. 44 “In eben diesem Geiste hatte er über seine Kinder und sein Vermögen disponiert.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  83 Intriguingly, the sons’ mother is not mentioned once in this account of their family life and the plans for their futures. In fact, the Markese goes on to relate how another father joins his father in this planning and that this other father (who has a daughter) is their father’s only contact to anyone other than his sons. This second father gets along with the Markese’s father because, as the Markese recounts it: “He never contradicted my father.”45 And after the death of his father, the second father receives a sizable inheritance from the Markese’s father. Intriguingly, these two fathers form a family and, as a couple, they determine both their businesses and family ventures. The only mention of the Markese’s mother occurs later in the story when a confessor tells the sons that their parents had had a daughter, Sperata, later in life. They do not know about this sister because the father did not want to be ridiculed by others in the neighborhood because of such late evidence of his love life with his wife, and he therefore made sure that: “Our mother gave birth secretly and the child was brought out to the country.”46 The father’s desire not to be laughed at for having another child later in life is more important than his relationship to his wife, more important than the child, and drives him to hide the child and ban her from his life.47 The Markese’s father is the most heartless socially and economically driven father presented in the Lehrjahre.48 Not only is he, himself, without feelings for his family, only concerned about himself and his business, but his actions also lead to even more complications and unfortunate circumstances.

45 46 47

48

Mein ältester Bruder ward als ein Mann erzogen, der künftig große Güter zu hoffen hatte. Ich sollte den geistlichen Stand ergreifen, und der jüngste Soldat werden.” MA, 5, 581. “Er widersprach meinem Vater niemals” MA, 5, 581. “Unsere Mutter kam heimlich nieder, das Kind wurde aufs Land gebracht …” MA, 5, 582. See also Krimmer, “Mama’s Baby,” 263, who notes in this context that “great unhappiness and suffering arise from a father’s unwillingness to accept his paternal responsibilities.” In this context, it is interesting that Barbara also suggests to Wilhelm that there are countless bad biological mothers who do not care for their daughters: “If you want to rail against someone, so go to your big aristocratic houses, there you will find mothers, who are truly anxiously concerned, about how to locate for a loveable, heavenly girl, the most repulsive man, if only he is at the same time the richest (Wenn ihr schimpfen wollt, so geht in Eure großen vornehmen Häuser, da werdet Ihr Mütter finden, die recht ängstlich besorgt sind, wie sie für ein liebenswürdiges, himmlisches Mädchen den allerabscheulichsten Menschen auffinden wollen, wenn er nur zugleich der reichste ist. MA, 5, 479). Here aristocratic mothers are presented as just as greedy and wealth driven as civil and aristocratic fathers. Even the most detestable men are acceptable to them as long as they are the richest partners they can secure for their daughters.

84  Goethe’s Families of the Heart One of the Markese’s brothers, the Harfner, and his sister, Sperata, later fall in love with one another, not knowing that they are related. When the Harfner is told that Sperata is his sister, they have been seeing each other as lovers for some time and are expecting a child. The Harfner rejects any suggestion that Sperata is his sister: “Sperata is not my sister, she is my wife.”49 The Harfner insists that Sperata is the woman he loves and that his heart tells him that she is his wife, not his sister. He dismisses the legal, religious, and parental reactions against marrying his “wife” and insists that their relationship is in accord with nature, and that Sperata is his wife and that “everything else is fancy and opinions.”50 It is essential to note that the Harfner is insisting on the validity of his relationship to Sperata because, as he claims, she is his wife and not his sister. He does not condone incest, but denies and refuses to accept any notion that Sperata is his sister. Ultimately, the only thing that is important to the Harfner is his relationship to Sperata: “Nothing seemed sacred to him other than the relationship to Sperata,” and “nothing seemed worthy to him other than the name father and wife.”51 Unlike his own father, the Harfner follows his heart and values his fatherhood and his wife. His elective affinities are more important to him than anything else “because I feel again on the bosom of this heavenly girl, that I am, that she is, that we are one, that out of this lovely connection a third will be born, and will smile at us.”52 This bliss is now being challenged, according to the Harfner, by the hellish restrictions of the social order. The Harfner insists that his love for Sperata is a wonderful love and he envisions a perfect, loving family that is precisely the opposite of the father-controlled family he grew up in. The Harfner challenges his critics to ask their hearts what love is, and to recognize that his relationship to Sperata is based on elective affinities and total love. He insists that they ignore the demands of churches and legal ordinances: “Don’t ask the echoes of your cloisters, not your molding parchment, not your entangled fancies and ordinances, ask nature and your heart. It will teach you before what you should shudder …”53 The Harfner rejects the conceptions of his 49 “Sperata ist nicht meine Schwester, sie ist mein Weib.” MA, 5, 583. 50 “alles andere sind Grillen und Meinungen.” MA, 5, 583. 51 “Nichts schien ihm heilig als das Verhältnis zu Sperata” and “nichts schien ihm würdig als der Name Vater und Gattin” MA, 5, 583. 52 “da ich an dem Busen eines himmlischen Mädchens wieder fühle, daß ich bin, daß sie ist, daß wir eins sind, daß aus dieser lebendigen Verbindung ein drittes entstehen und uns entgegenlächeln soll …” MA, 5, 584. 53 “Fragt nicht den Wiederhall eurer Kreuzgänge, nicht euer vermodertes Pergament, nicht eure verschränkten Grillen und Verordnungen, fragt die Natur und euer Herz, sie wird euch lehren, vor was ihr zu schaudern habt …” MA, 5, 584.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  85 time about the limits to love and insists that his love for the wife of his heart is thoroughly legitimate. His heart tells him to love Sperata and to shudder before the cloister and its ordinances. More than any other story in the Lehrjahre, the Harfner’s story defies and challenges not just the father’s control of family but legal, religious, and cultural mandates of any kind. Just like Wilhelm and the Runaway Girl, the Harfner also envisions running away with the love of his heart, Sperata: “he flees, he goes to Sperata, he hopes to escape with her …”54 His plans to escape, however, are precluded by the church. He is held captive in the monastery and one of the priests convinces Sperata of the unnaturalness of her love and actions. Significantly, he does not reveal to her that the Harfner is her brother, but suggests to her that her loving relationship with him is as perverse as incest. Her offense was “a kind of sin against nature,”55 and that he would handle this case like one of incest. Subsequently, after hearing the priest’s condemnation of her love, Sperata becomes so upset that her motherly love for her child is constantly undermined by her feelings that her child should never have been born: “It was awful to see, the motherly love that was so inclined to rejoice wholeheartedly over the existence of the child struggle with the horrible thoughts that this child should not be there. Soon these two feelings clashed against each other and soon her feelings of abhorrence overcame her love.”56 Sperata’s feelings that the child should not be there, and her feelings of total abhorrence, become stronger than her love for the child. Consequently, her ability to be a mother who loves her child becomes impossible. The priest who is coaching her is essentially asserting the restrictions on love outlined by religion, does not care about the child, or about Sperata’s feelings for the child, or how her feelings might be negatively affected by his criticisms of her actions and motherhood. Eventually, the priests take the child away from her and the child is later reported as having drowned. Sperata’s response to this news is to become “peaceful” and she is ultimately “happy” that her child died.57 To this extent, she was clearly driven by the priest to become a truly heartless and uncaring mother.58 54 “er entfliehe, er gehe zu Sperata, er hoffe mit ihr zu entkommen …” MA, 5, 585. 55 “eine Art von Sünde gegen die Natur” MA, 5, 586. 56 “Jämmerlich war es anzusehen, wie die Mutterliebe, die über das Dasein des Kindes sich so herzlich zu erfreuen geneigt war, mit dem schrecklichen Gedanken stritt, daß dieses Kind nicht da sein sollte. Bald stritten diese beiden Gefühle zusammen, bald war der Abscheu über die Liebe gewaltig.” MA, 5, 587. 57 “ruhig und heiter,” MA, 5, 588. 58 Mahlendorf also comments briefly on “how the attending priest poisons the mother/child relationship by stimulating the mother’s ambivalence toward

86  Goethe’s Families of the Heart The Markese’s story of the Harfner and Sperata outlines their elective affinities, true love, and the possibility of a happy family despite the fact that they have committed incest without knowing it. Subsequently, the Harfner rejects and challenges all civil, religious, and legal delimitations of marriage and family. The story of Sperata and the Harfner also provides extensive details about all of the ways in which the families, courts, and churches can destroy any possibility of love. The Harfner’s and Sperata’s experience of love, the preclusion of their love for each other, and especially the undermining of Sperata’s love for her child by the church, are presented in disturbing detail. The loveless treatment of his sons and baby daughter by the Markese’s father is also fundamentally disturbing. In every way, the narrative of the Harfner and Sperata is a tragedy that illustrates how elective affinities between partners, parents, and parents and their children are inevitably undermined and sacrificed by civil, legal, and religious regulations. The framing stories in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre outline the horrible effects of father-controlled families on their children. Those children like Wilhelm and Mariane, and the Runaway Girl and her lover, fall in love and are drawn by their amazing elective affinities to love one another. The Harfner and Sperata fall unknowingly into an incestuous relationship, because of their father’s narcissistic concerns for himself. Heartless fathers, courts, priests, and churches undermine true love relationships. Even the love of the Runaway Girl and her lover are treated as the worst of criminal violations. Priests revile a mother’s love for her child and convince her to hate her child and welcome its death. In these framing love stories the civil family structures, the laws that dictate them, and the church that supports them are revealed to be the most perverse institutions. They preclude any possibility of love between couples and between parents and their children. All of the couples are trying to escape the structures that eliminate their love and the only couple that appears to free itself and come together as a loving family is Wilhelm and Natalie with Felix. Before we directly address their anomalous family of love and how they come to it, we will turn our attention to the final framing/central story of the Beautiful Soul.59 the infant, in which maternal enjoyment struggles with “Abscheu” (repulsion) and death wishes …” Ursula Mahlendorf, “The Mystery of Mignon: Object Relations, Abandonment, Child Abuse and Narrative Structure,” Goethe Yearbook 7 (1994): 27. 59 Some portions of my analyses of the Beautiful Soul were published in my article on Kristevan abjection in her story. Susan Gustafson,”’I suffered and loved’: Narcissism and Abject Desire in Goethe’s Confessions of a Beautiful Soul,” in The Self as Muse: Narcissism from 1750–1900, ed. Alexander Mathäs (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 2011), 150–65.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  87 The Beautiful Soul’s story of her life provides the most detailed account of a young girl’s childhood, what influences her parents had upon her, and how family structures both determine how she views life, love, and family and how, and to what extent, she can resist it.60 What is striking about the Beautiful Soul’s account of her relationships with family and prospective lovers is her continual insistence that her elective affinities are contingent upon corporeal determinations. From the very beginning, the Beautiful Soul emphasizes above all things her body, biological inheritance, and her father’s obsession with bodies. Her father shares with her his fascination with both the appearances of related bodies and bits and pieces of dissected bodies. The first hint of this familial obsession with bodies occurs in the opening passages of her Confessions. The Beautiful Soul maintains her feelings and sense of self are determined by her hemorrhaging body: Until my eighth year I was a completely healthy child. But of that period I can recall as little as of the day of my birth. At the beginning of my eighth year I had a hemorrhage and in that instant my soul became all feeling, all memory. The smallest circumstances of this accident stand before my eyes as if it had happened yesterday.61 The Beautiful Soul remembers nothing preceding her eighth year of life. In that empty time her body was healthy and her mind blank. Memory, feeling, and a sense of her soul come to her as the consequences of a violent corporeal hemorrhage. The hemorrhage itself is a kind of birth through which the Beautiful Soul becomes a human being with feelings and memories. After the stream of blood that marks her first development as an emotional subject, she remains, as she notes, in a nine-month state of illness that forms the “basis of my entire manner of thinking.”62 The foundation of her way of thinking emerges through a reversal of biological pregnancy, i.e. nine months of waiting/ 60 Goethe’s representation of the Beautiful Soul is based on Susanna von Klettenberg’s life (see, for example, Heitner’s article). I would suggest that Goethe produced a subtle, literary critique of her accounts of her spiritual development. Robert Heitner, “Goethe’s Ailing Women,” MLN 95:3 (1980): 497–515. 61 “Bis in mein achtes Jahr war ich ein ganz gesundes Kind, weiß mich aber von dieser Zeit so wenig zu erinnern, als von dem Tage meiner Geburt. Mit dem Anfange des achten Jahres bekam ich einen Blutsturz und in dem Augenblick war meine Seele ganz Empfindung und Gedächtnis. Die kleinsten Umstände dieses Zufalls stehn mir noch vor Augen als hätte er sich gestern ereignet.” MA, 5, 360. 62 “Grund zu meiner ganzen Denkart” MA, 5, 360.

88  Goethe’s Families of the Heart development followed by a birth. She is convinced that her beautiful soul is the product of a suffering body and without that suffering body she would have remained healthy and blank, that is, devoid of feelings and spiritual development. Bound to her bed, the Beautiful Soul’s psychic development continues as she immerses herself in Bible stories, natural science, and love stories. She recounts first (in one brief sentence) her mother’s introduction of Bible stories: “From my mother I was happy to hear biblical stories.”63 Immediately thereafter she highlights her enthusiasm for the natural objects her father brings to her: “Dried plants and insects and many kinds of anatomical preparations, human skin, bones, mummies, and such things came to the sickbed of the little one. Birds and animals he had killed while hunting were presented to me, before they went to the kitchen …”64 The objects her father shares with the Beautiful Soul are largely disgusting pieces of bodies and/or dead bodies. The list becomes increasingly abject as she moves from dried plants to anatomical preparations, human skin, bones, mummies, and dead animals. The Beautiful Soul’s fascination for dissected bodies becomes the critical means through which she bonds with her father. He brings bits and pieces of bodies to her in her sickbed and she offers them back to him. Theirs is an exchange of body pieces at the site of, and across, her sick and suffering body. The Beautiful Soul ends her discussion of her early lessons concerning the body with an account of the great happiness with which she dissected small animals and gave them to her father: “To cut up a hen or a pig was quite a festivity for me. I would bring the entrails to my father and he would discuss them with me …”65 Once again, the Beautiful Soul links her emotional development as a child to her fascination for abject corporeal objects. Her fixation on dismembered bodies parallels her idealization of her own ailing body, allows her to bond with her father, and reveals how truly disturbing her desires are. Symbolically, the Beautiful Soul gives dismembered bodies to her father. Like her body they are abject and incomplete. In offering them to her father, she mirrors the body both that she has in part from her father (biologically speaking) and that she returns to him throughout their exchanges. Moreover, the Beautiful 63 “Von meiner Mutter hörte ich die biblischen Geschichten gern an …” MA, 5, 360. 64 “Getrocknete Pflanzen und Insekten und manche Arten von anatomischen Präparaten, Menschenhaut, Knochen, Mumien und dergleichen kamen auf das Krankenbette der Kleinen; Vögel und Tiere, die er auf der Jagd erlegte, wurden mir vorgezeigt, ehe sie nach der Küche gingen …” MA, 5, 360. 65 “Ein Huhn, ein Ferkel aufzuschneiden, war für mich ein Fest. Dem Vater brachte ich die Eingeweide und er redete mit mir darüber …” MA, 5, 362.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  89 Soul’s fascination for dissected bodies mirrors her father’s and her own obsession with her corporeal suffering and incompleteness, and is bolstered by his instruction. In other words, he is also socializing her and teaching her to be fascinated and determined by bodies. In the final passages of the Confessions, the Beautiful Soul also lapses into a detailed discussion of just how destiny-determining bodies are for her and her family. Her obsession with her body and her fascination with other bleeding and sick bodies like her own is connected to an underlying belief in biological/corporeal determinism. The Beautiful Soul reveals that she and her family embrace the notion that corporeal characteristics delimit the inner characteristics of their family members. She recounts that her father had carefully preserved paintings of their ancestors and that it was a family tradition to search for family resemblances from generation to generation: Since my good doctor drew my attention to it, I have gladly observed the family resemblances in children and relatives. My father had carefully preserved the paintings of his predecessors, and had himself and his children painted by passable masters. My mother and her relatives were also not forgotten. We knew exactly all of the characteristics of the whole family and since we often compared them with each other, we also searched now in the children for external and internal likenesses.66 What they search for are the corporeal resemblances between family members they believe demarcate their inner selves. Accordingly, the Beautiful Soul maintains that her sister’s oldest son “appeared to resemble his grandfather on his father’s side”67 and, of course, the grandfather was a brave officer and the grandson has a passion for weapons. She also notes that her sister’s oldest daughter, Natalie, “had captured my whole inclination, and that most likely, because she looked like me.”68 Her sister’s other daughter “had much from her mother” and is obsessed (as are the Beautiful Soul and her 66 “Seitdem mein guter Arzt mich aufmerksam gemacht hatte, betrachtete ich gern die Familienähnlichkeit in Kindern und Verwandten. Mein Vater hatte sorgfältig die Bilder seiner Vorfahren aufbewahrt, sich selbst und seine Kinder von leidlichen Meistern malen lassen, auch war meine Mutter und ihre Verwandten nicht vergessen worden. Wir kannten die Charaktere der ganzen Familie genau, und da wir sie oft unter einander verglichen hatten, so suchten wir nun bei den Kindern Ähnlichkeiten des äußern und innern wieder auf.” MA, 5, 418–19. 67 “schien seinem Großvater, väterlicher Seite, zu gleichen” MA, 5, 419. 68 “hatte meine ganze Neigung gefesselt, und es mochte wohl daher kommen, weil sie mir ähnlich sah …” MA, 5, 419.

90  Goethe’s Families of the Heart father) with her outer/biological appearance and attributes: “she is very focused on her outer appearance … I still remember with what bliss she examined herself as a child in a mirror …”69 Much in the same manner that her grandfather and her aunt are focused on their bodies, the sister’s daughter is also mesmerized by the sight of her own body. The Beautiful Soul reveals here how each of her family members is obsessed by the bodies that connect them to one another through signs of inheritance, self-definition, mirroring of each other, and/or mutual sharing. The Beautiful Soul and her family believe that bodies dictate a person’s inner self and that biological inheritance demarcates a genealogy of inner characteristics. In other words, in this case, as in the Confessions as a whole, the body is perceived as determining self, feelings, and destiny. We obtain an even more transparent sense of the Beautiful Soul’s disturbing desire for bodies like her own, and especially suffering bodies, as she recalls her formative love relationships. She reminisces about her initial, equal attraction to two brothers and her surprise when she acquires them both as lovers: “All at once I had two lovers. I hadn’t decided for one or the other; they both pleased me.” But her sentiments shift in favor of the older brother as he becomes sick: “Suddenly the oldest one became very sick. I, myself, had often been very sick …” The older brother’s sickness fascinates the Beautiful Soul’s desire. She notes both his sickness and his likeness to herself. Her narrative reveals how an ailing body—first her hemorrhaging body and now the brother’s sick one—compels her to reflect upon her own body and self. Now that he is sick, he becomes her sole object of desire: “from that day on, I was settled on him.”70 The Beautiful Soul loves the brother whose sick body is a narcissistic reflection of her own. We find an even more graphic pattern of abject fascination with bloody bodies in the Beautiful Soul’s later accounts of her love for Narciß. Her attraction to Narciß is greater than the passion she felt for the sick brother. Narciß has something he doesn’t—a bleeding body (like hers). During the course of the Beautiful Soul’s confessions, Narciß’s body becomes increasingly more blood drenched and consequently of more interest to her. At a dance in which she sits on the sidelines to protect her fragile health, Narciß joins her with a nosebleed 69 “hatte vieles von der Mutter” and “sie ist sehr mit ihrem Äußern beschäftigt … Ich erinnere mich noch immer, mit welchem Entzücken sie sich als ein kleines Kind im Spiegel besah …” MA, 5, 420. 70 “Nun hatte ich auf einmal zwei Liebhaber bekommen. Ich war für keinen entschieden; sie gefielen mir beide …” MA, 5, 364, and “Auf einmal ward der Älteste sehr krank, ich war selbst schon oft sehr krank gewesen …” MA, 5, 364, and “von dem Tage an war ich für ihn entschieden” MA, 5, 364.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  91 and shortly thereafter she notes: “Now the acquaintance was made.”71 And yet, Narciß’s minor hemorrhage is not enough to spark their love. They are friends, but without signs of love or tenderness. But, suddenly, the floodgates of love open when Narciß is wounded in a fight and bleeds profusely: “Narciß bled … soon we were cognizant of a stream of blood that flowed down his back and discovered a large wound on his head.”72 The Beautiful Soul comments on her unsuccessful attempts to find help for Narciß. She leaves him briefly, and when she returns she states: “I went back to my injured one” and notes that: “He was still bleeding profusely … the wounded man grew pale …” The Beautiful Soul attempts to revive Narciß “through caressing and coaxing.” By the time someone comes to help, Narciß is lying in her arms and both are “covered in streams of blood.”73 Narciß and the Beautiful Soul are drawn together across his bleeding body such that once the surgeon arrives to take care of him she recounts: “Narciß held me firmly by the hand and I would have stayed without being held.”74 Now she asserts: “I was indescribably altered and affected—or how should I express it—the passion that lay resting in the deepest recesses of my heart had suddenly broken loose, like a flame that gets air.”75 Narciß’s wounded and bleeding body fans the flames of her desire. The Beautiful Soul has discovered her elective affinities, but only through Narciß’s bleeding body. She connects with him as she did with her father across abject bodies that reflect her own hemorrhaging body. The Beautiful Soul’s initial elective affinities are rekindled when Narciß returns to her home: “Above all he had himself carried to our house with his head bandaged and his hand swathed. How my heart beat during this visit!” As time goes on she recounts that “he became ever more dear to me, my whole soul hung on him” and “except for Narciß, the whole world was dead for me.”76 Nothing exists for the 71 “Nun war die Bekanntschaft gemacht.” MA, 5, 367. 72 “Narciß blutete … bald aber wurden wir einen Strom von Blut, der den Rücken hinunterfloß, gewahr, und es zeigte sich eine große Wunde auf dem Kopfe” MA, 5, 369. 73 “Ich ging wieder zu meinem Verwundeten …” bold mine, MA, 5, 369, and “Er blutete noch immer heftig … der Verwundete erblaßte …” MA, 5, 369, and “durch Streicheln und Schmeicheln” MA 5, 370, and “mit Blut überströmt” MA, 5, 370. 74 “Narciß hielt mich fest bei der Hand, und ich wäre ohne gehalten zu werden stehen geblieben.” MA, 5, 370. 75 “Ich war unbeschreiblich alteriert und affiziert, oder wie soll ich es ausdrücken; der Affekt; der im tiefsten Grunde des Herzens ruhte, war auf einmal losgebrochen, wie eine Flamme die Luft bekömmt.” MA, 5, 370–1. 76 “Vor allen Dingen ließ er sich mit verbundenem Haupt und eingewickelter Hand in unser Haus tragen. Wie klopfte mir das Herz bei diesem Besuche!”

92  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Beautiful Soul outside of Narciß, i.e. the one who loves himself, as she loves herself—in him. The Beautiful Soul’s fascination for a bleeding body like her own and for a wounded, self-obsessed Narciß reflects her own corporeal hemorrhaging and her own narcissism and makes “love” possible for her. Intriguingly, the Beautiful Soul never marries Narciß. Her family and Narciß support their marriage, but the Beautiful Soul rejects it. She will only agree to their marriage if Narciß will agree to let her freely determine everything pertaining to her: “I explained with manly defiance that I had sacrificed myself enough up to now, that I was ready to share all tribulations with him up to the end of my life, but that I demand full freedom for my actions, and that my lifestyle must depend upon my convictions …”77 The Beautiful Soul is acting like a “wayward son”78 or, more exactly, like a wayward father, like her father, and she refuses to let Narciß control her. She demands control over herself with manly defiance.79 In this respect, as well, she is a mirror image, a reflection of her father, and like the fathers in the Lehrjahre, she is certain that she is doing what is right: “How certain I am, that I am acting correctly.”80 The Beautiful Soul refuses to marry Narciß without his assurance that she can be in control of herself and that no one else (especially Narciß) will be able to tell her how to act and what to do. Her elective affinities for Narciß are less important to her than her ability to determine her life. In fact, she claims “that I would rather leave my fatherland, parents and friends and earn my bread in a foreign land, than act against my insights.”81 Intriguingly, the Beautiful Soul’s insistence on manly self-control is both challenging to civil and aristocratic systems and integral to them. To the extent that a woman is demanding her right to MA, 5, 372, and “er ward mir immer lieber, meine ganze Seele hing an ihm” MA, 5, 374, and “Die ganze Welt war mir außer Narcissen tot …” MA, 5, 375. 77 “Ich erklärte mit männlichem Trotz, daß ich mich bisher genug aufgeopfert habe, daß ich bereit sei, noch ferner und bis ans Ende meines Lebens alle Widerwärtigkeiten mit ihm zu tielen, daß ich aber für meine Handlungen völlige Freiheit verlange, daß mein Tun und Lassen von meiner Überzeugung abhängen müsse …” MA, 5, 381. 78 “misratenen Sohn” MA, 5, 362. 79 See also Gerhard Neumann, “‘Ich bin gebildet genug, um zu lieben und zu trauern.’ Die Erziehung zur Liebe in Goethes ‘Wilhelm Meister,’” in Liebesroman—Liebe im Roman, eds. Titus Heydenreich and Egert Pöhlmann (Erlangen: Univ. Bund Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1987), 79, who notes that the Beautiful Soul seeks to free herself in an energetic way from a man’s definition of her. 80 “wie gewiß ich sei, daß ich recht handle” MA, 5, 382. 81 “daß ich lieber mein Vaterland, Eltern und Freunde verlassen, und mein Brot in der Fremde verdienen, als gegen meine Einsichten handeln wollte.” MA, 5, 382.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  93 self-determination and refusing to marry without assurance that she will have that right, the Beautiful Soul’s demand for self-control provokes resistance to the status quo. On the other hand, the Beautiful Soul’s obsession with control of herself and her family life mirrors that of the fathers’ management of families in the eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries. She, like her/a father, insists on control and that she, and she alone (like a father), should regulate her life, elective affinities, and family. In other words, the Beautiful Soul does not challenge civil/aristocratic family structures to the extent that her actions mirror those of the fathers’. She does not dismiss their desire for total self-control. She puts herself in the father’s role. Subsequently, Narciß never agrees to the Beautiful Soul’s requirements and their relationship ends. The Beautiful Soul also continues to insist on her fatherly self-determination and refuses every future marriage offer one after another. Equally significant, the Beautiful Soul also embraces the determination of marriages based on the plans of fathers and uncles and which effectively erase any possibility of elective affinities. In this respect, as well, she acts like her father and mirrors the kinds of strategic marriage plans he would endorse. Indeed, the Beautiful Soul later works with her uncle and father to determine her sister’s marriage. The Beautiful Soul’s uncle arrives at their home and they discover that he is planning her sister’s marriage: “He had, as one could finally notice, chosen from among us the youngest sister in order to arrange her marriage and make her happy in accord with his interests.”82 Despite the uncle’s plans to make sure that she gets a sizable fortune, the Beautiful Soul’s sister is not pleased with the plans. She already has a love relationship, “an affair of the heart, that she had wisely kept secret until now.”83 The Beautiful Soul’s reaction is to convince her sister to give up the love relationship, to disregard her elective affinities, and to agree to her uncle’s plans. She argues against her sister’s love relationship “in all possible ways” and she reports that ultimately “I did everything I could, and I succeeded.”84 The Beautiful Soul is successful in convincing her sister to agree to their uncle’s plans. Intriguingly, throughout the Lehrjahre, fathers and uncles and male friends come together to plan daughters’ marriages according to 82 “Er hatte, wie man endlich bemerken konnte, sich unter uns die jüngste Schwester ausersehen, um sie nach seinem Sinne zu verheiraten und glücklich zu machen …” MA, 5, 386. 83 “eine Herzensangelegenheit, die sie bisher sehr weislich verborgen hatte” MA, 5, 387. 84 “auf alle mögliche Weise” MA, 5, 387, and “Ich tat mein möglichstes, und es gelang mir.” MA, 5, 387.

94  Goethe’s Families of the Heart their economic desires. In this case, the Beautiful Soul joins in and, once again, she acts like a/her father. Finally, the uncle’s plans materialize, he presents the Beautiful Soul’s sister with her future husband and they are married: The uncle had conducted his plans for my sister quietly. He presented to her a young man of class and wealth as her husband … My father agreed with joy. The sister was free and ready and gladly changed her social standing. The marriage took place in the uncle’s castle. Family and friends were invited and we all came in high spirits.85 The marriage that the uncle organizes is based on social class and economic wealth. Moreover, the sister fulfills the men’s expectations and hopes by becoming pregnant quickly. Unfortunately, the child is premature and her father is worrying about his family dying out without children with whom to leave all of their possessions: “my father feared that he would suddenly lose his children and his hope for descendants.”86 The father’s concern is not his daughter’s health or safety, but whether or not he will have descendants. The sister’s marriage is also problematic. She and her husband are not getting along. In fact, the sister is unhappy: “she did not live completely happily with her husband” and they are “never in agreement.”87 The uncle and father are not concerned with these issues. Their focus is entirely on whether or not the couple will have children. When the sister finally has a son, the father is delighted and cannot stop talking about his grandson’s body and his hopes for his success: “He did not get tired of telling me on the way back about the child, about his build, his health, and his wish that the assets of this citizen of the world would be providentially developed.”88 The father’s concern is not his daughter’s happiness, health, and/or elective affinities. He 85 “Der Oheim hatte seine Plane auf meine Schwester in der Stille durchgeführt. Er stellte ihr einen jungen Mann von Stande und Vermögen als ihren Bräutigam vor … Mein Vater willigte mit Freuden ein, die Schwester war frei und vorbereitet, und veränderte gerne ihren Stand. Die Hochzeit wurde auf des Oheims Schloß ausgerichtet, Familie und Freunde waren eingeladen, und wir kamen alle mit heiterm Geiste.” MA, 5, 403. 86 “Mein alter Vater fürchtete, seine Kinder und die Hoffnung seiner Nachkommenschaft auf einmal zu verlieren …” MA, 5, 414. 87 “sie lebte nicht ganz glücklich mit ihrem Manne” and they were “niemals einig” MA, 5, 414. 88 “Er ward nicht müde auf dem Rückwege mich von dem Kinde zu unterhalten, von seiner Gestalt, seiner Gesundheit, und dem Wunsche, daß die Anlagen dieses neuen Weltbürgers glücklich ausgebildet werden möchten.” MA, 5, 415.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  95 is thrilled that he has a descendant and that he no longer has to worry about his line of inheritance falling apart. The sister’s husband, on the other hand, continues to be unhappy with his wife, since she also gives birth to daughters and he wants only sons to help him with his business administration: “My brotherin-law was, in contrast, very disappointed when in the following year another daughter was born. Given his huge assets, he wanted to see boys around him, who could assist him with the management of his estate.”89 The husband, uncle, and father in this story are clearly focused on their own desires and define family only in terms of what benefits (economic, familial, and social) that they obtain through it. Feelings and elective affinities are not a concern. This becomes even more apparent after the Beautiful Soul’s sister dies in childbirth. Their father had died earlier and was happy with his own death because he believed that his eternal life would be preserved through his grandsons. The Beautiful Soul’s sister’s husband had recently died after falling off of a horse and their four children are now without parents. The Beautiful Soul responds to this situation by mentioning briefly that she could not help these children: “I felt, given my weakness, that I was able to do little or nothing for the children”90 and she leaves them in her uncle’s care. The children will be raised by the man who arranged their parents’ unhappy marriage, is obsessed with economic advantages, and who wants to be in control of their lives. The Beautiful Soul’s account of her life demonstrates how she was determined by her father’s education to be obsessed with bodies and inheritance. In each case, she is convinced that bodies determine one’s self. While sharing and dissecting bodies with her father, she also defines herself and her feelings as contingent upon her own hemorrhaging body. She is drawn to people whose bodies she feels are like her own, essentially, men with sick and/or bleeding bodies. In addition, the Beautiful Soul identifies with her father and her uncle and supports their efforts to control her sister’s marriage, to undo her elective affinities for the man of her desires, and convinces her sister to allow the uncle to determine her economic destiny. The family that results makes the father and uncle happy because they receive the descendants they want. The husband is not entirely happy because 89 “Mein Schwager war dagegen sehr unzufrieden, als in dem Jahre darauf abermals eine Tochter erfolgte; er wünschte bei seinen großen Gütern Knaben um sich zu sehen, die ihm einst in der Verwaltung beistehen könnten.” MA, 5, 417. 90 “Ich fühlte daß ich, bei meiner Schwäche, wenig oder nichts für die Kinder zu tun im Stande sei …” MA, 5, 418.

96  Goethe’s Families of the Heart he wants more sons. The sister is unhappy with her husband and ultimately dies trying to produce all of the sons he demands. In each and every way, the Beautiful Soul outlines how both she herself and her family are not beautiful but just the opposite. The families she describes and the feelings she expresses are alarming and disturbing. Families were portrayed throughout the framing stories and in the Beautiful Soul’s summary of her family life as father-planned, economically driven, obsessed with the inheritance of assets and fascinated by physical bodies and family likenesses. Bodies and physical attributes were highlighted as central to a family’s genealogy and reflective of both physical and corresponding internal/emotional inheritances. Moreover, characters such as Wilhelm, the Runaway Girl, and the Harfner express their desires to escape from their biological families. They envision another world, a different place where they can love those they are drawn to by their elective affinities. They desire, above all, to flee from their father-dictated lives and embrace the lovers of their hearts somewhere else. Equally important, throughout the framing stories radical assertions of the rightness of elective affinities in all possible manifestations were foregrounded. Time and again the characters expressed their elective affinities and asserted that those affinities were true love and legitimate. All other determinations of families by fathers, uncles, sisters, judges, courts, churches, and priests were challenged for dismissing, erasing, and destroying love relationships between couples and between parents and their children. Documents, laws, and religious mandates were rejected as illegitimate and loveless mechanisms of familial control. In this context, the fact that Wilhelm, Natalie, and Felix come together at the end of the novel raises significant questions: How did they ultimately come together? What aristocratic, civil, legal, social, and religious obstacles do all characters in the Lehrjahre face? How did Wilhelm finally escape the economic life his father planned for him? What was the nature of Wilhelm’s family “learning years” as regards relationships with women, men, and children as he wanders away from his family? How do the characters overcome the limits of the family structures they have been taught to respect? What kinds of loving relationships do other characters find themselves drawn to? What is the nature of the elective affinities that they share? What relationships are formed based on elective affinities? Now that we have outlined the major issues foregrounded in the framing and central stories of the novel, we can turn our attention directly to these questions as they are addressed and developed throughout the novel.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  97

2. Wilhelm’s discovery of paternal affinities

The first civil/family structure that Wilhelm wanders away from, ironically while on a business trip for his father and right after his relationship with Mariane dissolves, is his own biological family. He leaves his family and travels alone. He is physically separated from his father (and Werner’s father), but he is still caught in their system of economic determination. He has not escaped with the woman of his heart (Mariane), but has been subsumed back into the economic life his fathers have decided on for him. Intriguingly, even though he is on a business trip, Wilhelm’s first encounter along the way is not with business associates but with a theater group that introduces him to a child who fascinates him, Mignon. Throughout the Lehrjahre, Wilhelm meets children who are wandering around outside of their biological families. Both Mignon and his possible biological child, Felix, intrigue Wilhelm to no end and he struggles to define himself as their father throughout the novel. Trying to understand himself as a father and to figure out what a family is, are central issues for Wilhelm. Both Felix and Mignon are puzzles for Wilhelm and his learning years are devoted significantly to these questions: What does it mean to be a father? Are fathers always biological? Are fathers essentially economic facilitators? Are fathers sometimes adoptive? How does one know if one is the biological father of a child? To what extent does corporeal likeness provide evidence of fatherhood? What role do elective affinities play in forming relationships between fathers and their children? It is precisely these essential questions that are crucial to Wilhelm’s discovery of himself as a father, and his ultimate welcoming of Felix, Friedrich, and Mignon into his family as his children. A closer analysis of his relationships with Felix, Friedrich, and Mignon will highlight how Wilhelm struggles with preconceived notions of fatherhood and family, and how he ultimately defines himself, fatherhood, and family in opposition to aristocratic, civil, and economic expectations. Wilhelm’s struggle to establish a traditional understanding of himself as a father is most apparent in his consideration of Felix as his probable, biological son. His more radical conception of fatherhood surfaces throughout his relationship to Mignon.91 With that in mind, we will begin with an analysis of Wilhelm’s struggle to feel secure about Felix as his son and then turn to Mignon and finally to Friedrich. Wilhelm is constantly trying to figure out whether or not Felix is his son and to determine what evidence would make him sure of his 91 Strack, “Väter,” 78, mentions in a footnote that Wilhelm is a foster father for Mignon, but does not provide any analysis of what that entails.

98  Goethe’s Families of the Heart fatherhood. Right before Wilhelm and Mariane break up, Wilhelm is not certain whether or not Mariane is pregnant. He suspects that she might be, and he assumes that he is the father of her child since he does not know about her relationship with Norberg. Wilhelm even asks Mariane directly if she was carrying his child: “if he is not allowed to believe that he is himself a father?” Wilhelm seems to be hoping that he is a father and is asking Mariane for confirmation. Mariane, however, does not give Wilhelm any clear answer: “But also to that she answered only with a sigh, a kiss.”92 The fact that Mariane does not verify she is pregnant with Wilhelm’s child and that we later find out that she has been seeing Norberg at the same time makes Wilhelm’s biological fatherhood significantly uncertain. And, as we shall see, that biological lack of clarity is never resolved in the Lehrjahre.93 In fact, throughout Wilhelm’s travels, he receives more and more information that points to both his probable and improbable biological father–son relationship with Felix. Each piece of information adds to the puzzle of Wilhelm’s fatherhood and to his struggle to piece together his sense of family, his understanding of himself as a father, and his conviction that he is Felix’s father. As Wilhelm is traveling around he meets a man who knew Mariane when she was an actress, and he tells Wilhelm more information about her. This old man is exasperated by Mariane and does not want to talk about her. He explains to Wilhelm how he had planned to take her into his house, because “I loved her like my daughter.” But then he discovers that Mariane is pregnant and rejects her: “Let the executioner get all licentious prostitutes.”94 The old man not only defines Mariane as a prostitute, he also expresses his desire to see her executed. Once again, love relationships outside of aristocratic and civil orders are defined as the severest of crimes, the women are singled out, defined as prostitutes, and are now even considered deserving of death. In this context, we should recall the Runaway Girl who was also defined by the courts as a prostitute. The extreme definition of her behavior was not expressed in the context of a legal penalty. Here execution is offered as a possible, correct legal response. Wilhelm’s reaction to this new information about Mariane is to feel all of his previous feelings of affinity for her; he is convinced that she 92 “ob er sich denn nicht Vater glauben dürfe?” MA, 5, 43, and “Aber auch darauf antwortete sie nur mit einem Seufzer, einem Küsse” MA, 5, 43. 93 Krimmer, “Mama’s Baby,” 261, points out that there is little “scholarly uncertainty regarding Wilhelm’s fatherhood.” I agree with her that this is surprising given the multiple moments in the text in which Wilhelm’s biological fatherhood is thrown into question. 94 “ich liebte sie wie meine Tochter” MA, 5, 112, and “Der Henker hole alle liederliche Dirnen!” MA, 5, 112.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  99 is deserving of his love, and that he cannot reproach her for her silence about the child she was carrying. He recognizes himself as an accessory to her offenses and Wilhelm then envisions Mariane “as a mother wandering around in the world without help, probably wandering around with his own child.”95 At this point, Wilhelm simply assumes that he is the father of the child Mariane gave birth to even though he knows about her relationship with Norberg. He chooses to ignore evidence to the contrary and focuses on his own desire to be the father of Mariane’s child. Of course, Wilhelm’s sense of certainty about his fatherhood is undermined time and again throughout the novel. Intriguingly, Wilhelm’s first encounter with Felix occurs before he has any suspicion that Felix is his biological child. When Wilhelm meets him, he is introduced to Wilhelm as Aurelie’s child. In fact, right before he meets Aurelie and Felix, Philine tells Wilhelm that Felix is Aurelie’s biological child: “Aurelie had an infelicitous love affair with a noble man … He left her a keepsake, or I must be very mistaken. There is a boy running around there about three years of age … The death of her husband, the new acquaintance, the age of the child, everything coincides.”96 Philine admits, during the course of her story about Aurelie and the child, that she is assuming that the child is Aurelie’s biological baby, because the appearance of the child, the age of the child, the relationship with the noble guy, and the death of her husband all come together in terms of timing. She does not know for sure if Felix is Aurelie’s child but, nonetheless, she is convinced by all of the bits and pieces of information that she does have that Felix must be Aurelie’s biological son. Right after Philine’s account, Wilhelm hears Aurelie’s story of Felix. According to her, Felix is her foster child: “Another abandoned creature in the world!”97 that Aurelie has taken in after the infidelity of a man. We find out later that Aurelie takes Felix into her life and cares for him, because Mariane’s mentor, Barbara, has convinced her that he is the son of Lothario, the man who has left Aurelie for another woman. Falling for the ruse and being convinced that Felix is Lothario’s son, Aurelie expresses her joy in caring for Felix: “You are looking at a lucky child with amazement; certainly I have taken it into my arms with joy. I care for it with diligence.”98 Once again, as in the Wahlverwandtschaften, a 95 “als Mutter in der Welt ohne Hülfe herumirren, wahrscheinlich mit seinem eigenen Kinde herumirren.” MA, 5, 113. 96 “Aurelie hat ein unglückliches Liebeshandel mit einem Edelmanne gehabt … Er hat ihr ein Andenken hinterlassen, oder ich müßte mich sehr irren. Es läuft da ein Knabe herum, ohngefähr von drei Jahren … Der Tod ihre Mannes, die neue Bekanntschaft, das Alter des Kindes, alles trifft zusammen.” MA, 5, 248. 97 “Ein verlaßnes Geschöpf mehr in der Welt!” MA, 5, 251. 98 “Sie sehen das glückliche Kind mit Verwundrung an; gewiß ich habe es mit

100  Goethe’s Families of the Heart woman (we recall Charlotte and Ottilie here) is presented as loving a child because of her love for the child’s father. Aurelie’s love for Felix is clearly determined by her elective affinities for Lothario and her belief that he is Lothario’s biological son. After Wilhelm arrives, Felix’s affinities for Aurelie as his mother are described as dissipating: “Moreover the affinity for Aurelie seemed to lessen more every day. In his tone there was nothing affectionate, when he [Felix] called her [Aurelie] mother.”99 At the same time, Wilhelm and Felix begin to become closer to one another. Mignon refers to Felix when talking with Wilhelm as “your Felix”100 and later when Wilhelm saves Felix from a fire and the Harfner: “He [Wilhelm] pressed the small boy onto his heart with a totally new feeling …”101 Even though Wilhelm is not contemplating now whether Felix is his child, he is feeling it already in his heart. Later when Wilhelm departs in order to confront Lothario with his abandonment of Aurelie and Felix, he does not want to leave Felix, and when asked what he should bring back for Felix after his trip, Felix answers tellingly: “bring with a father for me.”102 Once Wilhelm encounters Lothario, he demands to know why Lothario has not embraced Felix as his son: “let me ask you why you don’t accept the child, a son that would make anyone happy … how can you, with your pure and delicate feelings, completely deny the heart of a father?”103 Wilhelm not only accuses Lothario of denying his fatherly affinities for Felix but also clearly expresses his feeling that Felix is the kind of son every father would be happy to have. Lothario is confused by Wilhelm’s questions and assertions and asks to whom he is referring. When Wilhelm asserts that Felix is Lothario and Aurelie’s son, Lothario denies it and asks if Aurelie has claimed that Felix was his son. Wilhelm replies that she has not, but that it was just assumed that he was Felix’s father. Jarno then jumps into the conversation and explains that an old woman had convinced Aurelie that Felix Freuden auf meine Arme genommen, ich bewahre es mit Sorgfalt …” MA, 5, 251. 99 “Vielmehr schien die Neigung zu Aurelien sich täglich mehr zu verlieren; in seinem Tone war nichts zärtliches wenn er (Felix) sie (Aurelie) Mutter nannte …” MA, 5, 281. 100 “deinen Felix” MA, 5, 331, “dein Felix” MA, 5, 332. 101 “Er (Wilhelm) drückte den Kleinen mit einer ganz neuen Empfindung an sein Herz …” MA, 5, 332. 102 “bringe mir einen Vater mit.” MA, 5, 359. 103 “lassen Sie mich fragen, warum Sie sich des Kindes nicht annehmen? eines Sohnes, dessen sich jedermann erfreuen würde … Wie können Sie, bei Ihren reinen und zarten Gefühlen, das Herz eines Vaters gänzlich verleugnen?” MA, 5, 469.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  101 was Lothario’s son. Wilhelm subsequently admits he is “anxious and curious whether I couldn’t discover something more complete about the child’s destiny”104 and returns to Felix. Wilhelm clearly wants to know who Felix is, who his father is, and who his family is. When Wilhelm returns to Felix, he encounters Barbara caring for him. She asserts now that Felix is Mariane’s son and presents Wilhelm with a letter from Mariane to Wilhelm in which she insists: “the boy, past whose birth I survive only a few days, is yours.” Wilhelm’s first response to Mariane’s letter is to refer to it as a “partially baffling letter!”105 As in the framing stories, here as well, a document does not establish feelings of the heart and soul. The letter (if it is genuine) may provide proof that Wilhelm is Felix’s biological father, but Wilhelm is still uncertain. In contrast, Mignon insists even before reading the letter that Felix is Wilhelm’s son: “He is yours, Mignon yelled, he is yours! And pressed the child against Wilhelm’s knee.” Mignon also immediately confesses after reading Mariane’s letter that she had known for some time that Felix was Wilhelm’s son: “I knew it for a long time and said nothing.” Wilhelm responds simply: “from where? … How? Where?” Mignon replies: “the spirit/soul told me … in my heart, in my head … there it called and I understood it.” Mignon knew in her heart and in her head that Felix was Wilhelm’s son. Even after hearing all of this evidence, Wilhelm is not sure about his relationship to Felix, and rather than trusting his heart, as Mignon does, he reads Mariane’s letter “doubtless a hundred times through”106 and continues to experience it as a puzzling document. Surprisingly, Wilhelm seems to be mostly convinced by Barbara’s story of Mariane (and not the letter and not by Mignon’s feelings), even though she admits during it that she has already also passed Felix off as Norberg’s son. Regardless of this evidence against his fatherhood, Wilhelm ultimately turns to Felix exclaiming: “O! My child! he called out, my dear child! he lifted him up and pressed him against his heart.”107 Wilhelm seems to be feeling in his heart that Felix is his son 104 “unruhig und neugierig, ob ich nicht von dem Schicksal des Knaben etwas näheres entdecken kann” MA, 5, 471. 105 “der Knabe, dessen Geburt ich nur wenige Tage überlebe, ist Dein” MA, 5, 474, and “halb rätselhafter Brief!” MA, 5, 474. 106 Mignon: “Er ist Dein, rief Mignon, er ist Dein! und drückte das Kind an Wilhelms Knie.” MA, 5, 474, and “Ich wußte es lange, und sagte nichts …” MA, 5, 475, and Wilhelm: “woher? … Wie? wo?” MA, 5, 475, and Mignon: “Der Geist hat mir’s gesagt … im Herzen, im Kopfe … da riefs, und ich verstands.” MA, 5, 475, and Wilhelm: “wohl hundertmal durch” MA, 5, 477. 107 “O! mein Kind! rief er aus, mein liebes Kind! er hub ihn auf, und drückte ihn an sein Herz.” MA, 5, 486.

102  Goethe’s Families of the Heart and Felix responds, calling back: “Father! What did you bring me?” Felix’s request to his father to let him know what he has brought him is a subtle reference to his earlier request when Wilhelm left to search for Lothario. Then he said: “bring me back a father.”108 The first reference to a father for Felix appeared to be to Lothario as his father, but, now, Wilhelm appears to be the father who has been brought to, and/or has returned to, Felix.109 But, nonetheless, even after these mutual expressions of their feelings of connection to one another, Wilhelm remains unconvinced about whether he is truly Felix’s father. Madame Melina increases his fluctuating feelings when she asserts: “The old one is certainly hardly to be trusted”110 and reminds Wilhelm that she had passed Felix off to Aurelie as Lothario’s son. Wilhelm returns then to Barbara and expresses his uncertainty again: “now I stand in doubt and do not dare to embrace the child in my arms.”111 Barbara presents Wilhelm with yet more evidence which, she suggests, proves that he is Felix’s father. She reminds him of Mariane’s letter and a letter from Norberg. But at the same time she also suggests that: “And even if he were not your son, he is the most beautiful, pleasant child in the world—that anyone would be happy to pay any price for … don’t I deserve a little alimony for my future life because of my care, for my concern for him?”112 Barbara openly reveals her underlying agenda, which is to be paid back for caring for Felix. Once again, she throws doubt upon the truthfulness of her story as she reveals her underlying economic interests. She could easily be simply passing Felix off as Wilhelm’s son in order to get more money for herself. Later, Barbara plays on Wilhelm’s desire to have a son like himself when she tells him that he should examine Felix carefully: “Look at the child as a stranger, and pay closer attention to him, note his talents, his nature, his abilities, and when you do not gradually recognize yourself,

108 “Vater! was hast Du mir mitgebracht” MA, 5, 486, and “bringe mir einen Vater mit.” MA, 5, 359). 109 Schlipphacke, “Die Vaterschaft,” 411, suggests that Felix’s request for a father indicates that “any father will do.” I read his comment to be a subtle request to Wilhelm to return to him as his father, which is also why he repeats it in slightly modified form when Wilhelm returns. 110 “Der Alten ist freilich wenig zu trauen …” MA, 5, 487. 111 “jetzt steh ich zweifelhaft, und wage nicht das Kind in meine Arme zu schließen …” MA, 5, 487. 112 “Und wenns nun Euer Sohn nicht wäre, so ist es das schönste, angenehmste Kind von der Welt, das man gern für jeden Preis kaufen möchte … verdiene ich für meine Sorgfalt, für meine Mühe mit ihm, nicht einen kleinen Unterhalt für mein künftiges Leben?” MA, 5, 488.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  103 then you must have bad eyes.”113 Barbara encourages Wilhelm to find himself in Felix, to see the attributes that Felix has inherited from him. While Barbara suggests that Wilhelm see his talents, his nature, and his abilities in Felix, Wilhelm, as we shall see, focuses on Felix’s outer appearance. Like the Beautiful Soul, he is obsessed with corporeal features and looks for external proof of his fatherhood. But he is not convinced that he has found it. Wilhelm remains uncertain about Felix and continues to attempt to figure out whether or not he is his son. He picks him up and searches for biological evidence of their relationship: without admitting it to himself, Wilhelm liked to carry him (Felix) before the mirror and he searched there for similarities between himself and the child. If it became in that moment truly likely, he pressed the child on his chest, but suddenly terrified by the thought that he could deceive himself, he put the child down and let it run off.114 As he searches for corporeal evidence that he is Felix’s father, Wilhelm is, ultimately, not reassured by what he sees in the mirror and he “feared dedicating himself to the beautiful Felix as his son.”115 Like the Beautiful Soul, Wilhelm reveals his obsession with biological connections, family trees, and the physical attributes that may be passed down from one generation to another. He also reveals his doubts about what he sees in the mirror. He is not sure that Felix’s physical appearance proves that Felix is his son and Wilhelm continues to be plagued by his “doubtful paternity.”116 Shortly thereafter, Wilhelm meets the Abbe who represents the Tower Society. Intriguingly, Wilhelm’s first and only question to the Abbe is about Felix: “could you tell me, if Felix is really my son?” The Abbe responds by assuring Wilhelm that they who know all secrets can confirm that “Felix is your son! … Felix is your son … Receive the 113 “Sehen Sie das Kind als ein fremdes an, und geben Sie desto genauer auf ihn acht, bemerken Sie seine Gaben, seine Natur, seine Fähigkeiten, und wenn Sie nicht nach und nach sich selbst wieder erkennen, so müssen Sie schlechte Augen haben.” MA, 5, 490. 114 “ohne sich es zu gestehen, trug Wilhelm ihn (Felix) gern vor den Spiegel, und suchte dort Ähnlichkeiten zwischen sich und dem Kinde auszuspähen. Ward es ihm denn einen Augenblick recht wahrscheinlich, so drückte er den Knaben an seine Brust, aber auf einmal, erschreckt durch den Gedanken, daß er sich betrügen könne, setzte er das Kind nieder, und ließ es hinlaufen.” MA, 5, 491. 115 “furchtete, den schönen Felix sich als seinen Sohn zuzueignen” MA, 5, 491. 116 “zweifelhafte Vaterschaft” MA, 5, 494.

104  Goethe’s Families of the Heart dear child from our hand …”117 Right after this Wilhelm and Felix rush together and Wilhelm “took him [Felix] in his arms and pressed him on his heart. Yes, I feel it he yelled out. You are mine!”118 This moment is one of spontaneous revelation and Wilhelm feels his affinities and paternity for Felix.119 He feels that Felix is his son and tells him that openly. This crucial turning moment is followed by another one as Wilhelm holds Felix in his arms and feels how he touches his innermost feelings: “He held the boy in his arms, kissed him, pressed him against himself and wet him with ample tears. The child woke up, his bright eye, his friendly look moved the father most profoundly.”120 Wilhelm, referred to in this passage as “the father,” feels his spontaneous elective affinities for Felix. And, while the assurances of the Tower Society seem to be enough to restimulate Wilhelm’s affinities and his recognition of Felix as his child, shortly thereafter he is also reluctant to tell Werner about the “indeed ever doubtful story”121 of Felix. In this context, it is equally important to note that even evidence from the Tower Society is not enough to convince Wilhelm of his paternity once and for all. Wilhelm clearly finds moments of self-expression and perceives his innermost feelings of love for Felix, but he still constantly lets evidence lead him astray and away from his conviction that he is Felix’s father.122 117 “könnt Ihr mir sagen, ob Felix wirklich mein Sohn sei?—” and “Felix ist Ihr Sohn! … Felix ist Ihr Sohn … empfangen Sie das liebliche Kind aus unserer Hand …” MA, 5, 498–9. 118 “nahm ihn (Felix) in die Arme, und drückte ihn an sein Herz. Ja, ich fühls rief er aus. Du bist mein!” MA, 5, 499. 119 Schlipphacke, “Die Vaterschaft,” 411, suggests that Wilhelm “adopts” Felix in a “half-hearted manner.” I would agree that Wilhelm is sliding and unsure about his biological paternity, but at the same time his heart keeps telling him in a thoroughly compelling way that Felix is his son. Ryan refers to Felix as Wilhelm’s “adopted son” without any further explication. Judith Ryan, “‘Pfeile mit Widerhaken’: On the Aphorisms in Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften and Wanderjahre,” Goethe Yearbook 16 (2009): 5. 120 “Er faßte den Knaben in seine Arme, küßte ihn, drückte ihn an sich und benetzte ihn mit reichlichen Tränen. Das Kind wachte auf; sein helles Auge, sein freundlicher Blick rührten den Vater aufs innigste.” MA, 5, 511. 121 “doch immer zweideutige Geschichte” MA, 5, 503. 122 Several scholars have emphasized that Wilhelm accepts the Tower Society’s verification that Felix is his son and that there is, thereafter, no more confusion about their father–son relationship. See for example, Barbara Becker-Cantarino, “Patriarchy and German Enlightenment Discourse: From Goethe’s Wilhelm Meister to Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of the Enlightenment,” in Impure Reason: Dialectic of Enlightenment in Germany, ed. W. Daniel Wilson and Robert C. Holub (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993), 51, and Catriona MacLeod, “Pedagogy and Androgyny in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre,” MLN 108.3 (1993): 412. I agree with Krimmer, “Mama’s Baby,” 261, who notes that even

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  105 In addition, Wilhelm shifts from his expressions of spontaneous feelings of affinity for Felix to a confirmation of his joy in being a father: “In this sense his learning years were ended. With the feeling of a father he had obtained all of the virtues of a citizen. He felt it and his joy was unequaled.”123 Wilhelm’s spontaneous expressions of love for Felix slide from view as he revels over his happiness about being a citizen and a father. Moreover, at the same time that Wilhelm is claiming he is a perfect civil and loving father, Felix is, if he is Wilhelm’s biological child, an extramarital child. Would that fact then exclude him from any acceptable civil family? Or is Wilhelm suggesting that he actually mirrors just how many men are having affairs and children outside of marriage in opposition to and/or because of the civil system? And, of course, Wilhelm’s years of learning do not end here. Wilhelm goes on to insist that his heart and feelings are the most important evidence of his fatherhood and that the “odd requirements of the civil society, that first confuse us and lead us astray”124 do not establish true fatherhood and family. Wilhelm slides back and forth between expressing his affinities for Felix, stressing biological connections, highlighting corporeal likenesses, and rejecting the requirements of a civil society that confuse him and lead him astray. Wilhelm struggles throughout the Lehrjahre as he tries to figure out how and if he is Felix’s father. In this context, we should also consider Friedrich’s assertion that: “Paternity is based on conviction, I am convinced, and am therefore a father.”125 Indeed, the questions that are raised throughout the Lehrjahre are: What is convincing? What convinces a father that he is a father? Does Friedrich’s comment only apply to biological relationships? In other words, is he only referring to men who are not sure if children born by their lovers are theirs or someone else’s? Could his statement have a broader meaning? Is parenthood in any form a matter of conviction? As we have seen in the framing stories and in Wilhelm’s travels toward discovering himself as a father, documents, legal statutes, church mandates, letters, confessions, corporeal likeness, civil requirements, and evidence of any kind are not convincing and are often extremely confusing. though the Tower Society confirms Wilhelm’s biological relationship as father to Felix, “readers have every reason to doubt his paternity.” 123 “In diesem Sinne waren seine Lehrjahre geendigt, und mit dem Gefühl des Vaters hatte er auch alle Tugenden eines Bürgers erworben. Er fühlte es, und seiner Freude konnte nichts gleichen.” MA, 5, 504. 124 “seltsamen Anforderungen der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, die uns erst verwirrt und mißleitet” MA, 5, 504. 125 “Die Vaterschaft beruht überhaupt nur auf der Überzeugung, ich bin überzeugt und also bin ich Vater” MA, 5, 560.

106  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Finally, Wilhelm’s shifting comments about Felix’s status as his son are related to his continuing obsession with the question of their biological relatedness. Wilhelm feels his affinities for Felix, but is also constantly wondering and worrying about the uncertainties surrounding their biological relationship. In addition, like the Beautiful Soul, Wilhelm finds himself unable to free himself from traditional family structures. In his case, especially, he accepts aristocratic and civil ideas of biological fatherhood, embraces them, and often subsequently loses sight of his affinities for Felix. Wilhelm also struggles to define himself as a father in his relationship to Mignon.126 She is one of the first new people he encounters on his travels and he is immediately fascinated by her and wants to figure out who she is and why she draws him to her. He is going up a stairway “as a young creation sprang toward him and pulled his attention to it.” Mignon attracts Wilhelm’s attention and he is amazed by her build: “He looked at the body with amazement …” Throughout this encounter, Wilhelm is totally focused on Mignon’s body. She is a body: “the young, black-headed, somber body/figure” and he asks her “to whom she belongs?”127 She does not answer him and runs away. As he was with Felix, Wilhelm is concerned here about the child’s body, what clues it might give him about her, and he asks to whom she belongs, suggesting his interest in figuring out who her family might be. Philine brings Mignon, “the wonderful child” back to Wilhelm shortly thereafter. She introduces her to Wilhelm as “the puzzle.”128 Wilhelm asks Mignon her name and she tells him. But when he asks her age, she says no one has counted the years and when he asks “Who was your father?” she replies “The great devil is dead.”129 Mignon is wandering around outside of her biological family, does not know her age, and claims her father is dead. She is disconnected from her family and has no substantial information about it to share. Subsequently, Wilhelm is 126 Wilson, Goethe, 84, notes without any further analysis that Wilhelm “’adoptiert’” Mignon. Broszeit-Rieger, “Transgressions of Gender,” 81, suggests that Wilhelm “symbolically adopts” her. Wilhelm and Mignon’s family actually come together through their affinities and is not merely symbolic. 127 “als ein junges Geschöpf ihm entgegen sprang, das seine Aufmerksamkeit auf sich zog.” MA, 5, 90, and “Er sah die Gestalt mit Verwunderung an …” MA, 5, 90, and “die junge, schwarzköpfige, düstere Gestalt” MA, 5, 91, and “wem sie angehöre?” MA, 5, 90. 128 Horstkotte highlights Mignon’s androgyny and constructed sexuality (as a girl and a boy) as part of what makes her a puzzle. Silke Horstkotte, “Wilhelm Meisters Mignon und die Ambivalenz der Autorschaft,” German Life and Letters 57.2 (2004): 148–9. 129 “das wunderbare Kind” MA, 5, 96, and “das Rätsel” MA, 5, 96, and “Wer war dein Vater?” MA, 5, 97, and “Der große Teufel ist tot” MA, 5, 97.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  107 totally fascinated by her: “Wilhelm could not look at her enough. His eyes and his heart were irresistibly drawn by the mysterious state of this being.”130 Both Wilhelm’s eyes and his heart are drawn spontaneously to Mignon. His affinities are clearly drawing him to Mignon, but he is predominantly focused on her body and what he is seeing, and appears almost oblivious to his feelings for her. He notices her “body,” “limbs,” “forehead,” “nose,” mouth,” and “her brownish facial color”131 as he stares at her in amazement. Wilhelm is totally fixated on figuring out who Mignon is, by reading her body and searching for corporeal clues: “This body pressed itself deeply into Wilhelm’s mind, he looked invariably at it, was silent, and forgot the others who were present during his inspection.”132 Again, much like the Beautiful Soul, Wilhelm is obsessed with searching for corporeal evidence of family and inner attributes. His first encounters with Mignon illustrate how he struggles to define her through a minute survey of her body parts. Wilhelm’s next encounter with Mignon occurs when he finds her being beaten by the master of the acrobatic group for which she performs. He immediately intervenes and stops the abuse. The master wants to beat her to death and justifies his brutal actions by insisting that Mignon is a lazy, useless creature. The master’s concern is only Mignon’s work and the money he gains through it. She deserves death, because she does not support his economic plans. Indeed, the master agrees to let Wilhelm have Mignon, if he will pay for the clothes he purchased for her. Later when Laertes and Wilhelm meet with Mignon again, Laertes explains that: “You are now ours … we bought you.”133 Both Laertes and the acrobatic master are thoroughly immersed in an economic way of thinking and acting that even allows for the buying and selling of a child. Wilhelm, on the other hand, does not say anything during these economic discussions and transactions. In contrast, Wilhelm continues to think about Mignon’s body and struggles with how to interpret it: “he went home, had all kinds of thoughts about this body, and couldn’t think about her in any decisive way.”134 Once again, as with Felix, Wilhelm is confused and uncertain about the corporeal evidence he is trying to decipher. 130 “Wilhelm konnte sie nicht genug ansehen. Seine Augen und sein Herz wurden unwiderstehlich von dem geheimnisvollen Zustande dieses Wesens angezogen.” MA, 5, 97. 131 “Körper,” “Glieder,” “Stirne,” “Nase,” “Mund,” “Ihre bräunliche Gesichtsfarbe” MA, 5, 97. 132 “Diese Gestalt prägte sich Wilhelmen sehr tief ein; er sah sie noch immer an, schwieg und vergaß die Gegenwärtigen über seine Betrachtungen.” MA, 5, 97. 133 “Du bist nun unser … wir haben dich gekauft.” MA, 5, 105. 134 “er ging nach Hause, machte sich vielerei Gedanken über diese Gestalt, und konnte sich bei ihr nichts bestimmtes denken.” MA, 5, 108.

108  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Shortly thereafter, Wilhelm watches Mignon perform a dance, and his attention is drawn by and from her body to her character and her attributes. As Mignon is dancing, Wilhelm notices how her character develops. Mignon’s dancing draws his attention away from a list of body parts (he does not mention them here at all) to his observation of how she represents herself as “rigorous, keen, prosaic, vigorous, and in gentle positions, more solemn than pleasant.”135 Wilhelm’s reaction to her expressions of herself through dance is to feel, for the first time, his total affinity to Mignon as his child: “He yearned to bring this abandoned being into his heart in lieu of his own child, to take her in his arms, and to awaken in her the joy of life through the love of a father.”136 Wilhelm becomes aware of his own feelings, of his own paternal affinities for, and sympathies with, Mignon as his child as he watches her express herself through dance. He forgets his obsession with her body and focuses on her attributes and her expressions of them, and in this moment he feels his connection to her as a father. Wilhelm is clearly learning to re-focus his attention away from the corporeal clues he has been taught to rely on in defining family. Here, Wilhelm focuses on inner attributes, as Barbara had advised him to do when looking at Felix. But Barbara had suggested he find himself in Felix. Here, Wilhelm finds the inner Mignon in Mignon and realizes that her inner self is what is important. He feels himself connected then to her heart and he envisions himself as her loving father of the heart. It does not matter that she is not his biological child because he can love her as a father. In fact, Wilhelm connects with Mignon more smoothly than he did with Felix, because he is not at all concerned about any biological relationship to himself. He is less confused in this case, and can concentrate more quickly on Mignon, her feelings, his own emotions, and his feelings of paternity for her. Later, when Wilhelm is planning to leave Mignon as he continues his travels, the two of them come together and finally express their affinities for one another openly. Their love becomes manifest as they see, discuss, and then express their love for one another as a father and a daughter. Mignon notices Wilhelm’s anxiety and asks him: “If you are unhappy, what should Mignon be?” Wilhelm tells her he must leave and she notices the tears in his eyes, kneels before him, and “she lays her head on his knee.” Their physical interactions continue as Mignon looks at Wilhelm and grabs her heart. Then Wilhelm responds 135 “Streng, scharf, trocken, heftig, und in sanften Stellungen mehr feierlich als angenehm …” MA, 5, 114. 136 “Er sehnte sich, dieses verlassene Wesen an Kindesstatt seinem Herzen einzuverleiben, es in seine Arme zu nehmen, und mit der Liebe eines Vaters Freude des Lebens in ihm zu erwecken.” MA, 5, 114.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  109 back: “He lifted her up, she fell onto his lap, he embraced her and kissed her.” Wilhelm and Mignon are coming together physically, they are falling into each other’s arms, and their hearts are coming closer together. Mignon’s body begins to cramp up and Wilhelm calls out to her: “My child! … as he picked her up and embraced her closely, my child, what is with you?” Wilhelm then hugs her and: “He held her to his heart and covered her with his tears.” At first, once Wilhelm’s tears begin to flow, Mignon tenses up physically, but then settles down and the physical movements she was exhibiting taper off: “and in that moment a stream of tears poured out of her closed eyes into his chest.” Both Wilhelm and Mignon express their innermost feelings of love and connection for one another through their tears. The tears, as opposed to their bodies, more effectively translate their feelings. As Wilhelm sees Mignon crying, he realizes that “her innermost self poured out.” And at this moment Wilhelm confesses his love and dedication to Mignon as her father directly to her: “My child! he called out, my child! You are mine! If that word can soothe you. You are mine! I will hold onto you, I will not forsake you!“ Once Wilhelm openly confesses his paternal love for Mignon, she responds back to him with the desire to be his child: “My father! she called, you do not want to leave me! You want to be my father!—I am your child!” Now that they have finally expressed their elective affinities for each other, Wilhelm and Mignon are father and daughter for one another and Wilhelm is “holding his child ever more tightly in his arms, enjoying the purest, indescribable joy.” Wilhelm and Mignon are connected together as a family through their hearts. As Wilhelm later tells Aurelie, the key is to turn ones “eyes more toward the inside, than toward the outside.”137 In addition, no biological, corporeal, or economic connections were necessary to bring them together. And once they shift from focusing on their bodies to feeling their tears and recognizing their innermost feelings for one another, they are convinced that they are a family. Wilhelm knows in 137 Mignon: “wenn du unglücklich bist, was soll Mignon werden?” and: “sie legte ihr Haupt auf seine Knie” and “Er hub sie auf, und sie fiel auf seinen Schoß, er druckte sie an sich, und küßte sie” and “Mein Kind! rief er aus, indem der sie aufhob und fest umarmte, mein Kind, was ist dir?” and “Er schloß sie an sein Herz, und benetzte sie mit seinen Tränen.” Mignon: “und in dem Augenblicke floß ein Strom von Tränen aus ihren geschlossenen Augen in seinen Busen” and “es ergoß sich ihr Innerstes.” Wilhelm: “Mein Kind! rief er aus, mein Kind! du bist ja mein! wenn dich das Wort trösten kann. Du bist mein! ich werde dich behalten, dich nicht verlassen!” Mignon: “Mein Vater! rief sie, du willst mich nicht verlassen! willst mein Vater sein!—Ich bin dein Kind!” Wilhelm: “sein Kind immer fester in seinen Armen haltend, des reinsten unbeschreiblichsten Glücks genoß.” MA, 5, 140–1, and Wilhelm: “Augen … mehr nach Innen, als nach Außen” MA, 5, 257.

110  Goethe’s Families of the Heart his heart that Mignon is his daughter and that he will stay with her and support her in every way that he can. Mignon knows that she is Wilhelm’s daughter. She recognizes his feelings of paternity for her and exclaims: “I am your child!” As we know from Wilhelm’s struggle to define himself as Felix’s father, no corporeal clues, documents, letters, stories, and/or reassurances from others are convincing proof of fatherhood. What is convincing, what draws parents and children together, are their elective affinities. True parent–child relationships are ones of the heart and soul.138 While traveling with Mignon, Wilhelm draws another child into his family, Friedrich. Wilhelm had met Friedrich for the first time right after he met Mignon and was trying to figure out who she was. Friedrich was the boy that Philine had taken in as her servant boy. They have a fight in front of Wilhelm in which Philine castigates the boy for not doing his work well enough, and Friedrich insists he can go, wherever he wants to, and he then packs his bags and leaves. Sometime later Wilhelm meets a boy in the street and recognizes him as Friedrich, but they do not have any real contact with one another, and Friedrich runs off again. No one knows Friedrich’s heritage or his story. Later, after Friedrich has disappeared, Mignon reports to Wilhelm that Friedrich has been arrested and is going to be publically whipped. Wilhelm intervenes and gets him released. Without any description of any developing connection Wilhelm might have had to Friedrich, without any account of Wilhelm’s search for corporeal clues, Wilhelm draws Friedrich into his family. Wilhelm has overcome any confusion about needing bodily evidence and: “Wilhelm took him (Friedrich) in, and he was now the third person of the wonderful family, that Wilhelm had seen as his own for some time now. The old man (Harfner) and Mignon welcomed the returning one in with friendliness, and all three formed a bond with each other …”139 Friedrich joins Wilhelm’s wonderful family. 138 This scene has been interpreted in terms of sexual desire between Wilhelm and Mignon. See, for example, Broszeit-Rieger “Transgressions of Gender,” 82; Mahlendorf, “The Mystery,” 26; MacLeod, “Pedagogy,” 404–5; and Helfer, “Wilhelm,” 245. I disagree with these analyses of the scene which introduce a Freudian notion of sexual desire between parents and children that is not indicated anywhere in Goethe’s outline of elective affinities. In addition, these analyses do not address their coming together as a father and a child through their elective affinities. A few scholars also refer to Wilhelm’s adoption of Mignon in passing, but without further explication. See Schlipphacke, “Die Vaterschaft,” 410; Charlotte Lee, “‘Wenn ich leben soll, so sei es mit dir!’ The Relationship of Father and Son in Goethe’s Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre,” German Life and Letters 64.4 (2011): 491; and Brigitte E. Jirku, “Mignon: Rätsel oder Geheimnis,” Monatshefte 92.3 (2000): 288. 139 “Wilhelm nahm ihn (Friedrich) auf, und er war nunmehr die dritte Person der wunderbaren Familie, die Wilhelm seit einiger Zeit als seine eigene ansah. Der

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  111 The members of that family are now: Mignon, Friedrich, Wilhelm, and the Harfner. Wilhelm’s family of the heart is a family with two fathers, himself and the Harfner, and two children he has met during his travels and welcomed into his heart.140 Throughout the Lehrjahre Wilhelm’s travels are focused on family building and defining himself as a father who loves his children. Children of one’s family and one’s heart do not have to be biological offspring, and Wilhelm not only learns that but creates families of the heart for himself as he travels throughout his “Lehrjahre.” Moreover, this reference to adding Friedrich to his “wonderful family” underscores not only that Wilhelm has been forming his own family based on his affinities but that families can be families with children who are adopted and not biologically related to their parents. In addition, Wilhelm’s thoughts about his “wonderful family” also reveal very clearly that he considers the Harfner to be his male partner and essentially his spouse based on his affinities for him as well. In fact, throughout the Lehrjahre, Wilhelm is forming several relationships and families based on affinities, sometimes with women and sometimes with men, and he also meets several couples drawn together by their affinities and often by their mutual love for children, and those people are often not heterosexual, but same-sex couples.

3. Same-sex and nonexclusive affinities

Just as Wilhelm is drawn into a loving paternal relationship through his affinities for several “puzzling” children during his “learning years,” he is also drawn to multiple “puzzling” adults, he encounters throughout his travels. Wilhelm is constantly meeting new persons who, like him, are wandering around outside of, separated from, and beyond, their biological families. And, as we shall see, Wilhelm is immediately intrigued by these “puzzling” people and is drawn to them spontaneously. Indeed, escaping from one’s biological family and wandering around unknown to others results in characters coming Alte (Harfner) und Mignon nahmen den Wiederkehrenden freundlich auf, und alle drei verbanden sich nunmehr …” MA, 5, 185. 140 Jirku, “Mignon,” 290, claims that, later, Mignon, the Harfner, and Felix create a surrogate family. Stefan Hadjuk, “Identität und Verlust. Der Wandel des Familienbildes und die Dynamik der Geniuspsychologie in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre.” Weimarer Beiträge 55 (2009): 203, refers briefly to the Harfner and Mignon as coming together with Wilhelm into a wonderous surrogate family. I would argue that Wilhelm, Mignon, the Harfner, Friedrich, and Felix come together in a radical and challenging family of the heart and love. Adoptive families are not portrayed by Goethe as surrogate, compensatory, or in some manner less significant than biological families.

112  Goethe’s Families of the Heart together in multiple new relationships and family configurations to include heterosexual and same-sex partnerships and families. In this context, it is also critical to note that Wilhelm himself is a “puzzling person” for those he encounters. He is wandering around outside of his biological family as well. Jarno remarks to Wilhelm: “I know nothing about your heritage, about your domestic circumstances.” Likewise, Mignon questions Wilhelm about his “parents, siblings, and relatives.” In both of these cases, no response by Wilhelm to these inquiries is recorded in the Lehrjahre. When Therese says to Wilhelm: “I still do not yet know the least bit about you; tell me however something about yourself …” he refuses to tell her anything, insisting that his story is solely one of “mistakes after mistakes” and “confusions after confusions.”141 Wilhelm remains a puzzle. In addition, the Graf and Jarno discuss Wilhelm in the final pages of the Lehrjahre, noting they don’t know his heritage, whether his father was English, his mother German? The Graf asks Jarno to help him understand this guy you call Meister and to untangle “such family secrets.”142 Like Wilhelm, many of the characters in the Lehrjahre are wandering around unknown to those they encounter along the way. Most of the characters that Wilhelm is drawn to have their own family secrets, are unknown to those they encounter, and are puzzles Wilhelm is trying to decipher. And, as we shall see, the relationships they form with one another are sometimes heterosexual, sometimes formed by same-sex affinities, and in some cases characters form multiple affinities with one another that include all of these possibilities. All of these relationships underscore the fundamental nonexclusive nature of elective affinities. As in the Wahlverwandtschaften, in the Lehrjahre affinities are presented as essentially compelling and fluid. As new persons come together their relationships to each other and anyone they were previously connected to change. Once free from their biological/aristocratic and/ or civil family structures, Wilhelm and many of the characters in the Lehrjahre are traveling around and forming new relationships of the heart and soul. The first puzzling person Wilhelm is drawn to after meeting Mignon is the Harfner. As the Harfner suddenly joins the theater group Wilhelm has been following with Mignon, the first observation everyone makes is that: “The body of this peculiar guest astonished the whole troupe.” 141 Wilhelm: “Ich weiß nichts von Ihrer Herkunft, von Ihren häuslichen Umständen …” MA, 5, 191, and Mignon asks about: “Eltern, Geschwistern und Verwandten” MA, 5, 202. Therese: “ich weiß noch nicht das mindeste von Ihnen; erzählen Sie mir indessen etwas von sich …” MA, 5, 448, Wilhelm: “Irrtümer auf Irrtümer” and “Verirrungen auf Verirrungen” MA, 5, 448. 142 “solche Familiengeheimnisse” MA, 5, 600.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  113 Then their attention is drawn to his corporeal features to include his “big blue eyes, well-formed nose, a long white beard, an attractive lip, and the thin body.” Once again (as when Wilhelm met Mignon) a new, puzzling person is first outlined, registered, and defined according to corporeal features. But then the audience’s attention shifts to “the pleasurable tones” the Harfner is bringing forth on his harp and Philine asks him to sing as well. Wilhelm joins in and suggests that the Harfner give us “something that will captivate at once the heart and soul as well as the senses.” Wilhelm inspires the Harfner to transport them all beyond just the sensual, corporeal experience of him and to reach out to their hearts and souls. The Harfner then performs his song “with so much life and truth” that “Wilhelm could barely contain himself from falling on his neck, only the fear of arousing a loud laughter, pulled him back onto his chair …”143 Wilhelm is clearly drawn by his affinities to want to embrace the Harfner. He has experienced the life and truth that the Harfner has expressed through his music and singing and is drawn to him spontaneously. Only the uncomfortable presence of the crowd that might laugh at two men hugging holds him back from expressing his own feelings for the Harfner. Wilhelm is clearly drawn to the Harfner and shouts out at the end of his performance: “whoever you are, who come to us as a helpful guardian spirit with a blessing and enlivening voice, take my adoration and my thanks, and feel, that we all admire you, and trust us, if you need something.”144 Wilhelm calls out to the Harfner and lets him know that regardless of who he might be, he has won his adoration and his amazement, and he tells him to “feel” that everyone here admires him and that he should trust them. Intriguingly, Wilhelm frames his own elective affinities for the Harfner, referring to “my adoration” and “my thanks” within his references to what the Harfner brings to everyone and to the support he can have from all of them. Within this subtle frame suggesting group admiration and support, Wilhelm lets his feelings for the Harfner begin to emerge. Moreover, Wilhelm also clearly states that whoever the Harfner is (the specifics do not matter) that will not affect his/their feelings and support for him. 143 “Die Gestalt dieses seltsamen Gastes setzte die ganze Gesellschaft in Erstaunen …” MA, 5, 125, and his: “große blaue Augen,” “wohlgebildete Nase,” “ein langer weißer Bart,” a “gefällige Lippe,” and “den schlanken Körper” and “die angenehmen Töne” and “etwas, das Herz und Geist zugleich mit den Sinnen ergötze” and “mit so viel Leben und Wahrheit” and “Wilhelm enthielt sich kaum, ihm um den Hals zu fallen, nur die Furcht, ein lautes Gelächter zu erregen, zog ihn auf seinen Stuhl zurück …” MA, 5, 126. 144 “wer du auch seist, der du als ein hülfreicher Schutzgeist mit einer segnenden und belebenden Stimme zu uns kommst, nimm meine Verehrung und meinen Dank, fühle, daß wir alle dich bewundern, und vertrau uns, wenn du etwas bedarfst.” MA, 5, 127.

114  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Wilhelm’s affinities for the Harfner become even more apparent the next time he hears the Harfner singing (think of Mignon dancing). This time they are alone with one another. The Harfner is singing and Wilhelm hears his “heart-touching, lamenting tones.” Indeed, “the wistful, heartfelt lament penetrated deep into the soul of the listener [Wilhelm].” Wilhelm is feeling the Harfner’s emotions and “his soul was profoundly moved” and he begins to cry and “he did not resist the heartfelt sympathy, and could not and did not want to hold back his tears, that the old man’s [the Harfner’s] heartfelt lamentation drew out of his [Wilhelm’s] eyes.” The Harfner’s inner feelings touch Wilhelm’s heart, he cries, and then confesses to the Harfner that: “You have freed, everything that was stuck in my heart.” After hearing and feeling the emotions the Harfner is expressing through his singing, Wilhelm expresses his feelings as well, their hearts connect, and Wilhelm assures the Harfner that, wherever he goes, he may seem to be a stranger, but that he will “find in your heart the pleasurable acquaintance”145 In other words, Wilhelm insists that the Harfner will find himself, his likeness to others, and his connections to others in his heart. After this encounter and revelation of their hearts to one another, Wilhelm and the Harfner stay together with the theater troupe. The Harfner begins performing with Mignon. He sings and plays the music while she dances, and while their performances together are not described in the Lehrjahre, as we have seen, they both transcend their corporal limitations, elicit tears, and connect through their affinities with Wilhelm via their performances. It is then also not at all surprising when, as we have seen, Wilhelm later adds Friedrich to his “wonderful family” with the Harfner and Mignon. Wilhelm’s relationships with Mignon and Friedrich are clearly based on his paternal love for them. They are his adoptive children of the heart. Even more radical is Wilhelm’s relationship to the Harfner. Their affinities draw them together as two men who love each other and who become the two fathers of Friedrich and Mignon. Their relationship is one formed through their same-sex affinities and there is no concern that this relationship is odd or unnatural or unacceptable in any way. Wilhelm and the Harfner love each other. They find themselves in each other’s hearts and they form a loving family. Wilhelm, the Harfner, Mignon, 145 “herzrührende, klagende Töne” and “die wehmütige herzliche Klage drang tief in die Seele des Hörers (Wilhelm)” and “seine (Wilhelms) Seele war tief gerührt” and “er (Wilhelm) widerstand nicht dem Mitgefühl, und konnte und wollte die Tränen nicht zurück halten, die des Alten (Harfner) herzliche Klage endlich auch aus seinen (Wilhelms) Augen hervorlockte” and “Alles, was in meinem Herzen stockte, hast du los gelöst” and “in deinem Herzen die angenehme Bekanntschaft findest.” MA, 5, 134–5.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  115 and Friedrich form a family that takes them away from various family tragedies from which they have flown. They are now together as a loving family. Intriguingly, Wilhelm’s family of love seems to be acceptable to the theater group with whom he is traveling. Only one person comments upon this new family and rejects it. In fact, Wilhelm’s relationships to the Harfner and Mignon are totally rejected by Jarno. In addition, Jarno’s excoriation of Wilhelm’s family of love is presented as unacceptable and as evidence of his lack of heart and inability to love. Jarno had been introduced earlier in the novel as another puzzling person; he is thought to be perhaps the illegitimate son of a prince and Wilhelm feels at first a kind of affinity for him, but also senses at the same time “something cold and repulsive” about him. Wilhelm is clearly concerned that Jarno has “an unfriendly manner.” Jarno subsequently wounds Wilhelm deeply when he thoroughly rejects his family with the Harfner and Mignon. Jarno confronts Wilhelm directly and says: “I have often observed with disgust and chagrin, how you, in order to be able to live to some degree, have had to hang your heart onto a wandering balladeer [Harfner] and a daft, hermaphroditic creature [Mignon].”146 Jarno’s cold, dismissive rejection of the Harfner for his wandering and Mignon for her hermaphroditic character is shocking for Wilhelm. He is deeply wounded and experiences the hard-hearted coldness of Jarno. As soon as Jarno dismisses Wilhelm’s family of love, Wilhelm sees in Jarno the sign of “a highly depraved heart.”147 Jarno has no sense of love and cannot see that Wilhelm, the Harfner, and Mignon love each other. He is simply blind when it comes to love. He does not have love in his heart, does not connect with others, and cannot recognize their mutual affinities. Wilhelm, in contrast, accepts 146 Mignon, of course, wears boy’s clothes and asserts many times that she is a boy. What is significant is that Jarno is the only one who questions and dismisses Mignon’s revelations about the identity she assigns to herself and/ or her feelings of love for Wilhelm. See MacLeod, “Pedagogy,” and Horstkotte, “Wilhelm Meisters Mignon,” who address Mignon’s androgyny and transvestism. In addition, for a detailed analysis of Mignon’s hermaphroditic character and challenges to gender norms, see Eleanor E. ter Horst, Lessing, Goethe, Kleist, and the Transformation of Gender. From Hermaphrodite to Amazon (New York: Peter Lang, 2003), 86–100. For analyses of the significance of the cross-dressed women in the Lehrjahre and their veiled allusions to the desires between men, see my book Gustafson, Men Desiring Men. 147 “etwas Kaltes und Abstoßendes” MA, 5, 161, and “eine unfreundliche Art” MA, 5, 178, and “Ich hab’ es oft mit Ekel und Verdruß gesehen, wie Sie, um nur einigermaßen leben zu können, Ihr Herz an einem herumziehenden Bänkelsänger (Harfner) und an ein albernes zwitterhaftes Geschöpf (Mignon) hängen mußten.” MA, 5, 192, and “eines höchst verdorbenen Herzens” MA, 5, 193.

116  Goethe’s Families of the Heart the Harfner and Mignon as they are, is drawn to them, loves them, and does not dismiss their love because they are wandering, unknown, and/or have nonexclusive affinities. All love is love and that is what matters to Wilhelm. He is astute in recognizing that what matters is love of the heart and that he should also avoid those like Jarno, whose hard hearts have no love. As the story continues, we learn that the Harfner cannot come to terms with his earlier negative biological, family relationships. We find out at the end of the novel, after Mignon’s death, that he was the brother who had the child with his sister, Sperata, and that Mignon is his biological child. The Harfner does not know that Mignon is his biological child when he joins Wilhelm’s “wonderful family” and he is unable to overcome his melancholy feelings. When he first tries to leave Wilhelm, because of his overwhelming feelings, Wilhelm talks him out of it. But later his melancholic, crazy reaction to a fire, and his supposed attempt to kill Felix, reveal both the Harfner’s insanity and his need for treatment. Wilhelm is sad that the Harfner must leave him and: “The separation hurt Wilhelm deeply, and only the hope, to see him recovered, could make this separation somewhat bearable for him, he was so used to seeing the man (Harfner) around him and hearing his heartfelt tones.”148 Wilhelm will miss the husband of his heart and hopes that he will recover, overcome his haunting family past, and return to him. What Wilhelm will miss foremost is the expression by the Harfner of his heartfelt affinities and Wilhelm’s own recognition of his feelings of the heart and his love for the Harfner. Their same-sex relationship was truly one of the heart and soul and represents one of the strongest love relationships in the Lehrjahre. Had the Harfner not been so significantly and irrevocably damaged by his biological family, his father’s secret hiding of Sperata, and the cultural rejection of his relationship to Sperata, his relationship with Wilhelm may have continued. It is important, in this context, to also note that the Harfner is presented in the text as having an earlier heterosexual relationship with Sperata and then, later, a same-sex one with Wilhelm. As we shall see, throughout the Lehrjahre fluid affinities do not limit anyone to only one kind of love relationship. Affinities are clearly portrayed as nonexclusive and fluid, and as new persons join the social mix, affinities shift. Indeed, while connected to the Harfner for most of his Lehrjahre, Wilhelm is also drawn by his affinities to several other persons throughout his travels. One of the very first persons Wilhelm is drawn 148 “Die Scheidung schmerzte Wilhelmen tief, und nur die Hoffnung, ihn wiederhergestellt zu sehen, konnte sie ihm einigermaßen erträglich machen, so sehr war er gewohnt den Mann (Harfner) um sich zu sehen und seine geistreichen und herzlichen Töne zu vernehmen.” MA, 5, 336.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  117 to is the Countess. She is never called by any name but is a woman who draws Wilhelm to herself spontaneously in their first meeting: “a calm affinity for her began to grow.”149 They connect quickly with one another and “so the Countess and Wilhelm exchanged significant glances across the tremendous divide between birth and social class, and each believed on his/her side to be allowed to indulge in his/ her sentiments.”150 The affinities between the Countess and Wilhelm are allowing them to look past the social divide that would typically keep them apart from one another. Wilhelm continues to gaze at the Countess and “As often as he looked at the Countess, it appeared to him as if, an electric spark flashed before his eyes … The beautiful lady had always pleased him; but now it appeared to him, as though he had never seen anything more perfect.”151 As he is seeing her, Wilhelm is not even thinking predominantly about her body first, as we might expect, he is thinking about her “finery,” “ribbons,” “laces,” “hair roll,” and “locks of hair.” He also watches her as he reads “as if he wanted to imprint this impression in his mind forever.” Other than the fact that looking at the Countess causes him to misread some of the words of the text, no further details about their relationship or coming together are outlined until the Countess tells him: “we will separate from each other soon.” She then takes out a ring and hands it to Wilhelm, who “did not know what to say, what to do, but stood there as if rooted to the floor.”152 Wilhelm is taken aback and does not know how to react. At this point, Philine interrupts and says: “And should I be left out … as she kneeled down before the right hand of the Countess.” Philine suggests that she too should receive some keepsake, some acknowledgment of her relationship to the Countess, before she leaves them (both of them). She kneels before the Countess in order to express her thanks, and tells Wilhelm: “so at least imitate me.” Intriguingly, Philine is telling Wilhelm to copy her and is positioning herself in relationship to the Countess as if she were like Wilhelm/a man expecting some recognition (some keepsake) of their relationship and 149 “eine stille Neigung gegen sie aufzukeimen anfing” MA, 5, 175. 150 “so wechselte die Gräfin mit Wilhelm bedeutende Blicke über die ungeheure Kluft der Geburt und des Standes hinüber, und jedes glaubte an seiner Seite, sicher seinen Empfindungen nachhängen zu dürfen.” MA, 5, 175. 151 “So oft er die Gräfin anblickte, schien es ihm, als wenn ein elektrischer Funke sich vor seinen Augen zeigte … Die schöne Dame hatte ihm immer gefallen; aber jetzt schien es ihm, als ob er nie etwas vollkommneres gesehen hätte …” MA, 5, 197. 152 “Putz,” “Bändern,” “Spitzen,” “Puffen,” and “Locken” and “als wenn er diesen Eindruck sich auf ewig einprägen wollte” and “Wir werden uns bald trennen” and “nichts zu sagen, nichts zu tun wußte, sondern wie eingewurzelt in den Boden da stand.” MA, 5, 197–8.

118  Goethe’s Families of the Heart then instructs Wilhelm to kneel before the Countess the way she is. Philine is placing herself and Wilhelm in terms of equal connections to the Countess. Then: “Philine grabs the Countess’s right hand, and kisses it with vivacity.” Philine makes the first move to express her love for the Countess and Wilhelm then copies her: “Wilhelm falls on his knees, grabs the left hand, and presses it to his lips.” Both Philine and Wilhelm are expressing their love for the Countess and are doing it in exactly the same way as they both hold one of her hands, kiss it, and kneel before her. Their relationships are presented as thoroughly analogous and equal. Both a man and a woman are expressing their affinities for the Countess at the same time and in the same way. Then Philine (as Wilhelm did earlier) exclaims how beautiful the Countess’s jewelry is: “What bracelets!” but she then immediately shifts to the Countess’s body (and not just her hair) exclaiming: “but what a hand! What a necklace! But what a breast!”153 Philine mentions the Countess’s jewelry, but immediately slides into comments about her body as well. She is clearly drawn to the Countess’s hand, which she has been kissing, and also finally to her breast. Like Wilhelm, Philine moves from the fascination with jewelry to her body but, unlike Wilhelm, she does not focus on the Countess’s hair and its style but on her hand and her breast. She is clearly concentrating on the parts of the Countess’s body that she feels connected to—her hand, her breast, and finally perhaps the heart within her. Then Philine shifts her attention to a medallion that the Countess is wearing. On the medallion is a man’s image. Philine asks the Countess if it is the Count and the Countess confirms that it is an image of the Count when he was her groom. Philine responds by asserting: “He is a handsome man … But, she continued as she placed her hand onto the heart of the Countess, should any other image have never slid into this hidden capsule?”154 Philine has just asked the Countess if any other image has ever slipped into her heart. Has the Countess only loved the Count? Philine has also just placed her own hand on the Countess’s heart, suggesting that she might be asking if she has ever been in the Countess’s heart. Philine, once again, is positioning herself as both next to and mirroring Wilhelm, and as potentially, hopefully also in 153 “Und soll ich leer ausgehen … indem sie sich zur rechten Hand der Gräfin niederkniete” and “so ahmen sie mir wenigstens nach” and “Philine ergriff die rechte Hand der Gräfin, und küßte sie mit Lebhaftigkeit” and “Wilhelm stürzte auf seine Kniee, faßte die linke, und drückte sie an seine Lippen.” and “Welche Armbänder!” and“aber auch welche Hand! Welcher Halsschmuck! aber welche Brust!” MA, 5, 198–9. 154 “Es ist ein schöner Mann … Doch sollte wohl niemals, fuhr sie fort, indem sie die Hand auf das Herz der Gräfin legte, in diese verborgene Kapsel sich ein ander Bild eingeschlichen haben?” MA, 5, 199.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  119 the Countess’s heart like the Count was. Philine’s open allusions to her same-sex affinities for the Countess are rejected by her: “The Countess yelled out: You are very audacious, Philine! I have spoiled you. Don’t let me hear such things again.”155 Philine clearly implies her same-sex love for the Countess and the Countess’s response is to tell her that she is too reckless and daring in her expressions and enactments of her feelings, and that she does not want to hear these sorts of references to Philine’s possible place in her heart again. Intriguingly, the Countess does not deny Philine’s suggestions of a same-sex love between them, she only insists that Philine’s references to it are too bold. She also admits that she spoiled Philine, suggesting that she has also participated in their mutual love relationship. Philine’s response is to state that if the Countess is mad at her, she is unhappy, and she jumps up and leaves the room. As soon as Philine leaves, Wilhelm tries to assert his love connection to the Countess in a way that mirrors Philine’s references to jewelry and her insistence that that jewelry might be read as being about her. Wilhelm sees a bracelet on the Countess’s arm and exclaims: “Here is my name” and points to the bracelet. The Countess responds: “How? … it is the cipher of a girlfriend!”156 Not only does the Countess reject Wilhelm’s reading of the bracelet (i.e. that it is about him and his importance to her), but she admits that the bracelet is a keepsake, a reminder, a cipher, and a sign of her connection to another woman. Once again, the Countess’s rejection of Philine’s suggestions about herself as being in the Countess’s heart must be read not as a rejection of love relationships between women but as a reaction to the boldness of her expressions of that love. Equally important is the fact that Wilhelm ignores the Countess’s explanation that the letters on the bracelet she is wearing refer to another woman and insists: “These are the initial letters of my name. Don’t forget me. Your image is imprinted in my heart. Farewell and let me flee.”157 Wilhelm states more boldly than Philine did that he sees himself in the Countess’s jewelry, he implies that that must mean he is in her heart, he states openly that she is in his heart, wishes her well and asks her to let him flee. We recall, in this context, that Philine had also focused on the Countess’s jewelry, asked about whose image was in it, if some other 155 “Du bist sehr verwegen, Philine! rief sie (die Gräfin) aus: ich habe dich verzogen. Laß mich so etwas nicht zum zweitenmal hören.” MA, 5, 199. 156 Wilhelm: “Hier steht mein Name” and Countess: “Wie? … es ist die Chiffer einer Freundin!” MA, 5, 199. 157 “Es sind die Anfangsbuchstaben meines Namens. Vergessen Sie meiner nicht. Ihr Bild steht unauslöschlich in meinem Herzen. Leben Sie wohl, lassen sie mich fliehen!” MA, 5, 199.

120  Goethe’s Families of the Heart image had ever slipped into her heart, resists the Countess’s assertions that her questions are too bold, and then flees from the room. Wilhelm’s and Philine’s attempts to find themselves in the Countess’s heart via references to her jewelry and the ways they attempt to connect with her mirror one another. Wilhelm’s expression of his affinities for the Countess, and the fact that her image is in his heart forever, is bolder than Philine’s suggestion (while touching the Countess’s heart) that some other image might be in there, but both Wilhelm and Philine are clearly trying to find themselves in the Countess’s heart. Right after Wilhelm asserts that the Countess is in his heart, they fall into each other’s arms, kissing and enjoying a bliss that comes from fresh love: and so he held the Countess in his arms without knowing how it happened. Her lips rested on his and their mutual lively kisses afforded them a bliss that we sip out of the first flaring foam of a freshly poured cup of love. Her head rested on his shoulder, and the mashed locks and ribbons were not thought about. She had wrapped her arm around him; he embraced her with vivacity, and pressed her repeatedly onto his chest.158 Their affinities have drawn Wilhelm and the Countess together and they are experiencing the total bliss of a new love relationship. Neither one cares about the locks and ribbons now that they have found themselves. Wilhelm is in the Countess’s arms and he has pulled her to his heart. But in the middle of this glorious expression of mutual love, bliss, and affinities, the Countess suddenly screams: How horrified Wilhelm was, how stunned he was as he left the happy dream, as the Countess tore herself away from him suddenly with a scream and pulled her hand to her heart. He stood there before her dazed; she held the other hand in front of her eyes, and yelled after a pause: go away, hurry! He remained standing there. Leave me, she called, while she took the hand away from her eyes and looked at him with an indescribable expression. She added with the loveliest voice: flee from me, if 158 “so hielt er, ohne zu wissen wie es geschah, die Gräfin in seinen Armen, ihre Lippen ruhten auf den seinigen, und ihre wechselseitigen lebhaften Küsse gewährten ihnen eine Seligkeit, die wir nur aus dem ersten aufbrausenden Schaum des frisch eingeschenkten Bechers der Liebe schlürfen. Ihr Haupt ruhte auf seiner Schulter, und der zerdrückten Locken und Bänder ward nicht gedacht. Sie hatte ihren Arm um ihn geschlungen; er umfaßte sie mit Lebhaftigkeit, und drückte sie wiederholend an seine Brust.” MA, 5, 199–200.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  121 you love me. Wilhelm was out of the room and back in his room, before he knew, where he was.159 There is no overt explanation for the Countess’s sudden scream and her insistence that Wilhelm should leave her, if he loves her. Her covering of her eyes suggests that she does not want to see Wilhelm and/or the love that he brings to her. Moreover, as the Countess screams, she pulls herself away from Wilhelm and clutches her own heart. For some reason, that she does not divulge, the Countess is feeling she must separate herself from Wilhelm and get him away from her heart. It remains unclear whether, in grasping her own heart, the Countess is suggesting that Wilhelm is in it, or shouldn’t be? These questions are not answered. We recall here as well that Philine had put her hand on the Countess’s heart earlier and now the Countess is clutching her own heart, reminding us of Philine’s expressions of her affinities for the Countess. It is also possible that the Countess is torn between Philine and Wilhelm. Indeed, her relationship with Philine clearly implies their affinities for one another. In this context, the Countess’s abrupt scream and retreat from Wilhelm could reflect her sudden realization that this relationship (with a man) may not be where her heart takes her. Philine’s hints about her possible same-sex relationship with the Countess, the Countess’s refusal to look at Wilhelm, and her insistence that he leave, suggest that her feelings may be more strongly same-sex affinities than heterosexual ones, and that while she was compelled by her affinities to fall into Wilhelm’s arms, she suddenly becomes aware of her heart, her other (same-sex) affinities, and tears herself away from Wilhelm. Shortly after Wilhelm has his encounter with Philine and the Countess, he is wandering around with his theater group when they are suddenly attacked by robbers and Wilhelm gets shot and passes out. When he regains consciousness, he finds himself in a most wonderful location. He is lying in Philine’s lap. As he looks up he sees a woman approaching on a horse, “the beautiful Amazon.”160 Wilhelm is immediately attracted to her face: “He had fixed his eyes on the soft, 159 “Wie erschrak Wilhelm, wie betäubt fuhr er aus einem glücklichen Träume auf, als die Gräfin sich auf einmal mit einem Schrei von ihm losriß, und mit der Hand nach ihrem Herzen fuhr. Er stand betäubt vor ihr da; sie hielt die andere Hand vor die Augen, und rief nach einer Pause: entfernen Sie sich, eilen Sie! Er stand noch immer. Verlassen Sie mich, rief sie, und indem sie die Hand von den Augen nahm, und ihn mit einem unbeschrieblichen Blicke ansah, setzte sie mit der lieblichsten Stimme hinzu: fliehen Sie mich, wenn Sie mich lieben. Wilhelm war aus dem Zimmer, und wieder auf seiner Stube, eh’ er wußte, wo er sich befand.” MA, 5, 200. 160 “die schöne Amazone” MA, 5, 224.

122  Goethe’s Families of the Heart high, quiet, connecting facial features of the one arriving; he believed, he had never seen anything so noble and worthy of love. A wide man’s coat hid her figure from him …”161 Wilhelm finds himself surrounded by two women. He is lying in Philine’s lap—the woman who is clearly attracted to another woman. At the same time, Wilhelm is captivated by an unknown woman wearing men’s clothing. In this context, we also recall that Mariane was wearing a red soldier’s uniform when Wilhelm first meets her, hugs her, and expresses his affinities for her.162 Once again the text evokes questions: Is Wilhelm attracted to the women as women? Or is he attracted to them because they are dressed and acting like men? Are his affinities heterosexual and/or same-sex? All of these possibilities are suggested in this scene, and while no definitive answer is given, the multiple relationships that Wilhelm has entered into throughout the Lehrjahre demonstrate that his affinities are fundamentally fluid and nonexclusive.163 Moreover, the coat the Amazon is wearing hides her body from Wilhelm, and he subsequently focuses on her face. In her facial features he sees her emotional expressions. Wilhelm sees her soft, quiet, sympathetic feelings and he believes he has never seen anyone more noble and worthy of love. Wilhelm perceives his feelings of affinity for this mysterious woman immediately and does not distract himself with any survey of her corporeal features. He sees her face, but does not list her nose, lips, etc. What he sees is her sweet and loving self. The Amazon then tries to take care of Wilhelm “with humanitarian sympathy.” And, in fact, she is drawn to Wilhelm as well: “it appeared as if she (the Amazon) could not pull herself away from the sight of the wounded 161 “Er hatte seine Augen auf die sanften, hohen, stillen, teilnehmenden Gesichtszüge der Ankommenden geheftet; er glaubte nie etwas edleres noch liebenswürdigeres gesehen zu haben. Ein weiter Mannsüberrock verbarg ihm ihre Gestalt …” MA, 5, 224. 162 Currie stresses Wilhelm’s attraction to androgynous and ambiguous female figures in the Lehrjahre. Pamela Currie, “Ambiguous Figures in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre,” Oxford German Studies 29 (2000): 77. Helfer, “Wilhelm,” 237, points out that Wilhelm is often attracted to women in men’s clothing. 163 See my book, Gustafson, Men Desiring Men, 182–4, that outlines in detail Wilhelm’s same-sex desires and how they are consistently and secretly alluded to as he expresses his desire for men, in part through his obsession with male clothing throughout the Lehrjahre. I agree with Tobin that “Wilhelm’s desires for women in male attire indicate a deviation from heterosexual norms.” Robert Tobin, “Healthy Families: Medicine, Patriarchy and Heterosexuality in Eighteenth-Century German Novels,” in Impure Reason: Dialectic of Enlightenment in Germany, ed. W. Daniel Wilson and Robert C. Holub (Detroit:  Wayne State University Press 1993), 252. In the context of the Lehrjahre and Wilhelm’s shifting affinities, cross-dressing and Wilhelm’s fascination with it clearly highlights Wilhelm’s fluid and nonexclusive affinities.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  123 person (Wilhelm)”164 for whom she is increasingly more concerned and caring. Finally, she covers Wilhelm with her coat and disappears as he slides into unconsciousness. Once he comes back to his senses Wilhelm sees the beautiful Amazon in his imagination: “and his soul raced after the vanished one through mountains and fields.” Wilhelm knows instantly and unequivocably that his heart and soul are drawing him to the mysterious Amazon woman. As time passes, he feels even more compelled to find her: “The desire to see his savoir woman, grew with every day.”165 But she, like so many other characters in the Lehrjahre, is wandering around outside of her family and home and no one can find out where she has gone. Wilhelm receives some information from a pastor about her possible family and location, but it turns out to be false information: “One searched for the place that the noble family had chosen for their residence during the war, one searched for news about them: but the place was not in any geography, was not to be found on any map, and the genealogical handbooks said nothing about such a family.”166 Wilhelm and his friends ultimately find no trace of the Amazon woman and Wilhelm continues to struggle with his feelings for her. He fears that all hope of finding her is gone. Wilhelm’s feelings of affinity for the Amazon woman continue to increase, and he also finds himself more and more aware of the similarities between the Amazon woman and the Countess: “They were as alike as sisters can be alike … since they appear to be twins.”167 In fact, it is quite apparent that Wilhelm is continually reliving his incredible affinities for the Countess, and finding those same feelings when he thinks about the Amazon woman. He loves to think about the Countess and his relationship to her, and when he does, she and the Amazon woman meld together in his imagination and heart: “The memory of the loveable Countess was infinitely sweet for him. He gladly called her image into his memory. But now the figure of the noble Amazon woman stepped in between, and one apparition transformed itself into 164 “mit menschenfreundlicher Teilnehmung” and “es schien, als könnte sie (die Amazone) sich nicht von dem Anblick des Verwundeten (Wilhelm) losreißen” MA, 5, 224–5. 165 “und seine Seele eilte der Verschwundenen durch Felsen und Wälder … nach” MA, 5, 227, and “Das Verlangen, seine Retterin wieder zu sehen, wuchs mit jedem Tage.” MA, 5, 236. 166 “Man suchte nach dem Orte, den die edle Familie während des Kriegs zu ihrem Sitz erwählt hatte, man suchte Nachrichten von ihr selbst auf: allein der Ort war in keiner Geographie, auf keiner Karte zu finden, und die genealogischen Handbücher sagten nichts von einer solchen Familie.” MA, 5, 236. 167 “Sie glichen sich wie sich Schwestern gleichen mögen … denn sie scheinen Zwillinge zu sein.” MA, 5, 237.

124  Goethe’s Families of the Heart another, without him being capable of holding on to this one or that one.”168 As much as he loves both of these women, and regardless of the strength of his elective affinities, Wilhelm feels that he cannot hold onto them and that he is losing them over and over again. While Wilhelm is continuing to search for the Amazon of his heart, Jarno tells him that he is going to meet Therese and that she is a genuine Amazon. In fact, Jarno claims that Therese is such a true Amazon, because she is so manly that she “shamed hundreds of men, and I would like to call her a true Amazon, when others go around as well-behaved hermaphrodites in ambiguous clothing.”169 Intriguingly, Jarno stresses Therese’s manliness as what distinguishes her from other cross-dressed women, who are lesser hermaphrodites. Jarno is clearly drawn to Therese because he perceives her as a “man” who has overcome her “womanly” characteristics. For him, her clothes are not ambiguous, they present her as the man she “is.” In addition, it is important to point out that Jarno reveals both possibilities as well. The cross-dressed woman can be a man and more manly than hundreds of men, or she can be a hermaphrodite representing both sexes at the same time. In this context, Wilhelm’s and Jarno’s desire for women like Mariane, the Amazon, and Therese, who are cross-dressing as men, reveals clearly at least their same-sex affinities, and suggests as well that their affinities are nonexclusive. The women, of course, may also be expressing their identification with men, their desire for “other men,” or their desire for other women. Wilhelm does not outline his emotions or desires for cross-dressed women as openly as Jarno does, but he is hopeful that Therese will be his Amazon: “Wilhelm hoped to find his Amazon again in Therese, and was disconcerted and even more so when Jarno, from whom he demanded some information, curtly ended (the conversation) and departed.”170 Jarno quickly stirs up Wilhelm’s longing to find his Amazon, tells him that Therese is the quintessential Amazon/man, and then takes off. Once again, Wilhelm is concerned that he does not

168 “Die Erinnerung an die liebenswürdige Gräfin war ihm unendich süß. Er rief sich ihr Bild nur allzugern wieder ins Gedächtnis. Aber nun trat die Gestalt der edlen Amazone gleich dazwischen, eine Erscheinung verwandelte sich in die andere, ohne daß er im Stande gewesen wäre, diese oder jene fest zu halten.” MA, 5, 237–8. 169 “beschämt hundert Männer, und ich möchte sie eine wahre Amazone nennen, wenn andere nur als artige Hermaphroditen in dieser zweideutigen Kleidung herum gehen.” MA, 5, 441. 170 “Wilhelm war betroffen, er hoffte in Theresen seine Amazone wieder zu finden, um so mehr, als Jarno, von dem er einige Auskunft verlangte, kurz abbrach, und sich entfernte.” MA, 5, 441.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  125 have enough information to track down the Amazon for whom he is searching. When Wilhelm finally meets Therese he realizes that: “He did not find his Amazon in Therese, she was another, a being as far away as the heavens from her.”171 Intriguingly, Therese is first presented in the context of her business conversations with Wilhelm (she talks like a man) and Wilhelm is simply astounded by her economic knowledge. Therese refers to her business knowledge as a seemingly peculiar talent. As Jarno suggested earlier, Therese’s talents, her interests, and her conversations are her peculiar talents (for a woman) that mark her as masculine, as like a man. Indeed, Therese is challenging traditional expectations for women in Goethe’s time period by devoting herself to economics and business, but she is also reifying the traditional system, i.e. she is emulating and accepting the aristocratic and civil man’s/ father’s highest dedication to property and economics. Therese later appears at Wilhelm’s door dressed as a hunter and Wilhelm does not recognize her at first, but then “in that instant he recognized Therese in her beautiful eyes.” Therese asks him to forgive her for the masquerade and assures him that it is, this time, “only masquerade.”172 What does that mean exactly? First of all, Therese is playing down the importance of her male clothing. She is suggesting that it now does not really signify her masculinity and that there really is a woman underneath the clothes. At the same time, she is also controlling their interactions, telling Wilhelm how to interpret her, and is doing most of the talking. Unlike the other women Wilhelm has encountered earlier and has tried to read in terms of their corporeal evidence, Therese takes charge of the conversation, talks about herself, and then asks Wilhelm to tell her about himself: “it is not proper that you let me alone speak, you already know enough about me and I do not know yet the least bit about you: tell me something about yourself.” Wilhelm refuses to talk about himself, claiming: “Unfortunately, I have … nothing to tell but errors after errors.” He then shifts their conversation back to comments about Therese. Wilhelm is a puzzle for Therese, and he chooses to keep himself unknown to her and shifts the conversation back to her story and asserts, without having heard it yet, that she can celebrate her past life. Therese smiles and suggests that Wilhelm should wait until he actually hears her story. They then begin talking to one another and Therese asks Wilhelm abruptly: “are you free?” and Wilhelm 171 “In Theresen … fand er seine Amazone nicht, es war ein anderes, ein himmelweit von ihr unterschiedenes Wesen.” MA, 5, 443. 172 “in dem Augenblicke erkannte Wilhelm Theresen an ihren schönen Augen” and “nur Maskarade” MA, 5, 447.

126  Goethe’s Families of the Heart responds: “I believe I am … but I do not wish to be.” Therese then assumes that, like her, Wilhelm must have a story to tell “that portends a complicated novel, and shows me, that you also have something to tell.”173 Intriguingly, Therese wants Wilhelm to know who she is, wants to know if he is free, and directs their conversation. She also insists that Wilhelm has a story to tell her. But Wilhelm, on the other hand, continues to keep his story to himself. Therese then shifts back to her story again and outlines for Wilhelm her childhood in detail. She wants Wilhelm to comprehend her, and implies that in order for him to understand her, he must know—as we have seen with the Beautiful Soul—what experiences of her childhood influenced who she is. Therese mentions first that her father was a wealthy nobleman and an affectionate father. Therese then explains: “I was like my father in form and sentiments.” Therese and her father mirror one another both in terms of their figures and their sympathies, and they share a love for order and cleanliness. Her mother, on the other hand, showed no affinity for Therese. In fact, Therese states directly that her mother despised her: “did not love me and did not conceal it for any moment.” Therese’s mother was quite open about her lack of interest in her: “she repeated bitterly more than once: if the mother could be so uncertain as the father, then one would hardly hold this girl to be my daughter.”174 Therese’s mother is so cruel to her daughter and so dismissive of her, that she openly, repeatedly, and bitterly suggests that if there could be any doubt about motherhood, like there often is about fatherhood, then anyone would find it difficult to believe that Therese is her daughter. Therese hears these thoroughly hateful comments, knows that her mother does not love her and, as one would expect, distances herself from her. Therese’s story is the story of an aristocratic marriage and family gone awry. At the same time, it also explains Therese’s identification with her father (her masculine side) and her lack of connection to her mother (her feminine side). Therese grows up drawn to her father, interested in business and order, and subsequently travels around in men’s clothing. She does not identify 173 “es ist nicht billig, daß Sie mich allein reden lassen, schon wissen Sie genug von mir, und ich weiß noch nicht das mindeste von Ihnen: erzählen Sie mir indessen etwas von sich …” and “Leider hab ich … nichts zu erzählen als Irrtümmer auf Irrtümmer” and “sind Sie frei?” and “ich glaube es zu sein … aber ich wünsche es nicht.” and “das deutet auf einen komplizierten Roman, und zeigt mir, daß Sie auch etwas zu erzählen haben.” MA, 5, 448. 174 “ich glich meinem Vater an Gestalt und Gesinnungen” and “liebte mich nicht, und verhehlte es keinen Augenblick” and “daß sie mehr als einmal mit Bitterkeit wiederholte: wenn die Mutter so ungewiß sein könnte als der Vater, so würde man wohl schwerlich diese Magd für meine Tochter halten.” MA, 5, 449–50.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  127 with her mother and in this sense reflects Jarno’s statement that she is a true Amazon and not a hermaphrodite. She imitates and mirrors her father completely, and not her mother at all. Therese also tells Wilhelm that she confessed everything she knew and felt about her mother to her father and that he sympathized with her, and then he sent his wife away on a trip to France by herself for several years. Therese and her father were then ecstatic because they could now reorganize the house and their lives together: “We were now free and lived as if in heaven; yes, I believe, that my father had lost nothing … we had several good years …”175 Therese and her father are blissfully happy once her mother has left and until her father dies. She discovers, then, that he left almost everything in his will to his wife and not to her. Therese is left entirely alone and without resources. She is fortunate, however, because another woman in the neighborhood, who is wealthy, takes her in. Therese connects with this woman and they live together, bonded together and happy, just as Therese was connected to, and “free” and in “heaven,” with her father. Therese then goes on to tell Wilhelm that she had been traveling around in men’s clothing and met a man she fell in love with, Lothario. Not surprisingly, they connect and are drawn together as Lothario includes her in discussions about economics and finance: “His sympathy cheered me up greatly; even when general land economy and finances were the topic of discussion, he drew me into the conversation.” Therese also exclaims: “I did not resist the affinity that drew me to him” and she knows “how heartfelt, how pure, how sincere my love was.” Therese feels that she is drawn to Lothario by her innermost, pure, and heartfelt affinities and experiences the highest bliss. Lothario is also convinced that Therese is the person “who he has longed for for so long.”176 Intriguingly, the relationship between Lothario and Therese also highlights their connections through their interest in economics and business. But unlike the relationships that are torn apart by fathers’ economic plans for their children that undermine their love relationships, in this case Therese and Lothario’s economic interests are their own and draw them together. It is important to note here that their affinities for one another coincide with their own plans, not those of their fathers. 175 “Wir waren nun frei und lebten wie im Himmel; ja ich glaube, daß mein Vater nichts verloren hat … wir hatten einige sehr gute Jahre …” MA, 5, 451. 176 “Seine Teilnahme munterte mich außerordentlich auf; sogar wenn von allgemeiner Landesökonomie und von Finanzen die Rede war, zog er mich ins Gespräch …” and “Ich widerstand der Neigung nicht, die mich zu ihm zog” and “wie herzlich, wie rein, und aufrichtig meine Liebe war” and “die er so lange gewünscht hatte.” MA, 5, 457.

128  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Therese also informs Wilhelm that when she and Lothario were on the verge of marrying one another, Therese reminded Lothario that he had promised to give her an image of himself, and he reminded her that she was going to give him the container to put it into. Therese rushed to her jewelry box to get it, and she explains to Wilhelm that it was originally a present from a girlfriend: “It was so: I had a present from a girlfriend that was very important to me. Her hair formed a distorted name on the outer glass and inside was an empty piece of ivory upon which her image should have been painted, when she was suddenly torn away from me sadly through her death.”177 Therese plans to use the glass casing/box, that should have held her lost, beloved girlfriend, to preserve her beloved groom’s, that is, Lothario’s image. Once again, jewelry is used in the Lehrjahre to signify multiple affinities. Therese is placing Lothario in her box, in her heart, in the same place that her girlfriend once occupied. Her next comments verify even more overtly how Lothario’s affinity was a substitute for the loss of the woman she loved: “Lothario’s affinity blessed me in the moment in which her loss was still very painful and I wished to fill the void that she left me in her gift through the image of my friend.”178 Lothario should be the replacement in Therese’s glass box, in her heart, for the woman she has loved and recently lost. Therese’s affinities are clearly nonexclusive and have shifted recently from a woman to a man. When Therese loses her girlfriend she hopes to replace her love with Lothario’s love. Despite their clear affinities for one another, Therese explains to Wilhelm that she and Lothario did not get married because Lothario saw a picture of Therese’s mother on a medallion in her jewelry box and recognized her as a woman he had had an affair with in Switzerland. Once he realized this, he was horrified, turned away from Therese, fled, and Therese then tells Wilhelm she has not seen him since. After finishing her story: “Therese grew silent, placed her hand on her new friend’s hands, he kissed her with sympathy.”179 Therese’s story has brought her and Wilhelm together through mutual feelings of sadness and compassion. In this case, Wilhelm is drawn to Therese through her story, as he was drawn to the Harfner through his songs, 177 “Es war so: ich hatte ein Geschenk von einer Freundin, das ich sehr wert hielt. Von ihren Haaren war ein verzogener Name unter dem äußern Glase befestigt, inwendig blieb ein leeres Elfenbein, worauf eben ihr Bild gemalt werden sollte, als sie mir unglücklicher Weise durch den Tod entrissen wurde.” MA, 5, 459. 178 “Lotharios Neigung beglückte mich in dem Augenblicke, da mir ihr Verlust noch sehr schmerzhaft war, und ich wünschte die Lücke, die sie mir in ihrem Geschenk zurückgelassen hatte, durch das Bild meines Freundes auszufüllen.” MA, 5, 459. 179 “Therese schwieg, und legte auf ihren neuen Freundes Hände ihre Hand, er küßte sie mit Teilnehmung …” MA, 5, 460.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  129 and to Mignon through her dances. Therese’s story of her complex affinities from childhood, to her relationships with a girlfriend and Lothario, stir Wilhelm’s affinities for her and hers for him. But Therese still has another story of affinities to tell Wilhelm. Right after she and Wilhelm begin to express their mutual feelings for one another, she shifts to an additional story about her affection for another woman, this time Lothario’s sister, Natalie: “I have bonded with Lothario’s splendid sister (Natalie), we raise a number of children together … when you meet my noble girlfriend, you will start a new life. Her beauty, her goodness makes her worthy of the adoration of the whole world.”180 Therese assures Wilhelm that when he meets Natalie, she will open a new life for him too. Therese also reveals that she and Natalie were drawn together and are raising a number of children together as two mothers. She illustrates a new family configuration with two loving mothers and numerous children. Therese also clearly suggests here both her love for Natalie and her expectation that Wilhelm will love her as well. She envisions and outlines several possibilities for their elective affinities. After hearing all of these stories Wilhelm imagines a family with Therese, Mignon, and Felix: “He thought about Mignon and Felix, how happy the children would be under such care, then he thought about himself, and felt, what bliss it must be to live close to such a clear humane being.”181 Wilhelm assures himself that Therese is the perfect mother for his children, and he is now convinced that he needs to tell Therese his story too: “she should get to know him, as he knew her, and he began to think through his own story.” As he constructs his story for Therese he sees himself as “a different self.”182 Wilhelm understands himself more clearly as he tries to write out his story for Therese. And just as Therese offered herself to Wilhelm through her story, he expresses his affinities for her by sending her his story. He also includes with his story a letter to her offering her his hand in marriage. When Therese receives Wilhelm’s marriage proposal she writes back and tells him that she is ready to be the mother for his son, Felix. She says that she wants “to press your son as a mother onto my chest.” She 180 “ich habe mit Lotharios trefflicher Schwester (Natalie) einen Bund gemacht, wir erziehen eine Anzahl Kinder gemeinschaftlich … Wenn Sie meine edle Freundin kennen lernen, so werden Sie ein neues Leben anfangen, ihre Schönheit, ihre Gute macht sie der Anbetung einer ganzen Welt würdig.” MA, 5, 460. 181 “Er dachte an Mignon und Felix, wie glücklich die Kinder unter einer solchen Aufsicht werden könnten, dann dachte er an sich selbst, und fühlte, welche Wonne es sein müsse, in der Nähe eines so ganz klaren menschlichen Wesens zu leben.” MA, 5, 464–5. 182 “Sie sollte ihn kennen lernen, wie er sie kannte, und er fing nun an, seine eigene Geschichte durchzudenken” and “ein anderes Selbst” MA, 5, 506–7.

130  Goethe’s Families of the Heart accepts his proposal and calls him her “dear friend, beloved groom, honored husband!” Tellingly, Therese also writes to Natalie informing her that she is marrying Wilhelm and that when she thinks about their relationship, she is convinced that they will be happy because Wilhelm reminds her of Natalie: “When I hope that we [Wilhelm and Therese] will fit together, I base my decision first on the fact that he, dear Natalie, is like you, who I treasure and honor infinitely.”183 Therese can envision a happy relationship with Wilhelm, because he is like Natalie, the woman she loves and with whom she has been raising a number of children. Therese makes the interchangeableness of her two partners even more clear, shortly thereafter, when she writes to Natalie: “When I think about him [Wilhelm], his image always intermingles with yours [Natalie’s], and I do not know how I am worthy to belong to two such human beings. But I want to be worthy of it, by doing my responsibilities, and by accomplishing what one can expect and hope from me.”184 Not only does Therese emphasize how Wilhelm and Natalie are as one for her and that their images meld for her, she also clearly expects to remain connected as a lover to each of them and to belong to each of them both at the same time. She hopes to be worthy of both of their loving relationships by meeting their expectations and hopes for her. For Therese, her relationship to Wilhelm is possible only because he is “Natalie,” because his image melds with hers. Marrying Wilhelm is essentially also marrying Natalie. Therese is clearly drawn to Natalie, understands her love for Wilhelm as analogous to her love for Natalie, and expresses her love for her openly and directly in her letter. She also does not suggest that one love is better or stronger than the other, presents them both as wonderful, and hopes she is worthy of them. Both of them are equal objects of her love and she is drawn to them for the same reasons. Therese’s affinities are clearly nonexclusive and are based on, and are possible because of, her original affinities for Natalie. While Therese is justifying her love for Wilhelm and confirming her love for Natalie as the reasons for her acceptance of his marriage proposal, Wilhelm has discovered (right after sending Therese his marriage proposal letter) that Natalie is the Amazon woman he has 183 “Ihren Sohn als Mutter an meinem Busen drücken” and “lieber Freund! Geliebter Bräutigam, verehrter Gatte!” and “Wenn ich hoffe, daß wir (Wilhelm and Therese) zusammen passen werden, so gründe ich meinen Ausspruch vorzüglich darauf, daß er Dir liebe Natalie, die ich so unendlich schätze und verehre, daß er Dir ähnlich ist.” MA, 5, 532–3. 184 “Wenn ich an ihn [Wilhelm] denke, vermischt sich sein Bild immer mit dem Deinigen [Natalies], und ich weiß nicht wie ich es wert bin zwei solchen Menschen anzugehören. Aber ich will es wert sein, dadurch daß ich meine Pflicht tue, dadurch daß ich erfülle, was man von mir erwarten und hoffen kann.” MA, 5, 534.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  131 been searching for. Upon seeing her, he recognizes her immediately: “She was the Amazon! He could not stop himself, he fell to his knees, and called out: It is her! He grabbed her hand, and kissed her with infinite rapture. The child [Felix] lay between the two of them on the carpet and slept serenely.”185 Wilhelm and Natalie come together around Felix who symbolizes the serene bond between them. Indeed, Wilhelm’s spontaneous affinities draw him immediately to Natalie. He does not need corporeal evidence, jewelry, or stories to know that he loves her. He feels it instantly, falls to his knees, holds her hand, and kisses her and feels that Natalie is so sympathetic, so loving, and so helpful. Wilhelm also now has the chance to see her positive influences on those around her: “Wilhelm could now observe Natalie in her social circle. One couldn’t have wished for anything better, than to live close to her. Her presence had the purest influence on young girls and women of various ages, who in part lived in her home, and in part came from the neighborhood more or less to visit her.”186 Wilhelm sees that Natalie is a mother to a number of girls who are living in her home and coming to her. While Therese had mentioned earlier that she and Natalie were raising many children together, Natalie provides extensive details about her feelings for these children and her desire to help others: “I remember from my youth hardly any impression other than the most lively one—that I saw everywhere the needs of people and felt an invincible desire to make up for them.”187 She is thoroughly dedicated to helping those in need: “my greatest pleasure was and is still, when I see a lack, a need in the world, to discover in spirit immediately a compensation, a remedy, an aid.”188 And Natalie is especially eager to help children find families. She is always aware of families in need of children and children in need of families and sees around her: “the desire of a rich family for 185 “Die Amazone war’s! er konnte sich nicht halten, stürzte auf seine Knie, und rief aus: sie ist’s! er faßte ihre Hand, und küßte sie mit unendlichem Entzücken. Das Kind (Felix) lag zwischen ihnen beiden auf dem Teppich und schlief sanft.” MA, 5, 515. 186 “Wilhelm konnte nun Natalien in ihrem Kreise beobachten, man hätte sich nichts besseres gewünscht, als neben ihr zu leben, ihre Gegenwart hatte den reinsten Einfluß auf junge Mädchen und Frauenzimmer von verschiedenem Alter, die teils in ihrem Hause wohnten, teils aus der Nachbarschaft sie mehr oder weniger zu besuchen kamen.” MA, 5, 527. 187 “Ich erinnere mich von Jugend an kaum eines Eindrucks als des lebhaftesten, daß ich überall die Bedürfnisse der Menschen sah, und ein unüberwindliches Verlangen empfand sie auszugleichen.” MA, 5, 528. 188 “meine angenehmste Empfindung war und ist es noch, wenn sich mir ein Mangel, ein Bedürfnis in der Welt darstellte, sogleich im Geiste einen Ersatz, ein Mittel, eine Hülfe aufzufinden.” MA, 5, 528.

132  Goethe’s Families of the Heart children, and the inability of a poor one to sustain theirs …”189 Natalie is always eager to help children: “If I saw children pining away without care and nurturing, I reminded myself of this or that woman, whom I had noticed with wealth, comfort, and boredom.”190 Natalie tries to find families for children in need and children for women who can support them. She and Therese, of course, are raising a number of girls together as well. Natalie clearly knows what Wilhelm has learned during his travels: that families are truly families of the heart and that it is possible to create wonderful, loving adoptive families based on affinities. Both Natalie and Wilhelm know and have learned that true families are of the heart and are drawn together by their affinities. To this extent Therese’s observation, that when she thinks of Wilhelm his image melds with Natalie’s, also makes sense. The central ways in which Wilhelm and Natalie are alike are the feelings they share for children, their affinities that draw them to adopt children, and the family configuring they are both involved in throughout the Lehrjahre. After rediscovering Natalie, Wilhelm is swaying back and forth between his feelings for her and Therese. He has just received Therese’s acceptance of his marriage proposal and, as he reads it, he feels that the letter “has brought his Therese once again fully to his mind.” At the same time, he is also feeling the “lively traces” of his “affinity for Natalie.”191 Wilhelm’s affinities are clearly swaying between Natalie and Therese and he is not sure what to do. He ultimately leans toward continuing with his plan to marry Therese, but then Jarno shows up and reports that Therese is not the child of her mother and that Lothario wants her back. It turns out that the woman Therese thought was her biological mother was not. Her father’s wife had been unable to have children and he had arranged to have a child (Therese) with one of the household servants. She bore Therese and died shortly thereafter. In this case, family secrets disrupted and threatened to undermine Therese’s loving relationship with Lothario. But once the truth is known, Lothario renews his proposal to her. After the news of Lothario’s new proposal, Wilhelm, Natalie, Mignon, and Felix are together trying to come to terms with their confusion and dismay, when Therese comes rushing into the room: 189 “das Verlangen einer reichen Familie nach Kindern, die Unfähigkeit einer armen die ihrigen zu erhalten …” MA, 5, 528. 190 “sah ich Kinder, die sich ohne Sorgfalt und ohne Pflege verzehrten, so erinnerte ich mich dieser oder jener Frau, der ich, bei Reichtum und Bequemlichkeit, Langeweile abgemerkt hatte …” MA, 5, 528. 191 “seine Therese wieder völlig vergegenwärtigt hatte” and “lebhafte Spuren” and “Neigung gegen Natalien” MA, 5, 532.

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  133 She [Therese] flew to Natalie, embraced her and the good child [Felix].Then she turned to Wilhelm, looked at him with her clear eyes, and said: now my friend, how does it stand with you, you haven’t let yourself be confused? He took one step toward her, she sprang to him and hung on his neck. Oh my Therese! he called out.192 Therese first runs to Natalie and hugs her and Felix. Her strongest affinities draw her first to Natalie and the child. Then she turns to Wilhelm and asks where he stands as regards their relationship. Only after Wilhelm moves toward her does she spring over to him and take him into her arms. The fact that Therese was drawn first and without second guesses to Natalie reiterates the loving affinities they have for one another and underscores how their affinities are not in doubt and not complicated. They are simply drawn to one another. Moreover, even though Wilhelm asserts in this encounter that Therese is “my Therese,” later, after the sudden death of Mignon, he holds her again and feels that she is not the wife he envisions. Indeed, as “They [Wilhelm and Therese] held each other tightly, he felt her heart pounding on his chest, but in his spirit it was bleak and empty, only the images of Mignon and Natalie hovered like shadows before his imagination.”193 Wilhelm becomes more and more aware that the woman he is drawn to is Natalie. Later, when he looks at her again, he realizes: “A glance at Natalie calmed him somewhat, as her form and her value imprinted itself in him all the more deeply.” And as Wilhelm continues to look at Natalie: “Yes, he said to himself … you love her and you feel again, what it means, when a person can love with all his might.”194 Wilhelm realizes that Natalie is the woman he loves the most and who has continually drawn him to her:

192 “Sie (Therese) flog auf Natalien zu, umarmte sie und das gute Kind (Felix). Dann wendete sie sich zu Wilhelmen, sah ihn mit ihren klaren Augen an, und sagte: nun mein Freund, wie steht es, Sie haben sich doch nicht irre machen lassen? Er tat einen Schritt gegen sie, sie sprang auf ihn zu und hing an seinem Halse. O meine Therese! rief er aus.” MA, 5, 545. 193 “Sie (Wilhelm and Therese) hielten sich fest umschlossen, er fühlte ihr Herz an seinem Busen schlagen, aber in seinem Geiste war es öde und leer, nur die Bilder Mignons und Nataliens schwebten wie Schatten vor seiner Einbildungskraft.” MA, 5, 546. 194 “Ein Blick auf Natalien beruhigte ihn einigermaßen, indem sich in diesem leidenschaftlichen Augenblick, ihre Gestalt und ihr Wert nur desto tiefer bei ihm eindrückten” and “Ja, sagte er zu sich selbst, … du liebst sie, und du fühlst wieder, was es heiße, wenn der Mensch mit allen Kräften lieben kann.” MA, 5, 569.

134  Goethe’s Families of the Heart If you shut your eyes, she will appear before you; if you open your eyes, she will waver before all objects, like an apparition, that leaves a dazzling image in your eye. Wasn’t already earlier the quickly passing image of the Amazon always present in your imagination? And you had only seen her, but you did not know her. Now that you do know her, that you have been so close to her, that she has demonstrated so much interest in you, now that her virtues are so deeply imprinted in your soul, just as her image was back then in your senses.195 Wilhelm comprehends now that the image of the Amazon that has remained in his head since his first encounter with Natalie drew him to her, but even more importantly now that he actually knows who she is, it is her virtues and character that have now imprinted themselves in his heart. Wilhelm also notes how he has transcended beyond his obsession with Natalie’s image, and now knows her and loves her in his heart. He loves her for who she is, and not as an image that fascinates him. She, the true and loving Natalie, is now forever in his soul and he knows it. The final moments in which Natalie and Wilhelm come together and secure their relationship as spouses and parents occur after Felix has supposedly accidently poisoned himself, by drinking a poisoned drink the Harfner had prepared for himself. Natalie immediately comforts Felix who flees into her lap. Wilhelm joins them and Felix is lying across both Natalie and Wilhelm: The child did not want to let himself be separated from Natalie. Wilhelm sat in front of her (Natalie) on a stool; he had the boy’s feet on his lap and his head and chest lay on Natalie’s and so they share the lovely burden and the painful concern, and remained until daybreak in this uncomfortable and sad situation. Natalie had given her hand to Wilhelm and they did not say a word, and looked at the child and at each other …196 195 “Schleißest du die Augen, so wird sie sich dir darstellen; öffnest du sie, so wird sie vor allen Gegenständen hinschweben, wie die Erscheinung, die ein blendendes Bild im Auge zurück läßt. War nicht schon früher die schnell vorübergegangene Gestalt der Amazone deiner Einbildungskraft immer gegenwärtig? und du hattest sie nur gesehen, du kanntest sie nicht. Nun da du sie kennst, da du ihr so nahe warst, da sie so vielen Anteil an dir gezeigt hat, nun sind ihre Eigenschaften so tief in dein Gemüt geprägt, als ihr Bild jemals in deine Sinne.” MA, 5, 569. 196 “Das Kind wollte sich nicht von Natalien trennen lassen. Wilhelm saß vor ihr (Natalie) auf einen Schemel; er hatte die Füße des Knaben auf seinem Schoße, Kopf und Brust lagen auf dem ihrigen (Natalie’s), so teilten sie die angenehme

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  135 Now that Felix is lying between, and on, both Wilhelm and Natalie, they are together, they see themselves, they look at Felix, and they have come together through caring and concern with each other as a family.197 And the next day, when Natalie finds out that Felix has not been poisoned, she runs with him to Wilhelm and exclaims: “Fortunate father! She yelled loudly while she lifted the child up and threw him into his [Wilhelm’s] arms, there you have your son!”198 Friedrich then tells Wilhelm that during the night as Natalie cared for Felix, she had considered letting Wilhelm know how much she loves him: “To admit her love to you, to offer you her hand …”199 Natalie and Wilhelm are coming together as a family with, across, and through their mutual love for Felix. Their family is possibly partially biological, if Felix is Wilhelm’s biological son, and is also at least partially adoptive as Natalie takes Felix into her heart as well.200 But in all cases, the important, fundamental characteristic of their family is that it is a family that has been drawn together by their affinities of the heart.201 Last und die schmerzlichen Sorgen, und verharrten bis der Tag anbrach, in der unbequemen und traurigen Lage. Natalie hatte Wilhelmen ihre Hand gegeben, sie sprachen kein Wort, sahen auf das Kind und sahen einander an.” MA, 5, 602–3. 197 See also Dye, “Goethe’s Die Wahlverwandtschaften,” 88, where he contrasts the family of Wilhelm, Natalie, and Felix—as Felix “symbolically linking” them—to how the baby Otto splits Eduard and Charlotte apart in the Wahlverwandtschaften. Lee, “Wenn ich leben soll,” 498, suggests that the question of biological paternity is first rendered irrelevant at the end of the Wanderjahre, by a “superior power, namely the love between parent-guardian and child.” Actually, Wilhelm’s doubt is erased as Felix connects him and Natalie at the end of the Lehrjahre. Kittler mentions briefly how Wilhelm, Natalie, and Felix form a holy family. Currie, “Ambiguous Figures,” 94, also refers to the family with Wilhelm, Natalie, and Felix to the extent that it “recalls the holy family,” but neither Kittler nor Currie provide any further details. Friedrich Kittler, “Über die Sozialisation Wilhelm Meisters,” in Dichtung als Sozialisationsspiel. Studien zu Goethe und Gottfried Keller, ed. Gerhard Kaiser and F. A. Kittler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1978), 98. 198 “Glücklicher Vater! rief sie laut, indem sie das Kind aufhob und es ihm in die Arme warf, da hast du deinen Sohn!” MA, 5, 604. 199 “Dir ihre Liebe zu bekennen, und Dir selbst die Hand anzubieten …” MA, 5, 609. 200 Hadjuk, “Identität und Verlust,” 202, refers to Natalie’s role in this family briefly as motherly adoption. 201 Krimmer, “Mama’s Baby,” 266, suggests that the relationship between Wilhelm and Natalie is passionless and that Wilhelm’s relationship to her links him to a homosocial economy. Focusing on the elective affinities expressed by Wilhelm, Natalie, Therese, and Lothario underscores that their relationships are not passionless—but are formed around multiple kinds of passion.

136  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Wilhelm and Natalie’s family of the heart comes together outside of the plans of any fathers. They find each other through their hearts and bond with numerous children (both Felix and the many girls Natalie is raising), whom they have also drawn into their family/families. Their affinities are also manifold and complex as they connect with several people during the Lehrjahre. In fact, Wilhelm has been drawn to both Therese and Natalie and Therese has connected with Lothario and Wilhelm. Lothario also reveals to Wilhelm that Therese’s condition in accepting his second marriage proposal is that Natalie and Wilhelm get married with them and “that this doubled pair should go to the altar on the same day.”202 In this context, the marriages of Lothario, Therese, Wilhelm, and Natalie are brought together. They walk the aisle together on the same day. They are a doubled pair. It is also interesting to note that, earlier, Natalie outlined how she and her brother Lothario are totally alike: My self is so totally and intimately bound to and rooted in my brother’s self that he cannot feel any pain, that I do not feel and no joy that is not also my happiness. Yes, I can indeed say that I have felt solely through him that the heart can be moved and lifted, that in the world there can be joy, love, and feelings that can pacify all wants.203 Natalie reveals here that her existence is so inherently bound to that of her brother that she feels his feelings and experiences the world through him. All of her feelings of the heart are ones she has learned from him. Natalie asserts that she and Lothario are inseparable and indistinguishable from one another. On the outside they may be different, but in their hearts they are the same. It is also intriguing, in this context, that Therese sees Wilhelm as like Natalie, and that she has been able to envision a marriage with Wilhelm because he was like Natalie. Natalie melds herself and her heart with Lothario’s, and Therese sees Wilhelm and Natalie as one. As the four of them reach the altar to be married, as a “double pair,” their interrelationships reveal their heterosexual, same-sex, and nonexclusive desires for one another.204 202 “daß dieses doppelte Paar an Einem Tage zum Altare gehen sollte.” MA, 5, 607. 203 “Mein Dasein ist mit dem Dasein meines Bruders so innig verbunden und verwurzelt, daß er keine Schmerzen fühlen kann, die ich nicht empfinde, keine Freude, die nicht auch mein Glück macht. Ja ich kann wohl sagen, daß ich allein durch ihn empfunden habe, daß das Herz gerührt und erhoben, daß auf der Welt, Freude, Liebe und ein Gefühl sein kann, das über alles Bedürfnis hinaus befriedigt.” MA, 5, 539–40. 204 Tobin, “Healthy Families,” 254, argues that Wilhelm utlimately moves away from his homosexual relationships and is inducted into a “mature heterosexual

Learning What Family and Love Can Be  137 As they come together: “Lothario embraced his friend and led him to his sister, she came with Therese toward them …“205 The two men and the two women are together and embrace each other. Lothario brings Wilhelm to Natalie and Natalie brings Therese to Lothario. And Lothario, who is also essentially himself and Natalie, embraces first Wilhelm and then Therese moves to him. Therese moves to Lothario, who is also Natalie, and we recall here that Therese had earlier explained that she could envision marrying Wilhelm because whenever she saw him, his image melded with Natalie’s. Now she is drawn to Lothario, who is essentially also Natalie. And finally, Wilhelm comes together with Natalie, who is also Lothario, suggesting an underlying male–male bond.206 As Wilhelm and Natalie and Therese and Lothario cement their dual marriages and relationships with one another, they signify the multiple affinities that have driven the characters throughout their Lehrjahre and have brought them to their final, ultimate “double pairing” marriage. Throughout the Lehrjahre Wilhelm, Natalie, Lothario, Therese, Felix, Mignon, and so many other characters wandered from and into new relationships and new families as their affinities drew them together. The learning years are framed by several radical stories of relationships and families that challenge aristocratic and civil family structures, marriages arranged by fathers, and obsessions with biological relationships and heritage. Wilhelm draws Felix, Mignon, and Friedrich into his family as the children he loves. While he struggles throughout the novel with his worries about whether he and Felix are biologically related, he comes to understand that being convinced that one is a father is contingent not upon documents, not on the assurances of the Tower Society, but that a father knows that a child is his own when his affinities draw that child into his heart. Significantly, Wilhelm never asserts that Felix (who may be his biological son) is in any relationship.” MacLeod, “Pedagogy,” 422, agrees that Wilhelm and Natalie’s marriage upholds a “heterosexual model.” Elisabeth Krimmer, “Abortive Bildung: Women Writers, Male Bonds, and Would-Be Fathers,” in Challenging Separate Spheres: Female Bildung in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Germany, ed. Marjanne E. Gooze (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2007), 237, 250–1, refers to “homosexual bonds” and “triangular relationships” in which the “women are connectors who serve to establish a bond between the two men.” Schlipphacke, “Die Vaterschaft,” 396, argues convincingly that a “family community” comes together at the end of the novel. 205 “Lothario umarmte seinen Freund und führte ihn zu der Schwester, sie kam mit Theresen ihnen entgegen …” MA, 5, 609. 206 Schlipphacke, “Die Vaterschaft,” 406, demonstrates that Wilhelm’s idealization of Lothario “is mingled with a homoerotic desire to be in the presence of this man and to please him.”

138  Goethe’s Families of the Heart way more his son than Friedrich or more his child than Mignon. In addition, the relationships that Wilhelm and Natalie and Therese and Lothario form are also based on their affinities and not on parental, paternal family plans. The elective affinities, as we have seen in the Wahlverwandtschaften, shift as new characters come together. Wilhelm and the Harfner form a wonderful family with Mignon and Friedrich, and Natalie and Therese form a family and are raising numerous girls. Therese can envision marrying Wilhelm because his image melds in her mind with Natalie’s. And, finally, Wilhelm, Natalie, Therese, and Lothario come together in marriage as a doubled pair. Throughout the Lehrjahre their affinities have shifted, underscoring that they are sometimes heterosexual, sometimes same-sex, and essentially nonexclusive and fluid. Intriguingly, the Lehrjahre ends with the suggestion that Wilhelm, Natalie, Therese, and Lothario will be walking down the aisle soon, getting married, and finally forming their doubled pair. But there is no evidence in the closing of the novel that this ever happens and we find Wilhelm and Felix at the beginning of the Wanderjahre, wandering around even more and encountering ever more complex and fascinating families. As Wilhelm writes to Natalie: “my life should be a peregrination/wandering.”207 Wilhelm suggests, ultimately, that his affinities (of all kinds) will draw him on to new relationships his whole life long.

207 “Mein Leben soll eine Wanderschaft werden.” MA, 17, 245.

Four Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities in Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre

In the Lehrjahre, Wilhelm and Natalie, Therese, Lothario, and other characters experienced the negative, love-crushing effects of aristocratic, civil, economic family structures and plans, struggled to understand what relationships and family are, and ultimately learned to let their elective affinities draw them to the partners and children they loved. In the Wanderjahre, Wilhelm wanders on even further beyond his biological, father-determined family and encounters several other wanderers who have left their families as well. Many scholars have commented on the fact that Wilhelm and Felix are wandering without Natalie as the Wanderjahre begins.1 It is also important to note that Felix and Wilhelm are continuing to wander and discover both new affinities and family configurations, and that their affinities continue to shift and result in new relationships and even more intriguing families. Both the Wanderjahre and Lehrjahre challenge civil and aristocratic notions of family. In addition, the Wanderjahre confronts us with even more radical families and relationships that challenge the reader to rethink the definition of love and family, and highlights characters who resist social and cultural mandates that would undo their love and family 1 See Schwan, “Goethes,” 102; Henriette Herwig, “Das ewig Männliche zieht uns hinab: ‘Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre.’,” Geschlechterdifferenz, sozialer Wandel, historische Anthropologie. (Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag, 1997), 47; Krimmer, “Mama’s Baby,” 266; MacLeod, “Pedagogy,” 423; Kim, “Rituelle,” 51; Ehrhard Bahr, The Novel as Archive: The Genesis, Reception, and Criticism of Goethe’s Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre (Columbia: Camden, 1998), 27; Günther Saße, “Das Plagiat als Sehnsuchtsort: Zur Eingangsnovelle der Wanderjahre,” Euphorion: Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 99.4 (2005): 492, 505; and Irmgard Egger, “‘Unermeßliche Räume’: Weltbürgertum versus Auswandererutopie in Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahren,” Goethe Jahrbuch 126 (2009): 131.

140  Goethe’s Families of the Heart relationships. Families that are broken in Goethe’s novels are those brought together without regard to, and in opposition to, their elective affinities. Wanderers are struggling to free themselves from aristocratic and civil family structures, plans, and disasters.2 But in comparison to the Lehrjahre, many of the wanderers of the Wanderjahre are insisting, first and foremost, on the legitimacy of their elective affinities. In this sense, the characters in the Wanderjahre are more like the Runaway Girl and the Harfner in the Lehrjahre. But the crucial difference is that they actively assert themselves, embrace their affinities, redefine family and relationships, and work to escape from the potential tragedies that aristocratic, civil, and economic plans would materialize for them. As we have seen, aristocratic family structures are still in place and civil family structures are, of course, still evolving as the anticipated, ideal cultural norm and expectation in Goethe’s time period, but the wanderers Wilhelm and Felix meet, read about in stories, letters, and diaries, and encounter throughout the Wanderjahre are actively asserting and affirming their elective affinities in defiance of these largely father-dominated family structures. Moreover, the wanderers who are configuring and insisting upon new and wonderful relationships based on their affinities are people like Wilhelm, but are also women, and persons mirroring religious icons, like Joseph and Marie. While the Lehrjahre focused on characters striving to understand their affinities, in the Wanderjahre, several of the wanderers know where their affinities are drawing them and actively work to make sure that their love relationships and families come together and persevere.3 In this sense, the Wanderjahre is even more radical and challenging than the Lehrjahre. In the Wanderjahre, Goethe outlines not only all of the affinities (nonexclusive, heterosexual, same-sex) that the characters feel, but also illustrates how they actively embrace their non-civil, anti-aristocratic love, regard their relationships as right, and openly present their love relationships as thoroughly legitimate. As we shall see, Wilhelm’s purpose in life and the fundamental mission of the Wanderjahre is to highlight what obstacles are preventing loving persons from coming together and to remove them. As in the Lehrjahre, in the Wanderjahre stories and novellas are embedded in the text frame and contextualize Wilhelm’s and the other 2 Hadjuk, “Identität und Verlust,” 202, suggests that Wilhelm’s “Wanderjahre” represent his disconnection from the foundational structure of the “bürgerliche” (civil) family. Herwig, Das ewig Männliche, 1, maintains that the Wanderjahre is Goethe’s novel of absent mothers and incomplete families. These scholars focus on aristocratic and civil families and not those brought together through elective affinities. 3 As Mommsen suggests, it is also interesting that: “Goethe identifiziert sich mit der Figur des Wanderers.” Mommsen, Kein Rettungsmittel, 96.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  141 characters’ continual learning about the elective affinities. Bahr and Mittermüller also remind us that the Wahlverwandtschaften was originally conceived as a novella for the Wanderjahre.4 The Wanderjahre and the Wahlverwandtschaften are clearly connected, and both highlight the central theme of elective affinities. As we shall see, the Wanderjahre provides the reader with layers of stories within stories, which outline all possible elective affinities in conjunction with one another and frame our understanding of elective affinities throughout Goethe’s texts.5 As Wilhelm and Felix wander throughout the Wanderjahre, their story is interrupted by, and contextualized through, numerous narratives of other wandering, unknown, searching characters, who are fleeing from, or trying to overcome, aristocratic and civil family demands that they are in danger of having foisted onto them. These stories also foreground radical families and relationships based on affinities that transcend cultural limits of every kind. Moreover, the stories and families Wilhelm and Felix encounter also provide commentaries on, and new ways of thinking about, the narratives of elective affinities presented in the Lehrjahre. As we shall see, the story of Marie and Joseph provides a context in which to understand Wilhelm, Natalie, Therese, and Lothario’s double pairing at the end of the Lehrjahre. The story, Wer ist der Verräter? (Who is the Traitor?), mirrors Wilhelm’s desire to escape the economic plans of his two fathers.6 The story of Der Mann von funfzig Jahren (The Man of Fifty Years) can be read as a commentary on the Harfner and Sperata’s tragic story, and the story of Die Pilgernde Törin (The Crazy Pilgrim Woman) foregrounds the story of a woman wanderer, that can be read in conjunction with wandering characters in both novels. All of these stories in Goethe’s Wanderjahre, as we shall see, advocate for the acceptance and acknowledgment of all elective affinities. 4 Bahr, The Novel, 4, and Christian Mittermüller, “‘Das schiebt sich und verschiebt sich’ poetologische Reflexionen in Goethes Romanen ‘Die Wahlverwandtschaften’ und ‘Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre,’” Goethe Jahrbuch 121 (2004): 53. 5 Baldwin suggests that the Wanderjahre “is a novel about reading novels.” Birgit Baldwin, “Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre as an Allegory of Reading,” Goethe Yearbook 5 (1990): 229. Piper also astutely outlines how the Wanderjahre is Goethe’s “novel of novellas.” Andrew Piper, “Paraphrasis: Goethe, the Novella, and Forms of Transitional Knowledge,” Goethe Yearbook 17 (2010): 194. For an extensive outline of Goethe’s publication of various portions and novellas of the Wanderjahre before the completion of the novel see Bahr, The Novel. 6 We might recall here, as well, how the story of the Runaway Girl mirrors Wilhelm’s plans to escape with Mariane. The stories within stories presented in the Lehrjahre and in the Wanderjahre consistently foreground the interconnected essence of all of these narratives.

142  Goethe’s Families of the Heart

1. Joseph and Marie

As the Wanderjahre begins, out in the middle of a forest on a stunningly beautiful day, Wilhelm and Felix wander away from Natalie, Therese, Lothario, and their life together as it was formed at the end of the Lehrjahre. It is important to note that Wilhelm and Felix have left not just Natalie but also Therese and Lothario. As throughout Goethe’s works, here in the Wanderjahre, Wilhelm and Felix seem poised to shift their affinities from those to whom they were connected, to new partners and families as they wander, meet new persons, and are drawn by their affinities to them. In the Wanderjahre, as in the Lehrjahre, Die Wahlverwandtschaften, and Stella, the characters’ elective affinities are multiple and shifting. At the very beginning of the Wanderjahre, Wilhelm and Felix are traveling and the first family they encounter is that of Joseph and Marie and their sons. Wilhelm suddenly sees “Two boys as beautiful as the day” and immediately perceives the two boys as mysterious and beautiful, and the boys are clearly amazed by him as well. As soon as they saw Wilhelm: “they stopped short before him and remained quiet for a moment.”7 As Wilhelm continues to marvel at the boys’ beautiful figures, he hears a man’s voice that draws his attention away from them: “Wilhelm looked up and if the children had amazed him, what now came to his eyes filled him with wonder.”8 The man is even more astounding than the children, and Wilhelm is immersed in observations about the man before him and perceives him as a: “sturdy, able, not too big young man, scantily dressed, with brown skin and black hair.”9 Wilhelm is thoroughly taken in by the man, even more so than by the boys, and then notices that he is leading a donkey with a woman and baby on it: as he led behind him a donkey, who first showed his well-fed and well-groomed head, but then let the beautiful burden he carried be seen. A gentle woman worthy of love sat on a big well-formed saddle, in a blue coat which covered her she held a new born child, that she pressed to her breast, and looked at with indescribable love.10 7 “Zwei Knaben, schön wie der Tag” and “sie vor ihm stutzten und einen Augenblick still hielten.” MA, 17, 242. 8 “Wilhelm sah aufwärts und, hatten ihn die Kinder in Verwunderung gesetzt, so erfüllte ihn das, was ihm jetzt zu Augen kam, mit Erstaunen.” MA, 17, 242. 9 “derber, tüchtiger, nicht allzugrosser junger Mann, leicht geschürzt, von brauner Haut und schwarzen Haaren” MA, 17, 242. 10 “indem er hinter sich einen Esel führte, der erst sein wohlgenährtes und wohlgeputztes Haupt zeigte, dann aber, die schöne Last, die er trug, sehen ließ. Ein sanftes, liebenswürdiges Weib sass auf einem grossen, wohlbeschlagenen

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  143 Wilhelm immediately intuits that this woman is worthy of love and sees the inexpressible love she has for the child she is holding. Wilhelm devours with his eyes “the wonderful pictures, that had drawn his attention to them so strongly.”11 Wilhelm is captivated instanteously and fully by the boys, the man, and the woman who have appeared before him as unknown wanderers. Equally intriguing is the fact that the boys and the man have been thoroughly amazed by Wilhelm as well: “The leader reacted like the children, he stopped short for a moment, as he caught sight of Wilhelm.”12 Wilhelm is as startling to the man and the boys, as they are to him. The children are the first ones to acknowledge openly their affinities for one another. Felix runs to Wilhelm and asks if he can go with the children to their home: “And he (Wilhelm) was just about to climb down and greet these mysterious wanderers, when Felix came up to him and said: “Father, can I not go with these children to their house? They want to take me with them. The man said to me that you should go with us too. Come! They are waiting down there.”13 Before Wilhelm has even the chance to greet these wanderers, Felix tells him that they have already welcomed him and invited him to join them.14 After learning about this double invitation, Wilhelm becomes even more aware of his own thoughts about “the wonderful pictures” and is drawn to these wanderers and sees them as illustrating “the flight to Epypt.”15 He decides that these wanderers represent Joseph and Mary as they fled to Egypt and away from King Herod, who would have killed their child, Jesus, and destroyed their family. Wilhelm clearly Sattel; in einem blauen Mantel, der sie umgab, hielt sie ein Wochenkind, das sie an ihre Brust drückte und mit unbeschreiblicher Lieblichkeit betrachtete.” MA, 17, 242. 11 “die wunderlichen Bilder, die seine Aufmerksamkeit so sehr an sich gezogen hatten.” MA, 17, 243. 12 “Dem Führer ging’s wie den Kindern: er stutzte einen Augenblick, als er Wilhelmen erblickte.” MA, 17, 242. 13 “Und eben war er (Wilhelm) im Begriff hinabzusteigen und diese sonderbaren Wandrer zu begrüßen, als Felix heraufkam und sagte: ‘Vater, darf ich nicht mit diesen Kindern in ihr Haus? Sie wollen mich mitnehmen. Du sollst auch mitgehen, hat der Mann zu mir gesagt. Komm! Dort unten halten sie.’” MA, 17, 243. 14 Brandes notes that Felix made immediate contact with the other children and drew the adults together as well. Peter Brandes, “Sankt Joseph der Zweite: Bildtheologie in Goethes Wanderjahren,” in Literatur und Theologie: Schreibprozesse zwischen biblischer Überlieferung und geschichtlicher Erfahrung, ed. Ulrich Wergin and Karol Sauerland (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2005), 116. Herwig, “Das ewig Männliche,” 34, mentions briefly that the children bring the adults together. 15 “die wunderlichen Bilder” and “die Flucht nach Ägypten” MA, 17, 243.

144  Goethe’s Families of the Heart imagines that they are parents who are escaping to a new place, where their family can be safe. Right after Wilhelm’s imaginings about the fleeing family before him, he and the man greet each other. Wilhelm is so taken aback by this family that he: “could not say a word because of his amazement and attention.”16 The young man tells Wilhelm that the boys have already become friends, and asks him: “Do you want to come with us to see if a good relationship can arise between the adults?”17 Wilhelm replies that he does, indeed, want to get to know them: “The sight of your small family train arouses trust and affinity and I can only admit immediately both a curiosity and a lively desire to get to know you more closely. Because in the first moment, one wants to pose the question, whether you are truly wanderers or if you are only spirits …”18 Wilhelm admits his desire to get to know this family better, his trust in them, and, most importantly, his affinities for them. His fascination with them as wanderers draw him to them. Wilhelm is clearly captivated by this puzzling, amazing family and as soon as he indicates his willingness to get to know them better, the man, the children, and the woman yell out three times: “Come with!” The children yell it out as they pull Felix away with them, and the woman yells it out: “while she turned her loveable friendliness from the infant to the stranger [Wilhelm].”19 Wilhelm perceives the mother here, turning her loving eyes from her infant child to him. Moreover, it is clear throughout this encounter that Wilhelm is the strange, wandering one for the family, and they are the wonderful, astonishing, wandering family for him. They are all wanderers and they are drawn to one another spontaneously as they meet each other along the way.20 In this context, we should also recall all of the wandering characters in the Lehrjahre, 16 “vor Erstaunen und Aufmerksamkeit nicht zu Wort kommen konnte” MA, 17, 243. 17 “Wollt ihr mit uns, um zu sehen, ob auch zwischen den Erwachsenen ein gutes Verhältnis entstehen könne?” MA, 17, 243. 18 “Der Anblick eures kleinen Familienzuges erregt Vertrauen und Neigung, und, daß ich’s nur gleich gestehe, eben sowohl Neugierde und ein lebhaftes Verlangen euch näher kennen zu lernen. Denn im ersten Augenblick möchte man bei sich die Frage aufwerfen: ob ihr wirkliche Wanderer oder ob ihr nur Geister seid …” MA, 17, 243–4. 19 “Kommt mit!” and “indem sie ihre liebenswürdige Freundlichkeit von dem Säugling ab auf den Fremdling wendete.” MA, 17, 244. 20 Strack, “Väter,” 87, claims that the holy family at the beginning of the Wanderjahre represents an ideal, unrepeatable counter image to the unsettled life of the wanderers. Actually, it is clear in the text that Joseph and Marie and the holy family they emulate are wanderers too. Reiss, Goethes Romane, 221, points out that Joseph’s family is wandering and that wandering results in an internal coming-into-being.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  145 who were drawn together into new relationships and families by their elective affinities. Wilhelm and Felix are continuing the wandering they did in the Lehrjahre in the Wanderjahre. In fact, Wilhelm’s very first adventure will be to go: “to a wonderful family, to a holy family.”21 In this context, we should remember that Wilhelm’s family with the Harfner, Mignon, and Friedrich was also referred to as a “wonderful family” (“wunderbare Familie”) in the Lehrjahre. In this chapter, we will see how both of these families are wonderful and what affinities configure them. Once Wilhelm joins this new family, he finds out that their names are Joseph and Marie and that the chapel where they live is full of paintings of the life of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Wilhelm loses himself immediately in observations of the paintings and: Right after that was a wonderful, beautiful painting. One saw some cut wood that should be stacked together and a few pieces had randomly formed a cross. The child had fallen asleep on the cross, the mother sits next to it and observes it with heartfelt love and the foster father stopped his work in order not to disturb the child’s sleep. Right after that follows the Flight to Egypt. It aroused the observing wanderer’s smile as he saw the replication of yesterday’s live painting here on the wall.22 Now Wilhelm perceives the family he found wandering around as representative of, and analogous to, the holy family and not just a holy family. As he looks at the paintings of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, he sees the family he met the day before.23 He also mentions here that Joseph is a foster father. He is not a biological father for Jesus, but he is his father as he joins Mary’s family and flees with her to Egypt in order to save their child and family.24 The model family of the Christian faith 21 “zu einer wunderbaren Familie, zu einer heiligen Familie” MA, 17, 246. 22 “Bald darauf folgt ein wundersam schönes Bild. Man sieht mancherlei Holz gezimmert; eben soll es zusammengesetzt werden, und zufälliger Weise bilden ein paar Stücke ein Kreuz. Das Kind ist auf dem Kreuze eingeschlafen, die Mutter sitzt daneben und betrachtet es mit inniger Liebe, und der Pflegvater hält mit der Arbeit inne, um den Schlaf nicht zu stören. Gleich darauf folgt die Flucht nach Ägypten. Sie erregte bei dem beschauenden Wanderer ein Lächeln, indem er die Wiederholung des gestrigen lebendigen Bildes hier an der Wand sah.” MA, 17, 249. 23 In this context, we should also note, as Brandes, “Sankt Joseph,” 118, points out, that Goethe owned a number of illustrations of the Flight to Egypt. 24 Bahr, The Novel, 3, reminds us that Goethe wrote a letter to Johann Heinrich Meyer dated May 10, 1799 asking about the traditional “suite of paintings in which the story of Saint Joseph as Foster Father is represented.” Bahr does not comment on the significance of Joseph as a foster father, but this letter

146  Goethe’s Families of the Heart is both a biological and an adoptive family. And Joseph is referred to throughout the story as “the foster father” and “holy foster father.”25 After Wilhelm sees the paintings, Joseph and Marie become ever more extraordinary for him and they stimulate his liveliest curiosity. Wilhelm is subsequently intensely interested in learning more about their story. Joseph is eager to tell his story as well. He begins by telling Wilhelm that he liked to travel around as he assisted his mother: I grew up and while I joined my father as he took care of the income, I connected happily and preferably to my mother, who gladly gave to charity according to her ability, and through her goodwill and good deeds was known and loved throughout the mountains. She sent me quickly here and there to bring quickly, to order quickly, to provide quickly and I found myself very easily in this kind of devout industry.26 Joseph refers to these early days in terms of his wanderings. In addition, Joseph’s mother is like Natalie in that she is admired by everyone for her good deeds, and loving care of others. She sends Joseph all over the place in order to make sure that they can help those in need. We are also told that Joseph’s mother and one of her friends, Mrs. Elisabeth, help pregnant women in need and assist them as they give birth to their children. In this context we should remember Natalie and Therese helping families come together and raising numerous girls with each other. Joseph’s mother and her friend, Mrs. Elisabeth, are also taking care of women giving birth to children and are making sure that the demonstrates that Goethe was clearly thinking about Joseph specifically as a foster father. Strack, “Väter,” 78, refers to him briefly as a foster father, but provides no further analysis. Likewise, Neumann, “Ich bin gebildet,” 79, also mentions in passing a sign of adoption in this scene. Brandes, “Sankt Joseph,” 120, mentions that Joseph is both an adoptive father and a biological father. Herwig, Das ewig Männliche, 40, refers to the boy whom Joseph adopts inwardly and immediately. Other than these short references to Mary and Joseph as foster and/or adoptive parents, these scholars do not address the significance of adoptive elective affinities in the Wanderjahre. 25 “der Pflegevater,” MA, 17, 249, 253, and “dem heiligen Pflegevater,” MA, 17, 251. 26 ”Ich wuchs heran, und wenn ich mich zu meinem Vater gesellte, indem er die Einnahme besorgte, so schloß ich mich eben so gern, ja noch lieber, an meine Mutter an, welche nach Vermögen gern ausspendete und durch ihren guten Willen und durch ihre Wohltaten im ganzen Gebirge bekannt und geliebt war. Sie schickte mich bald da, bald dorthin, bald zu bringen, bald zu bestellen, bald zu besorgen, und ich fand mich sehr leicht in diese Art von frommem Gewerbe.” MA, 17, 251.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  147 children survive. In both cases, women are working to create and to preserve loving families. Joseph also tells Wilhelm that he identified with the holy Joseph and thought of him as his own “godfather/mentor” and as the “foster father” of the Christ child, “the wonder child.”27 And, even more importantly, Joseph confesses that: “There lay in me an irresistible inclination to follow this holy man … so I wanted at least from the very beginning to resemble him …”28 Joseph’s passion is to emulate the holy Joseph. He also suggests that he might want to be a foster father and care for a wonderful child. Joseph then recounts that as he was wandering around, during a time of war, he met Marie, “the most beautiful, loveable figure.”29 He finds Marie lying on the ground, she has been separated from her husband, is pregnant, and is in need of his mother’s and Mrs. Elisabeth’s help. Joseph tries to convince Marie to go with him to Mrs. Elisabeth, but she wants to stay and find out if her husband has survived the enemy’s attacks. They make arrangements to receive news of her husband and begin traveling to Mrs. Elisabeth. As soon as they leave together, Joseph’s instantaneous realization is: I had really found, what I had searched for for so long. It was as if I dreamed, and then right away again as if I awoke from a dream. This heavenly figure that I saw simultaneously flowing in the air and swaying before green trees, appeared to me now as a dream that produced itself in my soul through the paintings in the chapel. Soon these paintings appeared to me only to have been dreams that dispersed here into a beautiful reality.30 Joseph describes how he finally found what he was searching for and that the paintings he has known from the chapel transformed from his dreams into his reality. Marie is the wife he has been looking for and her child will be his foster child, and he will be like the holy foster 27 “Pate” and “Pflegevater” of the “Wunderkind” MA, 17, 252–3. 28 “Es lag eine unwiderstehliche Neigung in mir diesem Heiligen nachzufolgen … so wollte ich wenigstens von unten auf anfangen, ihm zu gleichen …” MA, 17, 255. 29 “die schönste liebenswürdigste Gestalt” MA, 17, 256. 30 “Was ich so lange gesucht, hatte ich wirklich gefunden. Es war mir als wenn ich träumte, und dann gleich wieder als ob ich aus einem Traume erwachte. Diese himmlische Gestalt, wie ich sie gleichsam in der Luft schweben und vor den grünen Bäumen sich her bewegen sah, kam mir jetzt wie ein Traum vor, der durch jene Bilder in der Kapelle sich in meiner Seele erzeugte. Bald schienen mir jene Bilder nur Träume gewesen zu sein, die sich hier in eine schöne Wirklichkeit auflösten.” MA, 17, 257.

148  Goethe’s Families of the Heart father. Joseph explains that he had “always … had the beautiful figure before his eyes” and that “an unending impatience and an immeasurable desire” drove him back to her.31 Joseph knows that “already she had won me over for my whole life.”32 As Joseph comes to Marie for the first time after the birth of her child, he describes how they come together around the child—indeed, the child is in the middle: She (Mrs. Elisabeth) led me into a clean room, where I saw in the corner through half opened bed curtains my beautiful one sitting upright. Mrs. Elisabeth walked over to her, as it were to announce me, she lifted something up from the bed and brought it toward me. The most beautiful boy was wrapped in the whitest cloth. Mrs. Elisabeth held him exactly between me and the mother, and immediately I was reminded of the lily stalk in the painting that raised from the earth between Mary and Joseph as a witness of a pure relationship. From that moment on all of the pressure on my heart disappeared. I was certain about my purpose and my happiness and could go to her freely, speak with her, endure her heavenly eye, and take the boy in my arms, and press a heartfelt kiss on his forehead.33 As the nurse lifts the child and holds him between Joseph and Marie, Joseph is thoroughly convinced that this is his family. He can approach Marie freely and can carry the child in his arms and kiss him as his own. Marie then says to Mrs. Elisabeth and to Joseph: “How I thank you for your affinities for this orphaned child!”34 Marie recognizes that both Mrs. Elisabeth and Joseph have expressed and demonstrated their parental affinities for her orphaned child. Joseph then replies to 31 “immer … die schöne Gestalt vor Augen” and “eine unendliche Ungeduld, ein unermeßliches Verlangen” MA, 17, 259. 32 “Schon hatte sie mich für das ganze Leben gewonnen …” MA, 17, 258. 33 “Sie (Frau Elisabeth) führte mich in ein reinliches Zimmer, wo ich in der Ecke durch halbgeöffnete Bettvorhänge meine Schöne aufrecht sitzen sah. Frau Elisabeth trat zu ihr, gleichsam um mich zu melden, hub etwas vom Bette auf und brachte mirs entgegen; in das weißeste Zeug gewickelt den schönsten Knaben. Frau Elisabeth hielt ihn gerade zwischen mich und die Mutter, und auf der Stelle fiel mir der Lilienstengel ein, der sich auf dem Bilde zwischen Maria und Joseph, als Zeuge eines reinen Verhältnisses aus der Erde hebt. Von dem Augenblicke an war mir aller Druck vom Herzen genommen; ich war meiner Sache, ich war meines Glücks gewiß. Ich konnte mit Freiheit zu ihr treten, mit ihr sprechen, ihr himmlisches Auge ertragen, den Knaben auf den Arm nehmen und ihm einen herzlichen Kuß auf die Stirn drücken.” MA, 17, 259–60. 34 “Wie danke ich euch für eure Neigung zu diesem verwaisten Kinde!” MA, 17, 260.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  149 her with an even more direct expression of his affinities and desire to be her husband and the child’s foster father: “Without caution and with animation, I yelled out: It is no longer an orphan, if you want!”35 Joseph and Marie are beginning to come together around and with the child, and their initial elective affinities continue to grow and hold them together.36 As Joseph shows Marie the paintings of Joseph and Mary and explains to her all of the responsibilities of a foster father, the two of them are drawn together forever through the elective affinities stirred in them during this discussion of the holy family: “I showed her and explained to her the paintings, one after the other, and outlined thereby the duties of a foster father in such a lively heartfelt way, that her eyes filled with tears, and I could not end my interpretation of the paintings. I believed that I could be certain of her affinities …”37 Joseph and Marie come together as they realize the loving family of Joseph and Mary is like their own potential family. And, most importantly, Joseph explains to Wilhelm: “And finally we bonded together.”38 Joseph explains to Wilhelm further that in his experience, in his loving relationship with Marie and her child, he is both a foster father and a father: “The duties and joys of a foster father and a father merged and our little family stepped beyond their model family in its number of persons, as it increased …”39 Like the holy Joseph, the Joseph Wilhelm meets loves a foster child as any ideal father would love his child, and his foster father and father affinities meld together. 35 “Unbedachtsam und lebhaft rief ich aus: Es ist keine Waise mehr, wenn ihr wollt!” MA, 17, 260. 36 Herwig, Das ewig Männliche, 54, suggests that Joseph and Marie’s story is an anti-model. Saße, “Das Plagiat,” 493, suggests that Joseph’s story about meeting Marie demonstrates that he never envisions an alternative life and does not oppose the paternal world as Wilhelm does. While it is true, as Saße and Herwig suggest, that Joseph and Marie are seeing themselves and their love for each other and their son as analogous to the old story of Mary and Joseph, it is also clear that they are reading that story as a model (not an anti-model) for themselves. Haag comments that the father role is recoded from a natural one to an adoptive one. Ingrid Haag, “‘… und auf der Stelle fiel ihm der Lilienstengel ein’: Zu einem Brief in Goethes Wanderjahren,” Cahiers d’Etudes Germaniques 45 (2003): 40. This distinction between a natural father and an adoptive father is not in the text. 37 “Ich zeigte und erklärte ihr die Bilder, eins nach dem andern und entwickelte dabei die Pflichten eines Pflegevaters auf so eine lebendige herzliche Weise, daß ihr die Tränen in die Augen traten und ich mit meiner Bilderdeutung nicht zu Ende kommen konnte. Ich glaubte ihre Neigung gewiß zu sein …” MA, 17, 260. 38 “Endlich verbanden wir uns.” MA, 17, 261. 39 “Die Pflichten und Freuden des Pflegevaters und Vaters vereinigten sich; und so überschritt zwar unsere kleine Familie, indem sie sich vermehrte, ihr Vorbild an Zahl der Personen …” MA, 17, 261.

150  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Wilhelm’s reaction to Joseph’s story is to see his story as analogous to his own. He feels related to Joseph and writes to Natalie: “These venerations of his wife, aren’t they like the ones I feel for you (Natalie)? And doesn’t the coming together of these two lovers not have something similar to our coming together?”40 Wilhelm suggests that their relationship and the way they came together is similar to that of Joseph and Marie’s coming together. Joseph and Marie’s relationship and family forming is, according to Joseph, like that of Joseph and Mary’s, and Wilhelm sees his relationship to Natalie as like Joseph and Marie’s. All three of these families are analogous in the way that they came together, all three are based on elective affinities, and all three have children who are at least likely biologically related to one parent and are adoptive children for the other parent. In all three cases, the families are drawn together by their affinities, come together around a child, and the fathers and mothers not biologically related to the child love and care for the child as ideal parents would. Equally intriguing is the fact that Joseph describes in detail how he and Marie came together as a family and were sure of their elective affinities as they encountered each other and the newborn child was held between them. We recall, in this context, that the Lehrjahre ended with Natalie and Wilhelm coming together with Felix lying between them with his feet on Wilhelm’s lap and his head on Natalie’s. Once again the baby/child was in the middle like a bridge holding them together. It is also important to note that Wilhelm, Natalie, Felix, Therese, and Lothario came together as well at the end of the Lehrjahre, forming their double pair/group family. Much in the same way, Wilhelm’s description of his arrival at the home of Joseph and Marie also suggests the drawing in of additional family members. Wilhelm, Felix, Joseph, Marie, and their sons were clearly drawn to each other as they met during their wandering, felt their affinities for one another, and joined together. And when they all arrive in Joseph and Marie’s home, they also come together as Joseph and Marie did earlier, as Wilhelm, Natalie, Therese, and Lothario did, as Joseph and Mary did—around a child: One turned back, and found in the devout hall a set table. In the front was an upholstered armchair in which the housewife sat down. Standing next to her she had a high basket in which the little child lay; the father after that to the left, and Wilhelm to the 40 “Jene Verehrung seines Weibes gleicht sie nicht derjenigen, die ich für dich (Natalie) empfinde? und hat nicht selbst das Zusammentreffen dieser beiden Liebenden etwas ähnliches mit dem unsrigen?” MA, 17, 262.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  151 right. The three children occupied the back end of the table … The children were inclined toward entertainment, while Wilhelm couldn’t observe the figure and behavior of his holy hostess enough.41 Here again the child is in the middle, but the family coming together this time consists of the mother, Joseph is to the left of the child, Wilhelm is to the right of the child, and the other sons of Joseph and Marie, and Felix, are at the other end of the table. As in each of the other family stories, this family comes together around the baby/child. The holy family becomes the fundamental family structure based on elective affinities that Wilhelm, Marie, Joseph, and their children both feel, and also imitate. Like Joseph and Mary, they allow their affinities to bring them together into a loving family. Intriguingly, later in the Wanderjahre another story of a family spontaneously coming together is included in Lenardo’s diary. In this story a girl explains how she and her father are wandering, and they travel from place to place until they finally arrive at a home. She then points out that the family there took them in and “we appeared quickly to belong to the family.”42 In the context of families drawn together in the Lehrjahre and the Wanderjahre, this story also suggests spontaneous affinities drawing wandering family members into new group families. Wilhelm and Felix’s encounter with Joseph and Marie points clearly to an expansion of family that includes multiple adult partners and their children. As Wilhelm and Felix join Joseph and Marie’s family, the family consists of a mother, two fathers, three sons, and a baby. Two of the sons were originally with Joseph and Marie (one Joseph’s biological child and one not) and one is Felix, who is either Wilhelm’s adoptive or biological child, but definitely all of the children are children loved by their parents and drawn to them through their mutual affinities. The affinities between Marie and Joseph, and Wilhelm’s affinities for Marie, represent heterosexual bonds. The affinities between Wilhelm and Joseph suggest same-sex bonds. Heterosexual and same-sex affinities within the same family configuration establish a fundamental, underlying fluidity and nonexclusivity of affinities. 41 “Man kehrte zurück, und fand in dem frommen Saal einen Tisch gedeckt. Oben an stand ein Lehnsessel, in den sich die Hausfrau niederließ. Neben sich hatte sie einen hohen Korb stehen, in welchem das kleine Kind lag; den Vater sodann zur linken Hand und Wilhelm zur rechten. Die drei Kinder besetzten den untern Raum des Tisches … Die Kinder gaben Anlaß zur Unterhaltung, indessen Wilhelm die Gestalt und das Betragen seiner heiligen Wirtin nicht genugsam beobachten konnte.” MA, 17, 250. 42 “wir schienen bald zur Familie zu gehören.” MA, 17, 648.

152  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Wilhelm’s shifting affinities in his encounter with Joseph and Marie (sometimes he seems more drawn to Joseph, sometimes to Marie) also reflect his shifting affinities throughout the Lehrjahre and Wanderjahre. In the Lehrjahre he connected to the Harfner to form his wonderful family, but also with Natalie to form a family with Felix, and then again Wilhelm and Felix connected with Natalie, Lothario, and Therese. Wilhelm’s elective affinities are presented in both novels as essentially nonexclusive and spontaneously shifting. In fact, right after Wilhelm and Felix join the group family with Joseph and Marie, Wilhelm, Felix, and another boy, Fitz (who joins them), continue on their travels. Fitz and Felix are leading Wilhelm to another man, Jarno: “immediately the children began climbing up the rugged path. Wilhelm followed ….”43 Once the boys reach the top of the mountain, they yell to Wilhelm that Jarno is there. Jarno then stepped forward and “offered his hand to his friend and pulled him upwards. They embraced each other and welcomed each other with rapture in the free air of the sky.”44 As Wilhelm and Jarno come together, Jarno begins to tell Wilhelm how he reads and decodes nature, and he admits that he does not usually talk to anyone about these secrets. Jarno reveals to Wilhelm how words fail to capture the meaning he is perceiving and trying to convey and then admits: “Precisely for that reason … I do not talk with anyone about this, and also want, because I love you, to stop exchanging and communicating deceptively with empty words of poor quality.”45 Intriguingly, right in the middle of Jarno’s statements about the failure of words, he openly expresses his love for Wilhelm “because I love you.” Just as Jarno and Wilhelm spontaneously embraced each other when they met, expressing their mutual elective affinities, here Jarno’s expression of love for Wilhelm, slides out, and into view as they discuss the perplexities of nature and language. Moreover, Jarno may insist that words are deceptive when they try to capture the essence of nature, but his own words also reveal his love for Wilhelm. In addition, as we have seen in the previous stories of relationship and family building, Wilhelm and Jarno are initially drawn together by Felix and Fitz. Once again, children draw adults together, and Wilhelm and Jarno embrace one another and express their love for each other. 43 “Sogleich machten sich die Kinder auf, die schroffen Pfade zu erklettern. Wilhelm folgte …” MA, 17, 264. 44 “reichte seinem Freunde die Hand und zog ihn aufwärts. Sie umarmten und bewillkommten sich in der freien Himmelsluft mit Entzücken.” MA, 17, 264. 45 “Eben deswegen … red’ ich mit niemanden darüber und mag auch mit dir eben, weil ich dich liebe, das schlechte Zeug von öden Worten nicht weiter wechseln und betrieglich austauschen.” MA, 17, 267–8.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  153 We remember, in this context, that in the Lehrjahre, Wilhelm felt that Jarno was heartless because he rejected Wilhelm’s wonderful family with the Harfner, Mignon, and Friedrich. This later encounter between Jarno and Wilhelm suggests that Jarno has grown during his wandering years and can now openly embrace Wilhelm. This scene also suggests that Jarno may have rejected Wilhelm’s relationship to the Harfner then, because of his own attraction to Wilhelm. And now that the Harfner is no longer Wilhelm’s same-sex partner, Jarno can and does express his love for Wilhelm. Goethe does not go on to outline the details of Wilhelm and Jarno’s relationship, but it certainly mirrors that of the other relationships and families that have come together through children (often in the middle) in both the Lehrjahre and Wanderjahre. In addition, if Wilhelm and Jarno are connecting in this way, their same-sex affinities would also reflect those Wilhelm formed with other men in both novels, including the Harfner and Lothario. Moreover, it is clear that Wilhelm and Joseph, and Jarno and Wilhelm openly express same-sex affinities for one another. Wilhelm is clearly drawn throughout the Lehrjahre and Wanderjahre to men and women, demonstrating his essentially nonexclusive and person-based affinities. Ultimately, throughout the Wanderjahre, Wilhelm continues to wander and be drawn by his nonexclusive affinities into new relationships and families. It is important to note that the most radical suggestion of Goethe’s series of pictures and stories of relationships and families of the heart in these opening stories in the Wanderjahre, and especially in relation to the story of Wilhelm and Felix joining with Joseph and Marie as a family, is that their group family also reflects the holiness of Joseph and Mary’s family of elective affinities. Their new family, consisting of two fathers (Wilhelm and Joseph) and one mother (Mary) and their adoptive and biological children, is presented as mirroring and equal to Joseph and Mary’s family with Jesus. In addition, Wilhelm and Felix’s joining of Marie and Joseph’s family also subtly highlights how the wonderful affinities the characters feel and respond to also lead to the acceptance and veneration of all affinities: heterosexual, same-sex, and essentially nonexclusive. In this sense, the family of Joseph and Marie (including their children), Felix, and Wilhelm is clearly analogous to the family of affinities that was drawn together at the end of the Lehrjahre as Wilhelm, Natalie, Therese, and Lothario came together. The radical implication of these stories of multiple affinities in the Lehrjahre and the Wanderjahre is that all elective affinities, whether same-sex or heterosexual and nonexclusive, are not only present, not only real, not just acceptable, but (as the Wanderjahre asserts) actually the highest and holiest of feelings that bring relationships and families together. Joseph,

154  Goethe’s Families of the Heart Marie, their sons, Felix, and Wilhelm form a family as ideal as Mary’s, Joseph’s and Jesus’s family, and all of their affinities are equal and holy.

2. Die Pilgernde Törin

While continuing his wandering, the next radical story that Wilhelm is confronted with is that of the Die Pilgernde Törin (The Crazy Pilgrim Woman).46 As Wilhelm, Felix, and Fitz are wandering around out in the mountain wilderness, they approach someone’s property and Wilhelm and Felix (Fitz escapes) are suddenly taken captive by a group of armed men. Felix and Wilhelm are then taken to a shelter where a man comes to talk with them. After this conversation, the man takes them to his home where they meet Hersilie. Hersilie wants Wilhelm to know about her family “so that the strangers are more quickly intimately familiar with us” and stresses that: “a lot is read at our house.”47 She then gives Wilhelm the story of Die Pilgernde Törin that she has translated from French. It is significant that Hersilie’s offering to Wilhelm of her story includes him in the reading of stories that is the fundamental characteristic of her family. In other words, offering him the story is her invitation for him to join their family of readers. Moreover, throughout the Wanderjahre, Wilhelm is presented with numerous family stories that represent not only an invitation to join them but his inclusion in these families as well. Intriguingly, this new female acquaintance, Hersilie, wanting Wilhelm to know her family story, immediately gives him the story of the crazy pilgrim woman and her family. Hersilie offers this story (her translation of it) to Wilhelm because it mirrors in some way (that she does not reveal) her own story.48 As she hands Wilhelm the text, 46 The story of the crazy pilgrim woman was a text that Goethe translated from French. The original text with an unknown author, La Folle en pélerinage, was first published in 1789. Scholars have also mentioned how the themes of the novella relate to those of the novel as a whole. See Bahr, The Novel; Herwig, Das ewig Männliche; Claude Haas, “Die Zeit der Aufrichtigkeit: Rouseaus ‘La Nouvelle Héloïse’ und Goethes ‘Die pilgernde Törin,’” Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 128.4 (2009): 481–94; Laura Martin, “Who’s the Fool Now? A Study of Goethe’s Novella, ‘Die pilgernde Törin’ from His Novel Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre,” The German Quarterly 66.4 (1993): 434; Robin A. Clouser, “‘Die pilgernde Törin’: Genesis, Revaluation, and Mirroring in Goethe’s Wanderjahre,” Goethe Yearbook 14 (2006): 172; and Jane Brown, Goethe’s Cyclical Narratives: Die Unterhaltungen deutscher Ausgewanderten and Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975), 55. 47 “damit die Fremde desto schneller mit uns vertraut” and “daß bei uns viel gelesen wird” MA, 17, 283. 48 Martin states that Hersilie gives Wilhelm the story because she is herself “very nearly reflected in its unnamed main character.” Later she also mentions that Hersilie has “a strong identification” with this story. Martin, “Who’s the Fool,”

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  155 she admits openly: “An insane girl steps forward!” Hersilie is clearly alluding here both to the pilgrim woman and to herself, because she then admits her identification with the crazy pilgrim lady: “If I ever wanted to become mad, as the desire to sometimes comes to me, it would be in this manner.”49 Hersilie has just compared herself to the crazy pilgrim woman and revealed her own identification with her. She does not explain her connection to the crazy, wandering woman any further, but after reading the story we might suspect that Hersilie, like the crazy, pilgrim woman, is trying to escape from her family. In fact, the “Pilgernde Törin” asserts in her story her desire not to succumb to the male plans of a father and his son. She is confronted with marriage plans that she cannot stand and she ultimately chooses to flee from them. Hersilie is clearly suggesting that this might be her destiny as well. With this in mind, we can now turn to the specifics of the pilgrim woman’s story. Die Pilgernde Törin begins with a reference to Herr Revanne living on his princely estate with his son and sister. One day while reading a book (like Hersilie’s family reading books and Wilhelm reading this story …), he sees the pilgrim woman, drops his book in surprise, and begins to notice her body in detail, including her “eyes,” “body build,” “figure,” and “face.” Like Wilhelm at the beginning of the Lehrjahre, Herr Revanne is obsessed with trying to read and decipher body parts in order to figure out who someone is. Herr Revanne’s attention is thoroughly fixed on the unknown woman he refers to as the beautiful traveler. The wandering woman sits down on the edge of a well and says nothing. Herr Revanne then simply asserts his inclination for her by exclaiming: “Strange affect of sympathy!” She continues to say nothing, until he asks her whether she is traveling alone. She answers saying: “‘Yes, sir, I am alone in the world.’” She tells Revanne more than that she is simply traveling alone and she lets him know that she is totally alone in this world. He replies by questioning her: “How? Madame you should be without parents, without acquaintances?” The pilgrim woman then replies: “That is not what I wanted to say, sir, I have parents and enough acquaintances; but no friends.”50 The pilgrim

431, 435. I would agree that the identification is strong, but would also stress that the story is presented by her and that she is not “nearly reflected,” but is clearly associated throughout the narrative with its main character. 49 “Ein verrücktes Mädchen tritt auf!” and “wenn ich jemals närrisch werden möchte, wie mir manchmal die Lust ankommt, so wär’ es auf diese Weise.” MA, 17, 284. 50 “Augen,” “Körperbau,” “Gestalt,” and “Gesicht” and “Seltsame Wirkung der Sympathie!” and “Ja, mein Herr, sagte sie, ich bin allein auf der Welt.” and “Wie? Madame, sie sollten ohne Eltern, ohne Bekannte sein?” and “Das wollte

156  Goethe’s Families of the Heart woman also implies that the acquaintances and parents she does have are not friends. As Herr Revanne attempts to learn more about the wandering, pilgrim woman, she refuses to tell him anything about herself. She reveals only that: “Reasons which she does not owe anyone an account of, make it necessary for her to travel around the world with her sufferings.” She asserts that she has been driven to carry her pain with her as she travels, but that she does not owe anyone an account of the causes of her suffering. She also insists that she is hiding her name and fatherland and that it is especially important: “that she does not want to be asked about her fatherland and family.”51 Her pain, her secrets are related to her fatherland, name, and family. Herr Revanne subsequently calls her “the unknown one,” “the beautiful unknown one,” and “the poor unknown one.”52 Revanne is particularly interested in finding out why the wandering pilgrim woman has left her father’s house, and he assumes that she may be hiding her story from him because her family: “wanted perhaps to have her marry against her affinities.”53 Revanne is also falling in love with this woman and feels his affinities for her: “the somewhat novel-like coming together created an allure, that he was not capable of resisting.”54 Revanne is drawn to this wandering woman and his affinities are so strong that he cannot deny them. He tries to win her trust, but whenever she observes him trying to find out about her family and the reasons for her flight from her father’s house, she keeps her secrets and refuses to tell him anything about herself. It is important to note that the pilgrim woman remains quiet and withdrawn by choice, does not relent to the pressure by men to reveal herself, keeps her secrets to herself, and asserts herself. Her quietness is a refusal to be dictated to by men. The wandering pilgrim woman is more mysterious, more of a puzzle, than any other character in both the Lehrjahre and the Wanderjahre. She is also certainly the most mystifying woman. Mignon was also a puzzle because she was a child who did not know her own family story, but her enigmatic life was, ultimately, explained in detail by the end of ich eben nicht sagen, mein Herr. Eltern hab’ ich, und Bekannte genug; aber keine Freunde.” MA, 17, 284–5. 51 “Ursachen, von denen sie niemand Rechenschaft schuldig sei, nötigten sie, ihre Schmerzen in der Welt herumzuführen.” and “daß sie über Vaterland und Familie nicht befragt sein wolle.” MA, 17, 286. 52 “der Unbekannten,” “die schöne Unbekannte,” and “der armen Unbekannten.” MA, 17, 287, 291. 53 “sie vielleicht gegen ihre Neigung habe verheiraten wollen.” MA, 17, 286. 54 “die etwas romanhafte Art der Zusammenkunft verbreitete einen Reiz, dem er nicht zu wiederstehen vermochte.” MA, 17, 287.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  157 the Lehrjahre. The Amazon is an inexplicable woman for Wilhelm until he finds out she is Natalie. But she is not presented as trying to hide herself from Wilhelm or any others she encounters. Wilhelm, on the other hand, did not tell Mignon or Jarno his family stories and remains an unknown puzzle for them. Likewise, and even more vehemently, the crazy pilgrim woman never reveals her story and remains unknown to everyone. Despite (or maybe because of) her secret family, her suffering from it, and her refusal to reveal anything about herself, including her first name, Herr Revanne falls madly in love with her. And then to complicate matters, his son also decides to join in the “adventure” and he “sought … to win over the unknown one, who had become valuable to him above all through the praise and friendship of his father and his aunt.”55 The son strives to win the unknown woman’s heart because of his father’s and aunt’s fascination for, and praise of, her. Now the wandering, unknown woman, the “beautiful stranger,” is caught “in the solicitations of two opponents,” who are a father and his son. She feels herself caught: “in the power of two lovers” and feels she must find a way to free herself.56 The wandering woman decides that the only way she can convince the two men to give up on her is to convince them that her virtue is in question. She goes first to the father and, without directly saying anything about her love, she lets him interpret her elusive answers to his questions as indicating her love for his son and that she is pregnant. It is significant that she does not say that these assumptions are true, but adeptly manipulates their conversation so that the father fills in the blanks with his own fantasies and assumptions. Likewise, she then goes to the son, who immediately assumes that she is in love with his father. After speaking with her, the father assumes that she is in love with his son and the son accuses her of expecting a son from his father: “You two are giving me a son, and it is my brother. I am certain of that!”57 She does not confirm or deny any of their assumptions, but does suggest to the son that she would want a daughter, rather than a son and that she would lead her “further, completely away from people, evil ones, crazy ones, and unfaithful ones.”58 55 “Abenteuer” and “suchte … die Unbekannte zu gewinnen, die ihm durch seines Vaters und seiner Tante Lob und Freundschaft erst recht wert geworden.” MA, 17, 293. 56 “schöne Fremde” and “in die Bewerbung zweier Gegner” and “in der Gewalt zweier Liebenden” MA, 17, 294. 57 “Sie geben mir beide einen Sohn, und es ist mein Bruder, das bin ich gewiß!” MA, 17, 296. 58 “weiter, ganz weit von Menschen, den Bösen, den Toren und den Ungetreuen.” MA, 17, 296.

158  Goethe’s Families of the Heart The wandering woman implies openly that she would take her girl far away from the father and son—those evil, crazy, and unfaithful people.59 That is her clearest, most telling revelation about her own motives. She perceives herself as wandering and fleeing from any new evil, crazy, unfaithful people she meets and is also escaping from her own questionable biological family. She also states quite boldly that, if she has a child someday, she hopes to have a daughter, and to escape with her from these family restrictions. While the men demonstrate how they ignore and undo elective affinities, and can only think of male progeny, the pilgrim woman asserts that another world of love might be possible, somewhere else, to which she and a daughter could escape. In addition, she points out that girls are also welcome progeny. Finally, it is clear that love is impossible with these men, but not impossible somewhere else where elective affinities are followed and respected. In this context, it is also important to note that the wandering pilgrim woman’s hints about her past life and the father and son who are competing for her hand in marriage suggest that the crazy wandering woman pilgrim is not deranged, but those who would harm her through their unsympathetic and love-threatening marriage and family plans are insane.60 After this conversation, the son runs to his aunt and his father and tells them that the wandering woman is leaving, she is straying around, and is an angel and a demon. And right after this they discover that she is gone: “But the pilgrim woman had planned it so well, that no one found her again.”61 She escapes and remains a mysterious wandering woman, and in spite of Herr Revanne’s attempts to find her: “he was not successful in procuring even the least clarification about the beautiful person.”62 Unlike many of the other women in the Lehrjahre and Wanderjahre who were caught in suffocating families, and trapped between fathers and sons who were rivals for their love, the wandering pilgrim woman asserts her right to remain a mystery, plans her escape, fools both the father and son who are vying for her love, and leaves the men who threaten to entrap her. She is a woman who flees from those 59 See Clouser, “Die pilgernde Törin,” 197, who also suggests that the pilgrim woman is referring to the father and son as crazy. 60 I disagree with Reiss, Goethes Romane, 248, who suggests that the pilgrim woman is pure craziness. Haag, “und auf der Stelle,” 481, explains the traveling pilgrim’s craziness in terms of eighteenth-century discourses of love and as a result of her insistence on sincerity. The story also clearly presents those preventing her love as the ones who are deranged. 61 “Aber die Pilgerin hatte so gut sich vorgesehen, daß man sie nicht wieder fand.” MA, 17, 297. 62 “war es ihm nicht gelungen, sich die mindeste Aufklärung über diese schöne Person zu verschaffen” MA, 17, 297.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  159 who threaten to define and control her affinities.63 At the same time, the father and the son, who both wanted to marry her, did not seem to notice that she was silent about her own feelings (or lack thereof) and unresponsive to their pressure as they tried to convince her to marry one of them. The “Pilgernde Törin” is like Wilhelm in that she is also wandering around away from her family. But even more radically than Wilhelm, she is a woman who wanders, keeps her story to herself, determines her destiny, and rejects the control of men (fathers and sons) over her life. She is a woman who has escaped the male-centered traps of aristocratic and civil families. It is also important to think of the pilgrim woman’s self-assertion in the context of all of the women in Stella, Die Wahlverwandtschaften, Die Lehrjahre, and the Wanderjahre. The pilgrim woman is one of the most self-controlled women in Goethe’s works and like Stella, Cezilie, Natalie, and Therese, she does whatever she can to escape the obstacles to her love and insists on asserting herself in spite of the barriers the social order constructs for her. Ultimately, she leaves the men who are torturing her with their demands to marry her and they never find her again. Actually, quite a few of the women in Goethe’s works, as we have seen, are asserting themselves, expressing themselves, and forming their love relationships with men, other women, and children in accord with their elective affinities. Consistently throughout his works, Goethe gives voices to his characters (both women and men), who assert the validity of all elective affinities. In this context, it is important to consider Hersilie’s specific identification with the “Pilgernde Törin.” She gave the story of the pilgrim woman to Wilhelm indicating that she identified with her story. Hersilie, as we find out later in the Wanderjahre is a self-asserting woman like the pilgrim woman. This becomes very apparent when she writes a letter to Wilhelm explaining how Felix recently came to her and wanted to embrace her. Her response is “I turn him away.” Felix persists and tells Hersilie: “I wished to open your heart, so that it would open to me, come to me, and press me against it.” Felix then grabs Hersilie and begins kissing her, she stresses that in her confusion she kissed him back. But she then reports: “I tore myself away, the gulf between us appeared to me only too obvious … I thrust him away angrily” and 63 Clouser, “Die pilgernde Törin,” 178, suggests that the pilgrim woman sees that society is “out of joint” and that her story provides a feminist critique and that this “woman has taken her life and sexual fate into her own hands and becomes her own woman” (186). Martin, “Who’s the Fool,” 444, states that the pilgrim woman is teaching the men “how their ‘love’ can be so damaging, so selfish, so cruel.” I would also stress that what she is demonstrating is how important it is to acknowledge, confirm, and live in accord with one’s elective affinities.

160  Goethe’s Families of the Heart “ordered him to never appear before me again.”64 Perceiving her own lack of affinities for Felix, Hersilie rejects him openly. Just like the crazy pilgrim woman, Hersilie takes charge of her life, acts in accord with her affinities, and does not accept any affinities foisted upon her.65 In this context, Hersilie’s identification with the self-asserting pilgrim woman is clearly portrayed through her insistence upon her freedom from the demands of men who want to foist themselves upon her, and her rejection of Felix’s enticements. While her story is not exactly the same as the pilgrim woman’s story, they both tell stories about how they rejected and refused the advancements on them by men to whom their elective affinities were not drawing them. Like the pilgrim woman, Hersilie asserts herself and then also openly reports to Wilhelm in writing her bold actions (her story) in her letter to him. After reading the Pilgernde Törin and while still with Hersilie, Wilhelm receives from her some of the letters that she, her sister, her cousin, and her aunt have sent to each other. Her cousin, Lenardo, is described as a fantastic traveler, who has been away from the family for three years, and they have not heard a single word from him until his letter arrives. As they hand his letter to Wilhelm they tell him it is “from a crazy traveler.”66 Like the crazy pilgrim woman, Lenardo has been traveling around, not communicating with his family, and keeping his secrets to himself. In his letter, Lenardo highlights how he wanted to forget his family and homeland. He envisions himself returning to them “from foreign places as a foreigner.”67 Lenardo has been wandering around outside of, and away from, his family and is also reminiscent of Wilhelm and his desire to flee his family at the beginning of the Lehrjahre. Hersilie’s letter in response to Lenardo’s letter highlights how upset she is about Lenardo’s absence and the negative implications of his letter. She reads his letter as being like that of all men who return from traveling: “after returning from foreign lands. They always consider those who remained home to be incomplete.”68 She is also disturbed that he asks about a woman outside of their family by name, but refers to those in 64 “ich weise ihn zurück” and “dein Herz wünscht’ ich zu öffnen, daß es sich mir auftäte, mir entgegen käme, mich an sich drückte” and “Ich riß mich los, die Kluft die uns trennt erschien mir nur zu deutlich … ich stieß ihn zürnend weg …” and “befahl ihm nie wieder vor mir zu erscheinen” MA, 17, 684–5. 65 Herwig, “Das ewig Männliche,” 363, argues that Hersilie takes on the passive role of a woman writing letters. Actually, it is clear that Hersilie is asserting herself, telling her story directly to Wilhelm, and not succumbing to Felix’s advances. 66 “von einem verrückten Reisenden” MA, 17, 302. 67 “aus der Fremde wie ein Fremder” MA, 17, 306. 68 “wenn sie aus fremden Ländern kommen. Sie halten die daheim Gebliebenen immer nicht für voll.” MA, 17, 308.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  161 his family as nieces and aunts, but not by name. Hersilie asserts that, for him, they are all not persons but rubrics. In this family scenario, the wandering brother is portrayed as the one who has no feelings for his biological family and denies their value as persons. Intriguingly, of course, Hersilie identifies with the “Pilgernde Törin,” the woman who flees her biological family and wanders around without revealing herself, her family, or her secrets. At the same time, Hersilie stresses that the men who distance themselves from their biological families perceive them to be incomplete and not valuable. Hersilie is clearly caught between two views of wandering. For her, women wander to assert themselves, while men wander to erase their biological families. Both of these possibilities are foregrounded by the stories (and letters) she shares with Wilhelm. After reading Hersilie’s family letters, Wilhelm is getting ready to leave her family and continue wandering. They then suggest to him that he should travel to their aunt, Makarie, and perhaps to their cousin, Lenardo, to explain to them their family situation and that: “he would in this way become immediately a member of their family.” Wilhelm does not address being part of their family, but responds that he is happy to go wherever they send him because, as he states: “with you I have experienced and learned more than I could have hoped for.” He is also convinced that his new travels will teach him “more than I can expect.”69 Wilhelm does not outline what he has learned or hopes to learn and it is left to the reader to contemplate: What should Wilhelm and the reader learn from these stories? What exactly is Wilhelm learning through his encounters with families and family narratives throughout the Wanderjahre? And is Wilhelm actually noticing how challenging these narratives are? Or is he perhaps aware of the incredible meaning of these stories, but is keeping his secrets to himself? As he leaves this family group, he acknowledges that separating from them is very painful for him. And before he departs, he is given a packet with the next story, Wer ist der Verräter? (Who is the Traitor?), which will confront him with yet another challenging family narrative.

3. Wer ist der Verräter?

The story of Wer ist der Verräter begins with a young man alone, but screaming out “NO!” to his father’s plans to have him marry a girl to whom his affinities do not draw him: “No, I cannot marry Julie.”70 We 69 “Er werde dadurch sogleich zum Gliede ihrer Familie” and “bei Ihnen habe ich mehr erfahren und gelernt als ich hoffen durfte” and “mehr als ich erwarten kann” MA, 17, 313. 70 “Nein, ich kann Julien nicht heiraten.” MA, 17, 318.

162  Goethe’s Families of the Heart then learn his story, how his mother died when he was a child, how his father turned to one of his male friends for support, and how the two men developed their plans for continued “family connections.”71 After the death of his wife, the father is overwhelmed by the care he needs to give his son and the two men decide to send the young boy to an academy. But then “the orphaned teacher,” the father, finds himself without his wife and child “much too alone.” The father overcomes his isolation by connecting with the other father. As they are drawn together, “the distance between their places of residence disappeared.”72 The orphaned father discovers that the other family is also without a mother. In addition, he finds in his male friend’s motherless family two beautiful daughters. Both fathers are now convinced that they want to strengthen the connections between their families by marrying the son to one of the daughters, Julie or Lucinde. The two fathers raise their children without telling them about their plans to marry one of the daughters to the son. The fathers ultimately decide to have the son, Lucidor, marry Julie. Later, when is he grown up, Lucidor leaves the academy and comes home as a “stranger.”73 When Lucidor arrives home, another man comes as well, Antoni, who is also described as a stranger. The two foreign men come together with Julie and Lucinde in a new social mix. And, as in the Wahlverwandtschaften, their affinities begin to draw them together. Julie and Antoni are first brought together through their mutual love of traveling and wandering. Antoni fascinates her with his detailed account of his world travels and her desire to travel is ignited: “she still felt the desire to travel to Alexandria, Cairo, but especially to the pyramids.” Lucidor notices this attraction between Julie and Antoni immediately and remarks to himself: “the crazy little one wants … to run through the world” and refers to Antoni as “the Anton Reiser,” who would not be happy with Lucinde, who loves being home and “who is born for being at home.”74 Lucidor learns that his father plans to have him marry Julie and is thoroughly upset. He has never felt elective affinities for her, in fact, the opposite: “because he had felt from the first moments not repulsion, not reluctance, but an estrangement towards Julie. Lucinde in contrast 71 “Familien-Verbindungen” MA, 17, 318. 72 “der verwaiste Gelehrte” and “gar zu allein” and “die Entfernung ihrer Wohnorte verschwand” MA, 17, 319. 73 “Fremder” MA, 17, 322. 74 “sie fühlte noch Lust nach Alexandrien, Cairo, besonders aber zu den Pyramiden” and “die kleine Närrin möchte … durch die Welt laufen” and “der Anton Reiser” and “die für das Haus geboren ist” MA, 17, 323–4.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  163 drew him to her, so that he quivered, when she gazed at him with her full, pure, tranquil eyes.”75 Lucidor does not feel instantaneous affinities for Julie, but is drawn by them to the other daughter, Lucinde. The fathers have clearly paired the son with the wrong daughter. The son, whose biological father is away when he discovers the plans for him to marry Julie, decides to go to the other father the very next morning to explain to him how impossible this is for him. The next morning, Lucidor finds out that the other father, however, has just left and he decides to tell his story to an old friend of the family instead. Intriguingly, Lucidor perceives the old friend as a stand in for his biological father: “in the place of the absent father.” Indeed, Lucidor sees this family friend as the “representative/substitute” for “both fathers.”76 For this reason, Lucidor decides: “I will speak to him, reveal everything to him, and he will certainly communicate it further” and “early tomorrow morning I will search for him.”77 Lucidor will relate his story to the family friend so that he can report it to the two fathers and intercede on his behalf. But the next morning Lucidor does not find the old family friend and cannot tell him his story, and the young people spend the day touring the estates. Later in the day, Lucidor accidentally walks in on Lucinde and Antoni and sees him passionately kissing her hand. Seeing this causes Lucidor so much pain that he decides he must flee. He feels he must leave this house as soon as possible: “He wanted to seek the open air” and Lucidor is convinced that “he had lost Lucinde.”78 As he is planning to leave and worrying about where to go and how to leave as quickly as possible, a group of persons arrive at his foster father’s estate. This group includes the sisters, Antoni, the foster father, and his biological father. As Lucidor enters the hall where everyone is gathering, he sees his father and the other father standing together. As this group now comes together around Lucidor, in accord with the father’s initial plans, Julie makes a motion to Lucidor to stand next to her, and Lucinde and Antoni stand together. Suddenly Julie takes his hand and: “He lost his composure completely and convinced himself

75 “denn er hatte vom ersten Augenblick an nicht Abneigung, noch Widerwillen, aber Entfremdung gegen Julien gefühlt; Lucinde dagegen zog ihn an, daß er zitterte, wenn sie ihn mit ihren vollen, reinen, ruhigen Augen ansah.” MA, 17, 322. 76 “an der Stelle des abwesenden Vaters” and “Stellvertretenden” for “beider Väter” MA, 17, 324–5. 77 “zu ihm will ich reden, ihm alles entdecken, er wird’s gewiß vermitteln” and “Morgen früh such’ ich ihn auf” MA, 17, 325. 78 “Er wollte das Freie suchen” MA, 17, 337 and “er hatte Lucinden verloren.” MA, 17, 332.

164  Goethe’s Families of the Heart that everything was decided, that for him everything was lost.”79 He quickly rushes away from the social group, escapes to his room, and throws himself onto his bed. Later, as he is still lying in bed, completely immersed in his pain and sorrow, he sits up and realizes that Lucinde is standing near him. Lucinde immediately tells him: “You are mine, I am yours.” He tells her first that he must flee and that he has given up any hope of having her. She explains to him that the fathers have agreed that Lucinde and Lucidor should marry and so should Antoni and Julie: “Your father is satisfied: Antoni will marry my sister.” Once Lucinde finishes her story, she and Lucidor fall into each other’s arms and express their elective affinities: “He held her hands. Glance to Glance! ‘Lucinde are you mine?’ She replied: ‘now yes indeed,’ the sweetest tears in the truest eye; he embraced her … Such feelings accompany people throughout their entire life.”80 Lucinde and Lucidor clearly come together through their spontaneous elective affinities and confirm their love for one another. Elective affinities have also drawn Julie and Antoni together, and at the end of the story: “the two pairs came together, with feelings that even the most beautiful dream could not materialize.”81 Much like Wilhelm’s early story in the Lehrjahre, Lucidor and Lucinde’s narrative of love highlights the misconceived plans of fathers who strive, first and foremost, to connect their families to ensure economic security. But unlike Wilhelm’s early story in which he feels forced to flee his two fathers’ family and economic plans for him, Lucidor contemplates running away and wandering, but doesn’t finally have to take flight because his fathers change their plans in accord with the feelings of the children. And, specifically, Lucidor’s foster father intervenes (that is why he had suddenly left the estate) and convinces the “orphaned father” to change the marriage plans in line with the elective affinities of the four lovers. This family with two fathers is flexible and caring enough to admit their mistakes in planning their children’s lives and they actively work to make sure that their children are happy and can follow their affinities. Unlike so many other father-determined families in Goethe’s literary works, this family is one brought together by its two fathers, and is dedicated 79 “Dies brachte ihn aus aller Fassung, er überzeugte sich, daß alles entschieden, alles für ihn verloren sei.” MA, 17, 338. 80 “Sie sind mein, ich bin Ihre” and “Ihr Vater ist alles zufrieden; Antoni heiratet meine Schwester.” and “Er faßte ihre Hände, Blick in Blick! ‘Lucinde sind Sie mein?’—Sie versetzte: ‘nun ja doch,’ die süßesten Tränen in dem treusten Auge; er umschlang sie … Solche Gefühle begleiten den Menschen durchs ganze Leben.” MA, 17, 339. 81 “Und so zogen beide Paare zur Gesellschaft, mit Gefühlen die der schönste Traum nicht zu geben vermöchte.” MA, 17, 346.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  165 not first and foremost to economic concerns but to the lovers’ elective affinities. After the narrative of Wer ist der Verräter, Wilhelm and Felix travel and arrive at the estate where Makarie is living. They arrive there as “the foreign ones” and Makarie begins immediately to share with them a “spirited description of her relatives.”82 Makarie offers Wilhelm and Felix her family story, which, as we know from Hersilie, is a sign of welcoming them into her family. And, indeed, as we recall, Hersilie had encouraged Wilhelm to travel to her aunt, Makarie, in order to become a member of the family. After hearing Makarie’s family stories, Wilhelm loses himself in contemplation while staring at the evening sky, thinks about his past life, and suddenly realizes that his purpose is “to establish a noble family circle.” In addition, he tells himself: “I should research, what holds noble souls apart, should clear away obstacles of whatever kind they are.”83 Wilhelm expresses here exactly the purpose of the Wanderjahre: to establish loving family circles, to discover what family and social/cultural forces are pulling lovers and families apart, to remove obstacles to love relationships formed by elective affinities, and to bring loving couples and families together. Wilhelm does not indicate how he will achieve these goals, nor does he relate directly what specific issues he perceives as holding families apart and/or how to remove the obstacles. However, the stories, manuscripts, letters, and conversations he has during his stay with Makarie do lead him to the realization of his purpose in life. And once he knows that, he leaves Makarie and her family and travels on to Lenardo as Hersilie had directed him to do. When Wilhelm meets Lenardo, he then tells Wilhelm about a disturbing event in his life that still haunts him. He tells him the story of a girl named Valerine. According to Lenardo this girl immediately drew him to her: “with so much childlike protection and love, that she took me in completely for her.” Lenardo also explains that the girl and her family were victims of his uncle’s harsh economic plans. His interest being only in “sales,” ”revenue,” “his shops,” and “his orders.”84 The girl and her family were forced into poverty by his uncle and have disappeared. Lenardo explains to Wilhelm that he could do nothing to save this family and that he constantly remembers her and 82 “die Fremden” MA, 17, 347, and “geistreicher Schilderung ihrer Verwandten” MA, 17, 348. 83 “einen edlen Familienkreis … herzustellen …” and “Ich soll erforschen, was edle Seelen auseinander hält, soll Hindernisse wegräumen von welcher Art sie auch seien.” MA, 17, 351. 84 “mit soviel kindlicher Schonung und Liebe, daß sie mich ganz für sich einnahm” and “Kasse,” “Einkünfte,” “seine Anstalten,” “seine Befehle” MA, 17, 362.

166  Goethe’s Families of the Heart worries about whether Valerine is now married and adequately cared for. Wilhelm agrees to travel on and see if he can find Valerine and will then report back to Lenardo. Ultimately, Lenardo insists on accompanying Wilhelm and they go to Valerine together. Wilhelm is clearly playing his new role as one who is trying to remove obstacles between noble souls, and wants to help Lenardo overcome his feelings of guilt concerning Valerine. Once they arrive at the home of Valerine and Lenardo meets her, he realizes she is not the woman he is searching for. He has confused her with another woman, Nachodine. Lenardo then asks Wilhelm to travel on and find Nachodine and report back to him about her. As Wilhelm and Felix are traveling further in search of Nachodine, they come to a school for boys and Wilhelm leaves Felix in this academy. Wilhelm then wanders on to try and find Nachodine. Right after this, the next family story presented in the Wanderjahre is that of the Der Mann von funfzig Jahren (The Man of Fifty Years). Once again, a radical family story that reframes a story from the Lehrjahre is foregrounded in the Wanderjahre.

4. Der Mann von funfzig Jahren

The story of Der Mann von funfzig Jahren is reminiscent of the story of the Harfner and Sperata in that both stories address the problem of incest. While the accidental incestuous relationship between the Harfner and Sperata is totally rejected by their family and the church in the Lehrjahre, in Der Mann von funfzig Jahren, Goethe foregrounds the acceptance of incestuous relationships by those focused totally on preserving their economic and family wealth.85 And while the Harfner radically insisted on the legitimacy of his “marriage” to his “wife,” who he denied was his sister, in the Der Mann von fünfzig Jahren, the two women in danger of being drawn into a family turned in upon itself through multiple layers of incest, ultimately take off together and disappear. The very first scene in the story highlights the uncle coming to his sister’s and Hilarie’s home. Hilarie is waiting for him, and as he approaches she “flew toward him, he pressed her on his chest with the spirit of a father, and they hurried up to her mother.”86 The elective affinities expressed here between the niece and her uncle/father 85 Koschorke mentions the incestuous content in the novella as well, but does not outline it in detail or in regard to the elective affinities. Albrecht Koschorke, “Die Textur der Neigungen: Attraktion, Verwandschaftscode und novellistische Kombinatorik in Goethes Mann von funfzig Jahren,” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift 73.4 (1999): 594. 86 “flog ihm entgegen, er drückte sie an seine Brust mit dem Sinn eines Vaters, und sie eilten hinauf zu ihrer Mutter.” MA, 17, 398.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  167 reflects right away the uncle’s shifting sense of himself as a father and as an uncle to Hilarie.87 This shifting of elective affinities and roles is central to the entire story of the uncle’s family and their family plans. As soon as the Major and his sister, die Baroness, meet they begin talking about their business and their plans to secure their familial wealth, and their insistence that this would be best achieved if his son and her daughter are married to one another as soon as possible. Their initial goal is to bring the son and daughter together and “to expedite their relationship.”88 The family plan is clearly for the cousins to marry each other and preserve their economic wealth.89 There is absolutely no evidence that the brother and sister planning this marriage feel that it is in anyway unacceptable. However, this plan is complicated by the fact that, as the sister explains to her brother, her daughter, Hilarie, loves someone else: “Hilarie’s heart is no longer free.” The brother’s first response is: “while we have made all efforts to provide for ourselves economically, elective affinities have played a prank on us!”90 His total concern is that their economic plans are going to be undermined by elective affinities and he openly rejects elective affinities/love as an unacceptable prank. The uncle’s foremost objective is to protect and stabilize their family wealth, and he is not concerned about the feelings of the children. Indeed, he thinks that feelings are a negative obstacle to his economic plans. But their family situation becomes even more complicated as his sister reveals to the Major (her brother) that her daughter is in love with him: “she loves you.” At first the Major rejects this idea claiming “that affinities of this kind are only feigned.” His sister disagrees, insisting that what her daughter feels is a “very serious feeling.” At first, the uncle rejects the niece’s feelings for him: “I would not have thought that her natural being was capable of something so unnatural.” His sister, on the other hand, insists: “It is not so unnatural” and she maintains 87 Herwig, Das ewig Männliche, 200, emphasizes the shifting feelings of the uncle as he shifts from feeling like a father and a lover for Hilarie. As we shall see, these multiple feelings will become more and more complex as the narrative develops. Right here, I would say the uncle is shifting between his paternal and uncle feelings. 88 “ihre Verbindung zu beschleunigen” MA, 17, 398. 89 See Broszeit-Rieger, “Family Systems,” 78, who points out this first economic plan and that the children should “surrender their individuality to family goals.” Herwig, Das ewig Männliche, 201, emphasizes that the story expresses uncertainties about relationships between men and women, and mentions that marrying cousins was an acceptable option for aristocratic families during Goethe’s time period. 90 “Hilariens Herz ist nicht mehr frei” and “indessen wir uns alle Mühe geben uns ökonomisch vorzusehen, so spielt uns die Neigung einen solchen Streich!” MA, 17, 399.

168  Goethe’s Families of the Heart that she had similar feelings: “I remember in my youth having a desire for an older man.”91 With this comment, she shifts their attention away from the rejection of this relationship between an uncle and his niece, and focuses attention on their age difference instead. After listening to his sister, the brother begins to feel his elective affinities for his niece, Hilarie: Hilarie joined them, and the Major felt himself changed once again, against his will. Her presence seemed to him more dear and worthy than earlier; her conduct appeared to him more loving, and he already began to believe his sister’s words. The feeling was highly pleasurable, although he did not want to admit or allow it. Indeed, Hilarie was extremely lovable, to the extent that in her conduct she brought together most intimately the delicate shyness toward a lover and the open comfortableness toward an uncle; because she really loved him and from her whole soul. The garden was in its thorough spring splendor, and the Major who saw so many old trees producing new leaves, could also believe in the return of his own spring. And who wouldn’t have let himself be seduced to believe in that possibility while in the presence of this most loveable girl!92 The uncle is drawn to his niece despite his reservations, because she is so worthy of love and expresses both her feelings for a lover and for an uncle when she interacts with him. He also feels young again with her and lets himself be seduced by those feelings. The uncle “surrendered himself to his feelings, without considering, where that could lead to.”93 91 “dich liebt sie” and “daß Neigungen dieser Art nur scheinbar sind” and “sehr ernstliches Gefühl” and “Etwas so Unnatürliches hätte ich ihrem natürlichen Wesen nicht zugetraut” and “Es ist so unnatürlich nicht” and “Aus meiner Jugend erinnere mich selbst einer Leidenschaft für einen ältern Mann” MA, 17, 399–400. 92 “Hilarie gesellte sich zu ihnen und der Major fühlte sich, wider seinen Willen, abermals verändert. Ihre Gegenwart deuchte ihn noch lieber und werter als vorher; ihr Betragen schien ihm liebevoller, und schon fing er an den Worten seiner Schwester Glauben beizumessen. Die Empfindung war bei ihm höchst angenehm, ob er sich gleich solche weder gestehen noch erlauben wollte. Freilich war Hilarie höchst liebenswürdig, indem sich in ihrem Betragen die zarte Scheu gegen einen Liebhaber und die freie Bequemlichkeit gegen einen Oheim auf das innigste verband; denn sie liebte ihn wirklich und von ganzer Seele. Der Garten war in seiner vollen Frühlingspracht, und der Major, der so viele alte Bäume sich wieder belauben sah, konnte auch an die Wiederkehr seines eignen Frühlings glauben. Und wer hätte sich nicht in der Gegenwart des liebenswürdigsten Mädchens dazu verführen lassen!” MA, 17, 400–1. 93 “überließ sich seinen Gefühlen, ohne zu denken wohin das führen könne.” MA, 17, 402.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  169 Shortly thereafter, he and Hilarie stand before a picture of their family tree. Like the Beautiful Soul in the Lehrjahre, the uncle outlines in detail the family attributes passed down from generation to generation. He: “pointed out the characters of various fathers and the similarity or difference of the children with them.” At the bottom of the tree he highlighted: “Now there stood his brother, the head constable, himself, and his sister, and under them was his son and next to him Hilarie.”94 Intriguingly, what is missing in this description of the family tree (and specifically at their level of the tree) are any references to any spouses of the uncle and his sister. The tree is described as one of incest: the two brothers and the sister on one level, and on the next level are the “brother’s son,” Flavio, and the “sister’s daughter,” Hilarie. Given this outline of the incestuous family tree, Hilarie’s uncle is likely her father. Of course, as the family tree is first described, either brother might be Hilarie’s uncle/father, but as the relationship between Hilarie’s mother and the brother, who is now with them is described in more detail, and particularly how the mother loved this brother more than any other men, it becomes clear that he is the father of Hilarie. This circling family tree becomes even more disturbing when, right after this description, Hilarie expresses her love for her uncle/father: “All at once she looked up at him with a pair of eyes that expressed her total affinity.” Her uncle/father responds, asserting his love for her as well: “You make me the happiest person under the sun! he yelled out and fell to her feet.” He then asks Hilarie: “Do you want to be mine?” And she responds to him: “For God’s sake stand up! I am yours forever.”95 The family tree is circling back upon itself, and the incestuous relationship between the uncle/father and his niece/daughter is further complicated and becomes even more unsettling as the Baroness remembers, in this context, how much she had loved her brother: “The Baroness had loved her brother from her youth on so much, that she preferred him over all other men, and perhaps even Hilarie’s affinity for him itself, if not having sprung from this passion of her mother’s, had certainly been nurtured by it.”96 The picture of the circling family tree is further underscored by the Baroness’s admission that she loved 94 “zeichnete die Charaktere verschiedener Väter, die Ähnlichkeit oder Unähnlichkeit der Kinder mit denselben” and “Da stand nun sein Bruder, der Obermarschall, er und seine Schwester und unten drunter sein Sohn und daneben Hilarie.” MA, 17, 410. 95 “Zugleich sah sie mit ein paar Augen an ihn hinauf, aus denen ihre ganze Neigung hervorsprach” and “‘Du machst mich zum glücklichsten Menschen unter der Sonne!’ rief er aus und fiel ihr zu Füßen” and “Willst du mein sein?” and “Um Gottes Willen stehen Sie auf! Ich bin dein auf ewig.” MA, 17, 411. 96 “Die Baronin hatte ihren Bruder von Jugend auf dergestalt geliebt, daß sie ihn allen Männern vorzog, und vielleicht war selbst die Neigung Hilariens

170  Goethe’s Families of the Heart her brother so much that she had loved him more than any other men and placed him before any of them in her heart. She also feels that her daughter’s potential spousal love for her uncle/father was influenced by her love for her brother. There is now no doubt that the niece’s love for her uncle/father, and his for her, are based on fundamentally incestuous desires. As we might expect from the description of the family tree, the Baroness loved her brother more than any other men and her incestuous affinities may well have ignited Hilarie’s incestuous feelings for her uncle/father as well. The incestuous family circle described here includes a brother and his sister and their children, who are their shared offspring. And most disturbingly in this scenario, the daughter’s love for her uncle is actually, according to the family circle outlined here, quite likely her love for her father.97 The relationships between these three family members become even more disturbing as the sister, brother, and child/niece come together right after this explication of their circling incestuous connections, and: “All three united together in One love.”98 Now, not only is the niece/ daughter loving her uncle/father, not only is the uncle/father loving his niece/daughter, not only are the brother and sister loving each other, but the daughter and mother are loving each other as well. The circling of their desires has encompassed and enclosed them all in one love with multiple, disturbing incestuous relationships to one another. In this context, it is interesting to recall the total abjection of the Harfner’s incestuous relationship to Sperata in the Lehrjahre. Here, in contrast, the family obsessed with preserving its economic wealth feels that incestuous relationships are acceptable, and the sister and her brother and the daughter/niece come together in a three-fold incestuous family as their family tree continually circles back upon itself. Goethe presents here a most disturbing critique of an aristocratic and economically driven family that folds back into itself and embraces incest. While the sister and brother had originally planned for their son and daughter (cousins/siblings) to marry each other to save their wealth, now the sister, brother, and daughter/niece have come together, as three in One love, representing multiple levels of incest. This threesome, however, is further complicated as the sister and brother begin to consider the Major’s son and how he will react to his father marrying the cousin/sister originally destined to marry him. aus dieser Vorliebe der Mutter, wo nicht entsprungen, doch gewiß genährt worden.” MA, 17, 411. 97 Koschorke, “Die Textur,” 594, claims that Goethe lets Hilarie want to marry her uncle who stands in for the father. As we have seen, Hilarie’s “uncle” is her father according to the family tree described by him to Hilarie. 98 “Alle drei vereinigten sich nunmehr in Einer Liebe …” MA, 17, 411.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  171 The son is not at all disturbed, by losing his promised cousin-sisterwife, because, as he asserts: “I think of Hilarie as a dear relative, with whom I can have a friendly relationship for my whole life; but someone else has stirred my passion, and captivated my affinities.”99 The son (Flavio) reminds his father that Hilarie is a “dear relative,” and then reveals that he is in love and that his desire is for a woman outside of their biological tree, who has caught his affinities. He then, however, also encourages his father to marry Hilarie and to assist him in arranging his marriage to the young widow, with whom he has fallen in love. Complicating their relationships even further, Flavio’s father goes to the young widow’s estate with his son to meet her. The beautiful widow focuses on the father throughout their visit, and after the father leaves “he wished to still see her, to hear her, to see her again.” The son stays with the beautiful widow longer and then returns home to his father and claims that the young widow’s respect for his father has made it possible for them to come together: “Your presence, my father, has done wonders.”100 The son explains that after the father left, he went to the young widow’s room and expressed his love for her. He dared suddenly “to grab her hand, to kiss this delicate hand, and to press it against my heart” and he asked her if she loves him: “If an affinity for this happy person standing before you lives in this beautiful heart; don’t hide it any longer, disclose it, confess it!” She does not reply to him, and as he pressed her further he suggested that he should send his father to her again, and her response was: “Not one word about it to him! … Leave, forget what has happened.”101 The son clearly does not see that the young widow may not be drawn to him at all. She expresses no affinities for him and remains silent when he reveals his affinities for her. In addition, the son does not even seem to hear her insistence that he should go away, forget all of this, and not talk to his father about it. The beautiful widow, like the pilgrim woman and like Hersilie, asserts herself and does not give in to the son’s pressure to express feelings of love back to him. 99 “Ich gedenke Hilariens als einer liebenswürdigen Anverwandten, mit der ich Zeitlebens in den freundschaftlichsten Verhältnissen stehen möchte; aber eine andere hat meine Leidenschaft erregt, meine Neigung gefesselt.” MA, 17, 412. 100 “Er wünschte sie noch zu sehen, zu hören, sie wieder zu sehen” MA, 17, 416, and “Ihre Gegenwart, mein Vater, hat Wunder getan” MA, 17, 417. 101 “ihre Hand zu fassen, diese zarte Hand zu küssen, sie an mein Herz zu drücken” and “Wenn in diesem schönen Herzen eine Neigung wohnt für den Glücklichen, der vor dir steht; so verhülle sie nicht länger, offenbare sie, gestehe sie!” and “Kein Wort mit ihm darüber! … Entfernen Sie sich, vergessen Sie, was geschehen ist.” MA, 17, 417.

172  Goethe’s Families of the Heart In spite of her silence, the son ultimately returns to his father and asserts that everything is in order, and that she will marry him because of his father’s influence on her: “The respect that my beloved has for you conquered any doubt, and the son would never have had such a favorable moment, if the father had not prepared it.”102 The suggestion is that the young widow may marry the son because she honors his father. The father and son discuss this further and decide that the father should pursue his connection to Hilarie and the son should continue his efforts to attach with the beautiful widow. Nonetheless, despite their plans, the multiple and disturbing affinities expressed by the Major and Baroness’s family became so overwhelming that they separated from one another and have not heard from one another in some time: “All of the family members had remained without specific news of each other already for several months.”103 Then suddenly Flavio (the son) bursts back into the home of the Baroness and her daughter, asking where his father is: “Flavio dashed in—a ghastly figure—confusing head on which the hair was partially hanging down soaked with rain, tattered clothes as if they had gone through thorns and dense foliage, storming through, dreadfully dirty, as if he had waded through sludge and a quagmire. ‘My father!’ he yelled out. ‘Where is my father!’”104 Flavio returns from his wandering crazy, totally filthy, and determined to find his father. We should remember, in this context, that the crazy pilgrim woman was labeled crazy, but here Flavio is described as crazy and storming back to the family. Flavio is clearly presented as more crazy than the pilgrim woman and returns to his family as a thoroughly deranged traveler. Flavio is then told that his father is not there, but that his aunt and the niece are there. Flavio further complicates the mirroring biological, incestuous relationships which are haunting them all when he greets his aunt the next morning and calls her “dearest aunt,” but then turns to Hilarie and says: “greetings, dear sister.” Hilarie’s initial heavenly calmness is disturbed as she grapples with “the designation sister.” If Flavio can call Hilarie his “sister,” rather than his cousin, then the 102 “Die Achtung meiner Geliebten für Sie hat jeden Zweifel besiegt, und niemals würde der Sohn einen so glücklichen Augenblick gefunden haben, wenn ihn der Vater nicht vorbereitet hätte” MA, 17, 418. 103 “Schon einige Monate waren die sämtlichen Familienglieder ohne besondere Nachricht von einander geblieben …” MA, 17, 430. 104 “Flavio stürzte herein in schauderhafter Gestalt, verworrenes Hauptes, auf dem die Haare teils … vom Regen durchnäßt niederhingen; zerfetztes Kleides wie eines der durch Dorn und Dikkicht, durchgestürmt, greulich beschmutzt, als durch Schlamm und Sumpf herangewadet. ‘Mein Vater!’ rief er aus, ‘wo ist mein Vater!’” MA,17, 433.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  173 incestuous nature of their future, possible marriage becomes even more apparent. Hilarie’s mother notices that Hilarie’s facial expressions, in reaction to Flavio’s comment, suggest that she is so disturbed and horrified that she looks “as if the dear child, had seen the gates of hell open before her and saw for the first time and forever a monstrosity.”105 Hilarie reacts to being called “sister” by Flavio as if hell had just opened before her, and she definitely recognizes the incestuous implications of being not just Flavio’s cousin but actually his sister, not just biologically but also in his heart. Hilarie’s total discomfort around Flavio increases as she realizes more and more how much he mirrors his father. She sees an old picture of the father and is taken aback when she sees their similarity. The son also wears his father’s clothes and, for Hilarie, their similarity is haunting: “Certainly for Hilarie the similarity between the young image of the father and the fresh lively presence of the son remained uncanny, yes oppressive.”106 Hilarie is haunted by the creepy resemblances of Flavio and his father and “felt suddenly an irresistible desire, to leave on a journey right away …”107 Hilarie and Flavio are spending more and more time together, and the convergence of their relationships and affinities: “became ever more alarming.” Nonetheless and/or because of that concern, Hilarie and Flavio are wandering around the estate: “suddenly together, suddenly alone, suddenly separated, suddenly united.” And finally, they also seem to be acting out their ultimate “dividing and shunning” of one another.108 Even more evidence of their underlying feelings of discomfort about their relationship emerges shortly thereafter as Hilarie and Flavio are wandering around outside together. They notice the figure of a man that swirls around them “the figure circled more than once around the frightened pair,” and then suddenly it stands before them and is “the father.” The “ghost” of the uncle/father who haunts Hilarie (and any relationship between Flavio and Hilarie) just circled around and materialized before them. Hilarie falls down in front of Flavio and her uncle/father, who then leaves to get a sled to bring them home. Once he is gone, Hilarie says to Flavio: “let us flee … I cannot bear this.” Not knowing how to deal with this 105 “liebste Tante” and “Gegrüßt, liebe Schwester” and “Die Benennung Schwester” and “als wenn das liebe Kind die Pforten der Hölle vor sich eröffnet sähe, zum erstenmal ein Ungeheures erblickte und für ewig.” MA, 17, 435. 106 “Für Hilarien freilich blieb die Ähnlichkeit des jugendlichen Vaterbildes mit der frischen Lebensgegenwart des Sohnes unheimlich, ja bedrängend.” MA, 17, 438. 107 “empfand auf einmal ein unwiderstehliches Verlangen, gleichfalls eine Fahrt zu unternehmen …” MA, 17, 441. 108 “ward immer bedenklicher” and “bald zusammen, bald einzeln, bald getrennt, bald vereint” and “Scheiden und meiden” MA, 17, 441–2.

174  Goethe’s Families of the Heart situation, Hilarie did not ultimately run away but, finally: “hid herself in her room.”109 Despite all of the insinuations and realizations that the relationships between the Major (uncle/father), Baroness (sister/mother), Flavio, and Hilarie are disturbing and incestuous, the parents continue to waffle over how to proceed. The uncle/father in particular is also confused and is sliding between feelings of discomfort about his relationship with Hilarie: “He felt the unpleasantness of a shift from first lover to an affectionate father” and he also feels himself drawn to Hilarie as a lover, given “her heavenly confessed affinity.” Moreover he envisions the “unified young pair” and their bliss, but also his own loss: “himself abandoned in a dismal state” should they come together.110 While her uncle/father is trying to figure out what to do, Hilarie: “remained adamantly in her room.” The family that is trying to come together is splitting, indeed: “the family hoping for a closer unification held itself confounded and apart.” The uncle and the aunt take this opportunity to discuss the situation and decide that Hilarie and Flavio should be married: “they found nothing more natural than … to bring about a connection between the two children.”111 The Baroness then goes to Hilarie and tries to convince her to marry Flavio by telling her first how her brother (Hilarie’s uncle/father) is worthy of love and evokes love, affinities, and passion. She then shifts to the son and even though she: “did not find so laudable arguments for the younger one, as she knew to introduce for the father, therefore, she held essentially to the similarities of both of them.”112 The Baroness tries to convince Hilarie to marry Flavio, because he is similar to the father/uncle she was originally drawn to by her elective affinities. The father and son become, in her analysis, interchangeable. Hilarie refuses to consider this possibility, asserts herself, and highlights for her mother with energy, and truthfully, the “indecent, yes criminal 109 “die Gestalt umkreiste mehr als einmal das beängstigte Paar.” and was “den Vater” and “laß uns fliehen … das ertrag’ ich nicht” and “verbarg sich in ihr Zimmer” MA, 17, 444. 110 “Er empfand das Unangenehme eines Überganges vom ersten Liebhaber zum zärtlichen Vater” and “ihre himmlisch ausgesprochene Neigung” and “vereintes junges Paar” and “sich selbst im düstersten Zustande überlassen” MA, 17, 446–7. 111 “blieb hartnäckig auf ihrem Zimmer” and “auf nähre Vereinigung hoffende Familie hielt sich bestürzt auseinander” MA, 17, 447, and “sie fanden nichts natürlicher, als … eine Verbindung beider Kinder einzuleiten” MA, 17, 449. 112 “nicht so rühmliche Argumente für den jüngeren fand, als sie für den Vater anzuführen gewußt hatte, so hielt sie sich hauptsächlich an die Ähnlichkeit beider” MA, 17, 449.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  175 nature of such a bond.”113 Hilarie finally says openly how indecent and criminal the parents’ marriage plans for her and Flavio are. It is important to stress that the merging of the father’s and son’s identities is being constructed by the Baroness/mother for Hilarie, and that Hilarie definitely sees significant differences between the two men in addition to their uncanny similarities. It is also important to note that the mother is defining them as interchangeable, and Hilarie is actually vehemently rejecting the conflation of the two and any connection with Flavio as a substitute for the uncle. After this, the sister and the brother decide that Hilarie might change her mind and they decide to wait. While they wait, the brother feels total despair as he considers how he “would always feel hurt, if Hilarie really chose the son for herself.” The sister, in contrast: “waited day in and day out for her daughter’s change of mind, but in vain.”114 Hilarie continues to refuse the marriage plans of her mother and uncle/father, which she feels are indecent and criminal. As the family comes to a standstill, the text shifts back to Wilhelm. Wilhelm has been traveling, has found Nachodine, and has reported back to Lenardo that she is well-cared for and that he can finally let her go. While traveling around, Wilhelm has also heard about the story of Hilarie’s family and wants to see Hilarie and the beautiful widow before wandering away from their area. Wilhelm decides to go to these women and brings with him a painter to whom his elective affinities drew him as they met: “Both adapt to one another very quickly and confide to each other their affinities, intentions, and resolutions …” and Wilhelm discovers that: “now he melded most closely with his new friend, and learned, as receptive as he was, to see the world through his eyes.” It is interesting to note that Wilhelm and the painter are also drawn together by their shared fascination with Mignon. The painter, like Wilhelm, is: “passionately taken in … by Mignon’s destinies, figure, and character” and he has painted her many times.115 Once again, two adults (this time two men) are connected to one another through their shared affinities for a child. After they are connected through their affinities, Wilhelm and his painter/partner move on together to meet Hilarie and the beautiful widow. 113 “das Unschickliche, ja Verbrecherische einer solchen Verbindung.” MA, 17, 450. 114 Brother: “würde sich immer verletzt fühlen, wenn Hilarie sich wirklich für den Sohn entschiede …” and sister: “wartete tagtäglich, aber vergebens, auf die Sinnesänderung ihrer Tochter” MA, 17, 451–2. 115 “Beide schicken sich gar bald in einander, vertrauen sich wechselseitig Neigungen, Absichten, Vorsätze …” and “nun verschmolz er aber mit seinem neuen Freunde aufs innigste, und lernte, empfänglich wie er war, mit dessen Augen die Welt sehen” and “leidenschaftlich eingenommen … von Mignons Schicksalen, Gestalt und Wesen” MA, 17, 457–9.

176  Goethe’s Families of the Heart As soon as Wilhelm and the painter arrive, they go together with Hilarie and the beautiful widow on a boat, and “the female pair” and “the male” pair begin to cement their relationships with one another.116 These couples spend a few days together, sailing on boats, exploring islands, enjoying the nature around them, and creating and discussing art. On their last evening together, as the two pairs begin to anticipate their separation, a singer joins them and begins to sing Mignon’s song: “Kennst du das Land?” Hilarie is shocked and rushes away from this scene. Given her own story, one might wonder if she leaves because Mignon reminds her of the consequences of incest and her own family story of incest. As Hilarie flees away, the beautiful widow, the young man (painter), and Wilhelm get up and follow her. And as they all come together, they can no longer contain their affinities for one another: “As all four of them now stood opposite of each other in the high moon light, their shared affection could no longer be concealed. The women threw themselves into each other’s arms, the men embraced each other and Luna was the witness of the most noble and chaste tears.”117 As the four come together here, the women fall into each other’s arms and the men hang on each other’s necks, and they can no longer hide their emotions. Their feelings have drawn them into same-sex pairs. They come together spontaneously and their relationships are positive. They have transcended the civil, aristocratic, and economic norms and have followed their hearts to each other, and, quite tellingly, the Baroness (sister, mother) and the Major (uncle, father, brother) are not present. Nonetheless, the women and men hugging each other slowly realize the impossibility of their relationships: “Some reflection first came back to them slowly, they pulled themselves apart, silently, with strange feelings and wishes, for which their hope was already cut off.”118 Their elective affinities drew them spontaneously together, but once they start to think about their situation, they pull themselves away from each other and lose hope. The next day as Wilhelm and the artist prepare to continue their wandering away from this paradise, they go to say goodbye to the two women, only to discover that they have already left. Moreover, the women left a note with: “the strict demand, that one neither follow the girlfriends, nor search for them anywhere, yes, and if they met by 116 “das weibliche Paar” and “das männliche” MA, 17, 461. 117 “Und als sie nun alle viere im hohen Mondschein sich gegenüber standen, war die allgemeine Rührung nicht mehr zu verhehlen. Die Frauen warfen sich einander in die Arme, die Männer umhalsten sich und Luna ward Zeuge, der edelsten, keuschesten Tränen.” MA, 17, 469–70. 118 “Einige Besinnung kehrte langsam erst zurück, man zog sich auseinander, schweigend, unter seltsamen Gefühlen und Wünschen, denen doch die Hoffnung schon abgeschnitten war.” MA, 17, 470.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  177 chance, that they would want to faithfully avoid one another.”119 Hilarie and the beautiful widow are resisting being drawn back into their potential relationships with these men, including the Major, Flavio, Wilhelm, and the painter. Hilarie has openly rejected the family plans that are fundamentally incestuous, and she and the beautiful widow have left that life behind and have escaped right after falling into each other arms and realizing that they are a pair. They also suggest that the only way to avoid the suffocating, incestuous family configurations of the Baroness and the Major is for them to take off together with no warning, and without leaving any information about where they have gone. They have fled, they may be wandering, and they do not want their “families” to find them. Their noble and chaste relationship, their pair, is one of elective affinities between women and they flee in order to stay together. Much later in the novel, as we are given an account of several wanderers we have not heard about in some time, Goethe also mentions Hilarie for the first time again. She is now married (we are given no details about how that happened) to a man named Silvio. While scholars have traditionally claimed that Silvio is Flavio, I would argue that that is very unlikely given that Hilarie had felt hell opening up in front of her at the very thought of marrying Flavio, had described that possible relationship as criminal and indecent, and had fled with the beautiful widow in order to avoid that possibility.120 In addition, the incestuous 119 “harte Forderung, daß man den Freundinnen weder folgen, noch sie irgendwo aufsuchen, ja, wenn man sich zufällig begegnete, einander treulich ausweichen wolle.” MA, 17, 470. 120 See the notes in the Münchner Ausgabe (MA, 17, 1201) in which it is pointed out that in earlier editions of Goethe’s Wanderjahre the name Silvio was changed to Flavio. In the Münchner Ausgabe they leave Silvio in the text, but suggest in the notes that Silvio must be Flavio because the Major (uncle/father) in this later account is referred to as “father.” The assumption is that the Major is Flavio’s father, so the vague reference to “father” here identifies Silvio as Flavio. Actually, the reference to “father” here has several additional resonances to the earlier passages in the story of Der Mann von funfzig Jahren. For example, the Major is also presented as Hilarie’s father in the description of the family tree, and when the uncle/father waffled about his feelings for Hilarie, he referred to himself first as her lover and then as her “affectionate father.” Both of these references also explain the vague remark in this later context. In other words, the mention of “father” does not necessarily refer to Flavio’s father. Given Hilarie’s total rejection of Flavio as a potential husband, and her description of their potential relationship as “criminal” and “indecent,” it is much more likely that Silvio is not Flavio, but another man. Scholars have traditionally assumed that Silvio is Flavio. See for example, Koschorke, “Die Textur,” 593; Brown, Goethe’s Cyclical Narratives, 67; Herwig, Das ewig Männliche, 198; Barbara Thums, “Diätetische Toilettenkunst und organische (Selbst-) Bildung: Goethes Der Mann von funfzig Jahren,” in Sexualität, Recht, Leben: Die Entstehung eines

178  Goethe’s Families of the Heart family plans are presented as being overcome as the pair (Hilarie and Silvio) go to the uncle/father’s house “in order to release/free the father, the Major from the house.”121 Given that this pair has come back to release and free Hilarie’s uncle/father from his house and all of the incestuous circles it created, it would also be essential that Flavio not be one of the partners. Without him, Hilarie and Silvio come to the uncle’s house to free him, and the woman he is now married to, from that incestuous house. In fact, we are also told that the uncle is then married to “that irresistible one.”122 If, as scholars have maintained, the uncle is now married to the beautiful widow, that further complicates the relationships in several ways. While the uncle was described earlier as being drawn to the widow, she was alluded to as irresistible for Flavio and for Hilarie. Describing her now as irresistible reminds us that she is irresistible, and especially for Hilarie. Indeed, in contrast to the uncle’s affinities and Flavio’s, the affinities between Hilarie and the beautiful widow compelled them to flee, to escape the uncle/father’s house and family plans, and to wander around together for an extensive amount of time. Moreover, the text suggests that the widow’s irresistibility may well be what is drawing Hilarie back to the uncle/father’s house. In this context, it is important to note that Hilarie’s relationship to her husband, Silvio, is also questionable. We are told upfront that Silvio “appeared to have completely captivated her affinities.”123 Silvio seems to have attracted Hilarie’s affinities, but perhaps not. Silvio’s questionable connection to Hilarie suggests that their relationship fetters her to a heterosexual structure that does not allow for her open love relationship with the beautiful widow. In this context, Hilarie’s freeing of the uncle from his house, and the wandering the four partners will then engage in, is a way for them to be together in what appears to be a heterosexually based group of four wanderers. As Hilarie, the beautiful widow, Silvio, and the uncle/father are drawn together, the four of them will continue to wander outside of the suffocating structures of the incestuous, economic family plans from which they have escaped. In other words, they have not returned to stay in the uncle/father’s house, they are escaping from it, and they will continue to wander.124 Hilarie and the beautiful widow, like Stella and Cezilie in Dispositivs um 1800, ed. Maximilian Bergengruen, Johannes F. Lehmann, and Hubert Thüring (München: Fink, 2005), 311–12, and Arthur Henkel, Entsagung: Eine Studie zu Goethes Altersroman (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1964), 84. I would argue that Hilarie is not married to Flavio, but to Silvio, and returns to be with the widow with whom she had been wandering. 121 “um den Vater, den Major vom Hause abzulösen” MA, 17, 666. 122 “jener Unwiderstehlichen,” MA, 17, 666. 123 “schien vollkommen ihre Neigung zu fesseln” MA, 17, 665. 124 Sow argues that this final rearrangement of their relationships and marriages

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  179 Stella. A Play for Lovers, may be coming together behind a cloak, that is, a masquerade of relationships that hides and secures their same-sex relationship. Once again, a wandering group finds a way to stay together connected to one another through multiple affinities. Hilarie, the beautiful widow, Silvio, and the uncle/father will stay together, will escape from the house of incest, and will keep on wandering and defying incestuous family structures, as they appear to be connected to each other through typical heterosexual connections.

5. Die Neue Melusine

As Wilhelm continues his travels, he meets a barber who gives him the next story of family. The barber offers the story of Die Neue Melusine (The New Melusine) as his own story. Like Hersilie, he appears to be offering this story as one that will highlight his own experiences of family and relationships. Intriguingly, the main character of this story is a woman who is a dwarf and can transform herself into a human-sized woman by wearing a magical ring. Before the narrator of the story meets her, she is traveling around completely alone (like the pilgrim woman) in search of a future husband. She envisions this husband as one who will “regenerate” and “immortalize” her family “clan.”125 Melusine is presented as the aristocratic model woman supporting the continuance of her family line and its economic wealth. As the narrator first meets this traveling, mysterious girl, he is immediately drawn to her, but this woman refuses to express any affinities for him. He stresses continually how she “sought to reject anything that was related to affinities and love.” Even when he embraces her, and refers to her as “an irresistible being,” she pulls herself out of his arms and insists: “Hold back with such outbursts of a sudden passionate affinity.”126 She then tells him she must test him first, before she would consider any affinities for him. The narrator agrees immediately to be tested. The woman then gives him a small chest and money and he presses his lips on her hands. Throughout indicates that renunciation is a condition of social participation. Alioune Sow, “Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre. Bilder einer vormodernen und Vorschein einer modernen Gesellschaft,” in Interkulturelle Texturen: Afrika und Deutschland im Reflexionsmedium der Literatur, ed. M. Moustapha Diallo and Dirk Göttsche (Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 2003), 293. I would argue that the women who escaped the incestuous family plans and wandered together extensively, have now come back together like the women in Stella, as lovers hidden behind the “masquerade” of heterosexual marriages. 125 “erneuern” and “verewigen” her family “Stamm” MA, 17, 599. 126 “suchte sie alles abzulehnen was sich auf Neigung und Liebe bezog” and “unwiderstehliches Wesen!” and “Halten Sie solche Ausbrüche einer plötzlichen leidenschaftlichen Neigung zurück.” MA, 17, 585.

180  Goethe’s Families of the Heart their encounters the woman is holding herself back, while the man is expressing his elective affinities.127 The woman finally orders him to travel to their next meeting point. Intriguingly, in this story it is the woman who is in total charge of her family’s future, money, the direction of the man’s travels, establishes their relationship based on money, and is consistently focused on the welfare and wealth of her family line and not on a love relationship with the narrator.128 She has clearly subsumed the typical role of aristocratic fathers/ families and is not protesting this structure but participating in, and forwarding, it.129 Throughout his story, the narrator is fascinated by the woman and by her money. In fact, he admits that he loves them both and believes he is “not able to live anymore without her and without her money.”130 The narrator reveals not only his feelings for the mysterious woman but also his desire for her money and the confusing fascination money has for him. He continues, however, to also insist upon the relationship of feelings that is developing between himself and this mysterious woman. After she magically heals several wounds he receives in a fight over her, he asserts that: “Now we were the happiest pair in the world.”131 Intriguingly, there is no evidence in the text of the woman’s feelings, and no moment described when they spontaneously express their feelings for one another. The narrator simply recounts that her feelings are in accord with his own. Following this scene, he relates that she agrees to travel on with him, does travel with him for several days, and then one day he wakes up and she is gone. Right after this he discovers that she is a dwarf and feels himself estranged from her, and while he waffles about his feelings he is beginning to realize that “and so I loved my beautiful one much less 127 Bäumer states that Melusine remains quiet in a calculating manner, in order to attain her goals. I would agree and would also stress that this also highlights her lack of spontaneous elective affinities. Konstanze Bäumer, “Wiederholte Spiegelungen-Goethes ‘Mignon’ und die ‘Neue Melusine,’” in Goethes Mignon und ihre Schwestern: Interpretationen und Rezeption, ed. Gerhart Hoffmeister (New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 122. 128 Bäumer, “Wiederholte Spiegelungen,” 116, notes that Melusine is actively choosing a father for her purposes, and she knows how to fetter him to herself. Keppler emphasizes the symptoms of a profoundly disturbed gender relation manifest through Melusine’s power, both in terms of being the mother of a future heir to the throne and her own position as a female ruler. Stefan Keppler, “Im Bahn der Melusine: Goethes Mythenrezeption unter den Bedingungen seines Mittelaltersbildes,” Goethe Jahrbuch 123 (2006): 35–6. 129 In this sense, Melusine is like the Beautiful Soul, when she assists her uncle in planning her sister’s life. 130 “nicht mehr ohne sie und ohne ihr Geld leben zu können” MA, 17, 587. 131 “Nun waren wir das glücklichste Paar von der Welt.” MA, 17, 589.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  181 after that unlucky discovery.”132 She then returns and tells him her family story, how she is a dwarf, a princess, the work that her family and race are devoted to, and the family’s loss of her brother, who was born so small that wardresses lost him, and no one knows where he is. Her family concern is clearly to save her family heritage, to find a man who will increase the physical size of their progeny, and to secure their wealth.133 As she continues to interact with the narrator, he admits: “I wanted to hold her hand” and “she pushed me back and threatened me.”134 Unlike the other traveling women in the Wanderjahre, this one acts like, and in the interest of, her male-dominated aristocratic family, and love is not a concern for her. She does not refuse to connect with a man she is not drawn to, but just the opposite. She comes together with the narrator and works to secure him as her future husband despite her lack of feelings for him, but in accord with her family’s plans. Her focus is on finding the man who will strengthen and save her aristocratic family. Ultimately, the narrator recounts that he joins the mysterious woman’s family, agrees to wear the ring she gives him (that makes him as small as she is), and that her father/the king suddenly announces that they will be married. The narrator (in spite of the affinities he has expressed for the woman up to this point) is shocked and fearful when their marriage is discussed. He decides that he will leave and hide himself somewhere, but he doesn’t, and they are married. Tellingly, the narrator recounts nothing about the ceremony and insists: “Let me remain silent about all the ceremonies; enough we were married.”135 Marriage is not presented here as a happy occasion and/ or as the coming together of persons drawn to one another through their elective affinities. The woman never expresses any affinities for the narrator, either before or after they are married. In addition, the narrator ultimately describes his marriage with the dwarf woman in terms of his unhappiness. But even more significantly, he outlines how the marriage destroyed his sense of self: “I had an ideal image 132 “so liebte ich nach jener unglücklichen Entdeckung meine Schönheit viel weniger” MA, 17, 593. 133 Herwig, Das ewig Männliche, 277, argues that Melusine is controlled by a foreign will. Lubkoll stresses how Melusine is determined by the power of her father. As we have seen, Melusine is actually accepting, participating in, and adhering to her family’s aristocratic plans. Christine Lubkoll, “In den Kasten gesteckt: Goethe’s ‘Neue Melusine,’” in Sehnsucht und Sirene: Vierzehn Abhandlungen zu Wasserphantasien, ed. Irmgard Roebling (Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus, 1992), 51. 134 “Ich wollte sie bei der Hand fassen” and she “stieß mich zurück und bedrohte mich” MA, 17, 600. 135 “Laßt mich nun von allen Zeremonien schweigen; genug wir waren verheiratet.” MA, 17, 603.

182  Goethe’s Families of the Heart of myself and appeared to myself sometimes in dreams as a giant. Enough, the woman, the ring, the dwarf figure, so many other tethers made me absolutely unhappy, so that I began to think in earnest about my extrication from this.”136 He describes his marriage here in terms of multiple, self-erasing fetters that imprison him. The narrator finally frees himself by cutting the ring, the greatest shackle, from his finger and returning to his ideal human size. He ultimately escapes from the aristocratic family plans that shackled him and destroyed his ideal sense of himself. Intriguingly, in this story, the man is positioned as the outsider, the stranger who is drawn into the woman’s family plans. He is essentially portrayed in the position that many daughters and sons in the Lehrjahre and Wanderjahre have typically been destined to assume as they were drawn into families controlled and planned by parents, fathers, grandfathers, sisters, and uncles. Here, the dwarf woman controls the relationship, brings the narrator into her family, and works with (as opposed to against) the male-dominated family initiatives. The dwarf woman does not represent the kind of women we have seen in the other stories in the Wanderjahre like Hilarie, the pilgrim woman, and Hersilie who are asserting themselves and acting in accord with their feelings. In contrast, she expresses no feelings of love and works to support the father/man-dominated family structure with its concentration on heritage and economic strength. In fact, the new Melusine is actually the old model, representing the daughter who accepts her family’s marriage plans, works with them, and does not love the man she is pursuing in order to preserve her family line. She is clearly contrasted to the more radical women of the previous stories in the Wanderjahre. Moreover, here the loveless family plans are presented in terms of their total disregard for love as they threaten to completely destroy the narrator’s self-image. In this story, Goethe highlights openly for the reader how devastating aristocratic family plans can be, and how they can destroy one’s essence and ideal sense of self. Furthermore, the narrative positions the reader in the place of the narrator, seeing the effects of the aristocratic family plans directly from his perspective. The presentation of the entire story from the male narrator’s perspective positions the reader to identify with his feelings, his sense of self-loss, and his ultimate sense of joy when he is freed from the squishing effects of aristocratic marriage plans and views. At the same time, the reader does not identify with the woman who supports aristocratic plans, has no feelings of affinity for 136 “Ich hatte ein Ideal von mir selbst und erschien mir manchmal im Traum wie eine Riese. Genug, die Frau, der Ring, die Zwergenfigur, so viele andere Bande machten mich ganz und gar unglücklich, daß ich auf meine Befreiung im Ernst zu denken begann.” MA, 17, 604.

Asserting and Affirming All Elective Affinities  183 the man she forces into her family, and does not assert herself in defiance of such family missions. Ultimately, the narrator and reader learn that any marriage planned without regard for elective affinities is totally crushing and obliterating for both women and men. Here as in Wer ist der Verräter, Goethe highlights that family plans that disregard elective affinities are not just annihilating for women and daughters (typically drawn into their husband’s families), but for men and sons as well. Throughout the Wanderjahre, Wilhelm and the reader are confronted with the stories of wanderers who are asserting and insisting upon the rightness of their own affinities, and who do not let aristocratic and civil family structures and plans draw them into relationships and families that threaten to deny who they are as persons and that prevent them from following their affinities. Joseph and Marie assert the holiness of their adoptive family and insist that they are like Mary and Joseph. Their family mirrors that of the Christ child, and they also expand their family to include Wilhelm and Felix as they all come together around their newborn child. Joseph and Marie insist that the holiest family is one of elective affinities and one that comes together around and with the child in the middle. Biological relations are portrayed as not necessary for family building. Families come together through the elective affinities of parents and their children and sometimes the elective affinities that draw couples and families together are same-sex, nonexclusive, and adoptive. In Wer ist der Verräter two fathers come together and plan their children’s lives in order to cement their family connections and to further their economic objectives. But unlike so many other fathers, who insist upon their original plans, these two fathers acknowledge their mistake in pairing Lucidor with Julie, rearrange their marriage plans in accord with the affinities of the four young persons, and preserve their family. Subsequently, Lucidor and Lucinde, Julie and Antoni come together in loving relationships. Hilarie and the beautiful widow assert their elective affinities as well, come together as a pair, and escape from the incestuous family that threatens to entrap them. They flee together as a same-sex couple. In a similar manner, the wandering pilgrim woman leaves her family and frees herself from the Revannes (both father and son), who vie for her love. The wandering, pilgrim woman, like Hilarie and the beautiful widow, insists on being who she is and escapes from the men who are trapping her in their distorted family plans. In each of these stories, the characters as wanderers, like Wilhelm in the Lehrjahre and Wanderjahre, have freed themselves from suffocating family plans, embrace their affinities, and assert the rightness of their feelings. They do not let themselves be determined by civil and/or aristocratic structures and plans.

184  Goethe’s Families of the Heart In addition, each of the stories in the Wanderjahre affirms the rightness and acceptability of all affinities. Plans for relationships that do not take into account the fundamental importance of elective affinities are bound to create unhappy, broken, and devastating relationships and families. In contrast, elective affinities, whether heterosexual, adoptive, same-sex and/or nonexclusive, are highlighted throughout the Wanderjahre as the crucial loving foundation for all relationships and families. The point is made over and over again that everyone must follow their affinities and, if they do, they will be drawn into the purest, most wonderful love.

Conclusion

Throughout Goethe’s literary production from as early as Stella in 1776 to the Wanderjahre in 1829, elective affinities are a crucial and central theme. Not only are elective affinities carefully described and highlighted, but they are also embraced and confirmed regardless of whether they are adoptive, same-sex, and/or nonexclusive, and as they draw together lovers, families, and group families as well. All affinities are acknowledged and welcomed. In fact, one of the most revealing moments concerning elective affinities occurs in the Wanderjahre as Wilhelm finally realizes his “purpose.”1 He suddenly becomes aware that he is destined to find out what obstacles there are to loving relationships and to figure out how to remove those obstacles: “I should research, what holds noble souls apart, should clear away obstacles of whatever kind they are.”2 Wilhelm’s goal, his purpose in life, is to find out what obstacles are undoing elective affinities and to remove them. Intriguingly, as we have seen, Goethe highlights that same desire to understand, support, and to confirm all elective affinities throughout his literary production. Indeed, Goethe clearly foregrounds the obstacles to loving families and portrays characters who are vigorously clearing away obstacles to their love. Goethe’s Storm and Stress play Stella literally sets the stage for his life-long literary exploration of elective affinities, his ever-increasing explication of the civil, aristocratic, and economic obstacles to love and family, and his consistent foregrounding of couples and families that escape and transcend social and cultural norms in order to acknowledge and connect in loving relationships in accord with their affinities. In Stella, two loving women come together as they manipulate the man whom they are destined to be with, because of social and cultural mandates that do not recognize the validity of their affinities. 1 “Absicht” MA, 17, 351. 2 “Ich soll erforschen, was edle Seelen auseinander hält, soll Hindernisse wegräumen von welcher Art sie auch seien.” MA, 17, 351.

186  Goethe’s Families of the Heart At the same time, their strong affinities for each other, their loving care of adopted and fostered girls, and their confusion about Fernando are expressed openly throughout the play. The audience is confronted with their souls and their love, and is shown how they get around the obstacles that would tear them apart from one another. In the Wahlverwandtschaften, elective affinities are discussed in minute detail, and the same-sex, nonexclusive, and heterosexual affinities alluded to in the text are foregrounded as equal and ever present. Eduard, Charlotte, and the Captain outline extensively how affinities work, how they draw lovers and families together instantaneously, and ultimately illustrate that affinities can also be adoptive, and that desires are fundamentally nonexclusive. Charlotte and Ottilie love children they have adopted and whom they care for as mothers. In addition, as we have seen, throughout Goethe’s literary production characters move spontaneously from heterosexual to same-sex relationships, and vice versa, as they encounter new persons and form new relationships and families. Moreover, the relationships in the Wahlverwandtschaften that might have materialized between the Captain and Charlotte and Ottilie and Eduard do not, because the characters cling to social and cultural mandates and do not allow themselves to be drawn into loving relationships of their hearts. At the same time, relationships between the Captain and Eduard and Ottilie and Charlotte are also alluded to, but the characters’ focus on the affinities between Eduard and Ottilie and the Captain and Charlotte undoes the potential liberating effects of their same-sex affinities and connections. They also do not come together (as other families do in the Lehrjahre and Wanderjahre) in a group family that acknowledges and accepts all of their affinities. In the Lehrjahre Wilhelm learns to stop obsessing over corporeal evidence and documents to prove his fatherhood. He realizes through his affinities that Felix is the son of his heart. He also brings Mignon and Friedrich into a wonderful family with the Harfner. Natalie and Therese are raising a number of girls together as well. Families with two fathers or two mothers are presented as ideal adoptive families of the heart. The framing stories in the Lehrjahre outlined clearly the multiple obstacles faced by loving couples and families. The Runaway Girl asserts her right to love the man with whom she has fled. After they are arrested she insists that they are not criminals, nor is she the prostitute that the court is defining her as. She and her lover cherish each other, and those opposing their relationship, both courts and father-planned families, are portrayed as the horrible people who do not know how to acknowledge true love. We also learned how Sperata and the Harfner fell in love without knowing they were siblings because their father did not want anyone

Conclusion 187 to ridicule him for having another child so late in life and had hid Sperata, giving her to a family in the country to raise. The church was also presented as heartless as a priest coached Sperata and caused her to feel her baby should not be alive, and she is ultimately happy when it dies. Courts, priests, fathers, and churches in the Lehrjahre deny the legitimacy of elective affinities and love. In addition, the Beautiful Soul (who is not a beautiful soul) outlines her obsession with biological inheritance and corporeal evidence of family relationships, and her total disregard of feelings. She has no love or compassion for her nieces and nephews after her sister’s death. And, indeed, she also joined in on her father’s and uncle’s marriage plans—that were against her sister’s affinities—convinced her sister to disregard her elective affinities, to give up her love relationship, and persuaded her to marry a man who made her miserable until she died in childbirth. The Beautiful Soul’s obsession with corporeal evidence and family heritage provides a clear counter example to Wilhelm as he struggles with, and ultimately transcends, his fixation on corporeal evidence of heritage and learns to listen to his heart and realize that Felix is his son. Ultimately, in the Lehrjahre, despite all of the father-induced economic obstacles to relationships based on elective affinities, Wilhelm finally learns to follow his elective affinities and comes together with Natalie, Therese, and Lothario around Felix. They form a group family at the end of the novel that is held together by multiple affinities to include: same-sex, heterosexual, essentially nonexclusive affinities, and adoptive feelings of the heart. In the Wanderjahre the radical suggestions about elective affinities and possible new model families are highlighted in even more daring terms as Wilhelm and Felix join Joseph and Mary in a holy, group family. This ideal family has two fathers, one mother, and children who are both biologically related to the parents and adoptive. Children are in the center of the families and draw the parents and families together. In addition, families come together through same-sex, heterosexual, and, once again, essentially nonexclusive elective affinities. All affinities are present and hold families together. The story of the Pilgernde Törin highlighted the radical traveling of a woman who does not share her secrets and/or her reasons for fleeing from her family. She also escapes from the men she meets while wandering and who threaten to entrap her in conflicting and suffocating relationships. Ultimately, she insists on her own wandering, on keeping her secrets, and determines her own destiny. In Wer ist der Verräter, two fathers form a family. They plan to have the one father’s son marry one of the other father’s daughters. When the son expresses his lack of affinity for the chosen daughter, the

188  Goethe’s Families of the Heart fathers correct their plan and let those children drawn by their elective affinities marry one another. Unlike so many biological, aristocratic, and father-determined families, and fathers in Goethe’s Lehrjahre and Wanderjahre, these two fathers correct their mistake and bring together the children who love one another. In the story of The Man of 50 Years, Hilarie and the beautiful widow are a loving pair and they flee the men who are pursuing them and trying to draw them into an incestuous family. They insist that no one follow them and they will continue to wander together. Later they return to free the father/uncle from his home/trap and will wander on with him and Silvio as a group that is escaping the restrictions of the incestuous circle of their family. These family stories in the Wanderjahre foregrounded new and challenging relationships and families based on all affinities (samesex, nonexclusive, heterosexual, and adoptive) that free them from the love-crushing realities of the civil and aristocratic families (like that of the New Melusine) from which they are escaping. Goethe’s literary texts pose questions about elective affinities of all kinds between women and women, men and men, and between biological, foster, and adoptive children and parents. His radical portrayals of the obstacles to love that civil and aristocratic social and cultural mandates create, and his consistent references to the ways that characters can remove these obstacles and follow their hearts, are relevant to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but also to the present day as well. For parents and families adopting children who might still wonder if they can love an adopted child as much as a biological one, Goethe’s literary texts provide an answer: yes, and point to the familial relationships established between parents and adoptive children by Natalie and Therese and by Stella and Cezilie with a number of girls. In addition, Wilhelm connects as a father of the heart through his affinities with Mignon, Friedrich, and Felix as he wanders through his Lehrjahre. In contrast to, and in answer to contemporary doubts about gay and lesbian families and whether they are “as acceptable” or “as good” as biological families, Goethe’s texts foreground repeatedly the wonderful families and the loving elective affinities that draw same-sex couples together and that form the foundation for their loving families. Throughout Goethe’s texts loving same-sex couples come together, and flee from, and undo, the conventional, aristocratic, and civil obstacles that would have precluded their relationships. In fact, these “radical” relationships are foregrounded throughout Goethe’s work as bringing together ideal families that transcend the civil and aristocratic family structures that disregard love and often force loving couples and families apart. In addition, Goethe’s literary production demonstrates consistently the belief that affinities are fluid and essentially nonexclusive. He

Conclusion 189 challenges the notion that a person’s desires are either heterosexual or same-sex, and frequently portrays characters who are expressing and following their nonexclusive affinities. Finally, Goethe also openly suggests that his underlying agenda (like that of Wilhelm, his central character in the Lehrjahre and Wanderjahre) is to not only outline the obstacles to love that his characters face but to also demonstrate how to remove any and all impediments. In this context, it is intriguing to note, as Peter Schwartz does, that Goethe was operating on the principle that, after Jena, new family configurations (including his own marriage to Christiane Vulpius) were necessary. Schwartz also highlights that Johann Caspar Voght recalled a visit with Goethe in which Goethe stated that: “The old ways are over and done with, he said, it was the duty of all to help build the new.”3 This is exactly the position that Goethe alludes to throughout his literary texts, and not just after Jena (1806), but also as early as Stella (1776) and as late as the Wanderjahre (1829) as he outlines the fundamental need to remove all obstacles to all love relationships including heterosexual, same-sex, nonexclusive, group, and adoptive families. Indeed, Goethe’s literary texts provide the kind of counter discourse that Foucault maintains will arise to thwart the dominating discourses of any time period. And time and again, Goethe’s stories confront us with not only the persistent barriers to true love but with characters who are working around and removing those obstacles as they verify and insist upon their elective affinities. Throughout his literary production, Goethe indicates that, like Wilhelm, his purpose is, and ours ought to be: “to research, what holds noble souls apart, and should clear away obstacles of whatever kind they are.”4

3 Schwartz, After Jena, 40–51, 67. 4 “erforschen, was edle Seelen auseinander hält, soll Hindernisse wegräumen von welcher Art sie auch seien.” MA, 17, 351.

Bibliography

Adler, Jeremy. “Eine fast magische Anziehungskraft.” Goethes “Wahlverwandtschaften” und der Chemie seiner Zeit. München: C. H. Beck, 1987. Bahr, Ehrhard. The Novel as Archive: The Genesis, Reception, and Criticism of Goethe’s Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre. Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1998. Baldwin, Birgit. “Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre as an Allegory of Reading.” Goethe Yearbook 5 (1990): 213–32. Bäumer, Konstanze. “Wiederholte Spiegelungen-Goethes ‘Mignon’ und die ‘Neue Melusine.’” In Goethes Mignon und ihre Schwestern: Interpretationen und Rezeption. Edited by Gerhart Hoffmeister, 113–33. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. Becker-Cantarino, Barbara. “Patriarchy and German Enlightenment Discourse: From Goethe’s Wilhelm Meister to Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of the Enlightenment.” In Impure Reason: Dialectic of Enlightenment in Germany. Edited by W. Daniel Wilson and Robert C. Holub, 48–64. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993. Benbow, Heather Merle. “Goethe’s Die Wahlverwandtschaften and the Problem of Feminine Orality.” In Body Dialectics in the Age of Goethe. Edited by Marianne Henn and Holger A. Pausch, 315–32. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003. Borchmeyer, Dieter. “Schwankung des Herzens und Liebe im Triangel: Goethe und die Erotik der Empfindsamkeit.” In Codierungen der Liebe in der Kunstperiode. Edited by Walter Hinderer, 63–83. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 1997. Brandes, Peter. “Sankt Joseph der Zweite: Bildtheologie in Goethes Wanderjahren.” In Literatur und Theologie: Schreibprozesse zwischen biblischer Überlieferung und geschichtlicher Erfahrung. Edited by Ulrich Wergin and Karol Sauerland, 107–26. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2005. Broszeit-Rieger, Ingrid. “Transgressions of Gender and Generation in the Families of Goethe’s Meister.” In Romantic Border Crossings. Edited by Jeffrey Cass and Larry Peer, 75–85. London: Ashgate Publishing, 2008. Broszeit-Rieger, Ingrid. “Family Systems Theory and ‘The Man of Fifty Years’ in Goethe’s Wilhelm Meister’s Journeyman Years.” In Romanticism and Parenting: Image, Instruction and Ideology. Edited by Carolyn A. Weber, 74–86. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009. Brown, Jane K. Goethe’s Cyclical Narratives: Die Unterhaltungen deutscher Ausgewanderten and Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975. Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution. An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Theatre Journal 40.4 (1988): 519–31.

192 Bibliography Castle, Eduard. “Stella. Ein Schauspiel für Liebende.” 1924 Reprint in Jahrbuch des Wiener Goethe-Vereins 73 (1969): 125–46. Clouser, Robin A. “‘Die pilgernde Törin’: Genesis, Revaluation, and Mirroring in Goethe’s Wanderjahre.” Goethe Yearbook 14 (2007): 171–206. Currie, Pamela. “Ambiguous Figures in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre.” Oxford German Studies 29.1 (2000): 77–94. Dean, Tim. “Homosexuality and the Problem of Otherness.” In Homosexuality and Psychoanalysis. Edited by Tim Dean and Christopher Lane, 120–43. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Detering, Heinrich. “Die aufgeklärte Unvernunft: Stella, Goeze, Lessing und das Drama der Liebe.” In Weltentwürfe in Literatur und Medien. phantastische Wirklichkeiten, realistische Imaginationen. Edited by Hans Krah und Claus-Michael Ort, 35–52. Kiel: Ludwig, 2002. Diamond, Lisa M. Sexual Fluidity. Understanding Women’s Love and Desire. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2008. Dye, Ellis. “Goethe’s Die Wahlverwandtschaften: Romantic Metafiction.” Goethe Yearbook 8 (1996): 66–92. Dye, Ellis. “Substitution, Self-blame, and Self-deception in Goethe’s Stella: Ein Schauspiel für Liebende.” Goethe Yearbook 12 (2004): 41–57. Egger, Irmgard. “‘Unermeßliche Räume’: Weltbürgertum versus Auswandererutopie in Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahren.” Goethe Jahrbuch 126 (2009): 129–37. Fehrenbach, Elisabeth. Traditionale Gesellschaft und revolutionäries Recht. Die Einführung des Code Napoléon in den Rheinbundstaaten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1974. Foucault, Michel. History of Sexuality. New York: Random House, 1980. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Sämtliche Werke nach Epochen seines Schaffens. Münchner Ausgabe. Edited by Karl Richter, Herbert G. Göpfert, Norbert Miller, and Gerhard Sauder, 24 vols. München: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1985. Graczyk, Annette. “Das Geschlechterverhältnis als soziales Experiment. Aufklärung und Abklärung in Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften.” In Aufklärung und Weimarer Klassik im Dialog. Edited by Andre Rudolph and Ernst Stöckmann, 135–46. Tübingen: De Gruyter, 2009. Greineder, Daniel. “The Evasion of Love and the Onset of Calamity in Goethe’s Die Wahlverwandtschaften.” Publications of the English Goethe Society 74 (2005): 25–36. Gustafson, Susan. Men Desiring Men: The Poetry of Same-Sex Identity and Desire in German Classicism. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2002. Gustafson, Susan. “‘I suffered and Ioved’: Narcissism and Abject Desire in Goethe’s Confessions of a Beautiful Soul.” In The Self as Muse: Narcissism from 1750–1900. Edited by Alexander Mathäs, 150–65. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 2011. Haag, Ingrid. “‘… und auf der Stelle fiel ihm der Lilienstengel ein’: Zu einem Brief in Goethes Wanderjahren.” Cahiers d’Etudes Germaniques 45 (2003): 37–49. Haas, Claude. “Die Zeit der Aufrichtigkeit: Rousseaus ‘La Nouvelle Héloïse’ und Goethes ‘Die pilgernde Törin.’” Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 128.4 (2009): 481–94. Hajduk, Stefan. “Identität und Verlust. Der Wandel des Familienbildes und die Dynamik der Geniuspsychologie in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre.” Weimarer Beiträge 55.2 (2009): 196–220.

Bibliography 193 Hart, Gail K. Tragedy in Paradise: Family and Gender Politics in German Bourgeois Tragedy 1750–1850. Columbia SC: Camden House, 1996. Härtl, Heinz. Die Wahlverwandtschaften. Eine Dokumentation der Wirkung von Goethes Roman 1808–1832. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1983. Heitner, Robert. “Goethe’s Ailing Women.” MLN 95.3 (1980): 497–515. Helfer, Martha B. “Wilhelm Meister’s Women.” Goethe Yearbook 11 (2002): 229–54. Henkel, Arthur. Entsagung: Eine Studie zu Goethes Altersroman. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1964. Herwig, Henriette. Das ewig Männliche zieht uns hinab: “Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre.” Geschlechterdifferenz, sozialer Wandel, historische Anthropologie. Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag, 1997. Hess, Günter H. “Stella und Die Wahlverwandtschaften.” Seminar VI, No. 3 (1970): 216–24. Horstkotte, Silke. “Wilhelm Meisters Mignon und die Ambivalenz der Autorschaft.” German Life and Letters 57.2 (2004): 143–57. Hull, Isabel V. Sexuality, State, and Civil Society in Germany, 1700–1815. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996. Jirku, Brigitte E. “Mignon: Rätsel oder Geheimnis.” Monatshefte 92.3 (2000): 283–301. Keppler, Stefan. “Im Bahn der Melusine: Goethes Mythenrezeption unter den Bedingungen seines Mittelaltersbildes.” Goethe Jahrbuch 123 (2006): 25–38. Kim, Hee-Ju. “Rituelle-Identitätsbildung: Zur Lossprechung Wilhelm Meisters.” Goethe Jahrbuch 119 (2002): 42–51. Kim, Hee-Ju. “Ottilie muß sterben. Zum ‘Ungleichnis’ zwischen chemischer und menschlicher Natur in Goethes Roman ‘Die Wahlverwandtschaften.’” Goethe Jahrbuch 124 (2007): 85–95. Kittler, Wolf. “Über die Sozialisation Wilhelm Meisters.” In Dichtung als Sozialisationsspiel. Studien zu Goethe und Gottfried Keller. Edited by Gerhard Kaiser and Friedrich Kittler, 13–124. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Kittler, Wolf. “Ottilie Hauptmann.” In Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften. Kritische Modelle und Diskursanalysen zum Mythos Literatur. Edited by Norbert Bolz, 260–75. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981. Koschorke, Albrecht. “Die Textur der Neigungen: Attraktion, Verwandschaftscode und novellistische Kombinatorik in Goethes Mann von funfzig Jahren.” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift 73.4 (1999): 592–610. Kraft, Helga. “Idylle mit kleinen Fehlern. Zwei Frauen brauch ich, ach, in meinem Haus. Luise von Voß und Stella von Goethe.” In Mütter—Töchter—Frauen. Weiblichkeitsbilder in der Literatur. Edited by Elke Liebs, 73–89. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlar, 1993. Krimmer, Elisabeth. “Mama’s Baby, Papa’s Maybe: Paternity and Bildung in Goethe’s Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre.” The German Quarterly 77.3 (2004): 257–77. Krimmer, Elisabeth. “Abortive Bildung: Women Writers, Male Bonds, and Would-Be Fathers.” In Challenging Separate Spheres: Female Bildung in Eighteenthand Nineteenth-Century Germany. Edited by Marjanne E. Gooze, 235–59. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2007. Kuzniar, Alice A., ed. Outing Goethe and His Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996. Lee, Charlotte. “‘Wenn ich leben soll so sei es mit dir!’ The Relationship of Father and Son in Goethe’s Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre.” German Life and Letters 64.4 (2011): 489–500.

194 Bibliography Lindner, Burkhardt. “Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften und die Kritik der mythischen Verfassung der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft.” In Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften. Kritische Modelle und Diskursanalysen zum Mythos Literatur. Edited by Norbert Bolz, 23–44. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981. Lubkoll, Christine. “In den Kasten gesteckt: Goethe’s ‘Neue Melusine.’” In Sehnsucht und Sirene: Vierzehn Abhandlungen zu Wasserphantasien. Edited by Irmgard Roebling, 49–63. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus, 1992. Lupton, Christina. “Naming the Baby: Sterne, Goethe and the Power of the Word.” MLN 118.5 (2003): 1213–36. MacLeod, Catriona. “Pedagogy and Androgyny in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre.” MLN 108.3 (1993): 389–426. Mahlendorf, Ursula. “The Mystery of Mignon: Object Relations, Abandonment, Child Abuse and Narrative Structure.” Goethe Yearbook 7 (1994): 23–39. Martin, Laura. “Who’s the Fool Now? A Study of Goethe’s Novella, ‘Die pilgernde Törin’ from His Novel Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre.” The German Quarterly 66. 4 (1993): 431–50. Miller, J. Hillis. Ariadne’s Thread. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992. Mittermüller, Christian. “‘Das schiebt sich und verschiebt sich’ poetologische Reflexionen in Goethes Romanen ‘Die Wahlverwandtschaften’ und ‘Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre.’” Goethe Jahrbuch 121 (2004): 53–65. Mommsen, Katharina. Kein Rettungsmittel als die Liebe. Schillers und Goethes Bündnis im Spiegel ihrer Dichtungen. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2010. Neumann, Gerhard. “‘Ich bin gebildet genug, um zu lieben und zu trauern.’ Die Erziehung zur Liebe in Goethes ‘Wilhelm Meister.’” In Liebesroman—Liebe im Roman. Edited by Titus Heydenreich and Egert Pöhlmann, 41–82. Erlangen: Univ. Bund Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1987. Pfaff, Peter. Das Glücksmotiv im Jugendwerk Goethes. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1965. Pikulik, Lothar. “Stella. Ein Schauspiel für Liebende.” In: Goethes Dramen. Neue Interpretationen. Edited by Walter Hinderer, 89–103. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1980. Piper, Andrew. “Paraphrasis: Goethe, the Novella, and Forms of Transitional Knowledge.” Goethe Yearbook 17 (2010): 179–201. Plenderleith, H. Jane. “Sex, Lies and Die Wahlverwandtschaften,” German Life and Letters 47.4 (1994): 407–17. Puszkar, Norbert. “Verwandtschaft und Wahlverwandtschaft.” Goethe Yearbook 4 (1988): 161–83. Puszkar, Norbert. “Frauen und Bilder: Luciane und Ottilie.” Neophilologus 73 (1989): 397–410. Reiss, Hans. Goethes Romane. Bern: Francke, 1963. Ryan, Judith. “‘Pfeile mit Widerhaken’: On the Aphorisms in Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften and Wanderjahre.” Goethe Yearbook 16 (2009): 1–10. Saße, Günther. Die aufgeklärte Familie. Untersuchungen zur Genese, Funktion und Realitätsbezogenheit des familialen Wertsystems im Drama der Aufklärung. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1988. Saße, Günther. “Das Plagiat als Sehnsuchtsort: Zur Eingangsnovelle der Wanderjahre.” Euphorion: Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 99.4 (2005): 491–510. Schlaffer, Heinz. “Namen und Buchstaben in Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften.” In Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften. Kritische Modelle und Diskursanalysen zum Mythos Literatur. Edited by Norbert Bolz, 211–29. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981.

Bibliography 195 Schlipphacke, Heidi. “‘Die Vaterschaft beruht nur überhaupt auf der Überzeugung’: The Displaced Family in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre.” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 102.3 (2003): 390–412. Schreiber, Jens. “Die Zeichen der Liebe.” In Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften. Kritische Modelle und Diskursanalysen zum Mythos Literatur. Edited by Norbert Bolz, 276–307. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981. Schulz, Georg-Michael. “Goethe’s ‘Stella’ Wirrnisse der Liebe und Gottes Gerechtigkeit.” Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 29 (1979): 416–42. Schwan, Werner. “Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften.” Das nicht erreichte Soziale. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1983. Schwartz, Peter J. After Jena: Goethe’s Elective Affinities and the End of the Old Regime. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 2010. Sorensen, Bengt Algot. “Über die Familie in Goethes ‘Werther’ und ‘Wilhelm Meister.’” Orbis Litterarum 42.1 (1987): 118–40. Sow, Alioune. “Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre: Bilder einer vormodernen und Vorschein einer modernen Gesellschaft.” In Interkulturelle Texturen: Afrika und Deutschland im Reflexionsmedium der Literatur. Edited by M. Moustapha Diallo and Dirk Göttsche, 285–310. Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 2003. Strack, Friedrich. “Väter, Söhne und die Krise der Familie in Goethes Werk.” Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts (1984): 57–87. Tantillo, Astrida Orle. “Polarity and Productivity in Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften.” Seminar 36 (2000): 310–25. Tantillo, Astrida Orle. Goethe’s Elective Affinities and the Critics. Rochester: Camden House, 2001. ter Horst, Eleanor E. Lessing, Goethe, Kleist, and the Transformation of Gender. From Hermaphrodite to Amazon. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. Thums, Barbara. “Diätetische Toilettenkunst und organische (Selbst-) Bildung: Goethes Der Mann von funfzig Jahren.” In Sexualität, Recht, Leben: Die Entstehung eines Dispositivs um 1800. Edited by Maximilian Bergengruen, Johannes F. Lehmann, and Hubert Thüring, 295–316. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 2005. Tobin, Robert. “Healthy Families: Medicine, Patriarchy and Heterosexuality in Eighteenth-Century German Novels.” In Impure Reason: Dialectic of Enlightenment in Germany. Edited by W. Daniel Wilson and Robert C. Holub, 242–59. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993. Tobin, Robert. Warm Brothers. Queer Theory and the Age of Goethe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000. Von Mücke, Dorothea. “The Power of Images in Goethe’s Elective Affinities.” Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture 40 (2011): 63–81. Von Thadden, Elisabeth. Erzählen als Naturverhältnis. “Die Wahlverwandtschaften.” Zum Problem der Darstellbarkeit von Natur und Gesellschaft seit Goethes Plan eines ‘Roman über das Weltall.’ München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1993. Weineck, Silke-Maria. The Tragedy of Fatherhood: King Laius and the Politics of Paternity in the West. New York and London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Wellbery, David. “Die Wahlverwandtschaften. Desorganisation symbolischer Ordnungen.” In Goethes Erzählwerk. Interpretationen. Edited by Paul Michael Lützler and James E. McLeod, 291–318. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1985. Wilson, W. Daniel. Goethe Männer Knaben. Ansichten zur ‘Homosexualität.’ Berlin: Insel Verlag, 2012. Yee, Kevin F. “The Captain as Catalyst in Goethe’s Wahlverwandtschaften.” JEGP 96 (1997): 58–70.

196 Bibliography Zons, Raimer Stefan. “Ein Denkmal voriger Zeiten über Die Wahlverwandtschaften.” In Goethes Wahlverwandtschaften: Kritische Modelle und Diskursanalysen zum Mythos Literatur. Edited by Norbert Bolz, 323–52. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981.

Index

adopted/adoptive children 4, 6, 12, 35–40, 43, 55, 65–6, 67, 69, 97, 108–11, 114, 132, 145–51, 153–4, 183, 186–8 adoptive fathers 97, 108–11, 114–15, 132, 145–51, 153–4, 183, 186–8 adoptive mothers 9, 33, 35–43, 55, 131–2, 146–51, 153, 183, 186–8 Amazon 121–5, 127, 130–1, 134, 157 Antiope 35 aristocratic family 1–5, 7–8, 12, 23, 68–9, 82–3, 92–3, 96–8, 106, 112, 125–6, 137, 139–41, 159, 167, 170, 176, 179–83, 185, 188 aristocratic fathers 2–4, 7, 23, 68, 82–3, 92–3, 96–7, 137, 139–41, 159, 180, 188 aristocratic mothers/women 83, 126, 170, 179–83 Baroness 50, 54, 167, 169–70, 172, 174–7 Beautiful Soul 70, 86–96, 103, 106, 107, 126, 169, 187 biological connections 4–8, 10, 12, 16–17, 35–9, 41–4, 55, 65–6, 69, 82, 83, 87–90, 96–101, 103–6, 108, 109, 111–12, 116, 135, 137, 145–6, 150, 151,

153, 158, 161, 163, 172–3, 183, 187, 188 Butler, Judith 10 Captain, the 10, 12–29, 31–3, 36, 39, 43, 186 Cezilie 45–65, 159, 178, 188 Charlotte 10, 12–43, 45, 47, 48, 55, 65, 100, 186 chemical affinities, reactions, elements 14, 16–17, 22, 24, 29, 31–3, 35 children 1–3, 5–6, 8, 9, 11–12, 23, 28, 35, 37–40, 42–3, 46, 47, 54–6, 65–6, 67, 68, 69, 79, 81, 82, 86, 89, 94–7, 105, 110–11, 114, 129, 131–2, 136, 137, 142–4, 146–7, 150–3, 164, 167, 183, 187, 188 churches 1, 84, 85, 86, 96, 187 civil family 1–8, 12, 68–9, 76, 77, 80, 82, 86, 92–3, 96–8, 105, 106, 112, 125, 137, 139–41, 159, 176, 183, 185, 188 Countess 117–21, 123 cross-dressing 122, 124 dance 108, 114, 129 daughter 25–6, 33–4, 36–7, 49–52, 78–9, 81–3, 89–90, 93–5, 108–10, 126, 157–8, 162, 163, 167, 169–70, 175, 182–3

198 Index Dean, Tim 11, 15 Diamond, Lisa 7, 11, 12 discourses 1–2, 4, 189 economic family plans 2, 4–5, 7, 23, 42, 44, 67, 68, 69, 72–4, 75–7, 81, 83, 94–7, 102, 107, 125, 127, 164–7, 170, 178, 179, 182 Eduard 10, 12–43, 45, 47, 48, 186 Elpenor 35 escape from family 5, 69, 75, 76, 85, 96, 97, 140, 141, 155, 158, 159, 177–9, 182, 183, 185

Hilarie 166–79, 182, 183, 188 holy family 145–6, 149–51, 154, 187 Hull, Isabel 2–4 incest 50, 84–6, 166, 169–70, 172–4, 176, 177–9, 183, 188 Jarno 112, 115–16, 124, 125, 152–3 Jesus 41–2, 143, 145–6, 153–4 jewelry 118–20, 128, 131 Joseph 42, 140–54, 183, 187 Kuzniar, Alice 6

family tree 103, 169–70, 177 father 2–4, 23, 26, 38, 42, 51, 60, 67, 68, 73–9, 81–90, 92–111, 114, 125–7, 135–7, 145–50, 151, 153, 156–9, 161–79, 183, 186–8 Fehrenbach, Elisabeth 2, 4 Felix 77, 78, 86, 96–108, 110, 116, 129, 131–8, 139, 142–5, 150–2, 153–4, 159–60, 165, 183, 186, 187, 188 Fernando 45–66, 186 Flavio 169, 171–5, 177–8 foster father 145–9, 163, 164 Foucault, Michel 1–2, 4, 189 Friedrich 97, 105, 110–11, 114–15, 135, 137–8, 145, 153, 186, 188 Gross-Cophta 37 group family 7, 32, 46, 150–3, 161, 178–9, 185, 186, 187 Harfner 70, 78, 82, 84–6, 96, 100, 110–16, 128, 138, 140, 141, 145, 152, 153, 166, 170, 186 heritage 1, 4, 5, 7, 16, 17, 24, 67, 68, 69, 112, 137, 181, 182, 187 hermaphrodite/hermaphroditic 115, 124, 127 Hersilie 154–5, 159–61, 165, 171, 179, 182

Lenardo 160–1, 165–6 Lothario 99–102, 127–9, 132, 136–8, 139, 141, 142, 150, 153 Luciane 25–6, 37–8, 41 Luzie 49–52, 54–8, 60, 63, 64, 66 Major 167–70, 172–8 Makarie 161, 165 Mann von fünfzig Jahren 141, 166–79 Mariane 70–8, 86, 97–9, 101, 122, 124 Marie 140–54, 183 marriage 2–4, 10, 20, 23–4, 37–8, 42, 67, 75, 81–2, 92–5, 129–30, 136–8, 158, 164, 166–7, 175, 181–3, 187, 189 Mary 41–2, 143, 145–6, 148–51, 153–4, 183, 187 maternal doubt 26, 42, 126 ménage à trois 62, 64, 65 Mignon 97, 100, 101, 106–16, 129, 132–3, 137–8, 145, 153, 156–7, 175–6, 186 Mommsen, Katharina 6, 140 mother 9, 29–30, 33–43, 55, 56, 57, 78–9, 82, 83, 85, 86, 99, 100, 126–7, 129, 131, 144–8, 151, 162, 169–70, 174–5, 186

Index 199 Nanny 38–9, 41 Natalie 70, 77–8, 86, 89–90, 96, 129–38, 139, 141, 146, 150, 152, 153, 186, 187, 188 Natürliche Tochter 37 Neue Melusine 179–83 nonexclusive affinities 4, 6, 7–8, 9–44, 46, 67–8, 111–38, 140, 151–4, 183, 184, 185–9 Ottilie 12–14, 16, 18–21, 25–6, 31–43, 55, 65, 100, 186 Otto 13, 32–3, 39–42, 55 paintings 89, 145–9 Pandora 59 paternal doubt 101–5 person-based affinities 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 43, 46, 153 Philine 99, 110, 117–22 Pilgernde Törin 141, 154–61, 187 priest 85, 86, 96, 187 Prometheus 59 prostitute 79–80, 98, 186 Runaway Girl 70, 78–82, 86, 96, 98, 140, 186 same-sex affinities 4, 6, 7, 9–44, 45–66, 67, 111–38, 140, 151–3, 176–9, 183–4, 185–9 Sara 53–4 Schlipphacke, Heidi 5, 68, 69 Schwartz, Peter 4, 10, 189 Silvio 177–9, 188 singing/song 113–14, 128, 176 son 35, 40, 41, 42, 68, 83, 86, 89, 92, 94–6, 97, 98, 99–104, 106, 135, 137–8, 142, 150–1, 154, 157–9, 162–3, 167, 169, 170–5, 183, 186, 187

Sperata 70, 78, 82–6, 116, 141, 166, 170, 186–7 Stella. A Play for Lovers 43–4, 45–66, 159, 178–9, 185, 188, 189 Stella. A Tragedy 45–66, 159, 188 Steward 51–2 story 61–2, 70, 96, 104, 125–9, 141–60, 161–5, 166–79, 179–82 tears 41, 59, 62, 104, 108–9, 114, 149, 164, 176 Therese 112, 124–33, 136–8, 139, 141, 146, 150, 152, 153, 186, 187, 188 Tobin, Robert 6, 122, 136 Unterhaltungen Deutscher Ausgewanderten 54 Valerine 165–6 Wahlverwandtschaften 9–44, 45, 46, 55, 65, 99–100, 112, 141, 142, 159, 186 wandering 8, 24–5, 67, 69, 75–6, 77, 97, 99, 106, 111–12, 115–16, 123, 138, 139–47, 150, 151, 153, 154–62, 164, 172, 173, 175–9, 183 Weineck, Silke-Maria 3, 68 Wer ist der Verräter? 141, 161–5, 183, 187 Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre 5, 7, 43–4, 67–138, 139–41, 142, 144–5, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158, 160, 164, 166, 170, 182, 183, 186–8 Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre 7, 42, 44, 138, 139–84, 185, 187–9 Wilson, Daniel 6, 104